dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
19

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

1 edit

1 recommendation

ropeguru to Mele20

Premium Member

to Mele20

Re: Stranded jet-skier saunters through JFK safeguards

said by Mele20:

If the details in the original article are correct then he had no choice except maybe call his girl friend again as the ski sank deeper? Charging him with trespass is absurd.

Uh.. Last time I checked, cell phones could call 911 where he could have gotten help. No need for jumping a chain link fence, into a secure area to get help.

FutureMon
Dude Whats mine say?

join:2000-10-05
Marina, CA

1 recommendation

FutureMon

Not knowing the details of the fence line, why couldn't he have just walked along the fence line until he got somewhere he could be noticed?

Even if he does get charged, public outrage over the incident will hopefully get them dropped. But of course, the officials in charge of security have to have some time to beat their chests first...

- FM

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

1 recommendation

ropeguru

Premium Member

said by FutureMon:

Not knowing the details of the fence line, why couldn't he have just walked along the fence line until he got somewhere he could be noticed?

Even if he does get charged, public outrage over the incident will hopefully get them dropped. But of course, the officials in charge of security have to have some time to beat their chests first...

- FM

In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it as there were other ways for him to get help that would not have involved jumping a chain link fence into a KNOWN SECURE area.

Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.
iknow
Premium Member
join:2012-03-25

1 recommendation

iknow

Premium Member

said by ropeguru:

said by FutureMon:

Not knowing the details of the fence line, why couldn't he have just walked along the fence line until he got somewhere he could be noticed?

Even if he does get charged, public outrage over the incident will hopefully get them dropped. But of course, the officials in charge of security have to have some time to beat their chests first...

- FM

In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it as there were other ways for him to get help that would not have involved jumping a chain link fence into a KNOWN SECURE area.

Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.

that's absurd!. would it be a crime to break into a house that is on fire to rescue possible occupants? NO!. would it be a crime to kill an arsonist who is about to set fire to a house or building? NO!. it's quite ok to commit a lower crime to prevent a higher crime. trespassing to save a life is quite ok in the U.S.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

1 edit

dave

Premium Member

said by iknow:

would it be a crime to break into a house that is on fire to rescue possible occupants? NO!.

I don't think he 'broke into the airport' to rescue anyone there.

would it be a crime to kill an arsonist who is about to set fire to a house or building? NO!.

I don't think anyone was about to set fire to the airport.

it's quite ok to commit a lower crime to prevent a higher crime. trespassing to save a life is quite ok in the U.S.

He was supposedly trespassing to supposedly save his own life. Although once he was on shore, maybe he was no longer in imminent danger of loss of life.

And in any case, your argument does not generally hold. One may expect the jury to consider the compelling need of preventing the 'higher crime', but there is AFAIK no such statute in law.

But in this situation there was no 'higher crime' to be prevented.

--
It's not that I think he ought to be charged with trespass, it's simply that the arguments you put up are irrelevant.
dave

1 recommendation

dave to ropeguru

Premium Member

to ropeguru
said by ropeguru:

Last time I checked, cell phones could call 911 where he could have gotten help.

Last time I checked, cell phones generally don't survive a swim in salt water.

The way I read the story, he didn't swim until after his craft had started sinking ('taking on water'), and it probably wouldn't be prudent to wait around for someone to show up. So he swam. And we don't know if he has the wherewithal to keep his phone dry while swimming. In retrospect, a little waterproof phone case would have been a smart move, but we already know that forethought wasn't his strong suit.


JALevinworth
@embarqhsd.net

JALevinworth to ropeguru

Anon

to ropeguru
said by ropeguru:

said by FutureMon:

Not knowing the details of the fence line, why couldn't he have just walked along the fence line until he got somewhere he could be noticed?

Even if he does get charged, public outrage over the incident will hopefully get them dropped. But of course, the officials in charge of security have to have some time to beat their chests first...

- FM

In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it as there were other ways for him to get help that would not have involved jumping a chain link fence into a KNOWN SECURE area.

Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.

After looking at birdseye on Bing I don't think he had much choice. Realizing he was in dark and needing to swim for it, you naturally are going to save your ass and swim towards lights (I've been on a disabled power boat in the dark out in similar surroundings.. you can't see shore or any land in the dark unless there are lights). There doesn't appear to be anything but the airport around there. Looks undeveloped, swaps, and a golf course closest. The rest is the airport property.

Of course, he could have walked miles on the perimeter of the fence (assuming it was passable all the way around, but if it's dark you can't tell that) after that 3 mile swim to the front of the airport, but he didn't.

Whether he physically could or not or just didn't is still unknown - but if he could, so what? he's charged with climbing the fence. What's the PA to do? Not charge him and say, cool story bro? Of course they will and should. Doesn't mean the charges might not be dropped or reduced later either. It must be investigated completely first IMHO.

Even so, I bet he's glad to be alive to face the charges. That's a far better scenario than drowning.

-Jim

Rook008
Miles To Go
Premium Member
join:2002-02-05
Far Rockaway, NY

1 recommendation

Rook008 to ropeguru

Premium Member

to ropeguru
said by ropeguru:

...
In my opinion, he did something stupid and SHOULD be charged for it...
Also, there SHOULD be an investigation as to why the multi-million dollar system that WE the tax payers paid for did not work.

I agree.
Castillo made a bunch of mistakes to get to where he was and even though he may have done the right thing to him, jumping an 8 foot fence to get to help quickly, he should still pay for jumping the fence. I think paying a fine would be fair and end the matter.

The bigger story here is why this expensive security system didn't work.

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

ropeguru

Premium Member

said by Rook008:

The bigger story here is why this expensive security system didn't work.

Agreed...