Hal wrote:

And it's because of gun toting paranoid whack jobs like you that there
are Laws passed making permits to carry concealable weapons difficult
to obtain.
I can just see you before some local judge saying that you don't need
to obey a state's laws because you only obey a higher authority.
Be sure to mention that to Bruno Buggerman, your cell mate.

Remenber that local cops love to trounce on out of state vehicles.
They may even want to search it (and you) for contraband

Hal, who has very little regard 4U


Hal(9000?)

The amount you know about the situation of which you write is truly
awesome.

Did you ever try to get the attention of a small boat operator?

Excuse me please, but I fail to see what a kayaker trying to protect his
life has to do with what might be contraband in other states.

That you are one of the problems that those of us that would like to
peacefully share the water have on a regular basis is what I am
beginning to understand by you statements. You probably have a 16ft
Clorox bottle with way too much engine and can not understand why he
should not be allowed to do what he wishes when he wishes with little
regard for the safety of other persons.

Sorry to make your acquaintance.

Matt Colie - Lifelong Waterman and Licensed (as in USCG) Mariner

On Sep 14, 8:26 am, Matt Colie wrote:

That you are one of the problems that those of us that would like to
peacefully share the water have on a regular basis is what I am
beginning to understand by you statements. You probably have a 16ft
Clorox bottle with way too much engine and can not understand why he
should not be allowed to do what he wishes when he wishes with little
regard for the safety of other persons.

Sorry to make your acquaintance.

Matt Colie - Lifelong Waterman and Licensed (as in USCG) Mariner
(Who give a S**T!)

"little regard for the safety of other persons", you say?
But, of course, you would NEVER consider yourself a complete numbskull
for advocating taking random pot shots at other boaters to whom you're
taken a dislike.

Another POS "Big Man with a Gun" with the "I'm so much better than
everyone" attitude, just like the original paranoid whack job here,
DILV

Hal

Hal wrote:
On Sep 14, 8:26 am, Matt Colie wrote:

That you are one of the problems that those of us that would like to
peacefully share the water have on a regular basis is what I am
beginning to understand by you statements. You probably have a 16ft
Clorox bottle with way too much engine and can not understand why he
should not be allowed to do what he wishes when he wishes with little
regard for the safety of other persons.

Sorry to make your acquaintance.

Matt Colie - Lifelong Waterman and Licensed (as in USCG) Mariner
(Who give a S**T!)

"little regard for the safety of other persons", you say?
But, of course, you would NEVER consider yourself a complete numbskull
for advocating taking random pot shots at other boaters to whom you're
taken a dislike.

Another POS "Big Man with a Gun" with the "I'm so much better than
everyone" attitude, just like the original paranoid whack job here,
DILV

Hal

Hal,

I suppose I should thank you for presenting my case, but you so
obviously don't understand the situation at all that it is a completely
lost cause and you will miss the point yet again.

Thank You for demonstrating exactly the level of personal responsibility
and consideration that makes the situation what it is.

You could not have read the thread or you would not be writing as you
are. You are trying to defend the individuals either trying to kill
another person on the water just because he has a small quiet boat or is
just to stinking drunk to even understand the damage he is about to do.
Possibly, I should post a review of the thread and highlight just how
stupid your remarks and responses have actually been, but again, I am so
sure that the actual case would be lost to you.

Come back and discuss more this after you have spent a day either as
first responder at one of these incidents or maybe just one pleasant
afternoon as a member of the recovery team diving in search of the
bodies of the victims of a boater such as you seem to support.

There has never been anyplace that I have been where there was effective
law enforcement on the water. Please don't tell me to leave it to them.
That will start another set of really dreadful stories I have
accumulated in years of cleaning up after people such as yourself.

Thank you your opinion.

Matt Colie

Matt Colie wrote:


Hal wrote:

much snippage

There has never been anyplace that I have been where there was effective
law enforcement on the water. Please don't tell me to leave it to them.
That will start another set of really dreadful stories I have
accumulated in years of cleaning up after people such as yourself.

Thank you your opinion.

Have you followed the Clearlake incidence in California? Latitude 38 has
been good in their coverage and presentation of the two sides. Most of
it seems to be in the form of letters to the editor, the following
http://www.latitude38.com/letters/200708.html
about 1/3 of the way down is the pertinent letter/response.

I mention it to illustrate what I see as a certain level of bias on the
part of authorities. For instance eye witnesses were told their
testimony was not needed. This included at least two people that one saw
the sailboats running lights on and another who said the saloon lights
were on. This is apparently an effort to support the Deputy's version of
events where he says the boat was unlit.

While I don't agree with Hal's reaction to your going armed, you might
want to think about it since there is a presumed guilty against you by a
large segment of the population if you are armed. Yes there are Yahoos
that would think it funny to try and swamp you with their wake or
otherwise ruin your boating experience. Thing is they succeed in
drowning you, the presence of a gun on your carcase would just make
people think "He was probably a crack dealer" or something equivalent.

There are laws against brandishing a gun so the ability to do what you
think you can do is dubious. That is, jail time for you vs. a ticket for
the person who precipitated the incident. Unless you are in your own
home, you may have the "duty to retreat" in your state. This means if
someone is harassing you, you have to leave the area. I'm as serious as
a broken leg about this, you have to leave or you will be charged with a
crime.

Carry a camera, flare gun, and pepper spray. If you are in an area that
doesn't allow excessive wakes or speed, the sight of a camera taking
their picture should be enough to deter knucleheads. If you do carry a
gun, don't bring it out unless someone is threatening you with deadly
force.

Rick Cortese wrote:

Have you followed the Clearlake incidence in California? Latitude 38 has
been good in their coverage and presentation of the two sides. Most of
it seems to be in the form of letters to the editor, the following
http://www.latitude38.com/letters/200708.html
about 1/3 of the way down is the pertinent letter/response.

I mention it to illustrate what I see as a certain level of bias on the
part of authorities. For instance eye witnesses were told their
testimony was not needed. This included at least two people that one saw
the sailboats running lights on and another who said the saloon lights
were on. This is apparently an effort to support the Deputy's version of
events where he says the boat was unlit.

While I don't agree with Hal's reaction to your going armed, you might
want to think about it since there is a presumed guilty against you by a
large segment of the population if you are armed. Yes there are Yahoos
that would think it funny to try and swamp you with their wake or
otherwise ruin your boating experience. Thing is they succeed in
drowning you, the presence of a gun on your carcase would just make
people think "He was probably a crack dealer" or something equivalent.

There are laws against brandishing a gun so the ability to do what you
think you can do is dubious. That is, jail time for you vs. a ticket for
the person who precipitated the incident. Unless you are in your own
home, you may have the "duty to retreat" in your state. This means if
someone is harassing you, you have to leave the area. I'm as serious as
a broken leg about this, you have to leave or you will be charged with a
crime.

Carry a camera, flare gun, and pepper spray. If you are in an area that
doesn't allow excessive wakes or speed, the sight of a camera taking
their picture should be enough to deter knucleheads. If you do carry a
gun, don't bring it out unless someone is threatening you with deadly
force.

Rick,
First - Thank you for the Clear Lake reference, I had heard of it and
nothing more. Yes - Rule 6 should apply here, but LEO protect their own
when well they should not.

I got roped into teaching classes to potential marine patrol officers.
(As attached in a prior sig, I am a licensed mariner.) I have also been
involved in law enforcement. Many were expecting a "get paid for
sleeping through the rubber stamp course". They were upset when they
were expected to actually know the rules of the road. I didn't get
invited back.

You might go back and read the thread before Hal got involved. There
was a lot of tongue and cheek humor (whooshed on Hal) about how to make
your presents know to an incapable (and possibly inebriated) power boat
operator. In six decades on the water, I have been hit (racing under
sail doesn't count here) eight times. On three of those occasions, we
saw burden vessel alter course to collide. In one of those cases, (it
was a second encounter) I had a 12ga flare pistol ready. I fired a
white star directly over the windscreen of the oncoming vessel and got
not response.

While I understand your sentiments, the camera will be lost, the flare
gun didn't cause him to alter course and the pepper spray won't do you
any good as he is speeding away laughing about what he has just done.

A result of all this is that I do carry devices on board my small boats,
like a hundred feet of black polypropylene to trail aft. I have also
been know to look up the registration and then locate the owner and go
see him with a badge conspicuously hidden and the back strap of the
holster in plain view. I don't worry about where I carry. I have been
licensed to carry for many years and know all about the laws.

Unfortunately, as said in a prior note, all you need to get out on the
water with too much horsepower is a credit rating. Until that changes,
the situation won't change.

It is a shame, there have been many days that I would have taken my
grandchildren out in my day boat, but the weather was just too nice and
therefore dangerous.

Situations like Clear Lake don't help at all.

Thank you for your interest.

Matt Colie

"Rick Cortese" wrote...

While I don't agree with Hal's reaction to your going armed, you might want
to think about it since there is a presumed guilty against you by a large
segment of the population if you are armed. Yes there are Yahoos that would
think it funny to try and swamp you with their wake or otherwise ruin your
boating experience. Thing is they succeed in drowning you, the presence of a
gun on your carcase would just make people think "He was probably a crack
dealer" or something equivalent.

There are laws against brandishing a gun so the ability to do what you think
you can do is dubious. That is, jail time for you vs. a ticket for the person
who precipitated the incident. Unless you are in your own home, you may have
the "duty to retreat" in your state. This means if someone is harassing you,
you have to leave the area. I'm as serious as a broken leg about this, you
have to leave or you will be charged with a crime.

In context, there is a serious flaw in your "duty to retreat" argument: A
kayaker is ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to "retreat" from a powerboat! All he can do is
insignificantly reduce the closure speed by turning away, at a significant
disadvantage in visibility and collision aspect.

OTOH, you are correct that in many people's pea-brains, there WILL be a
presumption of "guilt" or "criminal intent" regarding a person who dares to be
armed. Further, "brandishing" or actually firing a firearm is indeed a "no-no"
unless the user is in fear of loss of life or limb (and, in some cases,
property). I would submit, then, that firing a .38 INTO THE AIR in order to
get the attention of a speedboat operator who is in the process of preparing to
ram your kayak, may well be a valid reaction to a valid fear of imminent,
lethal danger.


Carry a camera, flare gun, and pepper spray. If you are in an area that
doesn't allow excessive wakes or speed, the sight of a camera taking their
picture should be enough to deter knucleheads. If you do carry a gun, don't
bring it out unless someone is threatening you with deadly force.

If a boater doesn't see a kayak, [s]he will be oblivious to any camera aboard
the kayak. Pepper spray is useless unless you are being boarded AND the
boarder is downwind. A LOUD whistle MAY be heard over the wind and roar of an
engine and/or through the bulkheads of an enclosed cockpit...

A flare gun is certainly a good idea. However, if the flare does not erupt
until it is at some altitude, will it further distract the attention of the
doughhead powerboat operator from the kayak that initiated it? In this
scenario a parachute flare will be almost useless, though a short-lived pencil
flare may be useful. OTOH, how long will it take to get the flare out of
storage, and will it be useless in the future once "prepped" for immediate use?

A .38 or .410 or 12-ga with an appropriate flare round in the chamber may well
be a reasonable substitute for a dedicated flare gun where local laws allow it.
A .38 or .410 with a blank or "snakeshot" round, or a 12-ga blank/starter round
may be a reasonable second choice, in order to minimize danger from the "what
goes up must come down" law of physics.

Personally, I have yet to encounter a situation in my kayak where I needed
anything more than a whistle, though I have considered adding a signal mirror
to attract the attention of landing seaplane pilots. I do carry flares on the
kayak, but I don't think it is worth the hassle of carrying a firearm (though I
have carried one on my sailboat in the past). I have occasionally wished for a
movie camera to get the numbers from a jetskier who's being a complete idiot,
but there is little chance of any law enforcement agency doing anything with
even a movie, until the idiot actually hurts somebody...

John Weiss wrote:

Personally, I have yet to encounter a situation in my kayak where I needed
anything more than a whistle, though I have considered adding a signal
mirror
to attract the attention of landing seaplane pilots.


John,
With the perspective of a former airplane pilot, I will urge you to
be very careful if you choose to use a mirror to reflect the sun into
the eyes of a landing seaplane pilot. It is hard enough to see clearly
through a spinning propellor and have good judgement from altitude above
water *compared to* what you may be able to see (it is a different
perspective- you may be invisible to him in a glare or blend into the
background, etc). Things happen relatively quickly in an airplane when
something goes wrong at low altitudes, so blinding a pilot on his final
approach to landing is a prescription for getting not only yourself
killed if you are in his path, but almost assuredly also his passengers
and crew. Instead you should make sure you are that much more visible to
him so he can't miss seeing you.
Red

"Red" wrote...

Personally, I have yet to encounter a situation in my kayak where I needed
anything more than a whistle, though I have considered adding a signal mirror
to attract the attention of landing seaplane pilots.

With the perspective of a former airplane pilot, I will urge you to be very
careful if you choose to use a mirror to reflect the sun into the eyes of a
landing seaplane pilot. It is hard enough to see clearly through a spinning
propellor and have good judgement from altitude above water *compared to*
what you may be able to see (it is a different perspective- you may be
invisible to him in a glare or blend into the background, etc). Things happen
relatively quickly in an airplane when something goes wrong at low altitudes,
so blinding a pilot on his final approach to landing is a prescription for
getting not only yourself killed if you are in his path, but almost assuredly
also his passengers and crew. Instead you should make sure you are that much
more visible to him so he can't miss seeing you.

Thanks for your concern. From the perspective of a retired Naval Aviator and
active airline pilot (747 Captain), I am aware of the potential danger from
dazzling with a signal mirror. While keeping the signal on the airplane would
present a danger, a quick flash or 3 across it should not be a problem.

A kayaker can be only so visible... My PFD is bright yellow and my paddle
blades (which, if you've ever noticed, are the most visible part of a kayak
when they are moving) and broad-brim hat are white. If a pilot misses all that
in the background clutter, or is focused on a sailboat or jetski somewhere
else, there is little more I can do. I paddle frequently on Lake Washington
where there is an active seaplane base, and have to cross the landing area to
get to the Sammamish Slough. I have yet to have a problem with any of the
Kenmore Air pilots, but on occasion I wonder whether one of the transients
practicing water landings is keeping an adequate lookout...

Also, a kayak can only move about 5 kt max, and an airplane can come "around
the corner" and line up to land with very little warning. If I happen to be
crossing the landing area when he appears, I cannot easily move out of the way
if he doesn't adjust his landing path to avoid me.

John Weiss wrote:
"Rick Cortese" wrote...
snip
In context, there is a serious flaw in your "duty to retreat" argument: A
kayaker is ABSOLUTELY UNABLE to "retreat" from a powerboat! All he can do is
insignificantly reduce the closure speed by turning away, at a significant
disadvantage in visibility and collision aspect.

While I agree with you in spirit and fact...

One of our local assistant D.A.s tried to prosecute someone for being
under the influence of Prozac while driving. Same guy prosecuted my
older son for trespassing even when told it was actually my younger
underage son who did the act. Thing is, the younger son had the older
son's I.D. and showed it to a Deputy so the D.A. figured it would be
easier to get a guilty verdict against the older son even though the
Deputy also said he wasn't the guy.

Then there is the rumored motto of the prosecutors in Texas "Anyone can
convict a guilty person but it takes a real lawyer to convict an
innocent man!"

I just drift/mention this because laws are deliberately ambiguous to the
point where you can get your ~$10,000 legal fees punishment to prove you
are innocent for fighting the system like my older son did. I've
actually been taunted with the fact they will use their unlimited
resources to try and bankrupt you with legal fees.

If I had a nickel for every time I was told by some liar with under the
tint of authority "We well see who they will believe" I could get a nice
cup of coffee at Starbucks.

It could be the mayor's, D.A.s son, or one of the Kennedys in that speed
boat. Remember in the Clearlake crash the guy at the tiller of the
sailboat was the only person charged. The official theory was, despite
eye witness accounts to the contrary, he was running w/o lights and
therefore invisible to the Deputy. Too many examples to list, Duke rugby
ring a bell?

I don't like or endorse the situation of course. I just ack that it is
the current state of affairs. You just have to hope you get a good jury
to nullify some of the crap that goes on.

Rick

Rick Cortese wrote:

snip
therefore invisible to the Deputy. Too many examples to list, Duke rugby
ring a bell?

Whoops! Sorry to the Duke rugby team. It shouldn't ring a bell since it
was lacrosse!

Rick