Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

Hi!

This might parrot what others said, but in my opinon the more you can
hound
wreckless jet-ski's the better.

Why? Unless they are breaking a definite law, they have the same right
to be on the water as anyone else, regardless of how they may "annoy"
someone.

Sometimes they have miles of water to play in, but they congregate around
anchored boats whose owners simply want a little peace and quiet. They may
not be breaking a law by doing that, but it's absolutely obnoxious.

Agreed. But encouraging a LEO to "hound them" simply becasue you don't
like what they do, is not legal.

There's
nothing wrong with a cop teaching them some manners, since their parents
obviously forgot.

It's not a cop's place to "teach manners". His place is to enforce
existing laws. If there is no law that prohibits a jetski from
frequenting the same are of a the water, the cop has no right to hassle
the PWC operator.


If the guy in the rowboat with the 5HP engine puts in in a large bay
like the Chesapeake, which is home to megayachts, commercial ships, and
wind swept chop, then his judgement is impared.

If the guy in the small boat plants himself near a channel, he's made a
choice.

Right, a bad one.


If he plants himself miles from a channel and some asshole in a 50
ft boat chooses to come within 200 ft and throw an enormous wake, it's
obnoxious. Again, there's nothing wrong with a cop pulling him over for a
little chat. You know this. Stop baiting the assembled audience.

Again, if you can cite the specific law that's been broken, that's one
thing. Otherwise, making judgement calls based on personal opinion, is
not within the purview of the LEO. Perhaps you favor the cops randomly
pulling over certain cars, which display certain behavioral traits which
*might* be offensive. Some people might call that profiling.


Intoxicated operators is a no-brainer, but why the beef with speedboats?
I, like many performance boaters, like things in the fast lane. There
are many myths proliferated relating to operation at speed. Most are a
bunch of hot air.

Like jetski operators, speedboats sometimes they have miles of water to play
in, but they congregate around anchored boats whose owners simply want a
little peace and quiet.

Really? A guy who spends $100K on a flashy Fountain, is going to spend
his time running circles around a bunch of anchored boats? You must boat
in a really strange place. Usually, the only time larger boats run like
this is when they are pulling water toys. It just so happens that some
of the best coves for anchoring, are also the calmest coves for skiing.

Maybe you should reconsider your choice of place to enjoy "peace and
quiet". Anchoring adjacent to a transient channel, and attempting to
complain when people pass by, is a bit ridiculous.


They may not be breaking a law by doing that, but
it's absolutely obnoxious. Some people go boating for the quiet. Some people
go boating for the excitement. They have to allow for each other. You know
this.

Being "obnoxious" is not illegal. Bad taste maybe. Poor manners, likely.
Bad judgement, probably. Oblivious of their affects, most likely. But
illegal, no.

Stop baiting the assembled audience.

I'm not "baiting" anyone. I'm just illustrating the line which exists
between the law, and people's personal opinions. There is no law
protecting anyone from being "annoyed" by the actions of another. This
is a free country (more or less) and people have the right to pursue
their leisure activities, provided that those actions do not pose a
danger to the health and safety of the general population, or are not
expressly prohibited by specific laws.


Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Like I said, BUI is a no-brainer. But why tie BUI operators with
speedboats? You are coming off like you're stereotyping the typical
performance boater. I find that somewhat offensive.

I'm surprised. You, Dave "I wish I was a Vulcan" Hall should see the logic
here. If a speedboater's a mile away and not breaking any rules about speed,
wake or channel, nobody cares and nobody notices.

A new corrolary on the old "If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody
sees it...."?


My main point of contention here is the subtle attempt to link drunk
boating with speedboats and the people who run them. That smacks of
stereotyping. Are performance boaters really that more likely to be
driving drunk?


If he's drunk and hits a
wave the wrong way, flipping the boat and killing everyone onboard, so what?

No one should be operating a boat while drunk.


But, here's a REAL LIFE SCENARIO that I see just about every time I take my
boat out: There are a few areas where boats commonly anchor, at least a mile
or two from the channel, and usually behind islands. Very fast boats, which
have the whole world to play in, come flying past these groups of boats,
sometimes as close as 100', and the same boats sometimes do it repeatedly,
as if they just want to be seen.

Have to considered the possibility that these boats are housed in a
small anchorage or marina, which they get to by taking the path that
you've outlined? Why would people buzz back and forth in the same small
area, when they can venture into more expanse? These aren't jetskis
which are usually based at a land location somewhere close.


Now, let's pretend that these boats made absolutely no wake, and that there
was no speed limit in the area. So, they're breaking no laws. But: A
mechanical or operator failure at high speeds could cause quite a disaster
if that boat is too close to other boats.

And a meteor could strike the earth or I could win the lottery tomorrow.


Therefore (and here comes the
logic, Dave), it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone doing this
is exercising very poor judgement, and might very well be drunk.

It is common for people, who don't know all the facts, to make incorrect
assumptions about a person's motives. Just like you guys on the left are
always doing when it comes to world politics.


Whether they're breaking any laws or not, they deserve a visit from the authorities.

If they are truly operating in a reckless manner, or pose a very real
potential for danger, then there are laws which address this, and at
that point I would agree with you. But, if your only judgement criteria
is that it "bothers" you, then you can go flap in the breeze.


In a motor vehicle, vague offenses are routinely put in the "reckless
driving" category. It's not a problem. You know that.

If, in fact, the operator is operating recklessly. The criteria for
determining that is fairly well known, and not normally subject to a
wide interpretation.

Dave

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

Clams Canino wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Intoxicated operators is a no-brainer, but why the beef with speedboats?
I, like many performance boaters, like things in the fast lane. There
are many myths proliferated relating to operation at speed. Most are a
bunch of hot air.

I dissagree. Alcohol slows reaction time. The faster the boat, the more that
reaction time comes into play. My boat is plenty fast, and you won't find
me out on a busy lake with any measurable B.A.C.

Like I said, BUI is a no-brainer. But why tie BUI operators with
speedboats? You are coming off like you're stereotyping the typical
performance boater. I find that somewhat offensive. I don't drink
alchohol AT ALL when I boat.


Wish you boated in my waters with your obnoxiously loud boat. I'd have
you cited every time you drove by...

As if you could.....

Dave

noah wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:12:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"noah" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:47:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

I paid the fine, and thanked the judge for making it a very small one.
I think the judge was a fisherman. )


Thank heaven for judges who understand the difference between the essence
of
the law and the letter of the law (unlike the sad troopers who are told
to
sit on the thruway all day and look only for speeders - never mind the
tailgaters, or 30 yr old dump trucks spewing opaque fumes).

Last year, I went to court to explain to a judge that I was doing 79 mph
at
a certain moment, not 80 as the trooper claimed. The dangerous psychopath
ahead of me was in a wheelchair with neck brace and oxygen tank, after
being
beaten mercilessly by 3 DEC officers for being a week gone on his fishing
license. The judge asked him if he was ware of the odd renewal date here
in
NY - end of Sept or something like that. He responded that he understood,
but generally forgot, like almost everyone else who's also preoccupied
with
raking leaves at that time of year. Then, the judge asked him how the
fishing was that day. He told the judge he'd been set upon by bluefills,
and
hadn't caught any steelhead. The judge explained that justice would not
be
served by fining a fisherman who hadn't caught anything worthwhile.


Problem, "Doug"?

I didn't have the "wearable". I got a ticket. It was bull****. I paid
it.
I guess if I had been fishing from a Camaro, it would have been OK.

****ed about something?
Regards,
noah

Well, when I read your message, I was ****ed that I'd run out of grapefruit.
But, my comment on balanced judges seems to fit what you mentioned. You said
the fine was a small one, right? I responded by describing a similar judge.
Did my typo (bluefills instead of bluegills) cause some confusion?
-Doug


Naw, we fish for bluefills all the time.
I think it was the tag-team beating that threw me off. )

Regards,
noah


Doug goes crazy with metaphors on occasion. It makes for a more
entertaining story, if nothing else....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I usually wear my belt too, but my wife finds it uncomfortable and
refuses to.

So, I guess she's prepared to be a Darwinian statistic, eh? Have you ever
done the driver ed class demo for her? At 10 mph, in a safe parking lot,
nail the brakes. I mean JUMP on the pedal. Stop the car instantly. You may
want to put two pillows on the dashboard first.

Any law that's enacted for the sole purpose of protecting ourselves from
ourselves is intrusive and unnecessary. If someone does not wear their
seatbelt, and they are in an accident, then it's on them if they get
hurt worse.

What about the children of people who are too stupid to wear them? Do you
agree with the law which allows cops to ticket parents whose kids aren't
belted?

I took a very interesting driving course a couple of years ago. Among other
things, it taught us how to get back in control of the car after we'd gone
from normal pavement and onto the grass median, a common occurrence in
highway accidents. Clue: Except during new construction, you have never seen
and will never see anyone with a lawn roller tidying up the median. It's
unbelievably bumpy after a few winters' worth of frost heaving.

The seatbelts are the only thing that keep you behind the wheel in such
instances. If you're on the median at 50+ mph and you're still driving,
you've probably avoided hitting other cars. You have a much better chance of
finishing the episode alive if you're behind the wheel snugly so you can
drive. Only an idiot would want to be bouncing around the car.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Wish you boated in my waters with your obnoxiously loud boat. I'd have
you cited every time you drove by...

As if you could.....

Dave

If any law enforcement service gets a half dozen calls about the same moron,
you can bet your ass they'll stop by. They have lots to lose by not doing
so.

More often than you may realize, cops have to deal with situations which
involve no violation of the law. But, smart cops show up anyway because they
know that if they don't, they'll have a REAL problem on their hands
otherwise.

You may want to ask a cop about this next thing, but I know you're not too
keen on getting involved with your local public servants.

Forget hostage situations. Forget armed robbers. Forget bomb scares. What is
the most dangerous and unpredictable situation for which cops are called
regularly? Hint: 99% of the time, it initially involves no laws being
broken.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Doug goes crazy with metaphors on occasion. It makes for a more
entertaining story, if nothing else....

Dave

Sit down, be quiet and drink your chocolate milk.

Probably domestic / family arguments.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
More often than you may realize, cops have to deal with situations which
involve no violation of the law. But, smart cops show up anyway because
they
know that if they don't, they'll have a REAL problem on their hands
otherwise.

You may want to ask a cop about this next thing, but I know you're not too
keen on getting involved with your local public servants.

Forget hostage situations. Forget armed robbers. Forget bomb scares. What
is
the most dangerous and unpredictable situation for which cops are called
regularly? Hint: 99% of the time, it initially involves no laws being
broken.

Yep. The nose is in the door. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I saw some
shoulders go by. It won't be long before the tail is past the door, and the
pigs (Animal Farm Reference) have built the fence, a piece at a time.

"WaIIy" wrote in message

No, I don't want to hear about how much it's costing us in medical
bills, blah, blah, blah.

It's erosion of personal freedom, plain and simple.