Saving Capt. Schroeder

Remove all ads!

German freighter captain Wolfgang Schroder is probably going to be sentenced to jail for ten years for an accident. A technical defect caused his ship to drift unsteerable against a container bridge, killing the harbor worker Shawn Jacobs. Argument of the prosecutor was that because the part has failed twice before, it was negligient killing. Jacob's family is all for it.

IMO the death was tragic, no doubt, but it was not culpability of the captain but a technical failure. **** happens. In Germany he would most probably go free. In the US he goes to jail for a decade because of an obsolete law from 1838, conceived in the age of sail ships.

Sad. Time to revise the law and time for the president to pardon the captain. Two more things that probably won't happen. You can help him, as outlined below:
http://www.mastermariner.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=856&sid=b7445d8e33e9f30cb16af33710ed32ca

 

Having spent most of my life associated with ships and nautical laws I agree that Capt. Schroeder did indeed commit a crime. He was charged with ensuring all his safety equipment was working properly prior to launch -- and to have a emergency response in case of a problem. In this case, dropping anchors to slow down the vessel would have been quite prudent. Undoubtedly, Capt Schroeder either did not think to do such a manuever, or he did not want to risk fouling/marring his ship with the anchor chain.

The ship's captain has complete responsibility and accountability for what happens to and on his ship. When lives are lost, it is the Captain who is rightfully held accountable. In this day and age of excuses and the ever popular 'poor me' syndrome it is refreshing to see SOME part of this world actually hold a person accountable to the responsibilities he or she has obligated themselves to. Being a Captain of such a vessel is a great responsibility and having obtained such a status a Captain is held to a higher standard.

He should have ordered the tug. A tug on standby (which is loosely attached to the ship) can quickly respond and has saved many ships from a similar fate. Perhaps all this was just arrogance on the part of Capt Schroeder, or maybe poor planning. Either way it was certainly not 'good seakeeping.'

The laws of the sea are quite specific in stating that any accident at sea is the responsibility of the Captain(s) involved. Any and all actions must be done to prevent collisions at sea (and that included running aground and hitting piers). Failure to take timely, appropriate action is a crime at sea (which in this case includes international waters and inland rivers and lakes).

I do not believe Capt (and I use the term loosely now) Schroeder needs to be saved. He committed a crime and he should face the punishment. A life was lost due to his poor judgement and insufficient shiphandling skills. He should be held accountable for that lost life.

 

When a part breaks down, suddenly, like in an accident, after passing all previous safety checks, there is no time to call a tug.

You're asking not only perfect knowledge from him, but clairvoyance.

He was an experienced captain. You can expect him to have called a tug had he known the part would break down. You assume knowledge, when you suggest he should have had doubt that his bow thruster would fail. Where do you take that from?

When your car's brakes are defect, and you get them repaired, do you afterwards drive as if you expected them to be still broken?

 

Unfortunately for him, it was a part of his job to plan for such events. His failure to do so led directly to the death of a person.

Getting a ship underway is NOT like starting your car. Even the checks for launching an aircraft are small compared to those for getting a large ship underway. Unfortunately, too many ships and crew take shortcuts and do not properly prepare -- that appears to be the case here. A contingency plan IS REQUIRED by ships. He clearly was negligent.

Edit: I have conned/piloted ships with twin screw capability (which greatly aids maneuverability). We ALWAYS had a contingency plan for failure of critical parts (rudders, engine, electrical power). I have dropped anchor after a failure of one engine to prevent running into a pier. As I said, such actions take planning -- something he did not do. On a ship you MUST always have a plan for critical equipment failure especially in shallow water where the ability to maneuver is greatly restricted.

 

How do you know he didn't have an alternative plan? And how do you know that it would have made a difference?

Because I cannot read that out of the articles.

 

There are a lot of details left out of the article -- as there should be for a criminal investigation. I have piloted ships in excess of 50,000 tons. I know how they move in still water and how they move in currents. I know how long it takes to build up speed and what it takes to stop such a ship.

I would like to see the sequence of events for the accident, but I would bet he had several minutes between the moment his bow thruster failed to respond and the impact. There is no mistaking when a bow thruster kicks in. He should have taken decisive action WITHIN SECONDS of that failure to respond. Reversing his engines to stop the motion of his ship and dropping anchor to counter the current.

As the article was supporting Schroeder, it is fair to assume any actions he did to prevent the accident would have been listed (after all, showing he was quick to respond and took all appropriate actions would gather more support). As it was, no actions on his part are indicated -- this is very damning. Hence, it is a fair assumption that he was taken unprepared and did not respond quickly enough.

Getting a large ship underway is not something to be rushed. You never commit to an action that you cannot recover from. That is experience. Schroeder may have been a veteran Captain, but he was not an experienced one (which is to say he did not show appropriate caution).

As I said, he was in the wrong. His ship killed someone due to his own action or inaction. He should be punished.

 

My view to this would be the same as to a misdiagnosis or error in surgery leading to the death of the patient. Unless there is evidence that it was intentional he should not face prison. He should probably be fined and his ability to captain a ship should be investigated by appropriate authorities, but putting him in prison is a huge waste of government resources. Imprisonment is for dangerous people, the danger this man causes can be avoided simply by taking away his licence to be in charge of such ships, depending on how gross his negligence was.

[ February 05, 2007, 23:40: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Doh.

The other point is the standard of negligience used.

*which would be precondition for a sentence in modern criminal law.

Morgoroth is right to draw the analogy to surgeons whose punishment would require recklessness in case a patient dies.To punish him there is a higher burden of proof than to punish the captain of a ship who can go to jail for much less. It is IMO very hard to argue that. The same would apply to an aircraft captain for whom also a different standard is applicable, if his plane crashes after a control failure.
Sorry, but that's

The application of different standards for negligience in more modern laws suggests to me that lawmakes intent and legal understanding has changed since 1838, and that in this respect the law is indeed obsolete. A suitable solution would be to use the higher standard of more modern laws to 'cure' the law's flaw, until a revised law is enacted.

 

Just read lights in his cell are on 24/7, he is led around in chains. What does that remind me of again...? Ah yes.

Perhaps Germany and the US can come to an understanding of sorts: We drop the charges against those CIA thugs for abduction and torture of a German citizen (Masri). The US of A in turn set free Schroeder, a German they treat like a mass murderer because of an accident.

Hey, you never know what passes for justice with these... people.

 

Just where did you 'read' this? Sorry, but that's pure bs -- something someone made up to rile the masses. I'm always amazed to see how well such lies work. Although the led around in chains is common when transporting prisoners.

By nautical definitions running your ship into something IS gross negligence. Many people are trying to draw conclusions based on limited knowledge of driving a vehicle and extrapolating to a ship -- but that's not possible (just as the doctor comparison is off base).

If you've never driven a large vessel you simply cannot know what is required to safely maneuver the vessel. It is painfully obvious to me he totally and utterly failed to follow common sense procedures to ensure he piloted his ship safely. By laws governing ships at sea he should be facing prison time if found guilty. Period.

 

Better safe than sorry, Dendri. He might steer his ship into the jury or prosecutor, if not for these chains.

No seriously, I think they do that to everbody accused of a serious crime. I don't think it has a special reason or is the result of a special peril embodied by Schroeder. The American criminal justice system is something much different than the European variants, and ours are far from being hotel resorts. It represents the much harder approach in America.
If that's for the better is a different question. I doubt it, but that's leading

EDIT: T2Bruno,
Manslaughter requires a finding of gross negligence. The Seaman’s Manslaughter Law requires only that simple negligence be found – without the master clearly knowing of the negligence or danger. Because it is not necessary to prove any criminal intent, or gross negligence, the best advice is to avoid, at all costs, having an accident. And better don't have bad luck. How do you like that for professional advice?

You still don't adress why a ship captain ought to be to be held to a different standard than, say an aircraft pilot. Is it the complexity of the vehicle? Are ships more complicated than aircraft? Is it the salt water?

What dou you make of the unfairness inherent in a double standard for 'negligience' with equal responsibility? How would that be justified? That is an important question, because if the different approach cannot be justified, the law is unfair, and thus, injust./EDIT

[ February 05, 2007, 23:56: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Our prime news broadcaster would be the source, Tower2. Hence nothing of ill repute. In case you know German I will be glad to provide a link to tagesschau.de and the article.

Ragusa

I dont doubt it to be a standard procedure. Certainly not in a correction center labled "infamous". How curious, though, that he's being held in this facility. Ein Schelm, der Böses dabei denkt.

 

Robert Frump, author of "The Sea Shall Set Them Free", the account of the Marine Electric ship that ran aground in 1983, has written the following letter to the District Court Judge hearing the case of Schroder...

Not entirely sure if I agree with all of his views, but it does provide a little more information to the story...as well as showing the rumor of 24/7 cell lighting, chains and other idiocy as being total

Oh...the letter was posted here.

 

And for those not trusting Hack's assessment of these rumours as idiocy and BS: There's plenty of, um, unfavourable documentation about U.S.-prisons by human rights groups to be found via a search engine of your choice.

But not to steer this thread off-topic... antiquated U.S. maritime laws and their incredulous consequences.

 

quote:
---------------------------------------------
Just read lights in his cell are on 24/7, he is led around in chains.

Just where did you 'read' this? Sorry, but that's pure bs
---------------------------------------------
unquote

I am so glad that justice won this time. Capt. Schroeder left the prison yesterday and is already on his way back home.
At the same time, I cannot believe what T2Bruno wrote. I wonder where YOU sought your info from? I was one of Capt. Schröder's supporters and I know the family at Mobile that supported him throughout the entire time in prison.
I can only but confirm that his lights were indeed on 24/7 and that he was hand-cuffed and foot-shackeled in the first month.

another quote:
--------------------------------------------
"I'm always amazed to see how well such lies work."
--------------------------------------------
unquote

How do you know? Have you been there? Have you talked to him? Obviously not. It was the truth.

However, I am grateful that he will be no longer punished for a fatal and tragic accident.

Cheers to the believers.

 

trach:

Of course, you were either there or have pictures verifying such treatment. Not likely. Within the US borders such things are unconstitutional and are considered cruel and inhumane treatment (prisons outside the US borders do not fall under the same laws). Prison wardens and guards go to jail for doing such things. Defense attorneys are quite quick to point out unconstitutional treatment because it is a quick and easy win here. Mr Schroeder would have been home MONTHS ago had he really been treated like that.

Obviously you also fell for the hype. American prisons do not have lights on 24 hours in cells unless there is a suicide watch.

Felons ARE put in chains during transport to discourage escape. While inside the prison facility there are no chains.

I think it is very telling that no US news organization reported the inhumane treatment -- only German news organizations. I personally question the reliability of the source. I must admit, the spreading of such unfounded rumors did lead to a wider support and probably better funding for his defense.

It's all moot now. Mr Schroeder got away with his crime. He does not deserve to captain another vessel.

 

T2,
It doesn't come to you that he got away because of being found ... not guilty of negligience, whatever you read out of the incident?

After all, that's what not being sentenced is all about.

 

just can't believe it.
you were right, yes, I've been there as they allowed him visiting hours (30min 2 times a week) and you've obviously been there as well. too bad he never told. whatever.
if you need further proving evidence, go contact him, his wife, his daughter, the lyborgs, you will find blogs throughout the net. your words are false and of poor background, regret to tell. nobody stated that all prisoners are treated like that, but you are well recommended to step off that untrue train when you spread rumors amongst people that simply know what happened as they were with him. wolfgang did not even obtain the appropriate medicine for weeks as he suffers from diabetis. I'm sure you attended the court room on wednesday and heard what madame judge said. a wise woman I must now admit. think about it. and hm... no pics allowed in court rooms or prison's visiting rooms. I safe my pictures behind my eyes, especially of that sad extent.
closed for all times. free at last.

 

I'm not really sure what you're saying there trach. What I do know is the accusations levied at the jail in Mobile are quite serious and are illegal in America if true. As such I find it very hard to believe a person in the correctional institution industry would be willing to risk jail time to do such things to a petty criminal. Prison workers are not treated well when they go to prison -- most do not survive even a short sentence. The accusations just don't make sense. There are many watchdog groups here in America that look specifically for such things -- and violations get a lot of press here. Your conspiracy theory just doesn't hold water.

Ragusa, he was found guilty. That's why he was in the sentencing phase. The judge was lenient. I believe this sets a very bad precedent. I really don't care where the man is from or anything else about him EXCEPT that he was the master (or captain) of a vessel.

The judge has now set a precedence which can be used in future court cases allowing for leniency in cases where the master was not directly responsible for damages involved -- this is bad. In the past a Captain was criminally and financially responsible for any and all damages his vessel caused. He could be put in jail and the ship impounded until the damages were paid. With such "harsh" rules, Captains generally made sure they were well prepared for any casualty or problem. When a 50,000 ton vessel goes out of control a lot of damage can result -- and significant loss of life.

With this new ruling, captains no longer will have as much culpability for anything which is deemed to be out of their direct control. Without as much personally at stake, ship's masters WILL become more lenient themselves and MORE mistakes will occur. As I said, this is bad. Think of the damage a ship can do running into a pier also being used as a market. How about a bridge with hundreds of cars? The loss of life could be catastrophic -- and the master will not be held accountable.

 

That means the judge did what I suggested. He determined indeed simple negligience, but apparently applied actual standards of negligience, that is the requirement of gross negligience for criminal cases, on the old law. It was not leniency, but simply systematic interpretation of the law. That said, I need to read the verdict I'd like to know how exactly he argued.

Good judge. That would mean a ship's captain is held to the same standard as an aircraft pilot, or a surgeon. What is wrong with that? I asked the question before.

And I don't think it sets a bad precedent. You can bet that for gross negligience, much more intent, there will still be a sentence and punishment. Besides, it certainly means that the shipping companies will have to take more responsibilities. This would reflect business reality and the very direct control shipping companies have today, and exercise today ... one of the many things that have changed since the age of sailships.