NYCkayaker NYC Water Trail--and [nonsense]

[TomBrooklyn]

This may be a loaded question to ask an attorney, but by what stretch of the
imagination, even the imagination of a law couselor, could a person kayaking and
perhaps rolling constitute "a substantial or grave risk of injury or death to
another person?"   Assume the Commander of the kayaking vessel is using reasonable
prudence and adhering to the Rules of Navigation-- i.e. not paddling in shipping
lanes so as to interfere with commercial shipping etc. 

> > From: Richard Clifford  

>     How much fun is this? Answering legal questions on NYCKayaker.
>     Well, the correct answer is that you would be asking your attorney: 
> "what the heck is section 120 of the penal code?" - Richard Clifford

> Sec. 120.20  Reckless endangerment in the second degree.
>     A  person  is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when
> he recklessly engages in  conduct  which  creates  a  substantial  risk  of
> serious physical injury to another person.
>     Reckless endangerment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
> 
> Sec. 120.25  Reckless endangerment in the first degree.
>     A  person  is guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree when,
> under circumstances evincing a depraved  indifference  to  human  life,  he
> recklessly  engages  in  conduct  which  creates  a  grave risk of death to
> another person.
>     Reckless endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony.

> TomBrooklyn wrote:
> >>>From: Richard Clifford <RichardClifford at earthlink.net>
> >> Here is the concept so we don't go off on a long discourse about 
> >>what one may and may not do. "Everyplace is regulated" by someone or 
> >>some state agency, and they all assert to operate under the rule of law 

> >As far as the State of NY is concerned, I could find nothing in it's Constitution
> >which would give them the right to restict anyone from boating, kayaking,
> paddling,
> >sailing, rolling, immersing, or swimming.any of those activities.  Therefore, if
> the
> >state has put any prohibitions on the above, those laws are unconstitional and
> >deserve to be challenged and struck from the books.