# Am I an 'operator' at anchor?



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

Ok, first off, regular common sense should probably suffice. Just wondering though, if I am at anchor on a reservoir for the evening can I have a few beers without worry of a 'BUI?' I have looked at a few boards, and the answer seems largely to be a yes-I can get cited. However, if the waterway I am on crosses state lines, or runs to the ocean it becomes a navigable waterway and hence maritime law takes over which seems to say at anchor I am at my port of call, thus the equivalent of my home for the evening and thus ok.

I understand that it is unwise to boat and booze it, and also that there may be an odd event that causes my anchor to need tended to. 

It is not a big deal to me, I just like sleeping on the boat, but it seems a bit much for me to have to concern myself with getting in trouble for getting a little tipsy with the wife down below when anchored for the evening.

Any thoughts?

Q
PS. I am in CA if anyone knows anything state specific. tnx


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

A very interesting question, especially for full time liveaboards.
Every once in a while, my girlfriend and I will get totally plastered at anchor (we are on our anchor about 11 months a year with a month on our mooring), and I've no doubt we'd be able to handle any situation that arose, even if we couldn't pass a sobriety test.


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

It depends. Those resevoir areas have cops out looking solely for BUI's. So yeah, you'd probably get in trouble.In the Key's you'd be all right. In Honduras, I sail up to the dock with a bar at it. Drink rum and beer, and sail off the dock with a drink in my hand, and every body compliments me on me captaining skills, never even noticing the drinking.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Most states usually are consistent with DUI laws ... you dont have to be 'driving' in the vehicle just be the 'operator' and be 'inside or on' and/or 'direct contact capable' of driving at a BAC of greater than the 0.08% limit. This includes horses, riding lawnmowers, probably even roller skates and 'pogo sticks' .... anything that can be construed as a 'vehicle'. 

So, if youre above the 0.08% and inside the boat, on the boat and are 'the operator' even if the boat (car/horse/lawnmower/truck,etc) isnt 'moving' ... in most venues you're DUI/BUI. 

Hint: if youre above 0.08% and dont want the DUI hassle, get the hell out of or off of the 'vehicle' .... and then clearly 'dont remember' if you were the operator nor allow 'anyone' else who was in/on that vehicle to 'remember' either.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Well, maritime law doesn't necessarily supplant state law, particularly on the criminal side of things. 

And I know the Coast Guard takes the position with commercial vessels that being made fast to a dock, or sitting at an anchorage doesn't exempt the master from federal charges for being drunk while "in charge of a vessel". The theory here is that one might have to get underway at any time if there's a change of circumstances or an emergency.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Under my state's law, you may not "operate" a vessel while under the influence, and operate "means to navigate or otherwise use a motorboat or vessel."

I would say that being at anchor is not "navigating" but it could be construed as "using" a vessel (the definition of vessel includes sailboats). It would take a court to ultimately determine that issue, and it doesn't appear to have been resolved in our courts.

Can't you get a DUI if you're sitting in your car, drunk, with the keys in the ignition? Or is that only if it's apparent that you had been or were about to drive?


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

nolatom said:


> Well, maritime law doesn't necessarily supplant state law, particularly on the criminal side of things.
> 
> And I know the Coast Guard takes the position with commercial vessels that being made fast to a dock, or sitting at an anchorage doesn't exempt the master from federal charges for being drunk while "in charge of a vessel". The theory here is that one might have to get underway at any time if there's a change of circumstances or an emergency.


I don't know the law or have any first hand experience with precedent in this area...but if cited for BUI when at anchor I would get a lawyer and fight the charges.

It doesn't pass the commons sense test to me that one can be cited for BUI while anchored when - while anchored - one could have easily taken the dinghy to the beach and not been on board when the LEO arrived at the boat and - I guess - not be cited for BUI.

It also doesn't pass the common sense test to be cited for BUI while anchored but not be cited when alongside in a marina...or tied to a mooring ball. Could I be cited for being drunk in the cockpit while tied in my slip but perhaps not be in violation if I am standing on the finger pier next to the boat?

I have never seen LEOs surround the holiday weekend raft ups with citation pad in hand although surely they know - like the rest of living and breathing society - that the majority of the of-age crews are likely a bit deep into their cups.

nola: Re CG "takes the position" - by what authority? CG can't simply take a position independent of law or regulation. What regulation is cited in taking the position that a master of a commercial vessel must exercise sobriety at all times?

What if the ship is in dry dock? Steam powered and in cold iron conditions? Not ready for sea due to crew leave? Is at anchor but has a system fault that prevents getting underway safely?

When I consider all the irrational actions by persons of authority in schools and LE agencies that have been highlighted in the media in the past couple of years I shouldn't be surprised that the CG and marine police have gone off the deep end regarding BUI.

All it takes is a Little Napoleon or Mayor Bloomberg ego on the LE vessel to make a wonderful day on the water become frustrating.


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hello,

In New York State a vessel at anchor is not being operated.

This is taken directly from the law:

§ 49-a. Operation of a vessel while under the influence of alcohol or
drugs. 1. Definitions. As used in this section, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
(a) The term "vessel" shall be every description of watercraft or
other artificial contrivance propelled in whole or in part by mechanical
power and, which is used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation over water, and which is underway and not at anchor or
made fast to the shore or ground. 

Barry


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

BarryL said:


> (a) The term "vessel" shall be every description of watercraft or
> other artificial contrivance propelled in whole or in part by mechanical
> power and, which is used or capable of being used as a means of
> transportation over water, and which is underway and not at anchor or
> made fast to the shore or ground.


I think you can sail $hit-faced in NY.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Washington State BUI laws apply to vessels underway. You're underway if you're not anchored or tied to a dock.


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

I just read the Oregon rules, can't find a definitive answer.

Just placed a voicemail to their information officer. Awaiting a call. Do NOT want to take any chances this summer, which can ruin my fun.


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

huh. so CA boating law states an "operator means the person on board who is steering the vessel while underway" (same as operate) and "underway means all times except when the motorboat, sailboat, or vessel is anchored, moored or aground."

However, I imagine they can do whatever they want, as "Use means operate, navigate or employ" and they don't say what 'employ' means. So I imagine even if not operating it I am 'employing' it so am 'using' it so am operating it....BLAH BLAH BLAH


When did our rules get so convoluted that they are barely decipherable (if at all) and we are just towing the line spending tons of dough to have them turn out more drivel?


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

My autopilot is doing the steering quite a bit of the time. It doesn't drink though.


----------



## misfits (Dec 9, 2011)

If your boat is an inboard when at anchor consuming your favorite beverage, don't leave the keys in the ignition.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Fryewe,

When I said CG "takes the position" that drunk captains are "operators", it comes from the federal "Negligent and Reckless operation of a Vessel" statute. and the federal judges have "accepted" that position over the years. Seen it here in the maritime industry locally here.

But they don't go looking for you. Arrests arise from complaints from ship pilots when capt smells like a brewery such that pilot does not get docked ship underway but calls the Coast Guard. So I don't see the LEO overreach that some may, at least in the river cases. You don't want the capt ordering the pilot to "take her out, Mr. Pilot" when capt is dead drunk. It's tricky enough on the Big Muddy already without that.

Complaints when in drydock? Unlikely to the point of being zero. Laid up afloat? If crew required in case of breakaway, then maybe. But again, where's the complaint going to come from? Either a river pilot, or after a casualty where master was in fact potted..

the "I'm home" argument I'm not willing to get into.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

You can always be charged under the federal law -- so the state law should be viewed as possibly worse (harsher) but not as a lower burden. I have zero confidence that "at anchor" excepts you from the BUI laws in most places (I appreciate the state laws quoted above). In PA DUI is "operation and control" of the vehicle. Begin by recognizing that that law has been applied to bicycles! Next note that "operation and control" has been interpreted to mean operation OR control. So think: you could drive the car" not "you did drive the car". With that in mind, and the same courts interpreting the law, I figure there is no way you are immune at anchor.
.02 (and certainly not legal advice)
BS


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

USCG and US commercial vessels are a horse of a different color. The US requires all US flagged ships to be dry. No crew may poses or imbibe alcoholic beverages, whether on duty or not, while aboard, period.
Unlike the British merchant and military vessels which all have a "pub" aboard for recreation off duty. Hooray for a country that treats it's adults as responsible citizens.
Where's my daily ration of grog, sir?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Are you sure that the Jones Act also bans alcohol on US flagged ships? (never heard of that one before). The USN is in fact, dry. Trivia Question: Does anyone here know when alcohol was banned on USN ships? Who banned it? And what American slang was the result of it?


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

In Canada, at anchor, you are under no legal obligation to open the hatch if a cop comes. A friend was arrested by mounties for impaired driving while sitting in a restaurant, because she ' might drive." Several subsequent severe beatings by mounties were given ,to dicourage her from pleading not guilty.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

QuickMick said:


> huh. so CA boating law states an "operator means the person on board who is steering the vessel while underway" (same as operate) and "underway means all times except when the motorboat, sailboat, or vessel is anchored, moored or aground."


Seems prety clear and easy to understand to me.
If you are anchored, you are not underway, therefore when anchored there is no operator, therefore no issue...
right up until you cease being anchored, and the operator gets the boat underway.
In other words, just as in all things sailing related, commonsense and prudence apply.

Think of it like reefing. if you think you need to reef, you should. if you think you are in any way, even remotely, unable to operate your boat without blowing over, then stay anchored.
if you aren't able to make this decision prudently, or if you attract the attention of the watercops even while anchored, then you get what you deserve.
something tells me you are smarter than that.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Brent Swain said:


> In Canada, at anchor, you are under no legal obligation to open the hatch if a cop comes. A friend was arrested by mounties for impaired driving while sitting in a restaurant, because she ' might drive." Several subsequent severe beatings by mounties were given ,to dicourage her from pleading not guilty.


Uhm... show me the regs, brent, because my understanding of canadian coastie policy is a boarding is a boarding, whether it is for a light check, a gear check, or a straw-blow. Sure, you don't have to "open the hatch" you just have to accept that you may be impounded, towed, or otherwise detained, since a failure to allow boarding is an offense in and of itself that also is probable cause for a warrant to be issued.
A drunk friend in a bar arrsted by the RCMP and a boarding of a boat by state cops or coast guard or game wardens are apples and oranges, brent, as you should know, being a lifelong liveaboard.


----------



## rwy36 (Mar 19, 2004)

Here in Connecticut, moored, anchored or docked vessels are not being 'operated'. Here's a snip from the CT Statutes Sec. 15-133, Rules for safe operation:

_(d) No person shall operate a vessel: (1) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, or both, or (2) while such person has an elevated blood alcohol content. For the purposes of this section and sections 15-140l and 15-140n, "elevated blood alcohol content" means: (A) A ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is eight-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight, or (B) if such person is under twenty-one years of age, a ratio of alcohol in the blood of such person that is two-hundredths of one per cent or more of alcohol, by weight. For the purposes of this section and sections 15-132a, 15-140l, 15-140n, 15-140o and 15-140q, "operate" means that the vessel is underway or aground and not moored, anchored or docked.
_
Bill


----------



## aaronwindward (Aug 8, 2010)

I am not a lawyer, but in CA, at least for road vehicles, a DUI requires (among other things) that the operator both cause the vehicle to move, and that the vehicle does move. They always say 'however slightly' although I don't know if this is statutory or jurisprudence. The boat definitely moves at anchor, but it seems most likely that the operator (if there is one) is not actually causing the boat to move, from a legal standpoint.

As a practical matter, the state law always seems interested in who is at the wheel or tiller, and my understanding is that no one else matters in the slightest, even if they say they're the "captain" or anything similar.

On the other hand, I've heard stories of crappy cops who give people a hard time about stuff even though it's probably not actually illegal. So the best thing might be to just ask cops in the relevant jurisdiction (by anonymous telephone call) whether they would have a problem with this.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Pretty good examples of how these laws vary by state and country. Know your own.


----------



## blutoyz (Oct 28, 2012)

What a coincidence, I was just having a conversation on this topic with my local harbormaster last night at the pub. In RI at anchor you are not considered to be "operating" a vessel.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Brent Swain said:


> In Canada, at anchor, you are under no legal obligation to open the hatch if a cop comes. A friend was arrested by mounties for impaired driving while sitting in a restaurant, because she ' might drive." Several subsequent severe beatings by mounties were given ,to dicourage her from pleading not guilty.


Can't comment about your specific example Brent, but in Canada you can drink while at anchor, as long as you meet these criteria:

Transport Canada Regs

*Consumption of Alcohol*

In most provinces: Alcohol may be consumed on board the pleasure craft only if it meets all of the following conditions:


The vessel has permanent sleeping facilities
The vessel has permanent cooking facilities
The vessel has a permanent toilet
The vessel is anchored or secured alongside a dock


----------



## azguy (Jul 17, 2012)

I think you guys are being short sited and while I know the world drinks, I don't, it doesn't seem prudent while on a boat. Any number things could happen that could require quick thinking and fast action and being 3 sheets to the wind just may cost you your life. In my opinion, and it's only that, at anchor should be just like operating the boat. Since some immediate action could take place at any moment.

Remember in some states you can be arrested for public drunkenness and I sure being on your boat is public drunkenness.

Keep this in mind, this is a litigious society. CG/Cops approach your boat and your drunk, but at anchor and they say be careful and do not operate the boat or you will be arrested. An hour later you fall overboard, hit your head and drown. Your family will be suing the CG/Cops before you are even in the ground saying "how could you leave a drunk man on a boat"...


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

Hey! I got an awnser from the state in under 24 hrs after I asked them the question (the CA Dept of Boating and Waterways)


Mr. McColly



You must be underway and operating a vessel to be charged with BUI. If you are anchored, moored or tied up at a marina you cannot be charged with BUI.



Sincerely



Associate Boating Administrator

Enforcement Unit


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

There's an interesting undercurrent that runs through this and other threads on this topic -- distrust of law enforcement.

Most people on this board are law abiding citizens who've never committed a serious crime. Yet many posters are leery of law enforcement.

This was not always the case. I grew up in a town where I knew all the cops. When I got a little older I'd gone to school with a lot of them and occasionally watched football with a bunch of them. But I've noticed a VERY different attitude among younger cops and even the older guys seem more insulated. The times I've brushed up against law enforcement recently have left me feeling distrustful as well. 

Unwarranted harassment doesn't seem to be a rare story anymore, whether it's the potty police in Florida, harassment on the Hudson or running a gauntlet of traffic cops on the drive to your boat. 

It used to only be people on the fringes distrusted the police. How did this become acceptable behavior?


----------



## Rich85tpi (Aug 18, 2010)

GeorgeB said:


> Are you sure that the Jones Act also bans alcohol on US flagged ships? (never heard of that one before). The USN is in fact, dry. Trivia Question: Does anyone here know when alcohol was banned on USN ships? Who banned it? And what American slang was the result of it?


I'm interested in the answer to the trivia question.


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

Alcohol banned by General order 99 by Sec of Navy Joesph Daniels June 1 1914. Hence the slang for coffee 'Cup o Joe'

oh, I googled, was that cheating?
then it appears they had to pass a bunch of other regs against bootlegging. lol. shutting down the officers wine mess wasnt enough...

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq32-1.htm


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Alcohol in the Navy

1797 On 1 July, daily liquor ration set at "one half pint of distilled spirits."

1914 General Order 99, issued by Josephus Daniels on 1 June, strictly prohibited "the use or introduction for drinking purposes of alcoholic liquors on board any naval vessel, or within any navy yard or station," to take effect on 1 July 1914, thus putting an end to the officers' wine mess.

That doesn't answer the slang question though...


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Oops, I should hit refresh before I post.

But I still want to know what slang came out of it!


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

Minnesail said:


> Oops, I should hit refresh before I post.
> 
> But I still want to know what slang came out of it!


actually snopes says its false! maybe '99' pertaining to all hands? or general misbehavior?

who asked this quiz in the first place? THEY should know!


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Ding ding ding! We have multiple winners! Yes, it was Secretary Josephus Daniels, a teetotaler, that banned alcohol from USN ships. When he suggested that officers drink coffee at meals instead of spirits, they derisively called a cup of coffee, a “cup of Josephus”. Shortened later to a “cup of Joe”. I found this little tidbit while reading a review of a recently published biography of Daniels. Other bits of trivia is FDR was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy under him. Imagine that combo. Daniels completely reorganized the Navy, which was little changed from the Civil War into the Fighting force that it was in WWI. Should be an interesting read.

I had the opportunity to have dinner on the HMCS Algonquin. What a difference from the normal coffee and soft drink fare of the USN. Pretty cool drinking Tanqueray in the wardroom and having wine with dinner. But as I understood, the Canadian government doesn’t pay for booze and the officers have to pool their own funds.

San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department are zero tolerance. (they will cite you for sitting on the tubes of your inflatable dinghy). If you are just temporarily anchored or tied up to the bank for lunch, be prudent. You may ultimately prevail, but why go through the hassle. Remember the railroading Bismarck Dinus got on Clear Lake just a couple of years ago.


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

tough call on the 'cup of joe'
snopes.com: Cup of Joe


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I got my anecdote from a review about Daniels that I read in the WSJ. The Snopes explanation seems a little contrived. A contraction of "Java" and "jamoke"? This raises some additional questions like, what is the derivation of “Java” as a slang for coffee? (traditionally, isn’t the most coffee drank in North America from Central and South America? I have heard of the “tea trade” but never “coffee trade” from the far East. And what is a jamoke anyway? Coming from a Navy family, I’m sticking with the o’ Josephus story.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

JimMcGee said:


> There's an interesting undercurrent that runs through this and other threads on this topic -- distrust of law enforcement.
> 
> Most people on this board are law abiding citizens who've never committed a serious crime. Yet many posters are leery of law enforcement.
> 
> ...


Probable reason for this is that law enforcement has gradually changed into a valuable source of revenue enhancement, especially with municipalities now operating with strategic operating deficits. The examples are: 'traffic ticket blitzes', reduction of 'grace' mph over the speed limit, red light cameras, etc. etc. etc. Its not the LEOs causing all this, its their 'employers'. 
The root answer is that increasingly most municipalities consider citizens nothing more than an economic 'prey species'.

My stock answer to a LEO making the claim "that Im just doing my job" is that "you know officer, thats exactly what many of the Nazi Camp guards also stated .... as they were marched up the steps of the gallows".


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

RichH said:


> ........My stock answer to a LEO making the claim "that Im just doing my job" is that "you know officer, thats exactly what many of the Nazi Camp guards also stated .... as they were marched up the steps of the gallows".


Comparing an LEO that is giving a speeding ticket to someone actually speeding, or a summons to someone actually drinking aboard their boat, when there are laws against it, is a rather inappropriate comparison to Nazi war criminals. Come on.


----------



## blutoyz (Oct 28, 2012)

JimMcGee said:


> There's an interesting undercurrent that runs through this and other threads on this topic -- distrust of law enforcement.
> 
> Most people on this board are law abiding citizens who've never committed a serious crime. Yet many posters are leery of law enforcement.
> 
> ...


It is very easy to distrust law enforcement in the police state we now live in. Rules and regulations for everything and armed tax collectors for this revenue source for most municipalities in the northeast make it so.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

RichH said:


> The root answer is that increasingly most municipalities consider citizens nothing more than an economic 'prey species'.


That is increasingly the case in New Jersey. I see a greater police presence on my hour drive to the marina than I did when I worked in a "police state" in Eastern Europe in the 80's.

How pervasive is the overly aggressive attitude among police here?

Last summer we had to take our dinghy to a NJ State Police station. To register a dink in Jersey the state cops have to run the numbers run to confirm it's not stolen. We were both *shocked* and commented on the fact that the officer was normal, even friendly.

But when walking out we encountered a huge trooper, swaggering out in military regalia heading for his boat. He made a *point* of walking in front of us, wouldn't acknowledge our presence and gave off a significant cop attitude. He is now the norm. We wondered how the first guy ever got hired.

Frankly I don't think there is a state cop in Jersey that could pass a drug test. Every one of them is loaded up on steroids - which may have something to do with the aggressive behavior.

I've also noticed that "Protect and Serve" is no longer on the sides of police cars here.


----------



## Familycruisers (Dec 15, 2011)

JimMcGee said:


> That is increasingly the case in New Jersey. I see a greater police presence on my hour drive to the marina than I did when I worked in a real police state in Eastern Europe in the 80's.
> 
> Interestingly I've noticed that "protect and serve" is no longer present on the sides of new police cars.


Thats because the supreme court ruled they are no longer obligated to protect or serve.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Seeing as I've actually (legally) consumed beers issued to me on board USN vessels, I'd have to say it's not actually a dry Navy.
Look it up, sailors are issued a beer ration under very specific circumstances, and a lot of ships carry beer stored in the brig just for those circumstances. 

Mine was off Alexandria Eygpt, while the ship was off-duty, assigned to the task force off Lebanon. At that point it had been 111 days since the crew had touched shore. Individuals had, the crew, no. 

As to the drinking at anchor original purpose of the thread...the simple solution seems to be that as soon as you see the flashing blue light you should immediately drop a anchor and quaff a large dose of Rum. 
Who's to prove you were imbibing before the drop?
Just kidding. 
I can't say I haven't sailed drunk, I can say I won't do it again. 
I consider my boat my home when I'm underway.

Cops don't pursue RV's that are parked (imagine them prowling a RV park looking for open beers)- because they can't. Same principal. It becomes a home when you put it in park as long as it's not on the road (i.e. not in a channel, legal anchorage).


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)

I just looked up laws as I think the OP really hit an interesting topic. Let's face it, sitting on the hook and enjoying a good dinner, with some adult beverage is a wonderful activity. I've always taken the approach that at anchor, this was a "safe" activity even for the captain of the vessel, but I've never wanted to really push the idea to an extreme, keeping the amount consumed very low (mostly because I might have to pull up anchor do to a yahoo swinging into me, or the anchor drags - then I'm the yahoo).

Some digging on my part lead me to another question that is very similar... I know the BAC in PA is .08 for DUI, and they are matching that lock step with BUI (as they should). But there are other CAR laws that I also thought they translated to BOATS.... such as open container laws... Well guess what? NO there is no open container law for boating in PA. Which means the crew can get loaded apparently, as long as the captain isn't. Hmmm... 

I wonder if the PA "intent to drive" law applies to crew that are drinking, which have car keys on their person. HMMM... Fuzzy laws indeed.

Generally speaking, we've had very few issues with lake patrol up our way. The few times I've seen them they basically are just verifying safe boating... and rarely are they overly aggressive with their enforcement. Of course holidays they are everywhere, but then the lake is overrun with people at those times, and it's really necessary.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> Comparing an LEO that is giving a speeding ticket to someone actually speeding, or a summons to someone actually drinking aboard their boat, when there are laws against it, is a rather inappropriate comparison to Nazi war criminals. Come on.


Minne, I get that it's extreme, but I assume Rich is going for shock value.

And not everyone who brushes up against law enforcement is guilty. I have been on the receiving end of a few "fishing expeditions". And my wife and I hardly look "suspicious".


----------



## peoples1234 (Jul 17, 2010)

blutoyz said:


> It is very easy to distrust law enforcement in the police state we now live in. Rules and regulations for everything and armed tax collectors for this revenue source for most municipalities in the northeast make it so.


Exactly, the increased militarization of the police (federal and state) with the "us vs. them" mentality (as well as the separation of people into tax payers versus non taxpayers groups, and referring to everyone who is not walking the thin blue line a "citizen" as if they somehow above that designation, etc). Police are no longer you're friendly neighbor, and they are taught that everyone is an criminal until proven otherwise.

This will only get worse as population continues to grow and the culture continues to shift toward a society being taken care of versus one that takes care of itself.


----------



## Zanshin (Aug 27, 2006)

To put an international perspective on this question, in Germany when a boat is occupied at anchor there needs to be one person licensed to operate said vessel whose blood alcohol level is under the legal maximum aboard the boat. If not, the skipper can be charged. The rationale behind that is that there might be some circumstance that would require the boat to be moved and someone aboard must be sober enough to do so.
While there have been cases where this interpretation of the law has been applied, the German marine police don't go about checking boats in order to enforce this paragraph.


----------



## mark2gmtrans (May 14, 2013)

On boating and drinking:

I think every responsible person here knows it is just plain wrong. I personally do not drink, and if it is my boat I do not allow alcohol on board., My boat, my rules, your boat, your rules.

On why people are suspicious of police and LEO's in general:

I have a pretty good idea of why that is, and I have spoken with my brother, who was a sheriff's deputy for many years, the reason is that the police have become very aggressive about enforcing laws that they interpret and often make up as they go. It has become increasingly prevalent in courts that a person is no longer given any presumption of innocence, and the LEO's from federal agencies are among the worst offenders in this, they are brainwashed into thinking that they are just incapable of making a mistake. The so called war on drugs has fostered an us against them attitude, and they just plain get off on the rush of kicking in doors and seizing personal property. 

This is not going to improve as the federal government continues to grow into an ever more bloated self propelled juggernaut of regulatory power over every aspect of our lives. The sad thing is that the young men and women in law enforcement really started out, for the most part, as wanting to help others, to protect the innocent and stifle the actions of the criminal element in our society. Now they are used as a revenue stream enhancement, and tax collection officers in the form of their fines and fees.

Just a little FYI, every time you see one of those pursuit cars with the laptop, radios, radar, transport cage, and all of the cop goodies, you see $100,000.00 plus of your tax dollars rolling around. When they issue that car to the officer that officer has to bring in enough revenue to pay for it. They do that by fines, fees, and surcharges, and the pressure is incredible on them to perform and pay for that vehicle. The crazy thing is that when they get one of these cars it costs more than the normal cars by more than double the amount, and it takes the money that could be used for salaries out of the budget. The department then cries that they need more of these high priced toys in order to better enforce the law, and also bring in more revenue.

I lived in an area of Houston, TX where the village population was 2800 persons, and there were 30 officers on the payroll, basically one cop for every 100 people. The amount of tickets which were written exceeded a revenue amount of $25,000.00 USD per week! Just plain nuts.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

Just my .02 I don't drink much. For me to be legally drunk I'd have to drink enough to make me fall asleep first! And I limit myself to one beer after a beer can race. (can't be non compliant there!)

All that said I'd just as soon not ever have an interaction w/ a LEO. Many, not all, but enough of them are just thugs w/ a gun and badge. And yes, I've been on the receiving end of their nastiness to know.

Sadly, the days of looking to the Police for help are gone. I don't trust any of them.
Cynical? Maybe. But true.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

This LEO bashing is getting tiresome. There has always been and will always be people that just don't like authority. Nothing new here. For every bad apple, which exist in all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers and sailors, I can find you multiple LEO's that make great sailing buddies, good mothers and fathers and would be a friend to anyone here.

They work for the government in all cases. If you have a beef with the laws themselves, take it up with the people that write them. They also become pretty jaded by the number of public that presume them to be guilty, without having done anything to deserve it, and by the number of criminals they deal with daily. They are lied to about a dozen time per day. Hopefully, their lives are actually in danger less often.

To suggest that the US is a police state is the most ridiculous. It eliminates any constructive critique that may have attached to it. Spend some time on the street of a real police state.


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> This LEO bashing is getting tiresome. There has always been and will always be people that just don't like authority. Nothing new here. For every bad apple, which exist in all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers and sailors, I can find you multiple LEO's that make great sailing buddies, good mothers and fathers and would be a friend to anyone here.
> 
> They work for the government in all cases. If you have a beef with the laws themselves, take it up with the people that write them. They also become pretty jaded by the number of public that presume them to be guilty, without having done anything to deserve it, and by the number of criminals they deal with daily. They are lied to about a dozen time per day. Hopefully, their lives are actually in danger less often.
> 
> To suggest that the US is a police state is the most ridiculous. It eliminates any constructive critique that may have attached to it. Spend some time on the street of a real police state.


Minne I agree that some responses might be LEO bashing.

The thoughtful response is that something *is* going on when this thread has generated six pages of responses in under 24 hours.

Someone felt the need to ask the question "will I be harassed and/or ticketed, perhaps even receive a BUI/DUI if I relax and have a few cocktails after dinner when I'm anchored out". Not playing loud music, not behaving badly, not disturbing others, just having a few drinks aboard.

So far over 1,600 Sailnet members felt this was a real enough concern to read this thread.

It used to be taken for granted that if you were minding your own business and not bothering anyone you had nothing to fear from the police; and no reasonable person would assert all police are bad guys. But something has changed in the way the they interact with the public when so many people express fear and distrust.

That simply wasn't the case in the past.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

Mark, 30 officers for 2800 people is 1 per 93 persons. Still seems like a high ratio, but I don't know what's typical. 

In 40 years of boating, I've never been stopped on the water. My last moving violation/stop in an automobile was 20 years ago. ( deserved). Perhaps in rural america, one has more opportunity to encounter law enforcement. Around here they're usually too busy to bother the average law abiding citizen. In the city I grew up in, you probably needed to kill someone to attract attention. 

Some of the smaller towns do set up regular DUI stops, but if one doesen't drink and drive there's nothing to worry about. If one shows respect, they'll usually get it in return.

I do some part time work at a Football Stadium and am actually quite impressed with the remarkable restraint the various police officers show in dealing with obnoxious drunks.

Maybe it's the way the public interacts with the Police, that's changed ?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Jim,

One thing we can agree on is that the police have absolutely been instructed to crack down on DUI/BUI. When I was a kid, if you were pulled over and found to be drunk, you were as likely to be followed home to be sure you got there. That just isn't allowed and it isn't the LEO's who changed their minds. Our society and government has insisted upon it.

Further to your point, I think LEOs are treated with less respect than when I was a kid. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are the LEOs now in a defensive posture because they feel the criticism before they've done anything? Many posts above paint them all with the same brush. They can feel it.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

IMHP DWI BWI is very widespread here and has only gone down in response to heavy enforcement 

My son is and ADA and they keep DWI arraignments going 7 days a week to keep the jail population from getting out of control over the weekend as its nothing to have 50 something every weekend 

In the past and even now for many people it is very acceptable to ride around and kick back a few drinks and I always see a mind boggling amount of empty's carried back on the mooring launch 

On the other hand we do have several on the water speed traps with wee tiny 5 MPH signs in ODD AREAS and between the CG at Eaton's neck and the 7 different municipal water police it does get a bit much


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

"In May of 2004, Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy Jennifer Fulford-Salvano responded to a 911 call from an 8-year-old boy who said that “strange men” were in his house. He and his sister hid in the garage, and when Fulford-Salvano arrived on the scene, she checked there to make sure the kids were still all right. Unfortunately for the officer, the crooks heard the deputies outside and opened fire on her in the garage. Fulford-Salvano took a total of 10 bullets, including hits to her shooting hand, but she was able to pick up her gun with her other hand and return fire, dropping both robbers."

I bet these kids feel differently about LEOs being steroidal thugs. Thanks for your service, Jennifer.


----------



## mark2gmtrans (May 14, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> This LEO bashing is getting tiresome. There has always been and will always be people that just don't like authority. Nothing new here. For every bad apple, which exist in all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers and sailors, I can find you multiple LEO's that make great sailing buddies, good mothers and fathers and would be a friend to anyone here.
> 
> They work for the government in all cases. If you have a beef with the laws themselves, take it up with the people that write them. They also become pretty jaded by the number of public that presume them to be guilty, without having done anything to deserve it, and by the number of criminals they deal with daily. They are lied to about a dozen time per day. Hopefully, their lives are actually in danger less often.
> 
> To suggest that the US is a police state is the most ridiculous. It eliminates any constructive critique that may have attached to it. Spend some time on the street of a real police state.


I think I can without a doubt say I have spent time in more than one police state. China, East Germany, The former USSR, Venezuela, and a few other dictatorships where everything is heavily controlled by the government. I can say with some authority that each of these places had varying levels of law enforcement presence, in some places more than others, and yet in each case there was something in common with the police here in the USA in today's political and cultural environment, and this is undeniably true. Every policeman in those places would have told you the same thing that law enforcement officials will tell you here, that they are doing everything they do in order to protect the public. I have worked in close cooperation with the police, my brother served as a police and sheriff's deputy, and if you ask him you will find that he will tell you that too many of the younger officers are indoctrinated with the "I am risking my life to protect you " attitude, and not enough are actually concerned with serving the public.

In a recent visit to the Ukraine on business about two years ago I talked with a man who had been a police officer, but left the police force in Kiev because it was not focused on serving the public, but on generating revenue. If that is true in Kiev, and in Hedwig Village, TX and in Big Spring, TX, and also in most other places I have been to in the United States I think it is worthy of comment. At least in speaking about it we bring the actions and attitudes of our public *SERVANTS* to the attention of the public they supposedly are serving. As a tax payer, a citizen, and a member of the community I, as do we all, have the right to make comments about how things have changed for the worst. As a man with several family members who have or are currently working in law enforcement and as a man who has also worked in public safety, I think I have earned the right to say that it is ridiculous to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the pursuit cars, when we would be much better served by spending the money on hiring and training of several more officers so that when they patrol in their normal cop cars equipped with radios and maybe a wireless internet connected laptop, not every high tech device known to man and sold to municipalities for three times the normal rate, that they will be safer because they are in pairs.

We need the police, but they should be more accessible to the public, like those policemen we all knew as kids (the ones of us who are not too young to remember that time) who walked the neighborhood, or patrolled the rural area and were always there to help us when a storm came, or when we had stock loose, or just about anything else. They knew our names, because they were our neighbors. They talked to us with respect and not with disdain. Most important of all they never presumed that everyone was guilty until proven innocent. They would not have thought about setting up a random roadblock to check for drugs or what have you, because you have to have probable cause under the law to stop someone. While there were always crooked cops, they were rare, and you almost never had to be afraid of them hurting you. Now they will use a TAZER on a grandmother.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Mark, are you saying that every single LEO meets your definition and observation? They all presume you are guilty? They all talk to you with disdain! Because, I know first hand that isn't true. In fact, I just asked the one that walked past me if I'm guilty of anything or he plans to speak to me with disdain. He laughed and said he has work to do.


----------



## mark2gmtrans (May 14, 2013)

Tempest said:


> Mark, 30 officers for 2800 people is 1 per 93 persons. Still seems like a high ratio, but I don't know what's typical.
> 
> In 40 years of boating, I've never been stopped on the water. My last moving violation/stop in an automobile was 20 years ago. ( deserved). Perhaps in rural america, one has more opportunity to encounter law enforcement. Around here they're usually too busy to bother the average law abiding citizen. In the city I grew up in, you probably needed to kill someone to attract attention.
> 
> ...


 My bad, I left out a zero in my head or something. I can tell you that the area in question is a 1 mile stretch of I 10 in Harris county, and is surrounded on all four sides by the Houston Police Department's jurisdiction. Each officer writes an average of 10 to 15 tickets per day and they run night court 6 nights a week with several hundred cases heard each week. Most people just pay the fines, and never even go to court.

Just an example, the week that it became legal for them to put up a no cell phone while driving in a school zone sign with the $200.00 fine, they made a school zone for a school three blocks outside their jurisdiction and wrote over 1000 tickets. In one week, on an interstate frontage road on only one side of the highway, because their jurisdiction ends halfway under the bridge. They also stop any vehicles that appear to be doing something suspicious like when I took my maid to the grocery store in the front seat of my BMW, she was a dark skinned Hispanic woman, the officer thought she was black, and I am a white Hispanic person. The stop was allegedly because the officer said I failed to signal coming out of my gate. The only problem was I did, and my gate was a quarter mile north of his jurisdiction. No ticket was written, both of us were made to give them ( three others showed up) our ID and they spent literally thirty minutes asking us, separately about who we were and why we were together. The stories matched, all our documents were in order, and we were finally released after the Sargent warned me not to be driving suspiciously... I was pissed, my maid was just about in tears, and my dinner was late. This is not isolated, it happens every day in cities all across the country and people make all kind of ignorant excuses, but there are none.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I have to say at least here the LEOs PBA is there own worst enemy as they have stood behind some truly horrific high profile behavior that was covered up by far to many people 

The final outcome is still front page news one MANY cases and there is at least ONE ongoing FBI investigation


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> Jim,
> 
> One thing we can agree on is that the police have absolutely been instructed to crack down on DUI/BUI. When I was a kid, if you were pulled over and found to be drunk, you were as likely to be followed home to be sure you got there. That just isn't allowed and it isn't the LEO's who changed their minds. Our society and government has insisted upon it.


I agree there's a need to police BUI. I don't drink when I'm sailing, not because I think one beer would impair me, it's just something I don't do. But I don't think a couple of beers with my steak at anchor is worthy of anyone's attention.

My point is simply that officers should approach the public with respect and professionalism, it's important that they not conduct themselves as being above the law. Perhaps decoupling the revenue from the citations would be a good start towards refocusing officers on public safety and away from revenue generation.


----------



## ftldiver (Sep 9, 2002)

I know 1st hand that once police were allowed to confiscate and keep, or sell vessels and vehicles, the were much more aggressive in this area.

many of the PD departments relied on this income to operate.


but to answer the OP question, I doubt any judge will convict of BWI, if you are at anchor, and have the intention of not leaving until the morning, when sober.

at anchor at 2pm, on a day sailor or skiff, would be much different than a cabin cruiser or large sailboat.


----------



## mark2gmtrans (May 14, 2013)

JimMcGee said:


> I agree there's a need to police BUI. I don't drink when I'm sailing, not because I think one beer would impair me, it's just something I don't do. But I don't think a couple of beers with my steak at anchor is worthy of anyone's attention.
> 
> My point is simply that officers should approach the public with respect and professionalism, it's important that they not conduct themselves as being above the law. Perhaps decoupling the revenue from the citations would be a good start towards refocusing officers on public safety and away from revenue generation.


I would have to agree, if the police and the courts stopped using the fines as a revenue source, and simply did the job they are meant to do of keeping people who break the law in line, then we would not have the issues we have with them.

In all fairness, many times the pressure comes from the political and appointed leadership to generate revenue, and if the officer want to keep his job he has to write the tickets and bring the money in or be fired. My brother left a city police department for a job with a county sheriff's department for that very reason. At the time, and I assume it is still the same, the Attalla County Mississippi Sheriff's department had zero radar guns. Sheriff Lee, who recently died, told me once that they would never have them as long as he was sheriff, and that his job was to catch real criminals, and to assist the public, not set up speed traps to generate money for the county. Now that was a real Sheriff.


----------



## KarlP (Jul 19, 2012)

_A group of state Alcoholic Beverage Control agents clad in plainclothes approached her, suspecting the blue carton of LaCroix sparkling water to be a 12-pack of beer. Police say one of the agents jumped on the hood of her car. She says one drew a gun. Unsure of who they were, Daly tried to flee the darkened parking lot._

Bottled-water purchase leads to night in jail for UVa student - The Daily Progress: News


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

Minnewaska said:


> This LEO bashing is getting tiresome. There has always been and will always be people that just don't like authority. Nothing new here. For every bad apple, which exist in all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers and sailors, I can find you multiple LEO's that make great sailing buddies, good mothers and fathers and would be a friend to anyone here.
> 
> They work for the government in all cases. If you have a beef with the laws themselves, take it up with the people that write them. They also become pretty jaded by the number of public that presume them to be guilty, without having done anything to deserve it, and by the number of criminals they deal with daily. They are lied to about a dozen time per day. Hopefully, their lives are actually in danger less often.
> 
> To suggest that the US is a police state is the most ridiculous. It eliminates any constructive critique that may have attached to it. Spend some time on the street of a real police state.


Okay, these were not Marine Police, but unfortunately THIS is the cause of some of the "bashing".

Felony charges were dropped on Thursday against a 20-year-old University of Virginia student who says she panicked when undercover agents from the state's Alcohol Beverage Control division mistook her water purchase for beer.

According to Charlottesville (Va.) Daily Progress, the student, Elizabeth Daly, was walking to her car on April 11 at approximately 10:15 p.m. with a box of sparkling water, cookie dough and ice cream she had just bought from a local supermarket when the agents-six men and one woman, all in plainclothes-approached suspecting the box, a blue carton of LaCroix sparkling water, to be a 12-pack of beer. One jumped on the hood of her SUV; another pulled out a gun, Daly said, as her roommates seated inside looked on in horror.

"They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform," Daly wrote in an account submitted to the court. "I couldn't put my windows down unless I started my car, and when I started my car they began yelling to not move the car, not to start the car. They began trying to break the windows. My roommates and I were ... terrified."

Daly's roommate in the front passenger seat told her to "go, go, go"-and that's what she did, apparently "grazing" two of the agents in the process.
*The students called 911* as they left the parking lot, police said, and were pulled over by another agent driving a vehicle with lights and sirens, Charlottesville Commonwealth Attorney Dave Chapman told the paper.

Daly apologized when she realized who they were, Chapman said, but agents arrested Daly and charged her with two counts of assaulting a law enforcement officer and one count of eluding police-each carrying a maximum penalty of five years in prison and $2,500 in fines. She spent the night in Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail.

"This has been an extremely trying experience," Daly wrote. "It is something to this day I cannot understand or believe has come to this point."

Either can Chapman.

"It wouldn't be the right thing to do to prosecute this," he said.

Nonetheless, Chapman "stood by the agents' decision to file charges, citing faith in a process that yielded an appropriate resolution."

"You don't know all the facts until you complete the investigation," he said.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Can't you get a DUI if you're sitting in your car, drunk, with the keys in the ignition?"
That will vary with your state laws. But in the more conservative states, even if you are sleeping it off in the back seat with your keys in your pocket, you'll still get some kind of drunk driving ticket. 

DUI, BUI, your state laws will specify and if they are unclear, assume any gray area may be held against you. A reservoir, not being navigable waters connecting to the seas, should be outside USCG jurisidction.


----------



## mr_f (Oct 29, 2011)

I knew a guy in college who was driving drunk one night. He realized part way home that he should not be driving, so he stopped and went to sleep in his car. The cops woke him up a short time later. His car was in the middle of the road, facing the wrong way on a one way street. He didn't get a DUI because he had taken the keys out of the ignition. 

On the other hand, I read about a woman who realized before she left the bar that she shouldn't drive, but her car was somewhere it couldn't stay for the night. She had a friend help her push the car across the road to a different lot. They never turned it on. She got a DUI, because she was steering. 

Can't say I think these laws make a lot of sense.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

sailordave said:


> Okay, these were not Marine Police, but unfortunately THIS is the cause of some of the "bashing". .....


I'm sure we can do this all day. For every anecdotal story of a jerk I can post one about a hero. Just like I did above.

The one story makes them all look bad, but that doesn't mean that are all actually bad. The vast majority are doing an honest job, work hard, would be great friends and are risking their lives on a regular basis. I know more than one that has been shot on duty, although, each lived thankfully. The last, however, will never be the same.

If you turn the tables, think about the anecdotal stories the LEOs can tell about the general public. Liars, thieves, thugs, killers. I suppose both sides are getting in the habit of painting the other with the same brush.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm sure we can do this all day. For every anecdotal story of a jerk I can post one about a hero. Just like I did above.
> 
> The one story makes them all look bad, but that doesn't mean that are all actually bad. The vast majority are doing an honest job, work hard, would be great friends and are risking their lives on a regular basis. I know more than one that has been shot on duty, although, each lived thankfully. The last, however, will never be the same.
> 
> If you turn the tables, think about the anecdotal stories the LEOs can tell about the general public. Liars, thieves, thugs, killers. I suppose both sides are getting in the habit of painting the other with the same brush.


And the point is?

The same could be said about the threads and stories ad nausea concerning CG rescues and boats taking a few incidents, blowing them out of proportion and deciding the " new sailor" of today is less experienced and ill equipped. Meanwhile most boaters are responsible and require no rescue.

It's SN human nature to capture the media interesting story and see that in posts here. Ths is no different, nor is it painting a picture about all LEOs. It's just SN SOP. Carry on


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> And the point is? ....... Carry on


You really have a way with words. An obnoxious way.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> This LEO bashing is getting tiresome. There has always been and will always be people that just don't like authority. Nothing new here.


There's a lot more to it than just not liking authority. Before my time, as it has been told to me, cops were friends in the community. Someone you could trust. Nowadays, that has changed. Perfectly innocent people get nervous around cops. Why is that? For too many cops, we are all guilty until proven innocent. Law enforcement agencies breed this mentality.

In my state (and I am sure others), LEO just started using scanners to read license plates which will tell them if the vehicle registration is attached to someone who shouldn't be driving. They scrutinize 1000s of innocent folks with these gadgets, and then store the data (which is a whole other can of worms). Like I said, guilty until some gadget says we're innocent.

I'm glad you feel comfortable with all of this. I'm sure you're one of those people who say "just don't break the law and you have nothing to worry about." Well, I hope you're never on the wrong end of a LEO inquiry.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

No, I think the fact is there are a significant number of LEO that are just jerks. NOT the majority, but obviously, from the sentiments express in this thread alone, enough to paint LEO's in general in a bad light. 
I have been harassed a couple of times over the years. In *each and every case* I was doing nothing wrong, was not charged, arrested or even ticketed. Just some cop had an attitude and wanted to spray his territory.
And while not ALL have an attitude, even the two detectives that came to my house several years ago to talk to my daughter about a girl she knew who had run away from home had that typical "cop" attitude and posture. You know, we have authority, we're on OFFICIAL business, etc... Small wonder my daughter wanted nothing to do w/ speaking to them. Hell I didn't even like them. (PS. She didn't know anything, but later that week she did get a call from the girl; I promptly relayed the info to the detective.)


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

While I think the ridiculous DUI/BUI laws are an example of our police state in the Nanny Land of NO, I do think twice about having more than a beer or two when at anchor. It's not because of laws that may be in place but because if I had to react in a hurry in certain spots, I certainly would not want to be $h*t faced. It all depends on where you are and what the conditions are. One would hope LE would be smart enough to realize the difference and not just be out to write tickets.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm not going to repeat my points on LEOs. They are above for any that are interested.

Remember, however, that laws are written exclusively by legislators, not LEOs, and every single law enforcement agency reports to one of them. 

If you don't like the laws or how they are enforced, complain to their bosses or vote for someone who will change it.

Cracking down on alcohol consumption on boats is in direct response to legislative insistence.


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

Unhappy to report that my call to the Oregon Marine Board was unanswered. They just ignored me. I'll call back after the Holiday to get an answer. It's unacceptable for a bureaucrat to ignore the paying public's questions. 

Pisses me off. Anyway, I'm going to stay off the river this holiday season. Too many crazies out there.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

carl762 said:


> ...
> 
> Pisses me off. Anyway, I'm going to stay off the river this holiday season. Too many crazies out there.


Just about everyone I know avoids taking their boats out on holidays.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

DRFerron said:


> Just about everyone I know avoids taking their boats out on holidays.


Not me! I do avoid certain destinations that are nuts. However, we've anchored in the Bay and watched five July 4th fireworks shows at the same time surrounding the shoreline. Awesome!!

Plus, they are some of the few weekends that we don't have to get guests back to the dock by Sunday. Relaxing.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Minnewaska said:


> Not me! I do avoid certain destinations that are nuts. However, we've anchored in the Bay and watched five July 4th fireworks shows at the same time surrounding the shoreline. Awesome!!
> 
> ...


That's one of the pluses of my marina. We're right on the bay. Zero protection from weather but the sunsets, no flies and ability to sit in our cockpit or wander the dock watching all the fireworks displays around the bay is worth it.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> You really have a way with words. An obnoxious way.


Stop with the personal stuff. It has become a trend. Feel free to either look past my threads or place me on ignore. You're personal feelings about me and observations do not add to discussion and are inappropriate. Short of that try and stick to the topic. It's not about me...carry on.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> You really have a way with words. An obnoxious way.


BTW

I was agreeing with what you posted about the LEOs. While the media picks out specific cases and blows them out of proportion, the majority of them are upstanding people protecting us. Same with the CG.

It's like a "sport" on here to take an incident or news article and extrapolate it into the norm. Whether its the LEOs or the rescue of a boat offshore. Taking one sample and using to " broad brush" as you stated doesn't make it so.


----------



## Grunthrie (May 2, 2013)

Well, that escalated quickly!


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Grunthrie said:


> Well, that escalated quickly!


Sorry to reply to the comment...but the personal comments are not really germane to the issue.

Back to the OP

As stated most law enforcement officials as well as the CG do the best job possible I believe. In any organization you will have Wyatt Earps who abuse their authority and overstep their job descriptions. They should be dealt with in all cases as it gives a bad name to the majority who protect and rescue us and keep us safe.

Unfortunately the news media picks out the aberrant officials and sensationalizes it. It is up to us to put it into the proper perspective and insure it is not a trend or a culture, and once this is done treat it as it is...a singular incident not indicative of the whole organization. To cast blame on the whole group off the reporting's of a news article or story is not only unfair, its unsubstantiated.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

A musical interlude from RCMP






Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JimMcGee (Jun 23, 2005)

Thought of this thread when I saw this story.

*Women subjected to roadside body cavity search on suspicion they might have been smoking marijuana. 
*
Outrage over highway body cavity search - CNN.com Video

Or this story from Florida 
Woman told to lift bra at traffic stop - CNN.com Video

Think for a minute about these incidents happening to your wife or daughter...


----------



## peoples1234 (Jul 17, 2010)

The "War on Drugs" has been one of the biggest contributors to the schism between the police and the people.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I'd have to think the image shift came in the late 60's when cops were being called up against hippies, druggies, anti-war demonstrators (or patriots, depending on which point of view you took).

That solidified "us vs them" and "pigs" pretty firmly. Shortly after came "the thin blue line" where cops always back up cops and they divide the world into brother officers and ****oles, and that's the exact term they use for anyone who isn't on the force. 

The same thing could be said for both sides: It only takes one bad apple to spoil the reputation of the entire bunch. Cops *know* that only civilians kidnap kids. Civilians *know* that Serpico was real and corruption on the force is common. 

So...why should watercops-vs-sailors be any different? Even the police psychologists will tell you that police entry tests & qualifications come within a very fine line as being the same as thugs and bullies. In theory, the USCG's orientation toward SAR instead of Enforcement made them different. Well...What's that dual mission called again? Jekyll & Hyde?


----------

