only when pirates attack AMERICAN ships...

[BmoreBrawler]

Originally Posted by Spare Moody

do we get an ******* crew member safely returning home and then immediately suing his employer because they "sent him into pirate-infested waters without adequate protection".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/27/...tes/index.html


and of course the rational question presents itself:
what would have been more 'adequate protection' than the brain-piercing bullets that the US Navy provided? do we really think this could have had a better outcome if the cook had access to a weapon??

sounds like a justifiable suit to me. The US Navy is not responsible for protecting private shipping, nor would they be able to even if they were.

[ILLuminato]

This is about as intellectual as Anti-Americanism gets...... don't you know what insurance is? There's a reason why the ships which sail through there all have insurance, so that things like this don't happen. Just pay the ransom from insurance and get on your way. With that said, I agree that the company negligently sent them there.

[elfag]

eh fair play to him if he wants to sue them. I mean he was very close to being killed so I think its reasonable.

The company could have provided some kind of security and I think after this high profile case more and more ships will have security with them.

I dont see this pirate thing ending anytime soon. You have to consider those guys from Somalia who are dirt poor dont have anything to loose so there will always be more of them giving it a go no matter what the risk or how much security increases.

[ACHlLLES]

His dumb ass fault for choosing that career, I hope he gets fired and doesn't get any money for suing.

[Spare Moody]

ok look. you don't see me suing the sun for giving me a sunburn. there needs to be a line drawn between negligence and personal responsibilty. now, SURE, the company could have done stuff to prevent the pirate attack. by that same measure, this guy could have taken the equal responsibility in assessing where he wanted to cook food for a living. pirate infested waters are not the only open culinary opportunities folks.

so does he have a case? of course. doesn't everyone. the point isn't CAN the guy make money but HOW is choosing to do it. it's pathetic that we live in an age that glorifies chicken **** dollar scouts like this. how did the vulture become king of the jungle over the lion?? while we're at it, let's all just quit our jobs and suck dick in gay **** for a living.

[GMitchell]

Originally Posted by Spare Moody

ok look. you don't see me suing the sun for giving me a sunburn. there needs to be a line drawn between negligence and personal responsibilty. now, SURE, the company could have done stuff to prevent the pirate attack. by that same measure, this guy could have taken the equal responsibility in assessing where he wanted to cook food for a living. pirate infested waters are not the only open culinary opportunities folks.

so does he have a case? of course. doesn't everyone. the point isn't CAN the guy make money but HOW is choosing to do it. it's pathetic that we live in an age that glorifies chicken **** dollar scouts like this. how did the vulture become king of the jungle over the lion?? while we're at it, let's all just quit our jobs and suck dick in gay **** for a living.

I agree, the guy has a case, but he's still a douche for enforcing it.

[aristotlemoses]

now s'in some d in gay ****. thats an idea

[phallus]

Originally Posted by Spare Moody

do we get an ******* crew member safely returning home and then immediately suing his employer because they "sent him into pirate-infested waters without adequate protection".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/27/...tes/index.html


and of course the rational question presents itself:
what would have been more 'adequate protection' than the brain-piercing bullets that the US Navy provided? do we really think this could have had a better outcome if the cook had access to a weapon??

Originally Posted by Spare Moody

it's probably just punnitive damages for being exposed to a stressful situation.

Originally Posted by -Hyperion-

what happened to the good ol times were people were just glad they had been saved and still alive?

Originally Posted by Spare Moody

ok look. you don't see me suing the sun for giving me a sunburn. there needs to be a line drawn between negligence and personal responsibilty. now, SURE, the company could have done stuff to prevent the pirate attack. by that same measure, this guy could have taken the equal responsibility in assessing where he wanted to cook food for a living. pirate infested waters are not the only open culinary opportunities folks.

so does he have a case? of course. doesn't everyone. the point isn't CAN the guy make money but HOW is choosing to do it. it's pathetic that we live in an age that glorifies chicken **** dollar scouts like this. how did the vulture become king of the jungle over the lion?? while we're at it, let's all just quit our jobs and suck dick in gay **** for a living.

this reminds me of last year when the chinese dude chopped the head off some choch on a greyhound bus. nobody lifted a finger to help save the poor guy's life but now all the ****suckers are suing the bus company so they can get rich, when i read that i wished the dude had cut all their worthless heads off. north americans are generally money grubbing scum

[squealpiggy]

That bus was in Canada!

I think having security on ships is a great idea! Just think, half a dozen guys with assault rifles could easily repel an invasion of battle hardened paramilitary pirates with heavy machine guns and rocket propelled grenades!

Listen: Somali pirates are no match for a properly equipped and trained navy. But a small security contingent on merchant ships will be a liability and will result in more lost lives and lost shipping.

[MetalVomit]

I mean no disrespect, but why is the captain who was rescued from the pirates being called a "hero"? For not dying?