How would you handle this?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
. 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.


... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob, I don't really understand all this legal stuff, but is it your claim that you can not be held legally responsible for the cyber stalking or harm or whatever "bad stuff" that has hapened because the kid is a pathological liar..or a bad person? Is that really the defense? Do we first have to prove our own individual worth before our laws serve to protect us? Do we have to present our FB pages for review?

Are the young man's protections under the law diminshed by the content of his first conversation with you? (BTW I have no doubt that he intended to tell you to F off).

I am so lost as to how the sex of the invertebrate or if it had eggs is related to your potential liability in this situation. Who cares whose version of the initial encounter is correct? There was apparently no physical altercation and you two exchaged words and you (and/or your friend) collected some photographs. Neither of you two seemed to have violated any laws at that time and place. The liability issue would seem to arise from actions which took place after the initial encounter.
 
Bob, I don't really understand all this legal stuff, but is it your claim that you can not be held legally responsible for the cyber stalking or harm or whatever "bad stuff" that has hapened because the kid is a pathological liar..or a bad person? Is that really the defense? Do we first have to prove our own individual worth before our laws serve to protect us? Do we have to present out FB pages for review?

Are the young man's protections under the law diminshed by the content of his first conversation with you? (BTW I have no doubt that he intended to tell you to F off).

I am so lost as to how the sex of the invertebrate or if it had eggs is related to your potential liability in this situation.

Are you really so lost as to the relevance of the "young" man's credibility in any civil proceeding?
 
Are you really so lost as to the relevance of the "young" man's credibility in any civil proceeding?

Apparently so, explain it to me.
 
That's OK, DD. You go on being deliberately obtuse, and I'll go on confident I have a better grasp on the legal aspects of this than you do.
 
That's OK, DD. You go on being deliberately obtuse, and I'll go on confident I have a better grasp on the legal aspects of this than you do.

I said I don't understand this legal stuff. Bragging about knowing more than me is not going to get you far. Explain it to me.. real slooow
 
Are you really so lost as to the relevance of the "young" man's credibility in any civil proceeding?


Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Seems as though Bob should be more concerned about prosecution under 77.15.210. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=77.15.210

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.
 
Reading the statute behind the misdemeanor, it seems incredibly clear to me that Bob violated the law.
 
Why publish his Facebook page, rile up the local dive stores, etc.

See, this is the sort of misinformation that's keeping this story in the news.

The only person who "published" his Facebook page was Dylan. I had nothing to do with that.

I don't even have a Facebook account, and have never even seen his Facebook page. Until people started bringing it up, I didn't even know he had one.

And yet, people claim I "published" his Facebook page because, in today's world, making up lies to demonize people you don't like justifies what you want to believe.

Yes, it's all blown out of proportion, and Dylan's supposed "supporters" are keeping it that way.

All you're really doing is perpetuating pain and prolonging the abuse this family's getting from the other crazies out there. I've tried really hard to hold out a hand to this kid and try to resolve things with his family in a low-key way, because Dylan's mother asked me to ... and I respect her wishes. But people like Rooster just won't let that happen ... it's too entertaining for him to enforce his indignation and make himself look important.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
 
Bob,

The way I read that statue, the moment you confronted that diver and started admonishing him, you were interfering with the harvest of a legal catch and you voilated that low. The irony is the picture that was taken to shame and identify the diver now acts as evidence of your own crime.
 
Bob, I don't really understand all this legal stuff, but is it your claim that you can not be held legally responsible for the cyber stalking or harm or whatever "bad stuff" that has hapened because the kid is a pathological liar..or a bad person? Is that really the defense? Do we first have to prove our own individual worth before our laws serve to protect us? Do we have to present our FB pages for review?

Are the young man's protections under the law diminshed by the content of his first conversation with you? (BTW I have no doubt that he intended to tell you to F off).

I am so lost as to how the sex of the invertebrate or if it had eggs is related to your potential liability in this situation. Who cares whose version of the initial encounter is correct? There was apparently no physical altercation and you two exchaged words and you (and/or your friend) collected some photographs. Neither of you two seemed to have violated any laws at that time and place. The liability issue would seem to arise from actions which took place after the initial encounter.

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 ----------

Bob,

The way I read that statue, the moment you confronted that diver and started admonishing him, you were interfering with the harvest of a legal catch and you voilated that low. The irony is the picture that was taken to shame and identify the diver now acts as evidence of your own crime.

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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom