Diver Indicted in 2003 GBR mishap

[InTheDrink]

Unless you live in a country like Iran then the innocent have no reason to hide or withhold information from the police going about their lawful duty.

That is not a sensible thing to say. I was going to be ruder but that wouldn't achieve anything.

 

[NudeDiver]

The part in bold is the point I have most contention with - in most of the developed world we don't have systemically corrupt police forces any more than we have systemically corrupt or perverted hospitals, schools or churches.

I wasn't trying to say we did. I was merely pointing out basic risk management. My belief is that I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by cooperating with the police, and therefore, I'm not going to. I do believe our schools are fairly corrupt though - they're a real drag on society and need to be completely re-worked from the ground up. Their current business model is fundamentally and fatally flawed. There is no saving it - it has to be scraped.

Unless you live in a country like Iran then the innocent have no reason to hide or withhold information from the police going about their lawful duty.

Did you watch those videos I linked? Have you ever been awakened at 3am by the police, taken to the police station and questioned for several hours concerning multiple felonies which you had nothing to do with, in a small room, in a small chair, with a HUGE cop blocking the door while the police chief interrogates you? I have. Never again.

 

[NudeDiver]

I would like to point out that the methods that can be used in the States are not necessarily allowed elsewhere (Australia and Canada).

Dearest BOP - I am of course aware that the law varies by country

Remember what the cop said - in places like Spain and Italy, the questioning is very "physical" - and cops in such places have a huge amount of leeway in what they can do. These are EU countries we're talking about too - not Iraq, China and the like. Hell, if memory serves me correctly, even in the U.K. you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

Nevertheless - I think "cop techniques" are often the same throughout the civilized world - no one likes to reinvent the wheel.

The videos raise some interesting questions I would like answered.

I know people hate lawyers - but the lawyer in the video was spot on. The cop in the second video confirmed everything he said, and then went on to explain "evil cop techniques" too. That whole thing about the tape recorder, and the letter of "apology" used as a written confession - jezz! While the cops may not want to send innocent people to jail, they are HARDLY your friend - even if innocent - and, as the video demonstrates, simply cannot be trusted.

The cynic in me says the judicial system is nothing more than a game of mental chess with people as pawns. Everyone is trying to get you to say things that support their chosen version of truth.

Of course. It's not about the facts. It's about what you can get people to believe - nothing more.

 

[lamont]

I took the course over 4 years ago and this is all from memory. It is very well ingrained because you do all of the water-related individual skills twice, once in the pool and again in open water. Then you put them all together as a full rescue scenario and you do that twice - once in the pool, and then again in open water.

This is the best course you will ever take and if you haven't done it yet, you should. You will learn a tremendous amount that will stay with you a long, long time. No matter what Gabe Watson says.

K_girl, you clearly haven't been in a real rescue situation.

I've been in one, and while everyone involved tried their hardest and we all came together to spontaneously work as a team, nobody got it all right. We all even forgot basic Rescue 101 which was to get the victim out of her gear at the surface. I was fighting a little voice in my head that couldn't deal with the reality and wanted to call a timeout -- which occupied about 75% of my available cycles and made me pretty stupid as a result of that. After it was all over, I compared notes with other divers that were right there and there substantial inconsistencies in everyone's memory of the events (for example, her dive buddy swore she dropped her weights immediately on surfacing just like she had been trained to do, but I know for a fact that I ditched her weightbelts as they were trying to drag her up to the dock with them still on her -- I don't think her buddy was lying about this, though, I think she just released her BCD cumberbund or something like that and in the stress of the situation didn't realize it wasn't her weightbelt).

A real rescue is nowhere as close to theory as you think it is, and taking a single Rescue course I would argue is totally inadequate, especially for something difficult like recovering another diver. I've had that skill done in Rescue, in my Nitrox course (additional skills dive added by the instructor), in rec triox, in tech1, in cave1 and done a half dozen practice sessions doing recovery over the course of ~4 years, and I still don't feel like I've got that skill down well enough.

 

[lamont]

With regard to any scuba accident or death, there will be questioning by the police and in 99.9% of those cases, there is not an immediate suspicion of murder. In a scuba-related death, this questioning by the police is routine because of its very nature, it is a death of unknown cause. Investigators should be on the scene almost immediately after any scuba-related death. There was no reason for Gabe to believe that he was a suspect in this questioning. The only reason for him to be leary of the police was - if he was guilty.

I'm positive that he felt guilty. I just don't know if it was because he felt guilty of murder or just guilty of incompetence. He may not have murdered her, but was afraid of being hit with negligent homicide since he screwed up and she died. He also may have tried to hold her down to prevent DCS and wound up killing her due a breathing gas issue and tried to cover that up (closer to negligent homicide rather than first degree murder).

 

[Geoff_H]

I wasn't trying to say we did. I was merely pointing out basic risk management. My belief is that I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by cooperating with the police, and therefore, I'm not going to.

As I said, attitudes like this are part of the reason why police have such a tough job. If I was a policeman and I came across someone like you - instantly my hackles would be raised and I would be more suspicious than I had been.

If everyone took such a selfish attitude as you do - do you think any crime would ever be solved? Do you think police asking questions ever leads to them forming a better idea about a case and leads to its solution?

Did you watch those videos I linked? Have you ever been awakened at 3am by the police, taken to the police station and questioned for several hours concerning multiple felonies which you had nothing to do with, in a small room, in a small chair, with a HUGE cop blocking the door while the police chief interrogates you? I have. Never again.

I don't think it is logical or smart to extrapolate out a personal incident to such an extent as you have. I understand why it happens - part of our evolutionary heritage means we are hardwired to avoid situations that caused us pain in the past. Having said this, our primitive instincts are not always the best option in modern society.

Hell, if memory serves me correctly, even in the U.K. you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

Memory doesn't serve you properly. Not even close.

 

[lamont]

As I said, attitudes like this are part of the reason why police have such a tough job.

Police are supposed to have a tough job. That is what quite a bit of the bill of rights is about, along with habeas corpus, miranda rights, right to privacy, etc.

We could make it very easy for cops to throw anyone in jail they found suspicious and I wouldn't want to live in that society. They have a lot of power, and basically a monopoly on the use of force, and with that power comes a lot of responsibility and their job isn't easy by design.

 

[Geoff_H]

Police are supposed to have a tough job. That is what quite a bit of the bill of rights is about, along with habeas corpus, miranda rights, right to privacy, etc.

Sure - the question is should citizens make it tougher with a default stance of "Screw you, I ain't talking what ever the situation is"?

We could make it very easy for cops to throw anyone in jail they found suspicious and I wouldn't want to live in that society.

Me either. I also wouldn't want to live in a society where there was as much fear, anger and paranoia towards to the police as displayed in this thread.

They have a lot of power, and basically a monopoly on the use of force, and with that power comes a lot of responsibility and their job isn't easy by design.

Yes - I don't disagree but why do we as citizens need to make it harder than it needs to be? Do we want them to have a harder time catching real criminals by refusing to help answer questions? Do we really want a "them and us" society or is it more preferable to have a reasonable attitude to helping the police?

I'm not saying people are compelled to say anything - the right to silence is fine and people should have no compunction about excercising it. However - I feel a "Screw you, I ain't talking what ever the situation is" attitude is wrong and harmful to the common good.

I think I'm dragging this thread off topic so I'll leave it here.

 

[NudeDiver]

As I said, attitudes like this are part of the reason why police have such a tough job.

If a cop is unsatisfied with his job, he is welcome to find a new one.

If I was a policeman and I came across someone like you - instantly my hackles would be raised and I would be more suspicious than I had been.

So - guy asserts his constitutional rights - you as a cop become suspicious. This "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude is precisely why we have constitutional rights.

If everyone took such a selfish attitude as you do - do you think any crime would ever be solved?

Don't know - don't care. If looking out for my own interests makes me selfish, then so be it.

Do you think police asking questions ever leads to them forming a better idea about a case and leads to its solution?

Maybe - maybe not. Doesn't matter to me in the face of my personal risk.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

I am trying to be open minded here and not defensive of "my country". We are talking about Australia, not Iraq, Britain, Spain, Italy or the US. I am not prepared to accept on faith what a Law Professor and Police Officer who is also a law student have to say about the US judicial system (the one they are most familiar with). My distrust of lawyers may be nearly as deep as ND distrust of the police. I would suggest that lawyers have a vested interest in convincing people they should not speak to the police without a lawyer present. The information in your video clips is very evocative and something I really appreciate your bringing to my attention ND. I will certainly keep it in mind. Who said "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do (say) nothing"?

I am not sure if there is such a thing as Negligent Homicide here. Even tho this is a different country with different laws I am certain Gabe's expectations would be that it would be like the US.

Lamont I have been involved in many rescues and you are correct memories get messed up. People manage to convince themselves they did what they didn't or didn't do what they did. Defense mechanisms create these contridictions so they don't have to face their internal boogymen. All this happens innocently enough and the longer from the event the more convinced they are of their "adjusted memories". That is the most alarming thing about the delays in legal cases. Interpretations of written statements blur as memories of those involved dim.

Thank goodness I am not in Queensland and can't be called to jury for this. How many of you will admit as I do that you could not stand on that jury without bringing your biases into play?

I must admit every time I lean towards guilt..... I wonder if he has TIF on his shoes so he can put them on without assistance. Bright enough to plan this????? Stupid enough to think he could get away with it????

The idealist in me hopes for Justice the cynic says the only Justice in the legal system is in the title!