Aggressive behavior The following is a portion of a recent article in SAIL magazine. I’ve been following this case and would like to hear some suggestions on what Captain Parker “should” have done…. seriously. I do find the sidewinder missile post funny as well as the spud gun option, but I’m curious as to how most cruisers would respond to harassment on the water. After much thought, my favorite so far is a long “in your face” blast from an air horn. I suspect anything more than that can be viewed in court as an illegal assault…even though the other guy started it. Many would have considered Neal Parker a lucky man on July 25, 2001. He was aboard his beloved 89-year-old Alden schooner, the classic he found rotting on a mud bank and rebuilt himself. On this pleasant evening the boat was anchored in a picturesque harbor on an island off the coast of Maine, and Captain Parker was about to enjoy dinner with his seven paying passengers and crew of five. But when an obnoxious Jet Ski operator destroyed this summer cruising idyll, Parker's good fortune seemed to disappear with it. He has been fighting ever since to save the mariner's license that is essential to his livelihood, and has spent the earnings from his charter season on lawyers' fees. The Jet Ski may have been the direct instrument of his tribulations, but it was the United States Coast Guard that put Parker in a tough-and undeserved-spot. There's little dispute about the plain facts of the matter. The jet ski, piloted by a 20-year-old lobsterman, entered Pulpit Harbor on North Haven Island at high speed. It passed close to some swimming children, carved donuts in the harbor near several anchored boats, then began turning fast, noisy circles around Parker's schooner Wendameen. Parker signaled to the jet skier with a downward motion of his hand, meaning "slow down." The jet skier responded with a shouted obscenity, and sped away. Let Parker pick up the narrative: "My guests were upset and frightened. I thought it was over, and I apologized to them for the rude disturbance. Suddenly the Jet Ski turned and bore down on us at full throttle, square for our transom. I sent a deckhand for our signal gun, which I fired as a danger signal into the water. That stopped the jet ski about 15 to 25 feet from our stern. The single shot antique pistol wasn't charged with anything other than a percussion cap." Parker called the Coast Guard. Good thing, you might say-they would investigate, and arrest the renegade jet skier. That's what should have happened. What did happen was that Parker was charged with assault-for firing an unloaded antique pistol toward the water. The Coast Guard threw in a second charge of improperly storing black powder. Parker faced suspension or revocation of his 100-ton near coastal license if found guilty of the charges.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dan
Assualt
Well the improper storage of black powder might stick. But exactly who did he assault? The water? Seems like a charge of brandishing a weapon would be more in order. But then you have to leap to the conclusion that the jet skier was out of season and the Captain did not have a valid hunting license. Souds like a good case of self defense to me. What happened to his passenger witnesses? Sounds like the jet skier was alone, and alone means no witnesses. Dan Jonas (S/V Feije)
Well the improper storage of black powder might stick. But exactly who did he assault? The water? Seems like a charge of brandishing a weapon would be more in order. But then you have to leap to the conclusion that the jet skier was out of season and the Captain did not have a valid hunting license. Souds like a good case of self defense to me. What happened to his passenger witnesses? Sounds like the jet skier was alone, and alone means no witnesses. Dan Jonas (S/V Feije)
D
Don Bodemann
witnesses supportive
The article goes on to say that everyone on board supported Parkers story word for word and in fact one of the witnesses was a Coast Guard auxilary. Let me also point out that threatening someone with a firearm these days is serious s*#!* (ok to threaten with a Jet ski though!?)but let's not turn this into an anti vs gun debate please.
The article goes on to say that everyone on board supported Parkers story word for word and in fact one of the witnesses was a Coast Guard auxilary. Let me also point out that threatening someone with a firearm these days is serious s*#!* (ok to threaten with a Jet ski though!?)but let's not turn this into an anti vs gun debate please.
L
LaDonna Bubak - CatalinaOwners.com
Perhaps a pan-pan
Or directly calling the Coast Guard/water police and let them know the Jet skiier appeared intoxicated and was getting too close to swimming kids. That would have gotten them there in a hurry! LaDonna
Or directly calling the Coast Guard/water police and let them know the Jet skiier appeared intoxicated and was getting too close to swimming kids. That would have gotten them there in a hurry! LaDonna
R
Rick Webb
Doubt a Jury would Convict
Pack the jury with boaters and Captain Parker will get a medal instead of a conviction. The black powder deal I am not so sure about, how are you supposed to keep caps or rounds on board?
Pack the jury with boaters and Captain Parker will get a medal instead of a conviction. The black powder deal I am not so sure about, how are you supposed to keep caps or rounds on board?
S
scott
just shoot'em
He should have waited until the jet skier was at his closest point to his boat than simply shot him and claimed self defense. Our society could use a good dose of chlorine in the gene pool. At least that is the way it's done down here in S. Fla.
He should have waited until the jet skier was at his closest point to his boat than simply shot him and claimed self defense. Our society could use a good dose of chlorine in the gene pool. At least that is the way it's done down here in S. Fla.
R
rudy p
sling shot
Thats the reason I carry and old high strenght rubber band sling shot with me in my h29.5. Had to use it twice, and trust me it keeps the pesky critters away. For ammunition I use nice clear round marbles, can't see them coming and can't find them afterwards. The little marbles pack a hell of a wallop and make no sound as you aim and fire. First I ai for the fiberglass if that doesn't stop the charge I just aim for a leg or lower body, that usually does the trick. No one dies and the noise, the harrasment, as well as the peace comes back within a minute or so.
Thats the reason I carry and old high strenght rubber band sling shot with me in my h29.5. Had to use it twice, and trust me it keeps the pesky critters away. For ammunition I use nice clear round marbles, can't see them coming and can't find them afterwards. The little marbles pack a hell of a wallop and make no sound as you aim and fire. First I ai for the fiberglass if that doesn't stop the charge I just aim for a leg or lower body, that usually does the trick. No one dies and the noise, the harrasment, as well as the peace comes back within a minute or so.
C
Cole
what did the skie do???
Im looking over the posts and still havnt found out what laws the skier broke and why the capt. would take the law in to his own hands and threaten the skiers life with a gun(old or new). I see a failure to realize a boat is a boat is a boat. If the ski was dead in the water and a sailboat was bearing down on him, what could he do?? LETS STOP and thinkabout the whole principle of PWC's they are crafts that have the same responsibities as the rest of us, dont go after the whole industry, but the one rider.Whos to say i couldnt do the same thing as the skier in my dink. See risk as it is, was anyones life at risk?? other than the skier? Did any children lose limbs? And why do children have to be involved to get anything done. You cant do jack @#$% without saying its for the children. A prudent captain should know to call the "authorities" ,which is why there is a test and you cant just get a 100 ton at the nearest walmart,and not try to rid us of the pwcs one at a time. cole
Im looking over the posts and still havnt found out what laws the skier broke and why the capt. would take the law in to his own hands and threaten the skiers life with a gun(old or new). I see a failure to realize a boat is a boat is a boat. If the ski was dead in the water and a sailboat was bearing down on him, what could he do?? LETS STOP and thinkabout the whole principle of PWC's they are crafts that have the same responsibities as the rest of us, dont go after the whole industry, but the one rider.Whos to say i couldnt do the same thing as the skier in my dink. See risk as it is, was anyones life at risk?? other than the skier? Did any children lose limbs? And why do children have to be involved to get anything done. You cant do jack @#$% without saying its for the children. A prudent captain should know to call the "authorities" ,which is why there is a test and you cant just get a 100 ton at the nearest walmart,and not try to rid us of the pwcs one at a time. cole
J
JD
Yeah I'm biased, but...
I hold my breath every year as I arrive at our Maine cottage and put in my sailboat. Hoping against hope that someone living or vacationing nearby hasn't decided to bless us all with the pleasure of watching and listening to their incessant whirring, spinning, yahooing and generally being jerks on their personal watercraft. There is nothing more annoying than to try and have a pleasant, quiet, somewhat serene weekend or vacation and have to listen to these loud, obnoxious machines tearing up the harbor or beach. If I wanted noise I would stay home in the city for my weekends and vacation. They drove me from one beach I used to love in northern Mass. I hope they don't do the same up in Maine!Even the most respectful personal watercraft users would have to admit, most of their number are knuckleheads!
I hold my breath every year as I arrive at our Maine cottage and put in my sailboat. Hoping against hope that someone living or vacationing nearby hasn't decided to bless us all with the pleasure of watching and listening to their incessant whirring, spinning, yahooing and generally being jerks on their personal watercraft. There is nothing more annoying than to try and have a pleasant, quiet, somewhat serene weekend or vacation and have to listen to these loud, obnoxious machines tearing up the harbor or beach. If I wanted noise I would stay home in the city for my weekends and vacation. They drove me from one beach I used to love in northern Mass. I hope they don't do the same up in Maine!Even the most respectful personal watercraft users would have to admit, most of their number are knuckleheads!
P
Paul
This is one case that will never get a fair trial
All you have to do is read through the posts to see the bias people have against jet skis. I can't say if it's deserved or not because PWCs are relatively rare in our cold waters but last time I checked you can't shoot people for being annoying. The people on the large boat were in no danger so it's not self defense. Anyone irresponsible enough to point a gun (real or not) at someone because they were annoying him should not be allowed to be in command of anything. The fact that he fired the gun should land him in jail for a while. My 2 bits worth. Paul
All you have to do is read through the posts to see the bias people have against jet skis. I can't say if it's deserved or not because PWCs are relatively rare in our cold waters but last time I checked you can't shoot people for being annoying. The people on the large boat were in no danger so it's not self defense. Anyone irresponsible enough to point a gun (real or not) at someone because they were annoying him should not be allowed to be in command of anything. The fact that he fired the gun should land him in jail for a while. My 2 bits worth. Paul
D
Don Bodemann
fair trial?
Paul, The implication from your post is that unless the jury agrees with you the trial wont be fair? The bias of the "jury" is obviously due to personal experience with these machines and the typical operator. Does this make the trial unfair? I believe a jury must have a working understanding on a given topic in order to make an intelligent decision. You who live in an area somewhat free from this problem should not be quick to judge without a working knowledge (read: experience) of this problem. You say being annoying does not justify the action (warning shot) of the captain. But was it just annoying? When the PWC operator was “just being annoying” the captain motioned with his hands. It was only when the PWC operator aimed his vehicle straight at the schooner and charged at full speed veering off at the last moment did the captain resort to a “warning shot”. I believe a case could be made against the PWC operator for “reckless endangerment” and therefore justify the warning shot as a means of self-defense. A 700 lb Jet Ski coming straight at your boat at 40 MPH or more is definitely more than "just an annoyance"!
Paul, The implication from your post is that unless the jury agrees with you the trial wont be fair? The bias of the "jury" is obviously due to personal experience with these machines and the typical operator. Does this make the trial unfair? I believe a jury must have a working understanding on a given topic in order to make an intelligent decision. You who live in an area somewhat free from this problem should not be quick to judge without a working knowledge (read: experience) of this problem. You say being annoying does not justify the action (warning shot) of the captain. But was it just annoying? When the PWC operator was “just being annoying” the captain motioned with his hands. It was only when the PWC operator aimed his vehicle straight at the schooner and charged at full speed veering off at the last moment did the captain resort to a “warning shot”. I believe a case could be made against the PWC operator for “reckless endangerment” and therefore justify the warning shot as a means of self-defense. A 700 lb Jet Ski coming straight at your boat at 40 MPH or more is definitely more than "just an annoyance"!
J
Justin - O'day Owners' Web
the Mainer law student view
Not only have I been studying admiralty as part of my legal education here in Maine, but I've met Parker, so as you might imagine this is fascinating to me. Many people in the Maine boating community have been up in arms over this, myself included. The problem is that Parker really had no provocation for brandishing a weapon. Under Maine law, the ultimate charging jurisdiction in this case with regard to the use of the gun, you are not justified in the use of a weapon against another person unless you have reasonable belief that not using the weapon will result in death or serious injury to yourself or another. Brandishing or threatening with a starter gun (or an air gun or paintball gun for that matter) will be viewed as the use of a weapon. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Parker believed that it was necessary to shoot the jet skier to save himself or his guests. Indeed, the fact that the weapon was pointed down at the water underscores this point. That fact that the 'weapon' was not capable of being used to kill someone under most circumstances is immaterial. Incidently - according to the reports it _was_ an antique pistol _not_ a starter gun. So - Parker probably is guilty under 17-A M.R.S. § 209 of Criminal Threatening - "A person is guilty of criminal threatening if he intentionally or knowingly places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury. " a crime with a punishment of up to one year. He may also be guilty of other crimes but if the DA or AAG tries this case, he'll lose on the facts presented by his owner witnesses. Bummer but that's the law. Justin - O'day Owners' Web Third year student - Maine Law
Not only have I been studying admiralty as part of my legal education here in Maine, but I've met Parker, so as you might imagine this is fascinating to me. Many people in the Maine boating community have been up in arms over this, myself included. The problem is that Parker really had no provocation for brandishing a weapon. Under Maine law, the ultimate charging jurisdiction in this case with regard to the use of the gun, you are not justified in the use of a weapon against another person unless you have reasonable belief that not using the weapon will result in death or serious injury to yourself or another. Brandishing or threatening with a starter gun (or an air gun or paintball gun for that matter) will be viewed as the use of a weapon. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Parker believed that it was necessary to shoot the jet skier to save himself or his guests. Indeed, the fact that the weapon was pointed down at the water underscores this point. That fact that the 'weapon' was not capable of being used to kill someone under most circumstances is immaterial. Incidently - according to the reports it _was_ an antique pistol _not_ a starter gun. So - Parker probably is guilty under 17-A M.R.S. § 209 of Criminal Threatening - "A person is guilty of criminal threatening if he intentionally or knowingly places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury. " a crime with a punishment of up to one year. He may also be guilty of other crimes but if the DA or AAG tries this case, he'll lose on the facts presented by his owner witnesses. Bummer but that's the law. Justin - O'day Owners' Web Third year student - Maine Law
Hit 'em with your best shot
The video camera is the PERFECT idea. If you think about it, it doesn't even have to be running-- it's you being seen with it that counts. And since when is video-taping a stranger on a jetski any more intrusive than driving a jetski in that manner? (alibi--'oh, it's for my cousin in Arabia; he's never seen one of those things!') The Sidewinder missle (Eric's post) is just lovely. Unfortunately the whole PWC issue comes straight out of the 'me-first' mindset of modern American society-- 'because I can', etc. No socially responsible person can argue that the PWC behaviour suggested in the article was socially responsible. The PWC is essentially the boating equivalent of 'recreational drugs' -- for the user, by the user, and to h*ll with what's right for others who are affected by my behaviour. Being in NJ I am reminded of the 'profiling' issue as well. Are all PWC users idiots? But it must be remembered that so long as the overwhelming majority SEEM to be, they might as well ALL be. Note that this involves a possible misperception. I submit that the PWC-ers' own perception that they have a moral right to do what they do, even if it annoys others, is equally a misconception. So it is an illogical argument relying solely on individuals' perceptions that is never going to come close to being resolved except by stringent lawmaking and law enforcement. I would say boating in a PWC-less Shangri-La is therefore a more likely scenario. Let's dream of that. JC 2
The video camera is the PERFECT idea. If you think about it, it doesn't even have to be running-- it's you being seen with it that counts. And since when is video-taping a stranger on a jetski any more intrusive than driving a jetski in that manner? (alibi--'oh, it's for my cousin in Arabia; he's never seen one of those things!') The Sidewinder missle (Eric's post) is just lovely. Unfortunately the whole PWC issue comes straight out of the 'me-first' mindset of modern American society-- 'because I can', etc. No socially responsible person can argue that the PWC behaviour suggested in the article was socially responsible. The PWC is essentially the boating equivalent of 'recreational drugs' -- for the user, by the user, and to h*ll with what's right for others who are affected by my behaviour. Being in NJ I am reminded of the 'profiling' issue as well. Are all PWC users idiots? But it must be remembered that so long as the overwhelming majority SEEM to be, they might as well ALL be. Note that this involves a possible misperception. I submit that the PWC-ers' own perception that they have a moral right to do what they do, even if it annoys others, is equally a misconception. So it is an illogical argument relying solely on individuals' perceptions that is never going to come close to being resolved except by stringent lawmaking and law enforcement. I would say boating in a PWC-less Shangri-La is therefore a more likely scenario. Let's dream of that. JC 2
T
Tom
Justin...Good info...I am a bit amazed at the
written law....Kind of a bummer.....I doubt a law like that would be enforced OR written in a place like...lets say Texas....lol
written law....Kind of a bummer.....I doubt a law like that would be enforced OR written in a place like...lets say Texas....lol
A
Andy
Black Powder
In response to Gary and Don concerning black powder. I dont have a captain's license but I have used black powder for almost 30 years. Gary may be accurate about loading shells, as there are some firearms that use black powder in cartridges. The most common use is muzzleloading firearms or in the case in question muzzleloading artillery. I believe you can have up to 25 pounds of black powder without being required to have a magazine. There may be laws particular to boats in this matter that I am not aware of. Friends persuaded me not to mount a 32 pound carronade on my 27 foot Hunter as it would affect the sailing characteristics and also the USCG would frown upon it. Although I would argue that black powder is stable and could be carried on a boat safely, I do question keeping it in the galley. This is the only area of open flame on our boat and combining black powder and open flame will produce sparkling results. Andy S/V Baroque
In response to Gary and Don concerning black powder. I dont have a captain's license but I have used black powder for almost 30 years. Gary may be accurate about loading shells, as there are some firearms that use black powder in cartridges. The most common use is muzzleloading firearms or in the case in question muzzleloading artillery. I believe you can have up to 25 pounds of black powder without being required to have a magazine. There may be laws particular to boats in this matter that I am not aware of. Friends persuaded me not to mount a 32 pound carronade on my 27 foot Hunter as it would affect the sailing characteristics and also the USCG would frown upon it. Although I would argue that black powder is stable and could be carried on a boat safely, I do question keeping it in the galley. This is the only area of open flame on our boat and combining black powder and open flame will produce sparkling results. Andy S/V Baroque
G
Gary Jensen
Reason for Black Powder onboard
I can't think of one good reason to have black powder on board a boat ESPECIALLY when you have paying passengers. Its just too dangerous. Unsuspecting passengers could really be in danger. Now the Personal Watercraft is another issue.
I can't think of one good reason to have black powder on board a boat ESPECIALLY when you have paying passengers. Its just too dangerous. Unsuspecting passengers could really be in danger. Now the Personal Watercraft is another issue.
T
Tom Ehmke
Eric Lorgus, the related link was hilarious...
Thanks for bringing some quality humor into the discussion. Tom Ehmke
Thanks for bringing some quality humor into the discussion. Tom Ehmke
G
Gary Jensen
Black powder and passengers
Evidently Don Bodeman was suprised and thought that I did not know the difference of gun powder and black powder (as a fireman). I did not get into the specifics of the careless loading habits of the deceased individual loading shells. "IN ADDITION" to the loading, he had the open container of black powder(for other reasons) "AND" was smoking AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!! Black powder is the explosive mixture of potassium nitrate OR sodium nitrate, charcoal and sulphur---used especially in fireworks AND as a propellant in antique firearms.(We all know how that works).. There is no logical reason to have it onboard a vessel WHILE HAVING PASSENGERS FOR HIRE! (or any other time) Did the passengers smoke? were they aware of the black powder's presence and the danger it posed? They could have paid a very huge price for it being aboard. I'm sure that was the thought of the Coast Guard and probably their reason to take his liscense. ---(I'm suprised he had a liscense, at all, with the extensive testing required).....As far as the explosive comparison of black powder to gasoline, knowing the dangers of gasoline pooling and its danger, manufactures have installed blowers and sometimes detectors (on board)..and have opted to switch to diesel!!! Also gas tanks are clearly marked, vented etc. Gasoline also has a reason to be aboard. Hope I made the story clearer Don..
Evidently Don Bodeman was suprised and thought that I did not know the difference of gun powder and black powder (as a fireman). I did not get into the specifics of the careless loading habits of the deceased individual loading shells. "IN ADDITION" to the loading, he had the open container of black powder(for other reasons) "AND" was smoking AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!! Black powder is the explosive mixture of potassium nitrate OR sodium nitrate, charcoal and sulphur---used especially in fireworks AND as a propellant in antique firearms.(We all know how that works).. There is no logical reason to have it onboard a vessel WHILE HAVING PASSENGERS FOR HIRE! (or any other time) Did the passengers smoke? were they aware of the black powder's presence and the danger it posed? They could have paid a very huge price for it being aboard. I'm sure that was the thought of the Coast Guard and probably their reason to take his liscense. ---(I'm suprised he had a liscense, at all, with the extensive testing required).....As far as the explosive comparison of black powder to gasoline, knowing the dangers of gasoline pooling and its danger, manufactures have installed blowers and sometimes detectors (on board)..and have opted to switch to diesel!!! Also gas tanks are clearly marked, vented etc. Gasoline also has a reason to be aboard. Hope I made the story clearer Don..
T
Tom Ehmke
Justin, hasn't the PWC driver violated the same
section of the Criminal Code if he knowingly placed the another person or persons in fear of imminent bodily injury by driving the PWC at the boat? The debate has certainly become convoluted. I like Cherubini's analysis. How do we go about putting others on equal footing with OURSELVES again? Tom
section of the Criminal Code if he knowingly placed the another person or persons in fear of imminent bodily injury by driving the PWC at the boat? The debate has certainly become convoluted. I like Cherubini's analysis. How do we go about putting others on equal footing with OURSELVES again? Tom
J
Justin - O'day Owners' Web
Sorry but I would have to defent the PWC operator
Caveat - I really hate PWC's. Inbred bias, whatever. I don't like them. Most people don't operate them like boats. They drive me nuts. And I have no issue tooling around at similar speeds in a hard bottom Zodiac - I just try to act more like a boat. I don't think anyone would reasonably aruge that the jetski operator can be seen as intentionally putting someone in fear of immenient harm. Negligently? Maybe. No - I think Parker's really screwed on this one. Justin - O'day Owners' Web
Caveat - I really hate PWC's. Inbred bias, whatever. I don't like them. Most people don't operate them like boats. They drive me nuts. And I have no issue tooling around at similar speeds in a hard bottom Zodiac - I just try to act more like a boat. I don't think anyone would reasonably aruge that the jetski operator can be seen as intentionally putting someone in fear of immenient harm. Negligently? Maybe. No - I think Parker's really screwed on this one. Justin - O'day Owners' Web
- Status
- Not open for further replies.