No. Don't blame the victim of a crime for the crime. Blame the criminal.
One does not exclude the other. If your negligence enables a crime that hurts you and other people, you will be blamed and accused as well.
Further, as pointed out in the film, different pirates were operating in different parts of the ocean. If the ship changed course, there is a decent chance that they would have run into different pirates.
Yeah a decent but SMALLER chance, hence the lawsuit.
Hindsight is always 20-20, and Monday morning quarterbacking always takes place after the play is over.
Truisms much? The protocol exists to make hindsight unnecessary.

No. Don't blame the victim of a crime for the crime. Blame the criminal. Further, as pointed out in the film, different pirates were operating in different parts of the ocean. If the ship changed course, there is a decent chance that they would have run into different pirates. Hindsight is always 20-20, and Monday morning quarterbacking always takes place after the play is over.

This message has been deleted.

Two eye patches instead of just one.

His decision to stick with protocol probably saved lives. They were in a dangerous sector of the ocean and they would have likely run into more viscous pirates.
Huh? He didn't stick to protocol, that is the OPs point and that is why the company got sued. And no there are not even more dangerous pirates further out, that is why the protocols says to go there.
What does "more dangerous" pirates even mean? How exactly would they be more dangerous?

His decision to stick with protocol probably saved lives. They were in a dangerous sector of the ocean and they would have likely run into more viscous pirates.

When did victim-blaming become a thing?
The crew sued the company and the captain for reasons similar to what the OP said.

When did victim-blaming become a thing?

It's so hard to know if people are actually as dumb as this or if you're trolling. It really is.

It seems the OP went over your head. Philips didn't follow official warnings and not by a little bit. So he is getting sued up the wazoo by half the crew.
If he had followed it, then this thread wouldn't exist. That's all there is to it.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/01/article-2439561-186F26A700000578-487_634x332.jpg

Lol! He totally owned you! Hiding behind long-winded sentences and condescending remarks doesn't make you more right or him more wrong. You're just making an a** of yourself

The stupid is strong in this one.

lol, all fluff, what a surprise. It doesn't sound like you even watched the movie but just want to spout out about how pointless your life is. Calling me an idiot only highlights your ineptitude. This movie had a mothership, and this forum is about the movie. Maybe it's normal for you to forget such things but it's not normal for humanity in general.
Almost makes me envious to know what it's like to be so airheaded. But then I see that semen hat and I'm all good.
Even if we imagine a universe in which you are not completely inept, the mothership is irrelevant. He didn't follow international warnings and is being sued for that by a majority of the crew. In other words, he f/cked up. Even worse than your f'ups spewing nonsensical bs on an internet forum.

Well then, Moron.
If you have heard of Motherships, then you know that your assessment earlier is flat out wrong.
The small skiffs don't have range to travel too far from shore but the Motherships DO you idiot.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

Again, I can't disagree with your self assessment. With that self-assessment, you are in no position to judge anyone else's education level.
Not only have I heard of motherships, I've seen them in this movie, which is what this forum is about. Sorry if that is over your head.
I'm afraid you are not properly equipped to comprehend the relevance of motherships in this context, especially since you completely steer clear of anything quantitative. But it's ok, given your accurate self-assessment.

Are you REALLY that uneducated? As I said, I don't consider myself particularly intelligent, but even I have heard of mother ships.
The wikipedia even specify Somalian pirates!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_ship

Well, I can't say I disagree with your self-assessment.
"Someone boarding a ship armed with an AK47" is someone who goes out to see in a rusty little skiff with a handheld engine. Such engines have small ranges. Hence ship captains were told to stay a certain distance away from shore.

Yeah, what Mr Sailor said. Also, I'm pretty fracking dumb, but I think someone boarding a ship armed with an AK47 is more to blame for an act of piracy than a merchant seaman doing his job.
FFS, the OP is probably the kind of person who thinks women who are raped are at fault!

No.
Pirate attacks have happened much further out to sea than the course track he was taking.
Further out, closer in. neither mattered.
It is a HUGE Ocean, those Pirate vessels generally don't have radar. They would have to pass within a circle with the diameter being the Visual Horizon of the target vessel to spot her. Their course would have to intersect a moving circle centered on the target ship which is about a 8-12 mile radius. When you are talking thousands of square miles of open ocean, that is a pretty tiny footprint. Their odds were just as good where they were as a bit further out would be as well.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!