first of all as a seamam are you planning on sueing the ship if it was sunk? remember being on the high seas is a risk of your life anyways. a business is a business and you signed onto that life. that would be like you signed sealed and delivered into the army and got sent to the front line. now you panic because you are actually seeing combat. i think you will find this tossed out of court as frivilous. if you ran a business and you found that it saved you money to run that route, don’t you think you would? this kid if scared, should find a different career. but the shipping companies, will not have to pay for this.
I find it hard to believe this seaman was not entirely aware of the piracy risk. Are they contracted? Did he have a choice to sail or not on this route or any particular run? More likely he knowingly accepted the risk and gambled that nothing would happen. Really, how good could the pay be to accept the risks of this job?
Ummm.. Wudchuck… this “Kid” as you called him has 32 years on the water…per the article.
Sounds like he is not a kid, but a man who has a family to support. He will surely return to sea…but likely will turn down any assignments that take him through the waters near Somilia.
Wud obviously didn’t read the entire article. The fact that the crew had been asking for years for improved safety measures and the fact that this type of even has substaintially increased will be enough for this guy to get his money. Odds are it won’t even get to court. I think the government should look in to situations like this more and stop looking at stuff like baseball and a college playoff system. Require stronger security measures for employment. Maybe OSHA should be involved.
The matie says it pretty clear in the article … “he never thought this would happen” … so how does he expect anyone else to? Yes pirates in those waters, but recall when this occurred the vessel was several hundred miles off the coast … at that time it was newsworthy that the pirates were now making such boarding attempts so far off of the cost in their litle skiffs. Ships were giving this area a wide berth … this was unanticipated piracy on the high seas, not in some contested costal waters. I don’t think the seaman 1) has any damages, and 2) probably doesn’t deserve any recovery. Having said that, I am all for blasting all of the pirates off the water … lets get some air cover or better yet, some Q-ships
The US government won’t allow them to have weapons to defend themselves. So how do you “improve safety” from pirates. There is talk that the surviving pirate will also sue.
well, i see that u think i am a young’n…well, i served in the navy for 13 yrs…maritime security is every nations’ responsibility…problem is that the area of ocean so vast, it’s hard to cover…shipping lines used loydds of london to proect the interest of the cargo and business as insurance…same should be for these instances as well…now, as far as him being on the seas, well, he’s been there for a long time and is aware that anything could happen…it’d be like me walking home from my and i have been there for years, but on the way home i got kidnapped – do i sue whom? the city does it best to stop crime but can’t be 100%…the seas are so vast, we can’t protect it…when u look at the industry as a whole, many countries will not allow armed commercial ships into port…are there solutions out there? sure, but is it costly? probably! u have to think of the business as a business, where does profit start and end? i know we can’t put a price on life, but we know that with our soldiers, sailors, marines and airman. what the difference? i think that company looked at all the odds. just because one person spoke or a few, does not mean it wasn’t talked or shared discussion. truly, this guy will spend more money w/the lawyer, especially when it does not go to court.
this is a high-risk job doesn’t mean that there should be no safety precautions taken and everyone who works in this industry should just accept certain death! The risks of this type of job mean there is even MORE reason to conform to safety recommendations. He has a case if it can be shown that management put off compliance with safety recommendations. Nevermind what he thought himself–it is always mangement’s responsibility to keep employees safe. This guy could be the most clueless person in the universe, sharp as a marble. That doesn’t diminish management liability. No layperson could have predicted that a plane would crash into the WTC on 9/11. It was a singular event in history, a lot less common than piracy. And yet many companies now provide emergency kits containing masks with a special gel inside to help avoid inhaling toxic fumes. AIG is one of these companies. Do I think something like 9/11 is going to happen again? In truth, no. But I got 2 words for ya…MANAGEMENT LIABILITY.
If this guy was really looking for money, I think he would want more than $75,000. Surely he thinks his life is worth more than that. It appears he is just trying to get the company’s attention so they will take care of the safety issues.
How many times have you sailed a cargo ship as a part of a crew? Do you do that kind of work on the weekends when not working in your office!? Comparing enlisting in the army to working as a merchant marine is not a fair comparison. Maybe the guy has a point. I am not sure many of us office workers can know a thing about what he is burned up about. He has to work for a living too and he should expect his bosses to do everything in their power to keep the crew safe. Did you even read the whole article? Did you see how much he is suing for? It’s not much. Try to put yourself in the man’s position before you comment you know nothing about.
Trigger here is documented history of safety meeting recommendations and requests for a safer working environment.
Employees and Management on the same ship in the same meetings.
If there is documentation indicating requests went up the chain from the managers to the directors, it will be found in discovery and then the entire system can count on a shake up in regards to ship security in foreign seas as the entire board of directors faces the music from employees AND stockholders.
Quite possible this is the intent in bringing the suit with such a low monetary component.
Personally, I give Maersk 1 chance in 1,000 to get this thrown out.
It was the pirates fault. The shipping company is not allowed to defend itself. All they need is one M16 but they can not have one. He needs to sue the pirate.
Sorry Sailer but you’re wrong (and it’s SailOr by the way). I should ask you to tie me a sheepshank! :)
The shipping company is allowed to deploy security measures such as water cannons, flares, etc. They are also allowed to build safety areas within their vessels and to provide better technology such as personal locator beacons, communication devices, etc.
These things are being implemented by various carriers throughout the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.
The Jones Act
The Jones Act permits injured seamen to seek compensation for injuries resulting from the negligence of their employers or co-workers during the course of their employment on a vessel. As any seaman knows, a ship can be a very dangerous place to work. The Jones Act reflects that reality of maritime work, and a seaman’s employer may be liable for even a small breach of duty which contributes to a seaman’s injury. This is true, even where a seaman performs dangerous work while aware of the high risks involved in the work.
In addition to compensation for injuries cause by negligence, an injured seaman may also make a claim against the vessel’s owner on the basis that the vessel was not seaworthy. An employer may also be liable for failing to provide a seaman with adequate medical care.
Jones Act litigation seeks to recover damages for both past and future economic and non-economic losses.
Unseaworthy Vessels
The owner of a vessel owes a seaman an absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The mere fact that a vessel is not in imminent danger of sinking does not mean that it is “seaworthy”. A vessel is seaworthy if it is reasonably fit for its intended use, is equipped with appropriate equipment and safety gear, has a competent crew, and is a safe place to live and work. Even where a vessel is seaworthy when it leaves shore, it can become unseaworthy on the basis of dangers which arise or are created during its voyage. A claim that a vessel is not seaworthy is often brought at the same time as a Jones Act claim.
Maintenance and Cure
When a seaman is injured on a vessel, regardless of who is at fault, the seaman has a legal right to “maintenance and cure” – benefits similar to those available through traditional “workers’ compensation” law. “Maintenance” takes the form of a daily allowance, usually about $10 to $40 per day, to cover the food and shelter the injured seaman would have received aboard the vessel had the injury not occurred. “Cure” represents the empoyer’s obligation to provide an injured seaman with appropriate medical care, hospitalization, and rehabilitation services, until the injured seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. (Please note that the obligation to provide maintenance and cure ends when the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement, even if the seaman will never fully recover from his injuries, and will never be able to return to work.)
An injured seaman has an absolute right to maintenance and cure, apart from any Jones Act claim. If a seaman has a valid Jones Act claim, the seaman may be able to recover a very substantial award of damages in addition to obtaining full benefits of maintenance and cure.
Maritime workers who are not seamen may be eligible for compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act.
Under certain circumstances, such as when a seaman’s injury is caused by an employee of an independent contractor aboard a vessel, it may be possible to pursue a cause of action against that independent contractor in addition to the Jones Act claim. A qualified attorney will help an injured seaman identify all possible sources of recovery.
well, if you have informed us of the rights, sounds like he will not get any at all…afterall, he was not injured!
they were told where to go for protection as they did! …. so where’s the issue?
sounds to me like someone just wants to put a name out on the board and not take responsibility of knowing the risk of being a seaman… of course the true act of the jones act is basic hospital care
Let’s face it: He
hired a liar…er- I mean lawyer and the shyster says, ” I smell gelt”..Lets go for it, kaaka !”
Look guys: -whether it’s the merchant of venice or his buddy, Madoff..-I mean really..has ANYTHING changed in the last 2000 years w/those peeps
Gee MLG, thanks for the spell check but I meant to spell it that way. Sorry you did no get it. Lets see, a pressure washer against machines guns. Wow, thats an even fight. Until they allow these ships to seriously defend themselves, they are sitting ducks. When the surviving pirate sues will you support that as well?
Actually, I am not certain how “Injury” is defined within the law, but it’s highly likely that Injury might include emotional distress etc. Injuries aren’t always scrapes and scratches. I’m sure this guy and his mates suffered plenty of emotional distress, causing him to not not want to return to the only work he has ever known, therefore causing loss of future earnings. Again, if there is evidence that management did not follow through with recommendations over a period of time, he has a case. Cut the guy some slack for goodness sake. If it turns out to be frivolous, it’ll be thrown out real quick anyway. You shouldn’t judge a guy you don’t even know just because he is filing a lawsuit. You have no idea what he may or may not have suffered.
This girly man and his 20 some crew members should be ashamed they allowed a handfull of toothless, poorly armed, young punks to takeover the ship in the first place. They should have met them coming over the rail with baseball bats. Nobody forced this guy to be onboard for all those years and he knew the risks. Finally, he’s hitting retirement age the work is probably too tough for him. He hired a scheister attorney to take this pathetic excuse for a case to make a quick buck for retirement. Let’s hope he gets nothing.
Sorry SailEr, didn’t mean to scratch a hairy nerve.
Naturally, I wouldn’t support a pirate suit………I’m too skinny!
Seriously, there is negligence if the allegations are true. Allegations being the request for various safety items including counter-boarding technologies.
If it’s verifiable that the requests were made and either denied or left on the back burner, Maersk will either sink at trial or swim through settlement.
Imagine a cop not being handed a BPV with the explanation that it doesn’t protect against a head shot or a high powered rifle round.
There is no middle ground here for your argument; it has no bearing whatsoever as it is not up to you or I or a court of law to determine the safety measures available for use under the law are adequate in the face of the risks.
The only bearing here is whether or not there are enhanced safety meaures available and if requests for those measures weren’t heeded.
Don’t really care if you like it or not. The reality here is that Maersk had better hope for a quick settlement with a successful gag order attached.
After that, regardless of efficacy, they need to embrace whatever available countermeasures exist on a go foward basis.
Unless you stay in international waters and never enter the boundries of any country… I guess you could be armed to the gills – Of course, then there’s that whole mutiny on the Bounty thinger you have to contend with if the natives get restless… (1935…Fletcher Christian…but that’s another story)
What country is going to allow any ‘ole vessel enter it’s waters with enough fire power to take out another ship? If I’m not mistaken… aside from a sanctioned military vessel, who I’m sure has to have permission to use the ports (the Cole comes to mind…)you’d be hard pressed to complete the paperwork in this century…
Piracy on the high seas isn’t new – and I don’t mean a couple hundred years ago… I’m talking about already 16 reports in 2009 alone – Check out this website to put things into perspective:
Unless the shipping companies have armed escorts the idea that this is going to get better by suing your employer (by the way…Mr Hicks… dont try to get another job any time soon)
It’s a global issue – not just one company in the US…
Crews need to start shooting these pirates out of the water and maybe they’d think twice about their career path. Who would know it ever happened anyway? “Dead men tell no tales.” There’s entirely too much PC being given to these pieces of human garbage. They forfeit any rights they might have when they attempt to illegally board a ship in international waters and steal it. Personlly, I’d recommend a flame thrower. In the alterantive, a nice .50 calibre machine gun would eliminate the threat long before it reached the ship.
I think that there was a similar issue in America’s history. You’ve heard it before. “Millions for Defense but not one cent for tribute”. I agree with arming and training the crew, using preventive measures like barbed wire and I’ll add a “no enter zone” to the list. While in international waters. No unauthorized vessel should be allowed to approach within 300 yards of our merchant ships.
The problem is you can have all the laws you want but these idiots could care less. The ONLY way to get a point across is to speak to them in the only language they understand: VIOLENT DEFENSE.
Nobody is going to enforce anything without the usual bullcrap about investigations and witnesses. There aren’t any 300 miles out to sea. These punks perceive no negative consequence to their actions. To the contrary, the talking heads in the suits have reinforced their behavior by kissed their sorry a sses and paying a ransom. Instead, an international Delta Force should enter the port where the ships are being held, “eliminate” the pirates who are holding them, and release the ships. Then, for good measure, they wait for the other pirate heroes to come home and you eliminate them too. Problem solved.
Hey, if we’re going to open it up and tell the world our ships WILL be arriving fully armed, I’m absolutely all for it!
Heck, I’d arm every ship with a couple of SeaWhiz and a truckload of grenade launchers. Believe me, my home is the last one you’d ever want to try to burglarize (don’t worry, I live in a state with a tried and tested Castle Doctrine FIRMLY in place).
On the othere side, people here have scoffed at the water cannons but I have to reiterate they are quite effective.
Either remote controlled or fully automated, all you need to do is fortify a place for the crew to congregate and you don’t have to worry about anybody taking a bullet and those 105lbs pirates from Somolia can get re-introduced to the sea at better than 30 miles per hour from roughly 100′ up in the air.
I honestly don’t see a problem with that. Just look at the airlines with the fortified cabins.
Those boats are pretty darned big but the crews are tiny to say the least. It would be nothing to fortify the wheelhouse, set up the automated cannons with some barbed wire thrown in just for fun and let the pirates enjoy some quality time until the navy arrive.
Dread dreads people who lack the backbone to stand up to thugs and punks who have no respect for the rights and property of others. You don’t negotiate with terrorists or pirates.
Management Liability would like to fortify a room on the ship, but safe rooms don’t stand up to RPG’s very well. It’s best to keep the pirates off the ship in the 1st place. Water cannons might be effective, but the cruise ships have been successfully uses “sound cannons” for a couple of years now and they are a easier to aim an hit what your aiming at.
first of all as a seamam are you planning on sueing the ship if it was sunk? remember being on the high seas is a risk of your life anyways. a business is a business and you signed onto that life. that would be like you signed sealed and delivered into the army and got sent to the front line. now you panic because you are actually seeing combat. i think you will find this tossed out of court as frivilous. if you ran a business and you found that it saved you money to run that route, don’t you think you would? this kid if scared, should find a different career. but the shipping companies, will not have to pay for this.
I find it hard to believe this seaman was not entirely aware of the piracy risk. Are they contracted? Did he have a choice to sail or not on this route or any particular run? More likely he knowingly accepted the risk and gambled that nothing would happen. Really, how good could the pay be to accept the risks of this job?
Ummm.. Wudchuck… this “Kid” as you called him has 32 years on the water…per the article.
Sounds like he is not a kid, but a man who has a family to support. He will surely return to sea…but likely will turn down any assignments that take him through the waters near Somilia.
Arggggggggggggggggg matie, it is the risk of the job. And by the way, Wudchuck is 97 years old so this is a kid to him! Only joking wudie
Wud obviously didn’t read the entire article. The fact that the crew had been asking for years for improved safety measures and the fact that this type of even has substaintially increased will be enough for this guy to get his money. Odds are it won’t even get to court. I think the government should look in to situations like this more and stop looking at stuff like baseball and a college playoff system. Require stronger security measures for employment. Maybe OSHA should be involved.
The matie says it pretty clear in the article … “he never thought this would happen” … so how does he expect anyone else to? Yes pirates in those waters, but recall when this occurred the vessel was several hundred miles off the coast … at that time it was newsworthy that the pirates were now making such boarding attempts so far off of the cost in their litle skiffs. Ships were giving this area a wide berth … this was unanticipated piracy on the high seas, not in some contested costal waters. I don’t think the seaman 1) has any damages, and 2) probably doesn’t deserve any recovery. Having said that, I am all for blasting all of the pirates off the water … lets get some air cover or better yet, some Q-ships
The US government won’t allow them to have weapons to defend themselves. So how do you “improve safety” from pirates. There is talk that the surviving pirate will also sue.
I hear Cunard Lines is always looking for cooks…………….
well, i see that u think i am a young’n…well, i served in the navy for 13 yrs…maritime security is every nations’ responsibility…problem is that the area of ocean so vast, it’s hard to cover…shipping lines used loydds of london to proect the interest of the cargo and business as insurance…same should be for these instances as well…now, as far as him being on the seas, well, he’s been there for a long time and is aware that anything could happen…it’d be like me walking home from my and i have been there for years, but on the way home i got kidnapped – do i sue whom? the city does it best to stop crime but can’t be 100%…the seas are so vast, we can’t protect it…when u look at the industry as a whole, many countries will not allow armed commercial ships into port…are there solutions out there? sure, but is it costly? probably! u have to think of the business as a business, where does profit start and end? i know we can’t put a price on life, but we know that with our soldiers, sailors, marines and airman. what the difference? i think that company looked at all the odds. just because one person spoke or a few, does not mean it wasn’t talked or shared discussion. truly, this guy will spend more money w/the lawyer, especially when it does not go to court.
this is a high-risk job doesn’t mean that there should be no safety precautions taken and everyone who works in this industry should just accept certain death! The risks of this type of job mean there is even MORE reason to conform to safety recommendations. He has a case if it can be shown that management put off compliance with safety recommendations. Nevermind what he thought himself–it is always mangement’s responsibility to keep employees safe. This guy could be the most clueless person in the universe, sharp as a marble. That doesn’t diminish management liability. No layperson could have predicted that a plane would crash into the WTC on 9/11. It was a singular event in history, a lot less common than piracy. And yet many companies now provide emergency kits containing masks with a special gel inside to help avoid inhaling toxic fumes. AIG is one of these companies. Do I think something like 9/11 is going to happen again? In truth, no. But I got 2 words for ya…MANAGEMENT LIABILITY.
If this guy was really looking for money, I think he would want more than $75,000. Surely he thinks his life is worth more than that. It appears he is just trying to get the company’s attention so they will take care of the safety issues.
How many times have you sailed a cargo ship as a part of a crew? Do you do that kind of work on the weekends when not working in your office!? Comparing enlisting in the army to working as a merchant marine is not a fair comparison. Maybe the guy has a point. I am not sure many of us office workers can know a thing about what he is burned up about. He has to work for a living too and he should expect his bosses to do everything in their power to keep the crew safe. Did you even read the whole article? Did you see how much he is suing for? It’s not much. Try to put yourself in the man’s position before you comment you know nothing about.
Shaking my head at WUD……
Trigger here is documented history of safety meeting recommendations and requests for a safer working environment.
Employees and Management on the same ship in the same meetings.
If there is documentation indicating requests went up the chain from the managers to the directors, it will be found in discovery and then the entire system can count on a shake up in regards to ship security in foreign seas as the entire board of directors faces the music from employees AND stockholders.
Quite possible this is the intent in bringing the suit with such a low monetary component.
Personally, I give Maersk 1 chance in 1,000 to get this thrown out.
It was the pirates fault. The shipping company is not allowed to defend itself. All they need is one M16 but they can not have one. He needs to sue the pirate.
The $75,000 is a minimum amount that is required to be listed in the intitial lawsuit. It is just basically placeholding language.
Rest assured, this guy has his hand out for much more than $75,000.
Who is the real pirate in this incident?
Sorry Sailer but you’re wrong (and it’s SailOr by the way). I should ask you to tie me a sheepshank! :)
The shipping company is allowed to deploy security measures such as water cannons, flares, etc. They are also allowed to build safety areas within their vessels and to provide better technology such as personal locator beacons, communication devices, etc.
These things are being implemented by various carriers throughout the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.
Any one ever hear of:
The Jones Act
The Jones Act permits injured seamen to seek compensation for injuries resulting from the negligence of their employers or co-workers during the course of their employment on a vessel. As any seaman knows, a ship can be a very dangerous place to work. The Jones Act reflects that reality of maritime work, and a seaman’s employer may be liable for even a small breach of duty which contributes to a seaman’s injury. This is true, even where a seaman performs dangerous work while aware of the high risks involved in the work.
In addition to compensation for injuries cause by negligence, an injured seaman may also make a claim against the vessel’s owner on the basis that the vessel was not seaworthy. An employer may also be liable for failing to provide a seaman with adequate medical care.
Jones Act litigation seeks to recover damages for both past and future economic and non-economic losses.
Unseaworthy Vessels
The owner of a vessel owes a seaman an absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The mere fact that a vessel is not in imminent danger of sinking does not mean that it is “seaworthy”. A vessel is seaworthy if it is reasonably fit for its intended use, is equipped with appropriate equipment and safety gear, has a competent crew, and is a safe place to live and work. Even where a vessel is seaworthy when it leaves shore, it can become unseaworthy on the basis of dangers which arise or are created during its voyage. A claim that a vessel is not seaworthy is often brought at the same time as a Jones Act claim.
Maintenance and Cure
When a seaman is injured on a vessel, regardless of who is at fault, the seaman has a legal right to “maintenance and cure” – benefits similar to those available through traditional “workers’ compensation” law. “Maintenance” takes the form of a daily allowance, usually about $10 to $40 per day, to cover the food and shelter the injured seaman would have received aboard the vessel had the injury not occurred. “Cure” represents the empoyer’s obligation to provide an injured seaman with appropriate medical care, hospitalization, and rehabilitation services, until the injured seaman reaches maximum medical improvement. (Please note that the obligation to provide maintenance and cure ends when the seaman reaches maximum medical improvement, even if the seaman will never fully recover from his injuries, and will never be able to return to work.)
An injured seaman has an absolute right to maintenance and cure, apart from any Jones Act claim. If a seaman has a valid Jones Act claim, the seaman may be able to recover a very substantial award of damages in addition to obtaining full benefits of maintenance and cure.
Maritime workers who are not seamen may be eligible for compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act.
Under certain circumstances, such as when a seaman’s injury is caused by an employee of an independent contractor aboard a vessel, it may be possible to pursue a cause of action against that independent contractor in addition to the Jones Act claim. A qualified attorney will help an injured seaman identify all possible sources of recovery.
well, if you have informed us of the rights, sounds like he will not get any at all…afterall, he was not injured!
they were told where to go for protection as they did! …. so where’s the issue?
sounds to me like someone just wants to put a name out on the board and not take responsibility of knowing the risk of being a seaman… of course the true act of the jones act is basic hospital care
Let’s face it: He
hired a liar…er- I mean lawyer and the shyster says, ” I smell gelt”..Lets go for it, kaaka !”
Look guys: -whether it’s the merchant of venice or his buddy, Madoff..-I mean really..has ANYTHING changed in the last 2000 years w/those peeps
Gee MLG, thanks for the spell check but I meant to spell it that way. Sorry you did no get it. Lets see, a pressure washer against machines guns. Wow, thats an even fight. Until they allow these ships to seriously defend themselves, they are sitting ducks. When the surviving pirate sues will you support that as well?
Actually, I am not certain how “Injury” is defined within the law, but it’s highly likely that Injury might include emotional distress etc. Injuries aren’t always scrapes and scratches. I’m sure this guy and his mates suffered plenty of emotional distress, causing him to not not want to return to the only work he has ever known, therefore causing loss of future earnings. Again, if there is evidence that management did not follow through with recommendations over a period of time, he has a case. Cut the guy some slack for goodness sake. If it turns out to be frivolous, it’ll be thrown out real quick anyway. You shouldn’t judge a guy you don’t even know just because he is filing a lawsuit. You have no idea what he may or may not have suffered.
Hey, I kicked some pretty good butt as the ship’s cook. Don’t these people ever go to the movies???
This girly man and his 20 some crew members should be ashamed they allowed a handfull of toothless, poorly armed, young punks to takeover the ship in the first place. They should have met them coming over the rail with baseball bats. Nobody forced this guy to be onboard for all those years and he knew the risks. Finally, he’s hitting retirement age the work is probably too tough for him. He hired a scheister attorney to take this pathetic excuse for a case to make a quick buck for retirement. Let’s hope he gets nothing.
Sorry SailEr, didn’t mean to scratch a hairy nerve.
Naturally, I wouldn’t support a pirate suit………I’m too skinny!
Seriously, there is negligence if the allegations are true. Allegations being the request for various safety items including counter-boarding technologies.
If it’s verifiable that the requests were made and either denied or left on the back burner, Maersk will either sink at trial or swim through settlement.
Imagine a cop not being handed a BPV with the explanation that it doesn’t protect against a head shot or a high powered rifle round.
There is no middle ground here for your argument; it has no bearing whatsoever as it is not up to you or I or a court of law to determine the safety measures available for use under the law are adequate in the face of the risks.
The only bearing here is whether or not there are enhanced safety meaures available and if requests for those measures weren’t heeded.
Don’t really care if you like it or not. The reality here is that Maersk had better hope for a quick settlement with a successful gag order attached.
After that, regardless of efficacy, they need to embrace whatever available countermeasures exist on a go foward basis.
I’m sorry… Maybe I’m just a country bumpkin…
Unless you stay in international waters and never enter the boundries of any country… I guess you could be armed to the gills – Of course, then there’s that whole mutiny on the Bounty thinger you have to contend with if the natives get restless… (1935…Fletcher Christian…but that’s another story)
What country is going to allow any ‘ole vessel enter it’s waters with enough fire power to take out another ship? If I’m not mistaken… aside from a sanctioned military vessel, who I’m sure has to have permission to use the ports (the Cole comes to mind…)you’d be hard pressed to complete the paperwork in this century…
Piracy on the high seas isn’t new – and I don’t mean a couple hundred years ago… I’m talking about already 16 reports in 2009 alone – Check out this website to put things into perspective:
http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com_fabrik&view=visualization&controller=visualization.googlemap&Itemid=89
Unless the shipping companies have armed escorts the idea that this is going to get better by suing your employer (by the way…Mr Hicks… dont try to get another job any time soon)
It’s a global issue – not just one company in the US…
‘Nuf said…I’m gonna go count my booty…
Crews need to start shooting these pirates out of the water and maybe they’d think twice about their career path. Who would know it ever happened anyway? “Dead men tell no tales.” There’s entirely too much PC being given to these pieces of human garbage. They forfeit any rights they might have when they attempt to illegally board a ship in international waters and steal it. Personlly, I’d recommend a flame thrower. In the alterantive, a nice .50 calibre machine gun would eliminate the threat long before it reached the ship.
I think that there was a similar issue in America’s history. You’ve heard it before. “Millions for Defense but not one cent for tribute”. I agree with arming and training the crew, using preventive measures like barbed wire and I’ll add a “no enter zone” to the list. While in international waters. No unauthorized vessel should be allowed to approach within 300 yards of our merchant ships.
The problem is you can have all the laws you want but these idiots could care less. The ONLY way to get a point across is to speak to them in the only language they understand: VIOLENT DEFENSE.
Nobody is going to enforce anything without the usual bullcrap about investigations and witnesses. There aren’t any 300 miles out to sea. These punks perceive no negative consequence to their actions. To the contrary, the talking heads in the suits have reinforced their behavior by kissed their sorry a sses and paying a ransom. Instead, an international Delta Force should enter the port where the ships are being held, “eliminate” the pirates who are holding them, and release the ships. Then, for good measure, they wait for the other pirate heroes to come home and you eliminate them too. Problem solved.
Must agree w/Dread…..this guy is an old scumbag looking for retirement money.
Hey, if we’re going to open it up and tell the world our ships WILL be arriving fully armed, I’m absolutely all for it!
Heck, I’d arm every ship with a couple of SeaWhiz and a truckload of grenade launchers. Believe me, my home is the last one you’d ever want to try to burglarize (don’t worry, I live in a state with a tried and tested Castle Doctrine FIRMLY in place).
On the othere side, people here have scoffed at the water cannons but I have to reiterate they are quite effective.
Either remote controlled or fully automated, all you need to do is fortify a place for the crew to congregate and you don’t have to worry about anybody taking a bullet and those 105lbs pirates from Somolia can get re-introduced to the sea at better than 30 miles per hour from roughly 100′ up in the air.
I honestly don’t see a problem with that. Just look at the airlines with the fortified cabins.
Those boats are pretty darned big but the crews are tiny to say the least. It would be nothing to fortify the wheelhouse, set up the automated cannons with some barbed wire thrown in just for fun and let the pirates enjoy some quality time until the navy arrive.
Couldn’t agree more Dan. These people wouldnt even acknowledge a new law. I would blow them to hell and gone.
I dread Dread!
Dread dreads people who lack the backbone to stand up to thugs and punks who have no respect for the rights and property of others. You don’t negotiate with terrorists or pirates.
Yes you do! It’s called CHANGE!!!
Management Liability would like to fortify a room on the ship, but safe rooms don’t stand up to RPG’s very well. It’s best to keep the pirates off the ship in the 1st place. Water cannons might be effective, but the cruise ships have been successfully uses “sound cannons” for a couple of years now and they are a easier to aim an hit what your aiming at.
Did anyone see the captain’s comments about keeping pirates at bay? There seems to be a familiar chord here.