Animal Planet Whale Wars

[Jeffrox]

Things could be different in your state court or federal court. Remember in Louisiana a guy got away whith shooting to death a trick-or-treater that scard him and didn't know what freeze meant.
DEADLY FORCE
An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in self-defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens.
During the twelfth century, the <a class="ilnk" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkT extForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/common-law" target="_top]<font color="#003399]common law</font>[/URL] allowed the police to use deadly force if they needed it to capture a <a class="ilnk" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkT extForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/felony" target="_top]<font color="#003399]felony </font>[/URL]suspect, regardless of the circumstances. At that time, felonies were not as common as they are now and were usually punishable by death. Also, law officers had a more difficult time capturing suspects because they did not have the technology and weaponry that are present in today's world. In modern times, the courts have restricted the use of deadly force to certain, dangerous situations.
In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot and kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is <a class="ilnk" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkT extForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/reasonable" target="_top]<font color="#003399]reasonable</font>[/URL] is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.
The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The <a class="ilnk" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkT extForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-iv-to-the-u-s-constitution" target="_top]<font color="#003399]Fourth Amendment</font>[/URL] protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a search and seizure is reasonable if it is based on <a class="ilnk" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkT extForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/probable-cause" target="_top]<font color="#003399]probable cause</font>[/URL] and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a <a class="ilnk" onclick="assignParam('navinfo','method|4'+getLinkT extForCookie(this));" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/wrongful-death-claim" target="_top]<font color="#003399]wrongful death </font>[/URL]lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.
When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice Byron R. White, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.
This was demonstrated in the Michigan case of People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990), where the defendant shot and killed a suspected felon who was fleeing the scene of the crime. The Michigan supreme court ruled that Archie L. Couch did not have the right to use deadly force against the suspected felon because the suspect did not pose a threat of injury or death to Couch.

[seadog!]

I don't think any of that applies. Sea Sheperd is acting on the High Seas, Piracy laws are what would/should be considered.

[EbbTide]

So if the liberal scumbag Green Piece of sheet had a slip and fall and fell overboard...? Sheet happens!

[redkorn]

I still haven't forgiven the Japanese for Pearl Harbor. If this guy Watson is harassing the Japs for illegal whaling in a whale sanctuary then I'm all for it. They (the Japs) are sneaky and underhanded and deserve what they are getting.

[seadog!]

The whaling is legal.

[TheGreenHorn]

"The whaling is legal." But man is it tasty......
<img alt="" style="width: 343px; height: 456px;" src="http://www.stippy.com/wp/wp-content/zuploads/2006/12/minke-whale-meat-big.jpg" />

[redkorn]

They set their own "scientific" quotas, but the IWC still has a international ban on commercial whaling.

[seadog!]

Canada, some Caribbean countries, The Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia and the United States also allow whaling.

[Jemplayer]

I watched the first episode and laughed the whole way through. Its the best comedy on right now, one of those shows you love to hate. I mean really? Your going to allow cameras on board to recored your illegal activities? And were does that Whatson guy get off calling him self a captain? I think we can all agree that the most important responsibilites as a captain is insuring the safty of your crew and vessel in that order, none of which he shows.

Its only a matter of time before they get themselves killed, and with all of them claming that they're willing to die to save a whales life. I say that the japanese take them up on it and see how far they're willing to go.

[redkorn]

Watson reminds me of President Bush.

[CMA_Decky]

I like the preview for the next episode. The way it looks they're trying to covertly sneak up on a whaler at night with they're lights off. For some reason they launch the RHIB and promptly lose contact with it. I'm not sure the Japanese will have to do anything about it, I think they'll kill themselves first.

[Capt_Anonymous]

They're using strategery, just like Dubya.

[New3M]

Well, thanks to Comcast On Demand, I just had the opportunity to watch the first 2 episodes of this ridiculous show. I guess you have to give them credit for being devout to their cause (like only eating vegan food onboard), but watching them lose one of their RHIBs over the side with 5 people in it is nuts. The Bosun blames the 1st Mate for not attaching the sea painter (which he did not), the 1st Mate says he was holding onto the painter the whole time (which he was), and the Captain blames the Bosun for loading up the boat before lowering it down to the water. Shouldn't everybody know the procedures for lowering that boat into the water? I saw the 1st Mate holding the boat at the gunwhale and said "Everybody get in!" Supposedly this guy has worked with the Captain for 15 years - you would think he would know the procedure for lowering the boat. Shouldn't the Captain be watching this whole operation?? And they launched it with the ship moving...I know the boats are designed to be launched while the ship is moving, but it looked to be going a little quick. I thought (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the top speed for launching a Fast Rescue Boat was somewhere around 5 knots, and even going that fast was doing it dangerously. I've seen a single point lift boat launch at 3 knots, and it looked pretty sketchy. Then all of these people are in the freezing water, and the Captain looks like he's unsure of what to do - do I turn the ship or back it? Finally the communication officer uses the line throwing gun and shoots a line at the boat, and some poor guy has to go swimming for it.
Then in the second episode, they actually try (twice) to foul the prop of one of these huge whaling ships. Failed both times, but how reckless is that? Then they proceed to put two of their crew members onto the whaling ship, and they're taken hostage. Gee whiz - who would have thought? I can't wait to see what happens next...maybe they'll try ramming the whaling ship at flank speed to see if they can slow down the whaling operations.
I'm all for protecting the whales, but this guy is an idiot.

[seadog!]

Sea Shepherd claims to have sunk ten whaling ships since 1979, referring to these ships as "<a class="mw-redirect" title="Pirate" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate]pirates[/URL]".<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-23]<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd#cite_note-23]<span>[</span>24<span>]</span>[/URL]</sup> The claimed attacks include:

• 1979 &ndash; the whaler Sierra rammed and sunk in Portugal;
• 1980 &ndash; the whalers Isba I and Isba II sunk in Vigo, Spain;
• 1980 &ndash; the whalers Susan and Theresa sunk in South Africa;
• 1986 &ndash; the whaling ships <a title="1986 Hvalur sinkings" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Hvalur_sinkings]Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7[/URL] sunk in Iceland;
• 1992 &ndash; the whaler Nybraena sunk in Norway;
• 1994 &ndash; the whaler Senet sunk in Norway;
• 1998 &ndash; the whaler Morild sunk in Norway.

From Wikipedia

[Tim]

^^^^^^ Any loss of HUMAN life????

[Squid123]

An interesting maritime article on the reverse side of these environmental eco-terrorist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

Gotta respect the frogs on this one!

[Squid123]

actually I forgot to note that someone did get killed on the Greenpeace vessel but it shows the absurdity of these reckless and unsafe actions. It's important to disagree from time to time but not to such extremes

[trekleader]

Tim: Sea Shepherd has never caused the loss of any Human life. The sinkings are done when the vessels are at dock; essentially what happens is, they will sneak aboard, look around, and if the vessel is unoccupied, they'll scuttle her, and they sink at dock. They have stories of some other vessels at the same docks where they scuttled some boats, and others were not touched because there were people asleep on them. They do and did call those vessels 'pirates', because they would conduct whaling wherever and whenever they came across whales, often in violation of law. Many of the boats were unregistered and uninsured; essentially whaling privateers.

Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd should not be confused with one another. Greenpeace won't go to the lengths Sea Shepherd will. This can be reflected by the actions of the Japanese when they encounter the 2 groups. The Japanese will and do whale in front of Greenpeace. They'll stop whaling and run from Sea Shepherd. SSCS see's this as a good thing, for when the Japanese are running, they're not killing whales.

As far as the Rainbow Warrior, she was boarded and blown up by French commandos while she was tied up at Auckland harbor. Rainbow Warrior was down there in order to protest French above ground nuclear testing. The New Zealand government was furious at the action; they were never informed of what the French government was going to do. A photographer was killed by the blast.

As far as the Japanese, I suspect that their insistence on whaling is largely political. They are a seafood consuming nation. My gut instinct tells me that they know that the oceans are in deep trouble. I've read reports of upwards of 90% of the life in the sea is gone. The depletion of cod off the Grand Banks is a very sad story, and should be a bellwether for us all. Large 'dead zones' exist in many areas of our ocean world. Global warming seems to be a growing threat. I think the Japanese, who, by the way, are not a traditional whaling country, want to set a precedent with whaling as a food source for the future.

I personally don't agree with all of Sea Shepherd's actions. One must admit, however, that their actions produce comment, as evidenced by this thread.

[seadog!]

<strong>"</strong>I think the Japanese, who, by the way, are not a traditional whaling country...<strong>"</strong>
They have been whaling since the 8th century.


From Wikipedia:
According to Joji Morhisita of Japanese Fisheries Agency, the Japanese public feel that anti-whaling groups are covertly racist.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-29]<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#cite_note-29][/URL]</sup> Norway issue around 1000 quota per year as opposed to Japan's 1,330. Moreover, Norway and Iceland hunt on a commercial basis. According to Morishita, "Singling out whaling is cultural imperialism - some people would say it's racism. Norway and Iceland are also whalers, but the criticism of Japan is stronger."<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#cite_note-30][/URL]

[Squid123]

I lived in Japan for 8 years and have pretty much come to the conclusion that if it is alive and in the ocean then it will find it's way into a Japanese market. Ever seen pizza with Eel toppings? Seen it and ate it (not bad actually)