How would you handle this?

[sassyalice]

The Thread that started it all was closed on the original forum. The same might transpire on scubaboard. Read the shutdown at
Northwest Dive Club • View topic - Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...

Bob is a very sophisticated internet user who knew exactly what he was doing in harassing this kid. Look at his credentials on ScubaBoard and on the NW Dive Club website. He is the linchpin to the cyberstalking crusade.

NW Dive Club
Grateful Diver
Posts: 4520
Joined: May 15, 2006

ScubaBoard
NWGratefulDiver
Join Date: Feb 2002
Dives:2,500 - 4,999
Posts not shown

Bob’s first post on 10/31/12 was to a small club forum where he describes the “hoodie” wearing young guy. The description reminds of George Zimmerman’s seeing Trayvon Martin in a hoodie. Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The guy is young ... maybe 20'ish. He was wearing a hoodie that said "Tahoma Lacross" on the front and "Mayer" on the back. I'm assuming that's his last name. He drives a red pickup truck. I'll post the pictures when I get them ... probably later tonight or tomorrow. If anyone can identify this guy, I think we all need to know who to watch out for.
Northwest Dive Club • View topic - Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...

Not satisfied, Bob went after the kid on ScubaBoard on 11/1/12

I don’t know what he did on facebook and other sites.

Scubaboard readers should be grateful to Bob for lessons about the perils of cyberstalking to address this.

Scubaboard readers should be grateful to Bob for showing how internet lynching can have repercussions back to the lynchpin and other lynchers.

Scubaboard readers should be grateful to Bob for demonstrating that respect for hunters that follow the law is wise.

Farther down is the post today on the NW Dive Club forum that sent Bob scrambling for cover before the thread was closed.
Northwest Dive Club • View topic - Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...
Re: Octopus hunters in Cove 2 ...

by davidguilbault » Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:29 am
Hello.

I joined this forum just so I could share this post. I read through this thread and it disturbed me greatly.

This furor is a lesson on how quickly a character assassination can happen on the Internet. Most divers who posted on this 17-page diatribe about the killing of an octopus in Seattle did so before they actually knew the facts.

Don't really want to weigh in about the morality of hunting or the childish bravado of hunters. But I do want to say that it worries and distresses me when so many people can wage an attack on someone so quickly, based only on hearsay.

The young diver was accused of illegally killing a nesting, defenseless female octopus, taking her away from thousands of eggs, causing her death and the death of a generation of octopi. It should be noted that the prevailing understanding now, after some actual news reporting, is that the diver had a license, the octopus was a legal kill and that it was not a nesting mother.

It's the former journalist in me that likes to set the record straight. This young man is getting death threats and says he has been told by his employer to not return to work after his leave of absence. He is also being banned from a variety of dive shops and has been called every name in the book. He says his ambition to be a rescue diver is now thwarted, as some dive schools are denying him admission. Don't know if that last is true or not.

In a radio interview (Listen to podcast - Pod Player - MyNorthwest.com) he gave defending himself he claims everything he did was legal, and that he took the octopus both as a subject for an art drawing class requiring something from nature and as food. He says he has eaten some already, shared some with family and friends and has 50 lbs more in his freezer. (Everyone who has posted in this thread ought to listen to this radio interview.)

Meanwhile his Facebook and MySpace pages have been harvested to be used as fodder for all kinds of accusatory assumptions and insinuations. He has become a pariah, all before the facts were fully known.

And Pacific Northwesterners, as they are wont to do, have been wagging their fingers in self-righteous umbrage, name-calling and slandering before actually hearing from the hunter/fisherman to understand his side of the story.

Apparently, as I understand it, the divers who started the Web fire of personal destruction considered the fish in the cove where the young man was fishing to be their "protected pets." The man was apparently unaware of that or the sensitivity of the area for local divers. Wildlife authorities, on the other hand, say the man had every right to be fishing in those waters for whatever catch he desired, regardless of what anyone else thought of his actions. In fact, a game warden says she inspected his catch and found nothing illegal.

For his part, the young man said that the two divers who initially approached him, challenging what he was doing with a live octopus, were rude and aggressive. He did what many would do, and gave the rudeness and aggression back.

The two challengers didn't like the young hunter's attitude and decided, with no evidence other than his defensive, sarcastic responses, that he had killed a nesting mother. They took to the Web to launch a concerted campaign to identify the young man, invade his online presence, destroy his reputation and damage his relationship in the dive community.

Unfortunately, what they posted was simply not factual and caused slanderous damage. They bear responsibility for whatever destruction they brought to this young man's life. Hopefully they will accept that responsibility. The young man says he won't go back to that cove to fish again, respecting the wishes of the local divers, but will continue hunting for octopus, as is his legal right.

Even though the facts are now pretty much known, the demonizing of this young man continues. He says he hunts and butchers animals to eat. He has posted videos of those activities. But, comments on various news organization threads now describe his livestock slaughterings as animal torture.

I've seen a couple of his videos. They show an immature man butchering his food and playing around with his meat. You know, like hunters posing gleefully with their prized kills.

Remember, an awful lot of people, especially young people, now post just about everything they do online. This young man's video postings are being distorted.

Whether or not we ought to be killing animals for sport, food or any other reason is another kettle of fish altogether. (But, I do like my calamari, cow and pig.)

In any event, this should be a lesson to all of us online to do a little research, get the facts, give a story a little time to develop before we start sharing unfounded accusations and insinuations. And one should never start charging people with supposed heinous acts without ever giving that person an opportunity to explain their actions.

This first came to my attention through a Facebook posting where the poster said his intent was to embarrass this young diver. The original posting on this thread was a blatant threat against the young man and the dive businesses he frequented. Without a doubt it was an invitation for others to invade the young man's privacy.

When one begins to wrongly accuse someone, without having properly vetted the facts, it can quickly escalate out of control and cause real personal damage that might not ever be undone. These accusations need to stop here and now. In my opinion, this thread has been an embarrassment for all involved.

No one has a monopoly on "right" and "wrong." What we all have are laws. None, as far as I can ascertain at this time without further investigation, have been broken here. If you want to change the existing laws about octopi hunting, have at it. But, don't demonize this young man for doing what is accepted under the law.

For now, quite a few apologies are in order. And those who have caused damage in anyone's life have a responsibility to undo that damage.

Thank you all for allowing me to post on a forum to which I don't belong. I felt this thread was not about diving, but about fairness and the destruction caused by facile, false accusation. For the record, I'm scared to death to go under the water.

Hope all is well with you and yours.
Cheers for now.
David Guilbault
Last edited by davidguilbault on Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:47 am, edited 1 time in total.


Could a civil lawsuit be coming?

Could worse be coming with this Washington state law?

RCW 9.61.260: Cyberstalking.

RCW 9.61.260 Cyberstalking.

(1) A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party:

(a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act;

(b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or

(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household.

(2) Cyberstalking is a gross misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(3) Cyberstalking is a class C felony if either of the following applies:

(a) The perpetrator has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, with the same victim or a member of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact order or no-harassment order in this or any other state; or

(b) The perpetrator engages in the behavior prohibited under subsection (1)(c) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.

(4) Any offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed either at the place from which the communication was made or at the place where the communication was received.

(5) For purposes of this section, "electronic communication" means the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means. "Electronic communication" includes, but is not limited to, electronic mail, internet-based communications, pager service, and electronic text messaging.

I saw this on the other site.. is this you? Are you the journalist? You mention being unbiased, and I was taken aback by how angry an unbiased person can be at one side.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

You loaded the gun. You screamed fire in the crowded theater. You cast this diver in a false light - that he was doing something that was wrong when the law actually says it is perfectly acceptable to do it

The results were predictable (forseeable is the legal word). But for you posting his picture and license plate with the plea to figure out who the diver is so you can get the word out, nobody threatens his family, nobody calls his boss so that he loses his job, nobody threatens him, etc. etc. And your call to arms was done without the knowledge that he was apparently a racist or animal abuser - all of that came later as has served as a crutch for justifying some really B.S. positions (bad fills, spearing, damage to his property and equipment, etc. - eco terrorism, anyone?).

Identifying an adult to the public as a wrongdoer (a label that doesn't require illegal activity to apply, contrary to your claim above), without an express incitement to violence or other illegal actions, isn't loading a gun, falsely shouting fire in a theater (get the damn quote right, a lawyer should know that one), or anything else illegal. As you well know, all that is foreseeable because of an action is not proximately caused by it, and "clear and present danger" has given way to whether the speech was intended to and was likely to incite imminent lawless action.

Had all of the other unsavory aspects of this man's character not come to light, that identification alone would have provoked much less of a response. Most importantly, nobody has cast him in a false light: as I understand it, the facts of his actions and response upon being confronted were relayed and at no time did anyone suggest he'd violated any law.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

We do disagree.

I understand your position. I have many things in my life that I am similarly passionate about. At this point, it seems that you are focusing your energy productively. But I seem to remember that your initial goal was to show a fellow diver what a [fine citizen?] you can be. You loaded the gun. You screamed fire in the crowded theater. You cast this diver in a false light - that he was doing something that was wrong when the law actually says it is perfectly acceptable to do it (this is an important point - if what he did was illegal, you wouldn't have had to resort to self-help to address your offence - but it was not illegal and was not even a grey area - holding a license, he as the right to one octo a day, male or female, eggs or not). Sometimes we have to tolerate borish people. But you took matters into your own hands with a stated pupose of teaching this fellow a lesson.

The results were predictable (forseeable is the legal word). But for you posting his picture and license plate with the plea to figure out who the diver is so you can get the word out, nobody threatens his family, nobody calls his boss so that he loses his job, nobody threatens him, etc. etc. And your call to arms was done without the knowledge that he was apparently a racist or animal abuser - all of that came later as has served as a crutch for justifying some really B.S. positions (bad fills, spearing, damage to his property and equipment, etc. - eco terrorism, anyone?).

I'm not looking for any pound of flesh from you - it's not mine to have. Nobody has wronged me here on a personal level, even those who are resorting to ad hominem arguments. But this diver was materailly, measurably wronged - if not by you, then by those who picked up the gun you loaded to prove what a [fine citizen?] you are. I thought you had owned up to that but apparently you don't. In our society, redress for wrong is properly left to the courts (or other governing bodies) and not self help. You chose self help. If presented to a judge and jury, maybe they would say you didn't cross the civil or criminal line. Maybe they wouldn't. I hope you don't have to go through that experience - but continued assertions of righteousness probably don't help your chances.

Finally, to the peanut gallery: I don't know why anyone would find it bullying or whining (two fairly incompatible expressions) to offer to help someone who has been materially wronged seek redress in the courts. This is why we have courts - so we don't pick up spearguns or otherwise take matters into our own hands. Maybe it is because it threatens a perceived right to electronically kick people in the nuts when they don't like it when someone does something the law expressly says is okay?

Frankly, I am running out of respect so I will just sign off.

db

... and since you are continuing to fan the flames of a conversation that many are trying to allow to cool down ... and using language far more inciteful than anything I used ... if someone walks up and puts a bullet in my brain because they read what you posted, can we hold you responsible for the harm they caused?

By your standards, I most certainly think so.

Yes, you ARE looking for a pound of my flesh ... so let's not kid anyone. You've appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner, and have consistently and repeatedly used language and assigned motives that are meant to incite.

If anything happens to me, I or my survivors will be applying exactly the same standards of cyberbullying to you that you've been applying to me. For that matter, since I've been getting hate mail and someone hacked my email account last night ... which was NOT happening until you started on this personal crusade to villify me on a worldwide scale ... I already have cause to claim you've done me harm.

Welcome to my world ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[redacted]

Have you ever wondered how wars are started? It takes two to tango.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I assume that you have seen this story in yahoo headlines for 2 days?

... must be a slow news day ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[ReeferBen]

I saw it on yahoo news, when I saw them mention GratefulDiver I new I had to come over to scuba board lol.

Nice job GD, I would have hated to see that happen. I really hope your efforts work to make this area a protected sanctuary.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

You loaded the gun. You screamed fire in the crowded theater.

Intentional use of violent language, meant to incite and encourage violence against me.

You cast this diver in a false light

False ... I can prove every claim I made ... many through the use of his own postings.

But for you posting his picture and license plate

False ... I did not post his license plate.

nobody calls his boss so that he loses his job

False ... that information came off his own Facebook page, which was public at the time.

nobody threatens him, etc. etc.

Let's hold that thought for a moment, because now that I'm being threatened I can make an equally valid case that your posts are responsible for it.

And your call to arms was done without the knowledge that he was apparently a racist or animal abuser - all of that came later as has served as a crutch for justifying some really B.S. positions (bad fills, spearing, damage to his property and equipment, etc. - eco terrorism, anyone?).

I had nothing to do with the contents of his Facebook page, or his comments on forums I wasn't even aware of, much less participating in. He fanned those flames all by himself.

I'm not looking for any pound of flesh from you - it's not mine to have.

Of course you are ... and no, it's not. You have even less justification for your actions than I did, but you're pursuing your version of "justice" far more passionately than I did.

But this diver was materailly, measurably wronged - if not by you, then by those who picked up the gun you loaded to prove what a [fine citizen?] you are.

More imagery of guns and violence ... suggestive that you want someone out there to use one against me ???

I thought you had owned up to that but apparently you don't. In our society, redress for wrong is properly left to the courts (or other governing bodies) and not self help. You chose self help. If presented to a judge and jury, maybe they would say you didn't cross the civil or criminal line. Maybe they wouldn't. I hope you don't have to go through that experience - but continued assertions of righteousness probably don't help your chances.

Think about this for a moment. If this goes to court, it puts this case right back in the headlines ... DESPITE the mother's plea to me to "please let it die". Have you talked to this kid's mom? Maybe you should ... because right now you're her worst enemy. The tragic treatment this family went through for a few days would be like a gentle breeze compared to the tornado of bad publicity that would be published about her son. They have, at best, a very weak case. And, being the defendent, I don't have to "prove" anything ... all I have to do is create a reasonable doubt. I have, in my possession, evidence that this event did not happen the way this kid claimed it did. I can make him look like a pathological liar. I have witnesses ready to state that the octopus was, in fact, a female on eggs. I have his Facebook pages ... which, when shown to a jury, will leave a searing image of the sort of young man we're dealing with ... which they can weigh against both his and my version of events.

Even if they won, the damage to this family would be immense! Is this what you want? Because it sure as hell isn't what I want. You'd be willing to put this family through hell all so that YOU can prove a point? This is nothing more for you than a mental exercise ... a point of ego? What sort of person does that make you?

Finally, to the peanut gallery: I don't know why anyone would find it bullying or whining (two fairly incompatible expressions) to offer to help someone who has been materially wronged seek redress in the courts. This is why we have courts - so we don't pick up spearguns or otherwise take matters into our own hands. Maybe it is because it threatens a perceived right to electronically kick people in the nuts when they don't like it when someone does something the law expressly says is okay?

Everything you've posted in this thread amounts to the exact same treatment of me that you're claiming is so unfair to this young man ... only I never resorted to words suggestive of violence, or motives that would incite others to violence. You, on the other hand, seem intent on painting me as an evil person deserving "justice". And if that "justice" gets dispensed by some whacko who decides I deserve it, then by your own condemnation of me, the responsibility lays directly on your head.

Frankly, I am running out of respect so I will just sign off.

You can't run out of something you never had.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Man of Sin]

Man of sin simply refers to my flawed being. No, I am not DM, thankfully. If I was treated like him, the response would have been much different since I do not tolerate "men" who attack my character. I find it somewhat amusing someone would even think that I was, as if no one else on the outside looking in would disagree with this event. Also, the conclusions so many have already made about me based upon one post are just like unfounded conclusions some of you made about young man this thread is about.

The point of my post was merely to point out that others are watching, many people have viewed this thread and I am sure most of you don’t care or don’t see a problem with this, but it does have consequences, good or bad. When I got my diving certification, not too long ago albeit, everyone harped on me what a good group divers are, but some just seem plain mean and I would never want to dive with them, which is just common sense.

DM will be forgotten in a few days, but when anyone thinks of diving this area, they are going to remember this incident. I know I won’t ever dive there (I know some of you are happy to hear this), but if you ever come to my neighborhood I'll treat you with respect and dignity.

Having dived with Bob, I'd say it would be your loss. I had a couple of amazing underwater tours, including in Cove 2, and saw quite an array of underwater critters, including GPOs.

+1 I've dove with Bob as well and you really don't know what you are passing up.

"Man of Sin"?? Hmm . . . is that your alias young hunter?

OK, one more post. I lied, sue me.

If that is you -join us, young hunter. It is possible that you may eventually come to see a better way. Pick your own path, we are many. Many paths, many choices...

Really??

You join just to make that post?

What in this entire thread lead you to form that opinion?.....it's more likely, that you already had that opinion and signed up on Scubaboard just to add that amazing insight to the thread.

I can hear the "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry" chants right now.

-Mitch

I am sure that tears them up inside.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

If I was treated like him, the response would have been much different since I do not tolerate "men" who attack my character.

My my, what a big ePeen you have!

 

[mdb]

Going cyber on a young kid, hunting legally, even though unpopular, has some ramifications for both parties.

As a young hunter in Pennsylvania, many years ago, we were always taught to take game carefully, hence the
single shot 22's and shotguns that young hunters normally used.

Seems as if this young men, when confronted, got defensive.

Why publish his Facebook page, rile up the local dive stores, etc.

Somehow it seems way overblown and out of proportion.