What is the legal justification for this?
I don’t understand it either… He’s obviously nuts, but that’s his life and he should be able to choose to do what he wishes to. Doesn’t matter on law. Most of the laws is just jurisdictional bullshit anyway. You don’t need to have laws to know what’s good or bad. Every decent moral ethic human being knows what’s good or bad.
This is like the third time they have had to rescue him, it’s a waste of tax payer money.
So don’t rescue him then? He knows it’s a stupid idea, let him take his own risk.
Except for humans who are mentally unwell and might cause damage to others or their property which is why detaining mentally unwell people and getting them help before they can hurt themselves is important.
Would you let a child crawl into a washing machine?
I don’t want to be cruel but natural selection has its meaning. We as a society are exaggerating helping and healing some individuals who should rather be alone somewhere where they can live peacefuly or weirdly without depleting our resources. It is already out-of control and will end by the end of our civilization. It’s inevitable.
Child is a child and should be watched and teached but severely mentally ill individual cannot be integrated. And if someone wants to die on the see, just fucking let him.
The part where upon being stopped by the Coast Guard - he threatened to kill himself and that he had a bomb. Also his device is not seaworthy and they would be dispatched to find him anyway when he dissapears because that’s what they have to do.
I didn’t know you needed to have a seaworthy device to sail on open waters.
Hazard to other traffic. If you cant steer, dont have lights, dont have a radio, and dont have a beacon or radar reflector, you’re being a pain in the ass for everyone else on the high seas.
Just like how a car needs to have a minimum standard of roadworthiness to drive on public roads
“He is now facing federal charges of obstruction of a boarding, and violation of a Captain of the Port order.”
