Diver assaults another diver underwater

[victor]

Shorediver: my point was that in 10,000 dives it is likely she will have trained for, and likely encountered a panicking OOA situation where the diver takes her primary reg and does not give it back. A much more challenging situation.

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk

 

[iluvtheocean]

In what universe does being videoed underwater give someone the right to assault another diver? She would have been within her right to defend herself through the use of deadly force. Of course, after attacking a woman with a camera, he made a hasty departure like the "tough guy" he is. It's not the scuba police he needs to worry about, trust me. I hope they drag him from whatever hole he's hiding in.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

attacking a woman with a camera cause she *might* have been filming him? is this guy related to Bieber?


1: i haven't seen any copies of the videos yet myself that were posted -- but what kind of camera was she using, specifically was it one that requires 2 hands to hold properly, or something simple like a gopro?) if it req 2 hands - might have played an issue with reg recovery?
2: provoked or not -- it constitutes at least a misdemeanor by their local laws. Voluntary manslaughter for example is provoked
3: having a reg removed during training or by accident is different than a deliberate attack.

there are idiots everywhere, above and below the water... unfortunately we have to live with them, since they don't always succumb to Darwin w/o hurting others.

as much fun as all this is on SB -- i'm more curious to find out the outcome with the authorities...

 

[DivemasterDennis]

While there are clearly different "takes" on what happened, the aggressive approach of one diver toward another from quite a distance away seems to be clear, and wrong. I am not judge or jury, but that conduct is not acceptable to me. I am not keen on over aggressive interference from the reef watchers, but in this case, to the extent we have the video, I do not see it. I am sure much more will follow.
It's just sad.
DivemasterDennis

 

[kafkaland]

Filming, protesting and even shaming someone in a public place is a well-established and protected first amendment activity, even though the person on the other end may not like it. Just look at what's going on in front of abortion clinics, or what a certain "church" does at military funerals. What that lady from Sea Shepard did seems to fit comfortably into that category. To lose first-amendment protection, the protester has to cross the line to threatening a person with concrete harm. Then remedies like personal protective orders or charges of criminal harassment are available. Just being made uncomfortable is not sufficient. And the threshold for using possibly lethal self-defense like ripping someone's regulator out is even higher: a reasonable fear of imminent physical harm from the offender. Even if she had just made it impossible for him to do his job in this public place where she had every right to be, if that were the case here, would not legally allow such measures.

 

[agilis]

No evidence that she provoked him, and so what if she did? Who cares that she was in Sea Shepard? None of these points have anything to do with the fact that we have at a minimum evidence of Reckless Endangerment and possible attempted murder (long stretch there) - This information CAN help explain the fish collectors actions. In the United States of America You are convicted in a trial based on the preponderance of evidence. Now granted, this IS Scubaboard court, but shouldn't similar rules apply? The point being you can speculate all you want but there is REAL evidence of a crime here, and I fully expect that when they figure out who this guy is he will be arrested.

After posting this, I read a quote directly from the prosecutor that will receive this case.

Prosecuting Attorney Mitch Roth said Monday he was aware of the incident, which has not yet been submitted to his office for prosecution. He also responded to questions about the potential charges the alleged attacker could face. Assault, under state law, requires someone to physically injure another person, he said. Reckless endangerment is “putting in a place of danger of death or injury,” Roth said.
Both charges are misdemeanors. Prosecuting Attorney Mitch Roth said Monday he was aware of the incident, which has not yet been submitted to his office for prosecution. He also responded to questions about the potential charges the alleged attacker could face. Assault, under state law, requires someone to physically injure another person, he said. Reckless endangerment is “putting in a place of danger of death or injury,” Roth said.
Both charges are misdemeanors.

Reckless endangerment, only a misdemeanor because there was no physical injury? I suppose it is considered by some a small thing, like cutting the brake lines on someone's automobile just before they drove onto a highway, shooting at someone but not hitting them, or cutting an IV line delivering vital medicines to a patient; hardly more than an foolish prank.

That the victimized diver had both hands occupied by a camera is a fact that seems to have eluded some of the imaginative conspiracy theorist amateur detectives who wonder why she did not resist with greater force.

It seems one should anticipate a physical assault whenever another diver approaches, especially in certain situations. Divers from from another boat that was on a site before you got there might, in the savage feral mentality of some people, be justified in ripping your equipment off your body to signal their displeasure. It's only a misdemeanor, even, I assume, if this were to happen while doing a deep wreck penetration.

 

[iamrushman]

interesting incident and interesting thread responses....keep the info coming.

 

[Water Boy76]

nimoh: how do you know my statements are not based on facts? Just because it was not caught on camera (operated by the activist) doesn't mean it didn't happen. You would have had to of been there to know it was fact and you obviously were not. You have no way to disprove my statement; I have no way to disprove yours. You are speculating on what is fact and what is not a fact.
However, there are multiple stories about these divers being harassed by activists in the past. That is what I'm basing my assumption on. What are you basing your assumption on? A one sided video tape from a sea sheperd activist?


Another side to the story that you will not get from the major news outlets.
Conflict between environmentalists and reef fisherman runs deep - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL
Conflict between environmentalists and reef fisherman runs deep - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

 

[Trace Malinowski]

By provoked I mean maybe the very nice environmentalist people ripped regs out of the mouths of these guys or something else as obnoxious and then conveniently turned on the cameras when it was their turn for some payback? Something looks fishy.

 

[ivakdiver]

Thisis assault or attempted murder. Charges need to be laid.

 

[nimoh]

nimoh: how do you know my statements are not based on facts? Just because it was not caught on camera (operated by the activist) doesn't mean it didn't happen. You would have had to of been there to know it was fact and you obviously were not. You have no way to disprove my statement; I have no way to disprove yours. You are speculating on what is fact and what is not a fact.
However, there are multiple stories about these divers being harassed by activists in the past. That is what I'm basing my assumption on. What are you basing your assumption on? A one sided video tape from a sea sheperd activist?


Another side to the story that you will not get from the major news outlets.
Conflict between environmentalists and reef fisherman runs deep - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL
Conflict between environmentalists and reef fisherman runs deep - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL

I didn't set out to disprove your statements. They may very well be true. What I said was that two of them weren't based on facts. It seems that you are considering the history of animosity between activists and fisherman as evidence for harassment in this situation, and I don't.

If you were to provide evidence that shows this photographer provoking the fisherman (and I don't consider shooting video at 30' to be harassing), I would recant. Until then, I will continue to only consider facts that I am aware of.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, just find it to be an interesting discussion. I agree with Sea Shepard's goals, I disagree with their tactics. I support the fisherman's right to do what they do (assuming it is legal of course), but in many cases, I disagree with what they do.