Without both sides being presented by the actual people involved, it is impossible to determine if the MP or the boater was wrong. It may have been a misunderstanding or a situation reported here differently than the actual event.
Again, the question of "Do you want us to call a towing service?" may have been asked and when advised that the cost might be a few hundred dollars, the boater declined. Perhaps the MP unit said he could tow him directly to shore where he would have to get his own help was not what the boater wanted to hear, but instead wanted a tow back to his marina. Another consideration was that there was not a true danger to the boat or its occupants and they could safely anchor there until help arrived. Major inconvenience and a crappy way to end a voyage? Yup, big time. Justification to criticize the officer? No.
I don't think that any MP unit would abandon a disabled vessel if that vessel was truly in danger. In this case, 10 years after the fact, the poster claims he had to paddle 100 yards to shore. 300 feet. Then he had to walk 3 miles to get gas. He WAS able to help himself. Yes, it took time. Now, suppose the MP had towed him that 300 feet and left him there. Would he be happy? Probably not because he was 3 miles away from fuel. Perfect example of a stranded boater thinking the MP should act as a towing or shuttle service. The MP certainly would have called for a tower or offered to contact a friend or a marina for them. If the boater copped attitude, then "Have a nice day!"
|