Article on Death In Ginnie Springs

[gianaameri]

This gas analysis you are asking for isn't inexpensive. To conclusively rule out any possible scenario would require an analysis for thousands of possible compounds that can exist in the gas phase at scuba pressures, and which also might possibly contribute to incapacitation at the depth the diver became incapacitated. To develop the data set necessary to achieve 95% certainty that nothing toxic was present would be really expensive. Then you would have to add in the costs of interpreting the data set using expert testimony to ensure you've excluded anything that contradicts the witness statements, which support death by misadventure.

It's all about responsible use of limited government resources. Americans are willing to accept a reasonable explanation for a fatality given reliable statements from witnesses. They are not willing to pay for huge government infrastructures to extract the last bit on insignificant minutia from every accident that occurs in their jurisdiction. While some countries with large debt to GDP ratios do perform these nanny state functions, the US does not, and Americans are quite satisfied with their system.

What you are asking for would be considered an irresponsible misappropriation of government resources by most US taxpayers. More likely, taxpayers and legislators would prefer to regulate the root cause, recreational diving, before they added new burdens to the police who are busy enough with community policing. It would be far cheaper to prevent the fatalities through oppressive regulation of the currently unregulated recreational scuba hobby than to chase minutia after every accident. As a recreational diver, I'm satisfied with both the current level of accident investigation and the current level of regulatory interest.

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that a recreational diver would insist on the level of government interdiction into their hobby that you so fervently desire.

A person died.

What if was your son or daughter?

In a modern and advanced country like the U.S. it is surprising there is not a protocol to follow by the Police in case of a diving fatality and a small budget towards the writing of the protocol and the training for the Police to be able to read it and follow it.

Where is DAN USA and why are they not doing anything about this (it is not good for their insurance business that an investigation is conducted in this manner)?

 

[tomfcrist]

A person died.

Yup

What if was your son or daughter?

I would be pissed that he/she didn't analyze the bottle prior to the dive.

In a modern and advanced country like the U.S. it is surprising there is not a protocol to follow by the Police in case of a diving fatality and a small budget towards the writing of the protocol and the training for the Police to be able to read it and follow it.

This is only surprising to you. Nobody else thinks its necessary to have a CSI investigation.

Where is DAN USA and why are they not doing anything about this (it is not good for their insurance business that an investigation is conducted in this manner)?

What is DAN supposed to do about it? Lobby lawmakers to regulate the scuba industry? Lobby for funding for a local dive accident investigation team for every location in the country? That isn't going to happen.


What I think you need to do Gian is realize that YOUR opinion about how we do things in the USA is irrelevant. The US divers don't want government regulation in SCUBA. US residents also don't believe as a whole that the police is responsible for ensuring our safety, nor are they required to find blame in a misadventure scenario. You like the police to be involved in every matter...cool, but don't expect us to follow suit.

You keep saying that you firmly believe that this was an accident and was the fault of the diver / team, but that is a direct contradiction to your initial position within this thread.

Keep digging and something will eventually come out.

The story we have been fed while possible is implausible.

There must be a little more to it.

But you believe it was an accident? So now you believe the story? You just think there needs to be a CSI investigation?

You want to throw out a million theories on how something should have been done better. Great. You have done that. Now shut up. All you are doing is copy/pasting your posts over and over again...maybe that's how you feel like a winner in discussions/debates where you come from...I don't know.

 

[Dan G]

A person died.

What if was your son or daughter?

In a modern and advanced country like the U.S. it is surprising there is not a protocol to follow by the Police in case of a diving fatality and a small budget towards the writing of the protocol and the training for the Police to be able to read it and follow it.

Where is DAN USA and why are they not doing anything about this (it is not good for their insurance business that an investigation is conducted in this manner)?

Wow. You'll just throw a hand grenade at anything and then survey what the damage is later. Now we are in store for 100 more posts arguing over DAN's role and charter. You'll come back and say, "Well if the police had followed acceptable protocol in their accident investigation and if DAN would take the lead on that, we would not be questioning their integrity..."

Well played sir, well played. The author- and you- can publicize that the Huff Post article generated "hundreds of posts that contributed to the improvement of accident analysis world wide."

 

[Lorenzoid]

A person died.

What if was your son or daughter?

I would not demand the police call in the forensics lab if all the immediately available evidence pointed to my son or daughter being at fault, as in all the "smoking gun" hypothetical scenarios people have brought up in this thread.

In a modern and advanced country like the U.S. it is surprising there is not a protocol to follow by the Police in case of a diving fatality and a small budget towards the writing of the protocol and the training for the Police to be able to read it and follow it.

Why single out diving fatalities, when there are fatalities in all kinds of other recreational activities that are often similarly investigated to only a "high" level (but not 100%) certainty of the cause? Call in the forensics lab in every single boating incident, for example? I do not want my tax dollars going to police getting involved in investigating anything that does not smell like a crime. From what others have said here, it seems no one else does either. If you are convinced this is something you think the public would want changed, why don't you take a formal poll?

Where is DAN USA and why are they not doing anything about this (it is not good for their insurance business that an investigation is conducted in this manner)?

Why DAN? It seems to me that if there is anything for an organization to learn from dive accidents of this type, such an organization would be a dive training agency, not DAN. Within DAN's realm of expertise, it's perfectly clear what caused Carlos' death. As far as insurance, it's my understanding that DAN's insurance affiliate is not a non-profit business, so if it made sense to gather more information about this kind of accident, I suspect they would be doing just that. If there is any kind of business that needs no prodding to look out for its own interests, it is insurance. If there is a way to increase profits, they will find it without our help.

 

[tech_diver]

I want to try and be on topic with this post but the topic seems to have drifted so far from the OP that we're not talking about a specific incident anymore.

It is hard to believe that there is still controversy over this incident. I can understand the Ben Mcdaniel incident, there are real unanswered questions there. But of all the incidents reported on this forum, this one is fairly straightforward.

One can say, "If conspiracy did not exist, man would find it necessary to invent one." The level of investigation is not relevant. Even if the police and Federal authorities were involved, there would be those who say the police and Feds are in on it. There are those who say the Sandy Hook shooting incident was all a hoax and demand answers. There are those who believe the Moon landing was a hoax even though the Russians documented the entire thing with their spying and even though there is a laser reflector sitting on the Moon right now that we can see.

Regardless of how thoroughly any given incident (like the death of Elvis Presley or Tupac Shakur), there will always be those who are not satisfied with the results and will demand more investigation.

 

[Storker]

What I think you need to do Gian is realize that YOUR opinion about how we do things in [-]the USA[/-] sensible parts of the world is irrelevant. [-]The US[/-] Sensible divers don't want government regulation in SCUBA.

FTFY

US residents also don't believe as a whole that the police is responsible for ensuring our safety, nor are they required to find blame in a misadventure scenario. You like the police to be involved in every matter...cool, but don't expect us to follow suit.

(emphasis mine)
Well... My impression from a more litigious society than Northern Europe (I won't name it, for fear of another bashfest), is that the propensity for blaming someone else is pretty well distributed across the Atlantic. On both sides, we want a certain QC/QA for diver operations. On both sides, there are people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions. The difference is how it's implemented. On our side of the pond, it's implemented by legislation, on your side of the pond it's implemented by fear of litigation. The end result is more or less the same (but we do have quite a lot fewer ambulance chasers on this side of the pond).

There's obviously a SCUBA police in Gian-land, and perhaps there may be one in the more bureaucratic countries of Europe (France, I'm looking at you!), but I can assure you that there isn't any SCUBA police in Scandinavia, and AFAIK neither in the UK. The main pain in the back WRT to CMA practices is in fact provided by a US agency: A PADI op on this side of the pond will actually have more forms and releases that I'll have to fill in than, say, a CMAS- or BSAC-associated or independent op. When I sign up for a boat trip with the local PADI center, I have to fill in a release form. When I go for a boat trip with an independent op at the coast, the number of forms and releases I have to sign is exactly zero. I have to show my C-card to get a gas fill, but otherwise I'm actually treated as an adult who's responsible for my own actions. And if I take an O2 bottle below 6m, get a seizure and is rushed to the hospital where I die from obvious ox-tox, I can pretty much promise you that the "investigation" pretty much would have proceeded along the same lines as this particular investigation did in Florida.

Since we here in Scandinavia pay for everyone's rescue - even foreign citizens - as long as they haven't broken any laws in the process of having to be rescued, we have a little bit more legislation than you guys have. On your side of the pond, people have to think twice before putting themselves in a sticky situation because they might be presented with a pretty whopping bill for the rescue operation. On our side of the pond, we have certain regulations (like, BASE jumping from some specific places is banned, since we have had too many expensive and risky rescue operations on those sites), but I can pretty much guarantee you that if you come here to dive, screw up and get bent, we'll be paying your chamber ride for you. Unless we can show some very gross negligence on your part, then you might get a bill. We'll even pay for your appendectomy if you happen to go down with appendicitis while you're here, and we won't ask what insurance you've got before we cut you up.

So, to give the yahoos a pause for thought before engaging in Darwin-invoking behavior, we have a little bit of legislation where you guys have litigation. But still, the personal responsibility for our own actions is pretty well taken care of.

I think I've mentioned it before, but puh-leeze(!) don't take Gian's rantings as an indication of how it's done in "Europe". OK?

 

[tomfcrist]

(emphasis mine)
Well... My impression from a more litigious society than Northern Europe (I won't name it, for fear of another bashfest), is that the propensity for blaming someone else is pretty well distributed across the Atlantic. On both sides, we want a certain QC/QA for diver operations. On both sides, there are people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions. The difference is how it's implemented. On our side of the pond, it's implemented by legislation, on your side of the pond it's implemented by fear of litigation. The end result is more or less the same (but we do have quite a lot fewer ambulance chasers on this side of the pond).

I would rather be sued than go to prison....

I think I've mentioned it before, but puh-leeze(!) don't take Gian's rantings as an indication of how it's done in "Europe". OK?

Who did that?

 

[Storker]

I would rather be sued than go to prison....

We prefer to fine people over throwing them in jail. A fine is an income for the state, an inmate is a cost. Also, it seems as if it makes for less recidivism.

And I would rather be fined than be sued. If I lose, a fine is quite a lot cheaper. If you prefer to be sued, that's OK. But again, DON'T use Gian's rantings as your source of how we do things on this side of the pond. Those rantings are a worse source than Fox News and the Conservapedia together.

Who did that?

Me. Post #162. Directed at you specifically.

 

[tomfcrist]

Me. Post #162. Directed at you specifically.

That's not what I asked. Who took Gian's rant as an indication of how its done in "Europe"?

 

[Lorenzoid]

Wow, now we're raising the age-old question of where to strike the balance between government regulation/involvement and civil litigation to best serve the public interest. You're giving me law school flashbacks.