How would you handle this?

[Dr. Lecter]

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Seems as though Bob should be more concerned about prosecution under 77.15.210. RCW 77.15.210: Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife

I doubt he will be charged of course, but if charged he could end up with a conviction if a jury agreed with the theory that taking photos, posting them, and so on was intended to intimidate. Once he was convicted the civil suit would be easy.

Serious question: do you guys actually read these things before posting them?

Whether criminal or civil liability is at issue, here's the only applicable language: "Harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking of. . . shellfish . . . with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof."

Setting aside the caselaw one would need to review to really get a more solid answer on what that means in practice (and I suspect those cases deal with much more clear-cut encounters than this one), there's the threshold question of whether Mayer was still engaged in the taking of the GPO when Bob confronted him. Seems unlikely, since it had already been removed from the water, but perhaps the caselaw would suggest that hauling the dead deer to your truck is a protected activity during which nobody may talk to you.

Next, the question of whether Bob's words and actions only while Mayer was still so engaged (i.e., not after) were sufficient to harass, intimidate, or interefere with Mayer's taking of the GPO. What, exactly, did Bob say? How, exactly, did he say it? How did Mayer feel about it, and how did it affect Mayer and his taking? Do I still need to explain why Mayer's credibility is important?

Finally, assuming the act is proven, there's the intent element. Was Bob intending to disrupt the taking itself, or just give Mayer a piece of his mind over his doing it? Again, credibility is a factor.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

Reading the statute behind the misdemeanor, it seems incredibly clear to me that Bob violated the law.

Allow me to keep this in perspective...before some of you go gettin' all "law and Order" about this.

 

[redacted]

Serious question: do you guys actually read these things before posting them?

Whether criminal or civil liability is at issue, here's the only applicable language: "Harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking of. . . shellfish . . . with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof."

Setting aside the caselaw one would need to review to really get a more solid answer on what that means in practice (and I suspect those cases deal with much more clear-cut encounters than this one), there's the threshold question of whether Mayer was still engaged in the taking of the GPO when Bob confronted him. Seems unlikely, since it had already been removed from the water, but perhaps the caselaw would suggest that hauling the dead deer to your truck is a protected activity during which nobody may talk to you.

Next, the question of whether Bob's words and actions only while Mayer was still so engaged (i.e., not after) were sufficient to harass, intimidate, or interefere with Mayer's taking of the GPO. What, exactly, did Bob say? How, exactly, did he say it? How did Mayer feel about it, and how did it affect Mayer and his taking? Do I still need to explain why Mayer's credibility is important?

Finally, assuming the act is proven, there's the intent element. Was Bob intending to disrupt the taking itself, or just give Mayer a piece of his mind over his doing it? Again, credibility is a factor.

You may be focused on the wrong GPO. The one in the truck is not the issue, The one he talked about harvesting the next day is. Bob's role in this whole thing would have to be determined. The end result of the initial encounter is pretty clear in national news.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

You may be focused on the wrong GPO. The one in the truck is not the issue, The one he talked about harvesting the next day is. Bob's role in this whole thing would have to be determined. The end result of the initial encounter is pretty clear in national news.

I like it -- a creative and interesting approach, but let's look at the language closely:

(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or

(b) Harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife or lawful predator control with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof.

It's not (a), because that speaks to actions taken towards GPOs being hunted. It's probably not (b), because even if one is harassing, intimidating, or interefering with Mayer's next GPO hunt... the statute doesn't apply until those actions occur while Mayer is engaging in next the taking, even if the actions are taken with the intent to disrupt the hunt. The fact that between hunt 1 and a hypothetical hunt 2 you've put the hunter off his next excursion doesn't seem to be covered by this particular statute.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

That's not at all what I'm getting at. The scenario I painted is what could happen in a courtroom ... and if the press and the internet crazies have made this a wordwide event so far, imagine what they'll do with that. It'll be a war of attrition. There won't be any winners ... the goal will be to make sure the other guy loses worse than you do.

Is that worth it?

The community's reaching out to this kid right now. He could end up out of this better than he was a week ago. But the press and a couple of people in here ain't about to let that happen.

All that's happening right now is people are keeping the incitement level high and making sure the harassment ... both to me and to this family ... doesn't stop. And making it harder for any of us to resolve our differences and get on with our lives.

Must make y'all feel real important.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post Merged at 05:04 PM ---------- Previous Post was at 05:00 PM ----------



So now I'm a criminal ... wow.

The kid wasn't interfered with. He drove away with the octopus in his pickup truck.

By your definition, any objection to anything someone else does is criminal. That will come as a shock to all the folks who have been standing in front of abortion clinics for the past 40 years screaming insults at those who are trying to get inside.

But now that you've branded me a criminal, you will also be held responsible for the consequences of your words if someone should attempt vigilante justice.

Can't you people see that you're doing exactly what you've accused me of doing?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob:

I'm just trying to understand the points you are trying to make. I think the situation is unfortunate for everyone. I don't defend the character of the kid nor condemn you for being pissed of, speaking your mind and doing everything in your power to see that your local diving taboo is not violated again. The behavoir of some people with respect to personalizing this situation is what I find troublesome. That process of "personalization" was initiated by you, it seems to me.

Then some of the "crazies" get involved and the whole thing takes on a life of its' own. I don't know where the legal boundaries are, but the ethical ones were violated in my opinion. I'm not qualified to form an opinion about the legality of your actions.... I kinda doubt they were illegal and you certainly sound like you are now trying to clean up a mess.

Lastly, your analogy of protesting at an abortion clinic is so off base. I see nothing too bothersome about people holding signs up, but if they published the young women's license plates, notified the people they do business with, work very hard to embarass them and degrade their legal behavoir... maybe try to get them kicked out of their church or the day care for their other children, well then that would be crossing the ethical line for me... It would be an attack on the person not on the activity. It seems that the distinction between the two remains unclear.

 

[Dr. Lecter]

Without denying the possibility that some person(s) have engaged with Mayer in such a way or to such an extent as to rise to the level of "stalking" him, "harassing" him, and/or "intimidating" him . . . what, exactly, do you claim Bob did that meets those definitions? I assume you're not going to claim that merely identifying an adult in a public forum constitutes those things.

 

[Zieg]

Sounds like everyone is getting a little tired and cranky and needs to go to bed.

 

[Pullmyfinger]

It has moved pretty far from the initial "how would you handle this"....to a series of implied threats by some forum members.
Some people here seem to genuinely want Bob to be physically hurt in some way. They either want to do it themselves....or more likely, they hope to incite someone else to do it.

I agree with you. It has degraded to a point, that it really doesn't belong on a diving forum. At least not in the "Marine life and ecosystems" sub-forum.

Mistakes were made by both parties.....it happens, that's life...... But this entire thing has now been co-opted by some internet tough guys, who want to use it as their personal venue for implied threats and general stirring of the pot.

 

[HowardE]

[advisor]This thread needs to remain civil. Let me remind everyone about our TOS:

ScubaBoard is a friendly forum (interactive computer service) based on mutual respect.

Profane, racial, insulting or mean spirited language is simply not allowed here and this includes any sort of harassment or cyber bullying.

Moderators are volunteers and are not employees ... While the Moderators will do their best to keep the forum civil ... The Moderators have the last word in any dispute and are responsible for interpreting the TOS. When they deem it in the best interest of ScubaBoard, they may edit or delete any content posted on the site. They may suspend users when they deem it is necessary.

With that said... Posts in this thread may be removed for harshness, aggressiveness, threatening, or otherwise uncivil behavior with or without warning. If you find one of your posts has been deleted from this thread... You now know why.

Let me add that if users are personally warned by a moderator to stay away from this thread, and warnings aren't heeded, forum bans, and possible site-wide bans could result.

We don't like to play the heavy so PLEASE be civil towards others in this community. Thanks.

[/advisor]

 

[Allison Finch]

If it does go to court, it will likely be CIVIL court. I would love to see how the characters of the two involved will be compared.

Bob would have untold numbers of people willing to act as character references for his years of working for the betterment of the diving community and the preservation of dive sites.

On the other hand is a guy who seems to have lied to mislead during his interviews, has a facebook page with extremely disturbing acts and attitudes shown. Did anyone get screen shots of his torturing the animals and the racist slurs? EVIDENCE! Character will be instrumental in a civil case and, because the rules of evidence are so much more lax, it will be acceptable.

The characters of the two people just don't compare. The young man involved would be foolish to want to open up THAT can of worms, IMO.