Is anyone here following story of Watson and Japanese ?

[kristopher]

Here are the allegations by Watson. Anyone here care to venture a comment?

"Today around 3:45pm Australian Eastern Standard Time in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone of Antarctica, an attempt was made on the life of Paul Watson, Captain of the Sea Shepherd vessel Steve Irwin.

A single bullet was fired by what must have been an expert marksman at Paul’s chest, which embedded in his Kevlar vest and also damaged a metal badge worn behind the vest. Fortunately, this stopped the bullet penetrating his flesh.

The ships’ doctor was emphatic that without protection, the shot would have been lethal.

At the time the shot was fired, the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru was moving parallel to the Steve Irwin in stormy seas. The high level of movement indicates that the shot must have been fired by an expert.

The Steve Irwin continues to track the Nisshin Maru west after it altered its northerly course."
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080307_2.html

Dr. Page pried a bullet from Captain Watson’s Kevlar vest and examined the bruise where the bullet impacted. Watson’s Sea Shepherd anti-poaching badge took up some of the force of the impact, but it also cut the skin beneath after it was mangled by the bullet.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080307_3.html

[Bonobo]

1. My comment is that Watson is a liar. Where is the bullet?

If he was shot, why does he not file charges? A complaint? Something?

He's a liar. Period.

It would be so fucking out of character for the Japanese to have done what they purported that it almost rises to a comic level.

[kristopher]

2. Check this out. His supporters consider this proof of the truth of the claim.

Another person who wrote me was Allison Lance Watson. She forwarded me an email to Capt. Watson written by Marc Gaede, an accomplished and respected anthropologist, author and photographer, among other things. With permission from both Allison and Marc, here is what Marc wrote:

--------------------------------------

"Paul,

"I feel it important to point out a few things that I see in your shooting. As you know, this is a subject I know a lot about.

"You were shot by a sniper with a rifle and with a special bullet. The vest that protected you is meant for pistol rounds, not high velocity military bullets. Had you been shot with a military rifle cartage, you could be dead. Had you not been waring the vest, you most certainly been dead by a massive untreatable wound, which is what they intended.

"By what I see in the pictures, the compression of the bullet means it was a soft lead 'Dumb-Dumb' round. Because of the tissue destruction these bullets cause, they were banned for military use by the Hague Convention of 1899 although most people now call it the Geneva Convention. All militaries conform to the convention because no one wants to go there due to the unspeakable carnage they would cause. Even the Nazi SS didn't use Dumb-Dumbs.

"The Japanese Coast Guard (or a special agent - AM) shot you with a Dumb-Dumb bullet which is in violation of the Geneva (Hague) Convention because the JCG is part of the military. This is significant because the world's military will pay attention that the Japanese military used Dumb-Dumbs. It may be one shot, but it is significant and governments will pay attention.

"Next, I want to point out that this was not a a knee-jerk reaction to shoot you. I was the best shot in HQ Company at Camp Pendleton for two years (1966-67), and couldn't have done this in my prime. Apparently, you were shot from high to low involving two moving ships on the high seas. Also, you were probably moving at random, and the shot was within three inches of your heart. This sniper practiced this shot for months back in Japan , and no doubt, they used a moving target ship that was lower than the moving shooting platform, and they practiced in varying wind, distance, and seas to perfect every situation. I'm guessing they brought in a Japanese Marine sniper because Coast Guards don't have this kind of talent. The flash-bang grenades were used to cover the rifle shot but should be audible on tape. Like earthquakes, gunshots will show up electronically from all the other noise. There might be other shots, but I don't think so, it was just one shot, I think.

"The Dumb-Dumb bullet is a give-away because it was chosen specially to kill. No pistol shooter in the world could have made this shot, it had to have come from a rifle and a sniper rifle for sure. The Dumb-Dumb was caught by your vest so it was low velocity such as fired by most pistols. Why would the JCG fire a low velocity Dumb-Dumb at your heart? Well, they didn't know you had the "Second Chance" vest on under your Mustang suit. The low velocity Dumb-Dumb should have blown a 5" hole in your chest and you should have died quickly from massive blood loss. Every black powder (low velocity soft lead bullet) hunter knows the low velocity allows the bullet to expand within the animal causing extreme damage. High velocity bullets go through too fast for maximum destruction.

"So this was a special bullet, probably hand loaded, for you. Low velocity, soft lead for a modern military rifle. I don't believe I have ever seen such ammunition for sale in my life.

"Ok, the Whale Gods were with you. Everyone now knows you have a cop vest under your suit, so you can expect to get shot next time with a high velocity full-metal-jacket round which will go through your vest. The only vest that can help you is the ceramic-plate armor. You might look into "Dragon Skin," which is what most our Iraqi troops want but can't get. When you are outside exposed in confrontation, keep moving, don't stop but for a few seconds and stay out-of-view as much as possible.

"Make no mistake, the Japs intended to kill you.

"Return safe,

Marc"

--------------------------------------------------

Obviously, this cannot be verified until the forensic report comes out, but I deem it a highly credible assessment based on intimate knowledge and experience on the subject matter. If this doesn't pan out, it would at least be a sound piece of technical analysis, and should give pause to skeptics, nay-sayers and conspiracy theorists.

A parting word of advice to all whalers and whaling-supporters: For you to assassinate Capt. Watson, or anyone on board the Steve Irwin, or anyone in the whaling movement, is tantamount to you committing Kamikaze, again. Maybe you've forgotten, but it didn't work when you tried it the the last time.

Anthony


Anthony Marr, founder
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2979086&mesg_id=2979086

[rumpel]

4. are we going back to WWII

using the term Japs? Is this what you want and intend?

This is DU, we do not label peoples - by race gender or religion -

[iverglas]

9. your criticism

should actually be directed at the author of the quoted material, who wasn't writing for DU.

It is, of course, a valid criticism.

[iverglas]

14. they do??

Do you think maybe THEY watched the video?

Did you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xem3K8E4Nk

The link is right there in the thread you originally linked to.

Sure, the whole sequence could have been cut and pasted and could be a complete fabrication.

But those boats sure wuz close together, eh?

[kristopher]

30. The relative erratic motion of these ships is HUGE.

The video supports that.

[benEzra]

17. Thoughts...

"I feel it important to point out a few things that I see in your shooting. As you know, this is a subject I know a lot about.

"You were shot by a sniper with a rifle and with a special bullet. The vest that protected you is meant for pistol rounds, not high velocity military bullets. Had you been shot with a military rifle cartage, you could be dead. Had you not been waring the vest, you most certainly been dead by a massive untreatable wound, which is what they intended.

"By what I see in the pictures, the compression of the bullet means it was a soft lead 'Dumb-Dumb' round. Because of the tissue destruction these bullets cause, they were banned for military use by the Hague Convention of 1899 although most people now call it the Geneva Convention. All militaries conform to the convention because no one wants to go there due to the unspeakable carnage they would cause. Even the Nazi SS didn't use Dumb-Dumbs.

"The Japanese Coast Guard (or a special agent - AM) shot you with a Dumb-Dumb bullet which is in violation of the Geneva (Hague) Convention because the JCG is part of the military. This is significant because the world's military will pay attention that the Japanese military used Dumb-Dumbs. It may be one shot, but it is significant and governments will pay attention.

Softpoints aren't special bullets, they're common hunting bullets, like you might purchase for a deer rifle (which is a sniper rifle by another name) around the world. A Kevlar vest won't stop a rifle round at close range, but will stop a rifle round at several hundred yards, and FMJ vs. softpoint is pretty much irrelevant to Kevlar penetration.

Military snipers typically use nominally hollowpoint match bullets that don't expand much.

"Next, I want to point out that this was not a a knee-jerk reaction to shoot you. I was the best shot in HQ Company at Camp Pendleton for two years (1966-67), and couldn't have done this in my prime. Apparently, you were shot from high to low involving two moving ships on the high seas. Also, you were probably moving at random, and the shot was within three inches of your heart. This sniper practiced this shot for months back in Japan , and no doubt, they used a moving target ship that was lower than the moving shooting platform, and they practiced in varying wind, distance, and seas to perfect every situation. I'm guessing they brought in a Japanese Marine sniper because Coast Guards don't have this kind of talent. The flash-bang grenades were used to cover the rifle shot but should be audible on tape. Like earthquakes, gunshots will show up electronically from all the other noise. There might be other shots, but I don't think so, it was just one shot, I think.

No disagreements here, though I don't think you can rule out a hired civilian shooter either (mercenary or hitman).

"The Dumb-Dumb bullet is a give-away because it was chosen specially to kill. No pistol shooter in the world could have made this shot, it had to have come from a rifle and a sniper rifle for sure. The Dumb-Dumb was caught by your vest so it was low velocity such as fired by most pistols. Why would the JCG fire a low velocity Dumb-Dumb at your heart? Well, they didn't know you had the "Second Chance" vest on under your Mustang suit. The low velocity Dumb-Dumb should have blown a 5" hole in your chest and you should have died quickly from massive blood loss. Every black powder (low velocity soft lead bullet) hunter knows the low velocity allows the bullet to expand within the animal causing extreme damage. High velocity bullets go through too fast for maximum destruction.

"So this was a special bullet, probably hand loaded, for you. Low velocity, soft lead for a modern military rifle. I don't believe I have ever seen such ammunition for sale in my life.

I don't think one can infer low muzzle velocity from what we know, since velocity falls off very rapidly with distance, and while no Kevlar vest will stop a rifle bullet at close range, a NIJ Level IIIA vest will stop a rifle bullet fired from a few hundred yards away.

"Ok, the Whale Gods were with you. Everyone now knows you have a cop vest under your suit, so you can expect to get shot next time with a high velocity full-metal-jacket round which will go through your vest. The only vest that can help you is the ceramic-plate armor. You might look into "Dragon Skin," which is what most our Iraqi troops want but can't get. When you are outside exposed in confrontation, keep moving, don't stop but for a few seconds and stay out-of-view as much as possible.

Agreed. But I wouldn't expose myself unnecessarily just because I was wearing rifle-rated armor, either.

"Make no mistake, the (whalers) intended to kill you.

Definitely. But I'd say that the fact that he was shot means that someone tried to kill him, not the construction of the bullet. Somebody needs to be prosecuted.

[iverglas]

20. just a comment / question

I don't think one can infer low muzzle velocity from what we know, since velocity falls off very rapidly with distance, and while no Kevlar vest will stop a rifle bullet at close range, a NIJ Level IIIA vest will stop a rifle bullet fired from a few hundred yards away.

If you've seen the video now, you know they weren't actually a few hundred yards away.

Does that alter anything you said in that post?

Straight question, just curious.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

22. To me...

It looks like somebody took a potshot with a small caliber pistol (9mm, 32cal, etc), or maybe a pistol caliber carbine (like an HK MP5) at the guy, just about any type of rifle round and that piece of crap vest wouldnt be any better than tissue paper.

[iverglas]

24. ta

That sounds reasonable. No reason to adopt the interpretation set out in the opinion letter, even if the incident did occur. Or to rely on that opinion to discredit the report of the incident itself.

[benEzra]

25. Just watched the video (wasn't able to at work, since Youtube is blocked).

I couldn't find any decent photos of the bullet on the Sea Shepherd site, but from the very grainy bullet on the video, it looks too short and fat to be a rifle bullet. An expanded rifle bullet will generally look something like this:







unless it fragments. All of the above are civilian hunting bullets, which are designed to expand on impact.

A rifle bullet downloaded to slower velocities would be less expanded and might look like this:



It would not be squashed flat. Note that rifle bullets are quite long for their width.

Here are two expanded .45 caliber handgun bullets:



which look much more like the round in the photos. The one on the right appears to have undergone a core-jacket separation.

Compare to the round he is holding:

http://afp.google.com/media/ALeqM5jjSj_IpjeFzLh93PKqUNS17rlGbA?size=s

BTW, that is not an "illegal dumb dumb (sic) round", it is a law-enforcement-style jacketed hollowpoint like a police handgun would use; both pistol and revolver bullets can look like that. I believe that round may have undergone a jacket separation as well.

The bullet in the grainy video is larger and didn't hold its shape as well, so I suspect it may have been a handgun round. The fact that the ships were closer than I expected mitigates against my earlier rifle-bullet scenario.

To me, it looks very much like some idiot aboard the Japanese vessel decided to unload a handgun in the direction of the ship, perhaps in some very Hollywood-esque conception of a "warning shot", and hit the captain (the odds of which would be pretty low, but not so low as to rule out an unintentional hit). There are some carbines (small rifles) chambered for handgun rounds, but are not the thing one would use for a shot against a moving target; handgun rounds are abysmally slow compared to rifle rounds (~Mach 1 instead of ~Mach 2 to 3), carry relatively little energy (0.5 kJ or less instead of 3 to 4 kJ for a typical deer rifle/sniper rifle), which would make this an extremely unlikely choice of rounds for an intentional shooting from one ship to another at 150-200 feet.

This whole episode is very strange, but my best guess would be an idiot aboard the whaling vessel shooting at the Steve Irwin with a police-style handgun, perhaps trying to hit someone (and getting rather lucky), or perhaps just trying to hit the ship.

BTW, from a braced position, hitting a human-sized target at 150 feet with a pistol is not particularly hard for a well practiced shooter (especially with a full sized police handgun). I have hit smaller targets than that at 110 yards with my 9mm Ladysmith, shooting from sandbags. That doesn't mean it was intentional, but it was at minimum aggravated assault and/or reckless endangerment, and quite possibly attempted murder, depending on the motivation of the shooter. I don't buy the "marine sniper shooting patched lead bullets" theory, though.

(Terminology trivia--jacketed hollowpoint bullets are neither illegal, nor "dumb dumb". That particular silliness is a conflation of the name of the old British arsenal at Dum Dum, India (Bengali দমদম Dômdôm, Hindi दमदम Damdam, per Wikipedia), which was where the British first experimented with soft-nose spitzer designs in an attempt to give them the same stopping power as the older unjacketed patched-lead bullets. A "Dum Dum" bullet would be an experimental British .303 rifle round made at Dum Dum in the late 1800's/early 1900's, and using the term to refer to jacketed softpoints/hollowpoints in general (particularly when spelled "dumb dumb") tends to make one the object of great derision in shooting circles. Pet peeve.)

[iverglas]

26. ta

To me, it looks very much like some idiot aboard the Japanese vessel decided to unload a handgun in the direction of the ship, perhaps in some very Hollywood-esque conception of a "warning shot", and hit the captain (the odds of which would be pretty low, but not so low as to rule out an unintentional hit).
... my best guess would be an idiot aboard the whaling vessel shooting at the Steve Irwin with a police-style handgun, perhaps trying to hit someone (and getting rather lucky), or perhaps just trying to hit the ship.

That's pretty much exactly what I figured your revised theory would be, in terms of the firearm/bullet, and it makes perfect sense.

Your theory as to how it played out is in fact pretty much what I would suspect myself.

Bang bang, take that. A thousand monkeys, and lucky shots. Pretty damned lucky, so maybe not entirely random. But it doesn't especially matter, if this did occur, whether the bullet had Watson's name on it or was up for grabs.

[jody]

34. benEzra, how dare you bring facts to a perfectly good squabble. Another Heracles Fifth Labour Badge

for you :toast:

[iverglas]

36. now that

is just about too funny for words.

If it weren't so pathetic.

[MaryCeleste]

59. This was beat up on the SCCS daily thread when it happened

I do not believe he was shot.
- His reaction and statements at the time do not support it. When your vest stops a bullet you know it right then
- The bullet 40 seconds into the video does not look like even a soft lead bullet would. It looks to be a open hemisphere. Lead bullets in vest crush, not form hollow spheres.
- No pictures of unslung rifles or people in shooting positions
- No muzzle flashes (once picture of a light in an underdeck area, source not given)
- No other shots detected
- No shots heard or recorded
- It would be an amazing shot

Two more reasonable possibilities:
- Its a fraud
- It was spalling from the flash bangs

Have to see what Aussie forensics determines. The videos were not the best, and there are agendas on all sides. For now I would go with the latter option.

[flvegan]

3. Your comment is actually little more than an exposure of your bias.

[jody]

16. Bonobo may have chosen other words but the story as written does seem to exaggerate a bit.

Sounds similar to a Scary Brady Bunch or Violence Policy Center fairy tale about using .50 caliber rifles to shoot down passenger aircraft.

People who falsely cry wolf often, should not be surprised if everyone does not believe their latest tale.

[iverglas]

13. So -- did YOU watch the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xem3K8E4Nk

Do give us your review once you have.

[DonP]

5. Huh?

Let me see if I got this straight?

A Japanese ship was somewhere near the vessel in question. When at sea "near" is a relative term. I'm going to assume that they were at least several hundred meters apart for safety's sake. Anything closer in rough seas means a mid-ocean collision with a single wave.

And from two moving ships, in what they define as rough seas, a Japanese marksman managed to fire a special bullet (does anyone really still refer to hollow points as dum-dums?), that they are sure was handloaded and with a single shot hit one specific targeted man over the heart and miraculously didn't do him any real damage because of his Kevlar vest and "badge" that I'm assuming he wore 24/7 when on deck because he knew someone would take a shot at him?

Is that the story?

(sarcasm on) No, I don't find any problems with that story, seems perfectly believeable to me. (sarcasm off)

I think it far more likely that someone on his own vessel fired the shot, if indeed one was fired at all.

[iverglas]

18. just 'cause you might miss it:

the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xem3K8E4Nk


I think it far more likely that someone on his own vessel fired the shot, if indeed one was fired at all.

May I quote you? --

(sarcasm on) No, I don't find any problems with that story, seems perfectly believeable to me. (sarcasm off)

Do watch the video. Then go right ahead and "assume that <the vessels> were at least several hundred meters apart". Nobody's stopping you!

[iverglas]

6. venture a comment on ... what?

I'm not at all sure what the point of posting this here was. But a few points relating to things that have been said in this thread, anyhow. Demonstrating that one ought to know what one is talking about before doing it, and how very easy it is to know at least a little of what one is talking about (google news is such a handy thing).

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOPGv1fpz1jfJ1x2SSH194Na6jlA

Anti-whaling activists reportedly threw rotten butter and bottles containing an unidentified liquid at the Japanese whaling vessel. Members of the Japanese Coast Guard on board the Nisshin Maru responded by throwing seven sound-emitting "warning balls" at the activists, who said these were "flash grenades" that injured two Australian protesters.

I guess they must have been just a little closer than some here have, er, speculated.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith issued two statements Friday.

Initially Smith said Japan had informed Australian diplomats in Tokyo that a crew member aboard a whaling vessel had fired warning shots. But about 30 minutes later, Smith issued another statement saying Japanese officials had subsequently advised Australian diplomats that no gunshots had been fired, but that "warning balls" had been thrown.

Huh. I guess the Japanese whalers just made a mistake when they said warning shots had been fired. Maybe they did -- maybe they weren't warning shots. Who knows? Not I.

Sea Shepherd and other anti-whaling groups have repeatedly harassed the Japanese whaling fleet. Japan kills about 1,000 whales every year under an international research program.

Dang, I expect better than that from Canadian Press. So-called international research program, surely.

[jody]

7. Given the conditions and probable range, the story as reported does not sound plausible. If the sea

was rough, then wind speed probably exceeded 30 knots and was probably quite variable.

All in all, if a hit occurred it was probably a random event rather than the work of an "expert marksman".

[iverglas]

8. isn't it sad

that you can't see what's right there in front of your eyes, if you cared to open them, jody?

"Probable range", as you're apparently envisioning it, just ain't not probable, it wasn't so at all.

Pretty hard to lob rotten butter onto a vessel from whatever range you have in mind, I'd think.

[iverglas]

15. maybe jody will watch the video

and give us an estimate of that "probable range" once you know what you're talking about, jody.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xem3K8E4Nk

[Sanctified]

10. If he was an expert marksman he would have aimed for the head

instead of the center of mass, this story sounds bullshit to me. I don't care how good of a shot you are, chances of hitting someone on another boat at sea is fricking nill.

[iverglas]

11. is the rest of the thread invisible to you?

Allow me to repeat some of it, for your benefit:

Anti-whaling activists reportedly threw rotten butter and bottles containing an unidentified liquid at the Japanese whaling vessel. Members of the Japanese Coast Guard on board the Nisshin Maru responded by throwing seven sound-emitting "warning balls" at the activists, who said these were "flash grenades" that injured two Australian protesters.

... Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith issued two statements Friday.

Initially Smith said Japan had informed Australian diplomats in Tokyo that a crew member aboard a whaling vessel had fired warning shots. But about 30 minutes later, Smith issued another statement saying Japanese officials had subsequently advised Australian diplomats that no gunshots had been fired, but that "warning balls" had been thrown.

If one side was able to throw objects onto the other vessel, and the other side was able to throw flash grenades onto the first vessel, what exactly are you finding to be bullshit about the possibility that a bullet allegedly fired by someone on the second vessel hit someone on the second vessel?

Are you people really not familiar with the tactics used by the Sea Shepherd group? They really, really don't stay at some sort of safe distance from the vessels whose activities they are trying to disrupt.

[Sanctified]

31. That an expert marksman aimed for the chest instead of the head.

What part of that do you fail to comprehend?

[iverglas]

32. what part of your internally contradictory and incoherent statements

am I failing to "comprehend"?

I dunno -- is it kinda self-explanatory now?




The later it gets the worser I type ...

[Sanctified]

35. Again I stated if someone is an expert marksman they aim for the head not center of mass.

Head shots are a guaranteed kill while center of mass shots do not and after watching the video there is no way to verify how close the other boat was when the captain was supposedly shot since the video clearly shows that it was taken at different parts of the day since there is a variation in the lighting provided by the sun.

[iverglas]

37. yes, and you also stated

I don't care how good of a shot you are, chances of hitting someone on another boat at sea is fricking nill.

So I'm failing to see what point there is in your going on about how an expert "marksman" would aim for the head and not centre of mass. If nobody could hit anything anyway. It wouldn't matter what someone aimed for, and it would be a random freak of chance if someone hit anything at all. Seeing it?

the video clearly shows that it was taken at different parts of the day since there is a variation in the lighting provided by the sun.

For pity's sake. The video clearly shows that the two bits were shot in different places. Notice how the window behind Watson isn't the same window in the two shots? How he's taken his jacket off?

How surprising would it be if he had moved from a relatively dark location on the boat to a place where more light was available before the bullet excision was done?

Be skeptical, but don't be absurd.

As far as how close the vessels were, what exactly is wrong with relying on the whalers' words, given as how they're speaking against their own interests, from this perspective?

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iOPGv1fpz1jfJ1x2SSH194Na6jlA

Moronuki said activists threw several bottles containing what is believed to be rotten butter, more than 10 paper bags of white powder, as well as several bottles containing an unidentified white liquid at the whaling ship, There were no injuries among the Nisshin Maru crew, he said.

What's your record for throwing bottles and bags and hitting something?

[Sanctified]

38. After vewing the video I would argue that it never happened.

My reasoning is that after the captain is shot the camera never shows where the Japanese boat is which would be the logical thing to film after someone was shot.

And even if they were right next to one another it would have been a damn near impossible shot because of the movement of the ocean and the wind factor. Shooting someone at sea is a lot harder than throwing fucking butter or flash grenades, shit even the flash grenades missed.

[iverglas]

12. so -- did anybody watch the video???

There was a link in the opening post to another DU post. I finally clicked on it.

Did anybody else?

That thread contained a link to video of the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xem3K8E4Nk

Everybody feel free to take the rest of it for what you will, but please do note the distance between the vessels.

But hey, don't let that stop anybody from engaging in accusations based on unfounded and false speculation.

[gorfle]

21. I watched it.

It looks like the two ships are roughly a couple of hundred feet or less apart. Certainly within grenade-throwing range, as you can see from the footage of the guys throwing flash-bangs at the ship and nearly hitting it.

They are certainly within pistol/rifle range of the ship.

Whether the guy was intentionally aimed at or not is another matter. It's difficult to tell how calm the seas are or not due to the moving of the video camera, but I would say, based on what I saw, that it is not impossible that it was an aimed rifle shot from that range in those conditions.

It is difficult from the footage to say what kind of bullet it was - it appears to be lead and appears to be mushroomed. I can't tell if it was jacketed ammo or not. I would have thought a military rifle at that range using full metal jacket ammo would penetrate a bullet proof vest, but I'm no expert on that sort of thing. It is also possible that an "unapproved" weapon with unapproved ammo was used.

It is possible that the footage is exactly what it purports to be.

It is also possible that it was faked, and someone shot his bullet proof vest at an earlier time and the footage was staged. There is no footage of the guy actually getting shot - the footage cuts to him after the fact. He does not appear terribly injured by having just been shot, and I am given to understand that taking a shot with a bullet proof vest is not a pleasant thing to endure - it is not an invincible shield. When you take a shot while wearing a bullet proof vest it is still quite a wallop.

So it could be real, or it could be propaganda, I don't know.

[iverglas]

23. ta

It was the distance part I was getting at, with so much assuming going on in this thread about the vessels being several hundred yards/metres apart for safety's sake. The Sea Shepherd doesn't operate by the rules of safe distance; that is its entire modus -- to harry the outlaws by maintaining an unsafe distance, thus obstructing their activities. (Of course, that would also make it difficult to prove that the ramming that has allegedly occurred in the past was intentional.)

I wouldn't think the footage shows even a couple of hundred feet distance, but it's pretty sketchy. Apparently a Canadian once threw a baseball 445 feet, thus achieving the record. A flash-bang at sea? They were hitting the Sea Shepherd with them. And I gather the Sea Shepherd was hitting the Japanese boat with its smelly stuff.

None of which is to say that the footage could not have been staged exactly as the whaler shill is claiming it was. It doesn't really look that way to me, but that's merely an impression.

[gorfle]

27. I'm not good at judging distances...

I'm not good at judging distances, so you may well be right. I don't know how much those flash-bang things weigh, either, but whatever the distance, the two ships were within rock-throwing distance of each other.

I would say that they were easily within shooting range of either a rifle or a pistol. I would also say they were probably at the extreme range of accuracy in a best-case scenario (stable platform, non-moving target) for a pistol. But I would have thought the damage from a rifle shot at that range would have been far greater, and the reaction from the victim would have been much higher - it probably would have knocked him to the ground (maybe it did, the footage cuts to him standing up fishing in his shirt).

Here is footage of a US soldier in full battle gear taking a sniper shot in Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXMjh_XbkiI

YouTube doesn't seem to want to play it, here is another source:

http://www.findinternettv.com/Video,item,2810818443.aspx

[iverglas]

28. no disagreement

Consensus in this thread, among those with knowledge and not scoffing baselessly at the plausibility of the incident itself, seems to be as you say.

[Sanctified]

33. I watched the video and it looks like the video was shot at different times.

First you see some guys throwing flash grenades and then you see the captain with a bullet hole in his vest but if you look at the background it appears this happens at very different times since the amount of light in the video is extremely different.

[iverglas]

19. "Armed guards will protect whalers: Japan"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/08/2183991.htm?section=justin

Japan has signalled that armed coast guard officers will protect its whaling ships from further interference by anti-whaling protesters.

Japan says coast guard officers threw so-called "flash-bangs" to warn off environmental activists from the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin as they harassed the Nisshin Maru whaling ship in the Southern Ocean yesterday.

But Japan's Government disputes Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson's claims that shots were fired.

Mr Watson claims he felt a thud and found a bullet lodged in his bullet-proof vest. ...

How many hundred metres would we estimate that shot to show? (The video shows the vessels considerably closer at the time the event is alleged to have occurred. I'm sure everybody with something to say in this thread has watched it by now.)


Just curious. We do all know that the Japanese whaling fleet is an international outlaw, right?

Strikes me that having armed guards protecting Japanese whalers from stink bombs (what the Sea Shepherd crew were lobbing) is kinda like the burglar in your bedroom bringing along armed guards to protect him/her from the pillow you're swinging.

[kristopher]

29. Try this with the video.

I think there is perfect evidence to illustrate the absurdity of the allegation that this is an "assassination attempt on Watson".

When you look at the first shot of the guy throwing the flash bang, it looks like a fairly stable image. However that is a deceptive illusion when it comes to a targeted shot.

Here is how to get a feel for the actual challenge. I don't know much about what can be done with video footage but if you can do it, stop action on the guy throwing the first flash bang. Zoom in really tight, so tight that you have a 6 inch square spot of the thrower occupying most of the center of your screen then unfreeze the frame and see how stable that 6X6 patch (the heart area that was supposedly targeted) is when you are trying to shoot it under these conditions.

[lepus]

39. If whaling for research is illegal why are whalers not being prosecuted?

What they are doing is not illegal. While it should be, it is not.

The Steve Irwin attempted to harass a vessel engaged in a lawful pursuit. During this they violated many rules of the road laws that do fall under international law and maritime law.

They closed within throwing distance to lob stink bombs. This is pretty dangerous for all involved. The japanese did not ask to have their lives endangered in this manner, the crew of the Sea Shepard did.

The maru has the right to defend itself in this situation.

Strikes me that having armed guards protecting Japanese whalers from stink bombs (what the Sea Shepherd crew were lobbing) is kinda like the burglar in your bedroom bringing along armed guards to protect him/her from the pillow you're swinging.

Its a lot more like driving down the road and having a truck full of idiots swerving towards you and throwing beer bottles at you. Then having them do it every time you drive down the road. Then having them get irked when you hire someone to lob stuff back at them.

Remember that what the whaling ship is doing is lawful until they change the laws concerning whaling to remove the "research" loophole. I am against the large scale net fishing and whaling that the japanese do, but until international laws are changed, what they are doing is legal.

Not trying to jam on you this particular time, but there are a lot of holes in the captain's story, the video, and the japanese accounts. I do not think what anyone is saying is close to the truth.

Btw I have three and a half years sailing open seas. I understand how dangerous what they where doing is. I also do like whales, I have gone to sleep listening to them through the hull more than a few times.

[iverglas]

40. do do just a smidge of research

Or hell, let me do it for you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3504189.ece

The Japanese whaling fleet is currently in the Southern Ocean, with the declared aim of catching 935 minke and 50 endangered fin whales as part of its annual “scientific programme”, exploiting a loophole in the global moratorium.

... According to Sea Shepherd, the whalers are breaking international conservation law by targeting endangered whales in a designated sanctuary in violation of the global moratorium on commercial whaling.

A court ruling passed in Australia also bars Japanese whalers from the Australian Antarctic Economic Exclusion Zone, and the conservationists claimed the latest incident occurred inside Australian waters.

http://news.smh.com.au/activists-have-bugged-whaling-ships/20080226-1utc.html

The Australian government has also sent a ship to the Southern Ocean to gather evidence against the whaling program for a possible international legal challenge.

One need not approve of the protesters' actions to recognize that if the Japanese vessel is whaling in the Australian economic zone, what they are doing IS illegal.


Remember that what the whaling ship is doing is lawful until they change the laws concerning whaling to remove the "research" loophole.

The loophole only applies if it applies. A mere claim that the activity in question slips through the loophole is not proof that it does. And in fact the long body of evidence regarding these activities appears to pretty much contradict the claim.


The maru has the right to defend itself in this situation.

The people on the vessel would indeed have the right to defend themselves against actions they reasonably believed put them in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Shooting at people on board the other vessel just might not meet that test. Particularly when they were at complete liberty to take other action to avoid harm.


Not trying to jam on you this particular time, but there are a lot of holes in the captain's story, the video, and the japanese accounts. I do not think what anyone is saying is close to the truth.

Of course I haven't said otherwise. There are certainly reasonable questions about several aspects about both accounts. Some of the objections to the protesters' account raised here just weren't entirely reasonable.

[lepus]

41. you need to do a smidge of research also.

The japanese whales are in the legal right of things. Research is being done with the carcasses. While most of the carcass ends up on the fish markets, and the research is of no benefit to the whales, they are doing research.

I think their most current jingoism is making a cow/whale hybrid.

The moratoriums rules do need to be changed and quickly.

Even if the whaler trespassed into aussie waters, not implausible considering their fishery ships history, it still retains the rights to defend itself on open water against privately owned ships attacking it.

International law does allow ships to defend themselves with lethal force. While the stink bombs are non lethal, repeatedly closing on the whaler to throw them does carry a good bit of risk in any kind of seas.

Under UNCLOS, just the violence from the stink bombs is enough to consider the sea shepards acts piracy. The japanese whaler would have been within his rights to sink the whole ship and all aboard to terminate the harrassment.

Due to how much fallout there would be, the whaler did not. Sinking one of the sea shepards would effectively end whaling from the international public outcry that would ensue. This IMHO is the aim of the harrassment, to actually get one of their boats sunk. I think some of their volunteers need to think about this a bit.

The sea shepards are vigilantes. If the law is being broken, let the authorities handle it. If the laws need to be changed, change them.

[iverglas]

42. how did you manage to miss the point?

If the Japanese whalers are operating within the Australian Economic Zone, they are NOT operating legally, regardless of what lie they are telling about the purpose of the hunt, and who might want to pretend to believe it.

That doesn't mean that anyone not acting under the authority of the Australian government has any authority to interfere in their operations. It simply means that they are NOT operating legally.

Whether a ship is entitled under international law to "defend" itself against attempts to obstruct its illegal activities is an interesting question.

Certainly, as regards individuals, under domestic law, someone engaged in an illegal activity is NOT entitled to "defend" him/herself against efforts to stop the illegal activity (at least not unless no other alternative is reasonably available in order to avoid death or serious injury). Matters not who is making those efforts, if the person against whom they are directed is committing an offence for which a member of the public is authorized to effect an arrest or has other justification for the use of force.

If a third party vessel came along and started throwing stink bombs at the Steve Irwin to make it stop throwing stink bombs at the Japanese whaler, would the crew of the Steve Irwin be entitled to blow the third party vessel out of the water?

If a third party vessel came along and discovered any vessel committing an act of piracy against another vessel, would it be entitled to blow the pirate vessel out of the water? What might it be entitled to do if it discovered a vessel dumping nuclear waste into the ocean, or human beings? Are there in fact any circumstances in which the use of force against a vessel is permissible, and is not regarded as piracy?


The sea shepards are vigilantes. If the law is being broken, let the authorities handle it. If the laws need to be changed, change them.

Certainly an arguable position.

If one rules out civil disobedience/defence as a legitimate response to a serious problem in all cases, one doesn't have to think about where the dividing line between the two lies. If one acknowledges that acts of civil disobedience/defence are permissible in some circumstances (as I find that most USAmericans do), one does.

[lepus]

43. while throwing the stinkbombs at the japanese whaler maker for an arguable case of piracy

Blowing up the whaler would make it a definate case. If the japanese caught the guys first, the case would be tried in Japan where they do exercise a death penalty.

The boat is not in australian waters, they are in an australian economic zone. ie They are for all intents and purposes in international waters for the purposes of law, except for the illegal fishing issue.

The Steve Irwin does not have the authority to interfere with another vessel on the high seas unless the country they are registered in considers them part of its navy and duly authorized to enforce law in international waters. Illegal fishing/whaling does not make a case for acts of violence and endangering another boat.

The other cases are apples and oranges truth be told. There already is quite a bit of nuclear waste sitting on the bottom of the ocean.

Interfering with another ship throwing people overboard by using violent tactics may be considered piracy, would very likely not be prosecuted.

[iverglas]

44. what the fuck?

Blowing up the whaler would make it a definate case. If the japanese caught the guys first, the case would be tried in Japan where they do exercise a death penalty.

What are you talking about? Did someone in this discussion raise the question of blowing up the whaler? If not, what's your point?

What *I* said was:

If a third party vessel came along and started throwing stink bombs at the Steve Irwin to make it stop throwing stink bombs at the Japanese whaler, would the crew of the Steve Irwin be entitled to blow the third party vessel out of the water?


The boat is not in australian waters, they are in an australian economic zone. ie They are for all intents and purposes in international waters for the purposes of law, except for the illegal fishing issue.

And strangely enough, it's the illegal fishing issue that's in issue here. My reference to the Australian Economic Zone was in reply to your statement "The japanese whale<r>s are in the legal right of things", based on an assertion that they were whaling for research purposes, as permitted. My point was that because (if) they were in the Australian Economic Zone, they were NOT "in the legal right" as regards their whaling activities, because it is NOT legal to whale in waters under Australia's jurisdiction.

So, did you have a point?


The other cases are apples and oranges truth be told.

Indeed. Well, that's cute. You maybe realize that merely *saying* that analogies proffered are "apples and oranges" really don't make 'em so. So I'll take your statement as an argument by blatant assertion and ignore it and move on.

Oops. Fell off the end of your post.


No, wait:

Interfering with another ship throwing people overboard by using violent tactics may be considered piracy, would very likely not be prosecuted.

Fascinating. Maybe you can regale me with a discussion of the necessity defence as it does not apply on the high seas.

Might I think that you would not react with righteous outrage to an act of "piracy" committed to prevent a crew of a foreign vessel from throwing human beings overboard?

[lepus]

45. Do I have a point? yes.

Civil disobediance is not written into the laws of the sea. For the most part they have been codified and understood by all for a few hundred years.

The Steve Irwin is not a police vessel, nor does it have any authority at sea to harrass another ship with violence which a naval vessel would. A police or naval vessel act with the authority of their country. I do not believe Australia issues letters of marque. Considering the Steve Irwin is currently registered out of the Netherlands, it has no authority to act in this case.

The Steve Irwin has already had it's registry yanked once for cause. Do you think the british government did it just for spite?

If the maru is violating the aussies rights in the economic zone, then the aussie government is the one to prosecute it. Impounding the japanese vessels has worked in the past for the US government.

The japanese may be guilty of a violation of UNCLOS III, that does not rise to the level of a civilian vessel using force to prevent it. The right of the Japanese ship to protect its crew from another civilian vessel is not removed because they are in another country's economic zone.

Really could give a flip less about the japanese throwing people overboard because this was not an issue here or do you know something the rest of us dont?

[iverglas]

46. I don't know anything you don't know

But it seems you know something I don't know.

Really could give a flip less about the japanese throwing people overboard because this was not an issue here or do you know something the rest of us dont?

Not that I know how someone knows something that isn't true.

What I do know, though, is that you're going to some effort to portray me as saying something I did not say, or imply, or suggest, or insinuate, or even think.

The idea of "the Japanese throwing people overboard" originated entirely in your own mind. It could not even have been inferred from anything I said.

In case you're wondering what I was thinking, I was harkening back to last week's episode of the CBC drama Border, which, like the infinitely better Intelligence, has as one of its central themes the interference in Canadian affairs by US intelligence and police agencies. In that episode, someone had thrown a Nigerian opposition leader overboard from a Philippine registered ship on the high seas. The question was whether it had been the captain, who turned out to be a CIA operative, or the mate, who was claiming refugee status in Canada because of his asserted fear of the captain and his contacts. It turned out the CIA guy was the good guy.

No Japanese in the tale at all.

So since we don't seem to be able to pursue this civilly -- inventing nasty insinuations and ascribing them to one's interlocutor not being civil -- well, I guess we can't pursue it.


Civil disobediance is not written into the laws of the sea. For the most part they have been codified and understood by all for a few hundred years.

Interestingly enough, I don't believe civil disobedience is written into any laws. If it were, it wouldn't really be civil disobedience now, would it?

The defence of necessity is used by states in international law all the time. I'm rather curious what would happen if a non-state actor used it. But I guess you're not.



edited for clarity

[lepus]

47. pursue it intelligently, not civilly is more like it.

You were the one that brought up the throwing people overboard not me. It had nothing to do with the subject at hand, and yet you just based most of you last post on it.

The Steve Irwin is not a state actor, and if they were they would be acting on behalf of the Netherlands, not Australia.

Non state actors do not hold any position to violate the laws of the sea. Pirates do not dictate what international law is and how it is interpreted.

The only reason the maru dealt with the Steve Irwin so gently is because of the bad publicity it would generate, sinking the ship and taking the crew back to Japan for trial would be legal in this case. This would generate too much attention on what the whalers are doing.

Wanna bet I can get the Steve Irwin's registration put up for review with a few snail mails?

[iverglas]

48. interesting concept

You were the one that brought up the throwing people overboard not me. It had nothing to do with the subject at hand, and yet you just based most of you last post on it.

I was the one who brought up the question of when the DEFENCE OF NECESSITY might be available on the high seas.

I offered examples of when it could conceivably be available.

That someone else is unable to reason by analogy is not my problem. Reasoning by analogy is actually an indicator of intellectual development, in case you were wondering.


The Steve Irwin is not a state actor, and if they were they would be acting on behalf of the Netherlands, not Australia.

I did not say, suggest, imply or imagine that the Steve Irwin is a state actor. For the love of fuck. Can you not read? If you can, and you know that I did not say, suggest, imply or imagine that the Steve Irwin is a state actor, and in fact referred to non-state actors, what's your point?


The only reason the maru dealt with the Steve Irwin so gently is because of the bad publicity it would generate, sinking the ship and taking the crew back to Japan for trial would be legal in this case. This would generate too much attention on what the whalers are doing.

Yes, and that's about the 18th time you've said words to that effect, and they're as relevant to anything as they were the first time, which is why I disregarded the first time and will continue to do so.


Wanna bet I can get the Steve Irwin's registration put up for review with a few snail mails?

Wanna bet I think you think you're a bigger fish than you actually are?

[lepus]

49. I do so totally understand you now.

You are all for illegal violence as long as it is committed in a cause you believe in. But You also believe a person should not be able to protect himself from illegal violence.

Understood lima charlie.

Wanna bet I think you think you're a bigger fish than you actually are?

Nah, you just have never seen me write letters and ask stupid questions to the right people. Thank you, you have inspired me with a small cause for the next three to six months.

[iverglas]

50. I really think you need to watch your mouth

You are all for illegal violence as long as it is committed in a cause you believe in.

That is a false statement that you know to be false. If you want to know a short term for that, ask google.

But You also believe a person should not be able to protect himself from illegal violence.

That is a false statement that you know to be false. If you want to know a short term for that, ask google.


Strange way to amuse one's self, I have to say. The obvious sign of a person who doesn't have an honest argument to make, though.


Nah, you just have never seen me write letters and ask stupid questions to the right people.

Nah, I think you think you're smarter than the rest of the world. Good grief. I'll bet the Netherlands would just never think of what you're going to tell them unless you tell them. Stupid European foreigners.

If you were to say what you obivously think about your own intellectual prowess, you'd be making a false statement, but this time you might not know it's false.

http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html

[lepus]

51. I am not amusing myself truth be told.

Hints: you are anti gun. but your above posts show that you are pro violence and for vigilantiism. Yet most of your posts in the gun subforum condemn peoples rights to protect themselves with lethal force from violence.

I have seen this before quite a few times. These are the hallmarks of a bully.

I never claimed to be a big fish as you have said. I know I am a small fish, I know how to swim the waters and currents, but on occasion I can make the currents swim with me.

If the Steve Irwin is still registered in the Netherlands in six months, I will apologize.

I am not sure how things work in canada, but a bit of letter writing does get things done if the proper words are used, especially in todays political climate.

If you are telling me to watch my mouth, by all means have the mods delete my message. My basic statement is that I am against violent vigilante action and you are for it. What is the viewpoint of the forum mods?

[iverglas]

52. hmm

Now why would I want the evidence of someone's complete and utter dishonesty and rottenness expunged from the record?

Just an idle question, addressed to no one in particular à propos of nothing in particular ...

[lepus]

53. Gee, what utter dishonesty and rottenness?

I am already on the record stating that I am for saving the whales. But I believe vigilante tactics are not the way to do it. I would prefer to change the moratorium rules to remove the research provision.

Yet you are on the side of violence and piracy on the high seas to achieve your aims, yet you get all quivery when one of your pet outlaws gets shot when attacking someone.

I am a former sailor, I have quite a few years spent on open water. There is no room for those that unlawfully initiate violent acts on the high seas.

All I am going to do is ask some difficult questions of some people. It is my hope that instead of giving me a conveniant answer, they pull the Steve Irwin's registry

[iverglas]

54. you asked?

Your answer:

Yet you are on the side of violence and piracy on the high seas to achieve your aims

One of many on display.

Rottenness and dishonesty, examples thereof.

[lepus]

55. you get called on your arguments and cry unfair?

You have already posted trying to find ways that initiating violencee on the high seas as a non state player would be justified for your political aims, yet you are against people defending themselves from that violence using a weapon.

The only rottenness and dishonesty I see are in your arguments.

Gee just think, when the Steve Irwin gets its registration pulled, You were the inspiration for it happening. Good thing to tell your freinds, I will.

[iverglas]

56. you speak gross and rotten untruths and keep doing it?

Don't let me interfere!

[lepus]

57. Alas the final cries on one caught in their own arguments,

and claiming unfair.

[Sanctified]

58. It looks like the Australian Government is going to step in

and probe the activities of Sea Shepherd. I just read this in yesterdays paper:

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20080317TDY02304.htm