Inevitable?

[Yoink]

That nobody got hurt that time doesn't mean nobody could have gotten hurt. Nobody was killed in this incident either, so clearly the Shonan Maru rammed them in a nice and safe way, right?

No, the argument is not "look at the results" the argument is "look at the actual nature of the collision and the construction of the two vessels involved." A 50 meter 491 ton steel ship running over a 24 meter carbon-fiber speedboat is self-evidently a situation highly likely to result in casualties. On the other hand two approx 500 ton steel boats bumping lightly into each other as they run almost parallel courses is self-evidently highly unlikely to result in any casualities.

Don't you find it just a little odd that you all keep claiming that the Sea Shepherds are the blackest pirates ever to roam the seas and that all they are out for is blood and yet you can't document a SINGLE case of them causing someone a teeny boo-boo?

It has been, you're just downplaying it by suggesting that there really isn't anything dangerous about ships colliding with one another.

No, that's not what I said. I said that the collisions documented in the specific videos linked in this thread were clearly and self-evidently unlikely to result in injury or harm to any humans on either the "ramming" boat or the "rammed" boat. Obviously there are collisions that can be highly dangerous. If the Sea Shepherd ships attempted to ram the whaling vessels at full steam amidships, for example (t-boning them), that would be clear evidence of reckless endangerment. Coming alongside and nudging over isn't.

The Sea Shepherds don't just ram other ships, by the way. They've rigged a huge blade that they call "the can opener" onto the side of their ship. You can see it clearly in this article. Third picture down.

"Huge"??? Yeah, that's going to cut right through the hull, then detach, and go hunting through the ship looking for people to kill!!! It's designed to cause enough damage to some steel plating to force the ship to go get some panel-beating done. It's clearly not intended to sink anything (or it would be below the waterline).

Incidentally, here is an article from The New Yorker in 2007:


Sounds like "ramming" is indeed what he is doing by most definitions of the term.

Yeah, "ramming" certainly is the word I'd use if I were a journalist too. Much more dramatic than "bumping into" or "nudging."

Tell me, if the side of your car bumped into the side of another car briefly, would you say you'd been "rammed" by the other car? I think we usually think of "ramming" as hitting something head-on. But it's hardly a major point.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Here is a description of what Gumboot is talking about -- and it comes from the Sea Shepherd's website:

The reinforced bow of the 779-ton Sea Shepherd connected with the bow of the 650-ton Sierra and kept on going. Captain Watson circled around and hit the Sierra again on the port side, tearing open a 7- by 10-foot (2- by 3-meter) hole. The Sea Shepherd then slammed sideways into the smaller Sierra, staving in a long section of the Sierra's port-side hull.

A larger ship deliberately colliding with a smaller ship -- then circling around and hitting it again until it had torn a hole in its hull.

If that isn't endangering lives, I don't know what is.

 

[Yoink]

What about attaching a limpet mine to a ship they'd already rammed, and blowing a hole in it, causing it to sink?

What about pouring petrol on police vessels going about their lawful duty, and then attempting to use signal flares to set the petrol alight?

What about the President of Sea Shepherd leaving in 1991 in protest because he felt it was not right for them to be harming people?

What about deliberately firing on whaling vessels, as they did in 1993, as documented on the TV documentary "Defenders Of The Wild - Ocean Rider"?

The fact is this group has a very, very long history of violence and disregard for the lives of others.

What about documentation of these claims?

 

[gumboot]

Don't you find it just a little odd that you all keep claiming that the Sea Shepherds are the blackest pirates ever to roam the seas and that all they are out for is blood and yet you can't document a SINGLE case of them causing someone a teeny boo-boo?

Based on "Whale Wars" I would say their lack of harm has more to do with their own incompetence than a lack of trying.

 

[Yoink]

Here is a description of what Gumboot is talking about -- and it comes from the Sea Shepherd's website:



A larger ship deliberately colliding with a smaller ship -- then circling around and hitting it again until it had torn a hole in its hull.

If that isn't endangering lives, I don't know what is.

Thanks for actually providing a link. Unfortunately your link also makes clear that this is describing an action taken two years before the founding of the "Sea Shepherd Conservation Society." To say nothing of the fact that it happened over 30 years ago.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

"Huge"??? Yeah, that's going to cut right through the hull, then detach, and go hunting through the ship looking for people to kill!!! It's designed to cause enough damage to some steel plating to force the ship to go get some panel-beating done. It's clearly not intended to sink anything (or it would be below the waterline).

That doesn't make it not dangerous. Attaching a blade to the side of one's ship with the intention of punching a hole in someone's hole is dangerous. I'm not sure how you could seriously argue against that. That it might not sink the ship doesn't mean it couldn't hurt or kill someone inside, puncture a gas tank, or who knows what.

Tell me, if the side of your car bumped into the side of another car briefly, would you say you'd been "rammed" by the other car? I think we usually think of "ramming" as hitting something head-on. But it's hardly a major point.

If I knew that person was doing it intentionally, that is exactly what I would call it.

Tell me, if you were driving your car and someone pulled up next to you with a blade sticking out of their vehicle and proceeded to slam into you, would you consider that to be neither threatening nor dangerous?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Thanks for actually providing a link. Unfortunately your link also makes clear that this is describing an action taken two years before the founding of the "Sea Shepherd Conservation Society." To say nothing of the fact that it happened over 30 years ago.

Huh? Where does it make that clear? The incident happened in 1979. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was founded in 1977.

 

[gumboot]

What about documentation of these claims?

Are you serious? They crow about these events on their own websites. It's not like they are trying to hide what they do.

For the sinking of the Sierra with a limpet mine, see The Bulletin and The St Petersburg Times, Feb 7 and 8, 1980. That's just the first two I came up with. It happened in Lisbon harbour so I expect local papers have more coverage of it, but I can't read Portuguese.

For ramming and firing at whalers, see Whale Wars and the other documentary I mentioned; Ocean Raider: Defenders Of The Wild.

Let's not forget the modified their original ship by filling in the bow with concrete. Why, exactly do you think they did that?

 

[Yoink]

Huh? Where does it make that clear? The incident happened in 1979. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was founded in 1977.

Try the "Our History" link under "Who We Are":

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was formally incorporated in the United States in 1981 in the state of Oregon. Previous to this, the idea of Sea Shepherd was formed when Captain Paul Watson founded the Earth Force Society in 1977

 

[NYCEMT86]

Yoink, maybe you should read the website more clearly

(Bolding Mine)

Using information from a variety of sources, over time Captain Watson narrowed down the Sierra's location to somewhere in the eastern Atlantic between Spain and Morocco and headed there in the Sea Shepherd. Twelve days out of Boston, on July 15, 1979, the Sierra was spotted. She turned and ran at full speed toward Portugal.

Unfortunately, the seas were too rough for a controlled ramming, so the Sea Shepherd ran along side as both ships headed toward the Portuguese port of Leixoes.

The next day, slipping out of port before the authorities noticed, the Sea Shepherd surprised the Sierra drifting just outside. By radio, Captain Watson warned Captain Nordengen of what he was going to do and accelerated to full speed.

The reinforced bow of the 779-ton Sea Shepherd connected with the bow of the 650-ton Sierra and kept on going. Captain Watson circled around and hit the Sierra again on the port side, tearing open a 7- by 10-foot (2- by 3-meter) hole. The Sea Shepherd then slammed sideways into the smaller Sierra, staving in a long section of the Sierra's port-side hull.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Try the "Our History" link under "Who We Are":

Try the "Who We Are" Link.

Established in 1977, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) is an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization. Our mission is to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world's oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species.

Wikipedia also lists it as 1977.

 

[gumboot]

Tell me, if the side of your car bumped into the side of another car briefly, would you say you'd been "rammed" by the other car? I think we usually think of "ramming" as hitting something head-on. But it's hardly a major point.

How about you're driving along the road and another vehicle comes up behind you, following you as you try to avoid it, then abruptly swerves into your car, and continues to push against your car as you attempt to shake them free?

I don't know precisely what I'd call it, but I'd damn sure call it dangerous as hell.

As for "ramming" well I don't know about you, but to me "ramming" means to deliberately crash your vehicle into your target, which distinguishes it from other sorts of impacts that may be unintentional. Nothing in the word "ramming" to me implies a particular orientation of impact.

Incidentally, it's funny that you mention the car analogy, because the style of ramming performed by the MV Steve Irwin is virtually identical to the classic "ramming" maneuver used by police to disable a fleeing vehicle.

ETA. Finally, the Steve Irwin ramming very closely resembles an incident in 1988 when two US naval ships; the USS Caron and USS Yorktown were rammed by two Russian frigates. No one really disputes that this incident was a ramming.

 

[shuize]

Tell me, if the side of your car bumped into the side of another car briefly, would you say you'd been "rammed" by the other car? I think we usually think of "ramming" as hitting something head-on. But it's hardly a major point.

If done intentionally, it's called aggravated assault or, in some states, aggravated vehicular assault -- a felony.

If you don't think there's anything particularly dangerous about ships colliding at sea or loss of propulsion in the Southern Ocean, I'd say you don't know much about sailing.

 

[Yoink]

That doesn't make it not dangerous. Attaching a blade to the side of one's ship with the intention of punching a hole in someone's hole is dangerous. I'm not sure how you could seriously argue against that. That it might not sink the ship doesn't mean it couldn't hurt or kill someone inside, puncture a gas tank, or who knows what.

They're not performing sneak attacks on moored vessels in the middle of the night here. There's no one on either boat that doesn't know collision is imminent. And no, you don't put your gas tanks right on the hull way above the waterline.

If I knew that person was doing it intentionally, that is exactly what I would call it.

Tell me, if you were driving your car and someone pulled up next to you with a blade sticking out of their vehicle and proceeded to slam into you, would you consider that to be neither threatening nor dangerous?

The comparison is inapt in a number of ways. Cars typically travel in conditions where it is very dangerous for them to be pushed out of their lane, that's relatively rare for cars. Water is also a much more forgiving element in which to undergo a collision than the road.

But let's say I go out in a little motoboat and some jerk keeps coming up alongside me and bumping into my side. And--even worse--he's rigged a two-inch blade that's scratching the heck out of my nice paintjob. Yeah, he's a bastard. No, that doesn't give me the right to kill him. And no, knowing that 30 years ago he bumped another boat quite a lot harder (and didn't kill anyone) doesn't give me a right to kill him. And no, knowing that 30 years ago he sank a boat in harbour with no loss of life doesn't give me the right to kill him.

 

[Yoink]

How about you're driving along the road and another vehicle comes up behind you, following you as you try to avoid it, then abruptly swerves into your car, and continues to push against your car as you attempt to shake them free?

I don't know precisely what I'd call it, but I'd damn sure call it dangerous as hell.

As for "ramming" well I don't know about you, but to me "ramming" means to deliberately crash your vehicle into your target, which distinguishes it from other sorts of impacts that may be unintentional. Nothing in the word "ramming" to me implies a particular orientation of impact.

Incidentally, it's funny that you mention the car analogy, because the style of ramming performed by the MV Steve Irwin is virtually identical to the classic "ramming" maneuver used by police to disable a fleeing vehicle.

And for reasons I've just explained in replying to yet another person who clearly has never been in a boat, the comparison with two cars colliding is ridiculous. Boats can't flip over as a result of being sideswiped. Pushing a boat sideways through the water is not the same thing (and is inherently far, far less dangerous) than pushing a car sideways on the road.

 

[Yoink]

Try the "Who We Are" Link.



Wikipedia also lists it as 1977.

But the "Who We Are" link is obviously less detailed than the link I provided you with. You can't just pick your facts because they happen to suit you. The "Our History" link provides the actual history. Before they were incorporated in 1981 they were not the current organization that bears that name--regardless of the fact that many of the same people were involved.

And no, somehow I don't think Wikipedia trumps their own legal history as detailed with some specificity on their website.

 

[gumboot]

And for reasons I've just explained in replying to yet another person who clearly has never been in a boat, the comparison with two cars colliding is ridiculous. Boats can't flip over as a result of being sideswiped. Pushing a boat sideways through the water is not the same thing (and is inherently far, far less dangerous) than pushing a car sideways on the road.

Well considering you raised the comparison with a car, what does that make you?

 

[Yoink]

If done intentionally, it's called aggravated assault or, in some states, aggravated vehicular assault -- a felony.

Yeah. Let's see if you can spot the difference in relative danger between being sideswiped in a car and being sideswiped at sea.

If you don't think there's anything particularly dangerous about ships colliding at sea or loss of propulsion in the Southern Ocean, I'd say you don't know much about sailing.

I take it that if you were on a whaling ship in the Southern Ocean and you developed engine trouble you'd simply abandon ship. Correct? I mean, clearly death is imminent if you have no propulsion.

Care to cite a few cases of ships of that size being lost at sea merely due to loss of propulsion? I mean, there are a hell of a lot of ships working the Southern Ocean and we all know there's no such thing as a perfectly reliable engine and we also know that the oceans are full of things that can foul a ship's props. So if it's so amazingly dangerous it stands to reason that there must be at least dozens of cases of ships being lost that way every year. Care to cite a few? Odd we don't hear about the rescues more often...

 

[gumboot]

But let's say I go out in a little motoboat and some jerk keeps coming up alongside me and bumping into my side. And--even worse--he's rigged a two-inch blade that's scratching the heck out of my nice paintjob. Yeah, he's a bastard. No, that doesn't give me the right to kill him. And no, knowing that 30 years ago he bumped another boat quite a lot harder (and didn't kill anyone) doesn't give me a right to kill him. And no, knowing that 30 years ago he sank a boat in harbour with no loss of life doesn't give me the right to kill him.

I wasn't aware that any members of Sea Shepherd have ever been killed by whalers?

 

[Yoink]

Well considering you raised the comparison with a car, what does that make you?

I raised it in relationship to one specific question: the question of the normal use of the word "ramming." I did not suggest that that kind of impact was in any way equivalent from the point of view of danger to the impact of two vessels hitting side-to-side. I was unaware that I was engaged in a discussion with people who were so utterly ignorant about the difference between the way boats move in the water and the way that cars move on the land that it would cause so much terrible, terrible confusion.