Cert. cards can't be revoked for cause?

[Mr Carcharodon]

Are you looking for a job with the scuba police?

 

[ams511]

This is a pretty interesting discussion.

First, I do believe a judge could actually prohibit a person from ever diving again.

Second, in the case of Gabe, what card do you want to revoke? His rescue cards, his AOW card, his OW card, or all of them?

Third, Does having a rescue card increase my obligation to rescue a diver? Does it give me legal liability? If so then you don't need to revoke mine I will gladly give it up. However, is there a way for me to renounce my rescue cert?

Fourth, what does a rescue cert actually mean? To rescue someone in 20 ft of water in a quarry to get this cert is much different than doing the same at 100 ft in the open ocean.

Fifth, this guy wasn't being charged for being a bad buddy, he was charged for killing his wife. He did plead guilty to manslaughter in Australia.

Sixth, universities can revoke your degree if it was found you obtained it under dishonest circumstances. In other words, you did not meet the requirements for the degree at the time it was granted.

Seventh, I am surprised that the certifying agencies do give cards for life. It would seem much more profitable for them and the dive industry to make them of limited duration and require re-certifying every five years or so.

---------- Post Merged at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 08:59 PM ----------

From the Wiki:

Colin McKenzie, a key diving expert in the original investigation who had maintained that "a diver with Watson's training should have been able to bring Tina up," subsequently retracted much of his testimony after being provided with Tina and Gabe's diver logs, certificates and medical histories to which he had not previously had access. McKenzie now believes that Watson should not have been allowed in the water and never as a dive buddy for his wife who had no open water scuba experience. Tina Watson had had heart surgery to correct an irregular heartbeat two years earlier but on her dive application had stated that she had never had heart problems or surgery. Professor Mike Bennett, regarded as one of the world's leading experts in dive medicine, stated that Tina was unfit to dive without clearance from a cardiologist. Gabe Watson had received his rescue certification, normally a four day course, after completing a two day course in an Alabama quarry. Not only had his rescue certificate expired but he had no rescue experience and very little open water experience.^[30][31]
According to McKenzie "He had no hope of being competent, he could barely save himself [that day] let alone his wife, I don't believe he intended to kill her." Revelations that Watson needed help to don his diving equipment that day underscored that he was a "dangerous amateur" who showed "a complete lack of courage" when he abandoned his wife.^[30][31]
The dive company had offered an orientation and guided dive with a dive master, which both Tina and Gabe Watson refused. Company head Mike Ball said his people took Watson at his word, believing he was an experienced and certified rescue diver. The company later pleaded guilty to contravening safety standards and was fined $6500, plus costs of $1500.^[30][31]

 

[adurso]

Although a courtroom is the last vestige of the divine right of kings a judge would find it difficult to enforce such an order, the legal foundation of such a prohibition does not exist.

 

[ams511]

From my understanding, Frank Lorenzo, the former chairman of Texas Air, was prohibited by a judge from ever owning airlines again after the Eastern Airline debacle. Several prominent members of Wall Street have also been banned from working in the securities industry. Granted while these types of restrictions are not the norm, they do seem to be within the judges power to enforce.

 

[Suzuki416]

I find this topic very intresting..
As an 'Ex' PADI pro I've been in the water with a fair amount of people who 'are a liability' to themselves & others. Some had certs, some didn't.
Only one did we actually advise him that diving was not for him (gave him a refund) & we wouldn't complete to OW course with him - he listened & doesn't dive - Phew....
Generally, I've found that 'very' bad divers get shunned from the diving community (as nobody will dive with them) & they either end up diving with 'Pro's' to look after them or stop diving...
Diving constantly with a 'Pro' is not as easy as some believe... - the 'bad' diver is almost forced to 'up his game'.

Showing a Cert Card to a pro means little - evidence of recent & varied diving means much more - it generally means that we don't have to babysit you....

 

[beanojones]

Although a courtroom is the last vestige of the divine right of kings a judge would find it difficult to enforce such an order, the legal foundation of such a prohibition does not exist.

Of course it does, in the same way people are denied access to any piece of technology, or realluy anything, that they used to commit crimes as terms of probation.

People are routinely prohibited from using/owning computers, alcohol, and even non-tangible things like airlines, and professional licenses.

There are divers who have been given terms of probation that include not owning or using scuba equipment as part of being found negligently responsible for the deaths of divers deemed to have been under their care. Unfortunately, I know several of these people.

The terms of the civil suits usually prevent disclosing terms of their settlements, and probations/paroles, though, so there is often not a lot of publicity about them. And the structured settlements on one side, and probation terms on the other, are generally very effective at keeping everyone's mouth tightly shut, so unless on works at a dive shop and is given specific information by parole/probation officers to help prevent the terms of probation/parole from being violated, one would not hear about these things.

 

[adurso]

Of course it does, in the same way people are denied access to any piece of technology, or realluy anything, that they used to commit crimes as terms of probation.

People are routinely prohibited from using/owning computers, alcohol, and even non-tangible things like airlines, and professional licenses.

There are divers who have been given terms of probation that include not owning or using scuba equipment as part of being found negligently responsible for the deaths of divers deemed to have been under their care. Unfortunately, I know several of these people.

The terms of the civil suits usually prevent disclosing terms of their settlements, and probations/paroles, though, so there is often not a lot of publicity about them. And the structured settlements on one side, and probation terms on the other, are generally very effective at keeping everyone's mouth tightly shut, so unless on works at a dive shop and is given specific information by parole/probation officers to help prevent the terms of probation/parole from being violated, one would not hear about these things.

You are mixing terms.

A civil settlement is an agreement between parties, a contract as it were, whether secret or not.

Structured settlements are monetary.

Probation/parole only comes into play in criminal matters.

"negligently responsible" is a civil term

People are prohibited from using the instrumentalities of crimes, such as various technologies, autos, planes, or in the case of criminal fraud, airlines and so on

Professional licenses are lifted in order to prevent whatever the practitioner did.

Diving does not require a license.

As for dive shops being notified by probation and parole that someone is not to dive.....as diving does not require a license, and there are multitudes of dive shops across the world, this seems unlikely

---------- Post Merged at 08:17 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 08:16 AM ----------

From my understanding, Frank Lorenzo, the former chairman of Texas Air, was prohibited by a judge from ever owning airlines again after the Eastern Airline debacle. Several prominent members of Wall Street have also been banned from working in the securities industry. Granted while these types of restrictions are not the norm, they do seem to be within the judges power to enforce.

Instrumentalities of a crime

 

[drrich2]

First, I do believe a judge could actually prohibit a person from ever diving again.

I would think this would only apply to the region under that court's jurisdiction. So, if a court in Nebraska, just to pick a state at random, tells me I can't dive, or even if a circuit court with a broader jurisdiction (a number of states, assuming a fairly high court? I'm not up on legal matters) forbade me to dive, I'm thinking I could still take dive trips to Bonaire, etc..., no problem.

Richard.

 

[beanojones]

I would think this would only apply to the region under that court's jurisdiction. So, if a court in Nebraska, just to pick a state at random, tells me I can't dive, or even if a circuit court with a broader jurisdiction (a number of states, assuming a fairly high court? I'm not up on legal matters) forbade me to dive, I'm thinking I could still take dive trips to Bonaire, etc..., no problem. Richard.

No, because violations of parole are non-jurisdicitonal. If a directed sentence says a person cannot X, then it does not matter if they do X somewhere else, the violation of the conditions of parole (to refrain from doing X) are the offense in the original jurisdiction regardless of where the violation occurs. The crime is not doing X, it is the violation of the conditions of parole. The crime is not in doing X. It is in violating the conditions of parole.

It's how sex offenders are required to report their whereabouts even if they are well outside of the jurisdiction of the offense that resulted in the conditions of their parole.
Edarem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice how the violations of the terms of parole in one jurisdiction followed the person. Obviously sex offendeders are covered underdifferent laws in the new jusirdiction, but the idea is the same, they are responsible for a different set of resposibilities even though the conviction did not occur in the new jurisdiction.

 

[EastEndDiver]

I'm sure it will also depend on whether the person in question uses a snorkel or not.

No, because violations of parole are non-jurisdicitonal. If a directed sentence says a person cannot X, then it does not matter if they do X somewhere else, the violation of the conditions of parole (to refrain from doing X) are an offense in the original jurisdiction regardless of where the violation occurs. The crime is not doing X, it is the violation of the condition of parole. The crime is not in doing X. It is in violating the conditions of parole. It's how sex offenders are required to report their whereabouts even if they are well outside of the jurisdiction of the offense that resulted in the conditions of their parole. Edarem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Notice how the violations of the terms of parole in one jurisdiction followed the person.