I Wonder

[moi621 (imported)]

A good sailor knows he may well have right of way

but, don't try it when the motor craft out sizes you by 1K times.

In wind driven combat, you want the "weather gauge" to maneuver around your adversary.

The Frenchies had the superior, more modern American built ship but, still could not over come the Anglo Saxon. Quite typical all and all. I believe the weather guage is the wind at your back.

So if the Frecnhies are coming toward you, with the wind, do you smell the fromage first?

It is not about "fault" or rules of the road.

It is about a Destroyer being unable to take evasive action.

A Destroyer is a relatively agile ship.

Moi

I was a Sea Scout, but my sailing knowledge is so old and rusty.

[jeflaba_ (imported)]

For two power driven vessels the vessel having the other vessel in the forward starboard quadrant is the give way vessel (required to change course and/or speed to avoid collision) and the other is the stand on vessel (required to hold course and speed - until evident that collision is imminent). If the damage is on the starboard side of the destroyer, and with no other info, then it seems it was the give way vessel.

(passed Coast Guard 100 ton Masters test, still need to convince them my physical is ok before I get my license)

[Riverwind (imported)]

Boats don't have brakes, people who drive boats know this. So one or both parties were not paying attention, investigate all you want but both ships have all the gear to see whats in the water around them, both parties are at fault to some degree or another.

River

[jeflaba_ (imported)]

River is absolutely correct. Admiralty courts almost never assign full blame to just one vessel involved in a collision. The reason can be found in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea known as the COLREGS (http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/navrules.pdf). The rules are specifically written so that, if followed, two vessels should never collide. Situations involving three or more vessels are trickier and the rules may not always help - but see my last quoted rule (Rule 17 sec b). This is the "gotcha" rule making everyone involved in a collision at least partly responsible.

Rule 5 states: "Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision."

Rule 7 section a: "Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist."

Rule 15: "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel." (note - this is different from what I said above; the rule isn't just for the quadrant but for for 122 1/2 degrees back from the bow).

Rule 16: "Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear."

Rule 17 sec a sub i: "Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed."

Rule 17 sec b: "When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision."

I have left out some of the details and there are additional rules that could apply depending on whether one or the other vessel was unable to maneuver (not under command) or restricted by the nature of its work. In either of these cases the impeded vessel is required to show an appropriate day shape or light signal (at night) and there is still a give way vessel required to avoid collision.

[moi621 (imported)]

I have been wondering

The recent shooting in NYC at the Empire State Building.

Guy commits murder shooting previous boss dead,

as he was walking away he was confronted by two NYPD who

were part of the anti terrorism patrol.

When all the gunfire subsided there were multiple bystanders wounded.

All wounds came from police firearms.

What happened?

These were the anti terrorism guys, hopefully better at shooting.

The wounds may have been ricochets which makes me wonder why they were using ammunition that ricochets so well . There are various kinds like the sort used by Airline security so as not to bring down an airliner should they have to fire.

Eh?

Moi

Wondering

[kristoff]

I have been wondering

The recent shooting in NYC at the Empire State Building.

Guy commits murder shooting previous boss dead,

as he was walking away he was confronted by two NYPD who

were part of the anti terrorism patrol.

When all the gunfire subsided there were multiple bystanders wounded.

All wounds came from police firearms.

What happened?

These were the anti terrorism guys, hopefully better at shooting.

The wounds may have been ricochets which makes me wonder why they were using ammunition that ricochets so well . There are various kinds like the sort used by Airline security so as not to bring down an airliner should they have to fire.

Eh?

Moi

Wondering

good wonderment here. "Overkill," maybe? shame on NY's not so finest.

[A-1 (imported)]

Actually, the gunman when left to his own would be more likely to commit suicide than to kill an innocent. Yes, the police over-reacted and they never should have taken the shot unless they knew where their bullets would end up nor should they placed themselves in his way offering him to opportunity to commit "Suicide by Cop".

These police were reckless, they protected nobody and they need to find other professions. They are not fit to be police. The innocent people who were shot will sue the City of New York and win.

[Dave (imported)]

I think NYC has created a huge financial burden for itself and there will be much discussion in police headquarters and city hall as to how not to do that again.

Remember, this was at the base of the tallest building in NYC (As the new WTC is not yet that high) and those cops have a right to be twitchy.

And for those of you around the world who can't envision this...

You can see the base of he Empire State Building every year during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, also, it is iconically shown in the movie "Miracle on 34th Street (Christmas Movie) and it also plays a huge role in "Sleepless in Seattle" ...

Having been to Macy's and the Empire State Building, the ground floor facing the streets are a mass of tiny shops dwarfed by a concrete facade that rises as far up as you can meaningfully see.

[Riverwind (imported)]

Yes I remember going to the top of the tallest building in the world, well it was when I went to the top and it is massive.

River

[Paolo]

You meant the Tower of Babel, right, River?