Should They Board, or Shouldn't they?

[longcast]

I admit, the videos were disturbing. I assumed the question "to board or not" was referring to on the water.

Exactly.......................and then all of a sudden it was "about" people getting pulled over in cars for all different reasons. I refrained from chiming in at the time.

 

[Avenger]

Here we go. Another narcissist who thinks the world owes him an explanation if they disagree with him.

Turned a simple thread into yet another political pissing match. Same old, same old.

Narcissism has nothing to do with it. It's simply that if you're going to offer your opinions, political or otherwise you should be able to back up your argument.

And, I'm sorry you don't like it, but the entire concept is inherently political. It deals with your constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The point of bringing up cars and homes is because law enforcement is not allowed to do to there what they do on the water. Different rules apply, and that's simply wrong.

What I'm trying to explain is why people shouldn't be okay it. You used the words of one of the most totalitarian regimes to ever exist to rationalize your civil rights being violated and I'm not sure why you're mad at me for pointing out the broader context of why it's to your detriment.

 

[george]

Here we go. Another narcissist who thinks the world owes him an explanation if they disagree with him.

Turned a simple thread into yet another political pissing match. Same old, same old.

This subject invites politics. There's just no way around it.

 

[OVERBORED]

"The authority to stop and board vessels has deep historical roots and is presumed constitutional due to its origin in the actions of the first Congress."

"While the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, the Constitution provides for federal jurisdiction over admiralty cases, and courts have recognized exceptions to warrant requirements for border and functional border searches, such as those on vessels. "

 

[Avenger]

Now was that so hard?

So, you've covered the feds and Coast Guard.

I still don't believe it applies to the local fish police.

 

[BoatGuy]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

One time I lived in Floral Park, and with my friend, we went to Gary’s Gym in Queens. It the same one that Lou Ferrigno was lifting at in Pumping Iron. But I digress…

Leaving the gym, I stopped at a red light. The car behind me beeped his horn. Then four Policemen jumped out, hands on their guns and told us “not to move”. My friend said to “listen and not to move too fast. We must fit a description of someone.” A cop jumped in my back seat and the other three surrounded the car. Long story short, they let us go. That in my opinion is unreasonable.

I just was fishing on Wednesday on the south shore. I saw the boat heading our way and told my friend that we were going to get boarded. The officer came on board and checked the hatches for illegal fish. He asked for the usual, life preservers, throwable cushion, fire extinguisher, etc. He spotted my cooler in the cabin and asked if it had fish. I told him. “No, just drinks. But your welcome to search it.” He said “No”, thanked us and left. The whole process took around 4 minutes. It didn’t ruin our day and on an interesting note, my friend thanked him for being quick and polite.

I think we forget that the fisherman on this board are much more knowledgeable than most. Go up on any dock chat with the fisherpersons and look in their buckets.

Compared to the search above, this is reasonable. I have had a boat since I was 18 years old. I’m now 71. I think including Wednesday boarding, there have been 4 boarding and searches. Not unreasonable. I meant to ask the officer how many boats have violations. The answer would have been interesting.