Lost diver in Puget Sound

[Thalassamania]

I'm conflicted on that suggestion. It would appear that the divers placed themselves in harms way. It may have been a noble effort but is it negated by the fact that the divers came to be there willingly?

Yeah, maybe he deserves a "Darwin" at the same time, but that doesn't lessen what sounds to me like one of the most heroic and selfless moves in long time.

 

[nlbford]

I'm conflicted on that suggestion. It would appear that the divers placed themselves in harms way. It may have been a noble effort but is it negated by the fact that the divers came to be there willingly?

Well that is true it seems, at least - but it does sound like he was heroic, rather than leaving in panic...??

I'd have to agree. The fact that the incident arose out of VERY poor decision making by those who participated in the dive (which carried a large possibility of tragedy) in no way negates the decisions that came later in the event. To forgoe one's own safety to try to ensure that of another is an action wholely independent of the actions that preceeded that act.

And if we were to say people can't be heroic because the actions they took were born out of stupidity, then we'd have no heros really. I mean seriously. Would you say it is SMART to enter a fully engulfed building without fire protection and breathing aparatus? Nope. But people do it occasionally to save a life. No doubt they are heroic. The act of diving on a grenade is sure to result in one's own demise, and thus is hardly wise. But if one does so to save another, you better believe that's heroic.

The fact that someone who participated in a foolish act likely saved another's life later in that event is what matters. In one sense, the fact that he rose above the preceeding foolishness to do something of merit demonstrates that he was a man of SOME integrity. That counts for a great deal, despite the poor decisions that preceeded it. We have all done dumb things to one extent or another. This man's poor decision was certainly mitigated by the brave one that followed - I know I feel that way and I'm not even the guy he saved.

Now . . . as for the idea that the instructor is guilty of "negligent homocide", I would have to disagree. Anyone who has been through a basic class's initial lessons should know the risks inherent in making such a dive. This wasn't a case of someone in an official capacity leading someone who could not possibly have known better into a situation they couldn't have avoided. Apparently the victim in this case had 150+ dives, according to his friend . . . that experience and the fact that the victim had earned his C-Card is enough to demonstrate he was at a point he should have taken responsibility for himself and his own decisions. This diver should have been very aware of the risks he was taking, and to be blunt, if after 150+ dives and completing basic certification he WASN'T, then that is really on him. This is an inherently risky sport and every individual who participates needs to make themselves actively aware of all the risks involved. And after they walk out of that first basic scuba class, they have enough information to start doing so, and to be aware of when things aren't wise. Even if they don't know all the specifics of each and every risk involved, they know enough to know that, and that they better put some real thought and education into every decision they make that involves a regulator and submersion.

That's not to say that it isn't atrocious for an instructor to ever suggest to any divers not appropriately trained and equipped to do such a dive, much less participate in one with them. That certainly merits institutional reprecussions. As far as legal reprecussions, it seems to me form what I have read in this thread that this was a dive undertaken by a group of individuals - NOT a formal class or instructional foray (and if I am wrong about that, then I apologize for that misunderstanding). I'm in no way defending the STUPID example set by someone who has been given a deisgnation that implies they are someone who is about teaching the sport safely. He certainly should never be allowed to instruct a class again (assuming what we have seen in this thread is accurate). But there is also a limit to the legal culpabaility that can be affixed to him in a situation where everyone SHOULD have known better and had the information and capacity to do so.

Before I ever even took my first breath on a regulator at the side of a pool, it was very clear to me that the only person who was responsible for my welfare in this inherently risky sport was myself. And I have made it a obsession to keep that in mind from that day forth and dive accordingly. Any diver who doesn't take that same approach is a danger to themesleves.

I feel bad for Chad and his family. Given what I have seen here from his friends and what he apparently did on the dive, he sounds like he was a great guy who will be missed. I just think it is a shame he didn't pay more attention to the training and experience he had, because that is what ultimately lead to his demise.

 

[Felon_Monk]

well said...

 

[anakin]

well said...

I completly agree. Chad gave a heroic effort, and should be recognized for it!

 

[Peter Guy]

as for the idea that the instructor is guilty of "negligent homocide", I would have to disagree. Anyone who has been through a basic class's initial lessons should know the risks inherent in making such a dive.

You certainly have the right to disagree with the notion that the instructor in this case may have been "criminally negligent" in his actions, actions which were a proximate cause of the death. But I believe you'd be wrong and if the facts are as they appear to be, I hope we all will have a chance to find that out by virtue of a prosecution.

How do I reach a different conclusion from you (and others)?

1. The instructor has a higher standard of duty towards those with whom he was diving.

2. The instructor knew, or should have known, that the less experienced members of the group would rely on his expertise in the decision process to make the dive.

3. Planning on doing, and then doing, a bounce dive to 200' using AL 80's is NOT within the realm of prudent dive planning and management -- to the contrary, it is a negligent act.

4. Encouraging others to do such an act that one knows, or should have known, is highly dangerous creates a causal connection to those actions which could reasonably have been forseen -- that is, the inexperienced diver getting narced and needing significant assistance in getting to the surface AND THAT the one helping the stricken diver might not/would not have sufficient air reserves to effect the rescue.

For those reasons just listed above, I believe there is a strong case for prosecution of the Instructor (again, assuming the facts are as they have been stated!!!!!).

The instructor planned and instigated a dive that had the significant potential for harm, harm came about as a direct result of the improper planning and that harm led to a death.

As far as I can remember, that is what is needed for a prosecution for 2nd Degree Manslaughter in this state.

And yes, I used to practice criminal law in this state.

 

[Zingtea]

My condolences to all that were close to him. I never really had the desire to dive with bad visibility.

 

[dsteding]

Peter-

A very reasonable analysis, here is the relevant statutory language (from RCW Ch. 9A);

Second degree manslaughter:

(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when, with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person.

Definition of criminal negligence:

d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.

(2) Substitutes for Criminal Negligence, Recklessness, and Knowledge. When a statute provides that criminal negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts intentionally.

First degree manslaughter requires reckless behavior:

(1) A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:

(a) He recklessly causes the death of another person; or

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable man would exercise in the same situation.

***

It will be interesting what the Pierce County prosecutor's office has to say about this, far from a slam-dunk case, but depending on the facts it may indeed be a triable issue.

Note: unlike Peter, I have not practiced criminal law in Washington . . .

 

[nlbford]

The instructor knew, or should have known, that the less experienced members of the group would rely on his expertise in the decision process to make the dive.

A decsion that they would all know goes against the very basic elements of what they were taught from the very minute they took a Scuba class. The guy's designation as an Instructor wouldn't negate facts that these TRAINED divers already knew.

3. Planning on doing, and then doing, a bounce dive to 200' using AL 80's is NOT within the realm of prudent dive planning and management -- to the contrary, it is a negligent act.

By ALL of those who participated. The negligence was a group of individual acts by each participanr.

If a guy plays russian roulette, his culpability ion his own death that may result isn't eliminated because someone else played too.

4. Encouraging others to do such an act that one knows, or should have known, is highly dangerous creates a causal connection to those actions which could reasonably have been forseen -- that is, the inexperienced diver getting narced and needing significant assistance in getting to the surface AND THAT the one helping the stricken diver might not/would not have sufficient air reserves to effect the rescue.

Well then by that defintion, the VICTIM himself is gyuilty of criminla negligence for he WAS an experienced diver who should have known better who encouraged the dive as well.

For those reasons just listed above, I believe there is a strong case for prosecution of the Instructor (again, assuming the facts are as they have been stated!!!!!).

The instructor planned and instigated a dive that had the significant potential for harm, harm came about as a direct result of the improper planning and that harm led to a death.

As far as I can remember, that is what is needed for a prosecution for 2nd Degree Manslaughter in this state.

And yes, I used to practice criminal law in this state.

There may be enough to proceed with a case. But it would take a lot more than that for me, as a juror, to CONVICT. JHMO.

 

[The Shocker]

Chad was a Great guy and a member of my Family. His brother Craig is married to my sister and is also my business partner. Chad also worked for us. He was always smiling and never had a complaint or a bad thing to say about ANYONE. He got his NAUI certification from Dave Graddon who he also considered a friend. I was at the dive site the day after he was missing and met most of the people he dove with. I have heard the story of what happened by most and it seems to be a little different by each. The Tacoma Police have detectives working on this case. The family would like closure in this by getting his body recovered if possible, BUT ****ONLY if it is done safely by divers trained to go that deep and with the proper equipment****. We don't want anyone else to lose their life because we know Chad would not want that. The memorial service for Chad Geoghegan yesterday was very hard, but I saw how many people he had touched in his 27 years of life.


The matter of the Instructor who was diving with them in their group. He was the person who certified and trained Chad. We know he looked up to him and he would take this persons word as he had alot of diving knowledge. What I know for FACT, is that the Sherriff Search & Rescue Team Leader told me that they didn't have the right gear to do this dive... ie. AL 80's. Only Chad and his good friend John had the AL 80's. The rest were using bigger or high pressure rigs. When I confronted Dave Graddon about this he told me straight out that "They all had plenty of air and that wasn't the problem" He also told me that "Most diving accidents like this they don't find a body". These statements greatly disturbed me. I have since been doing alot of research on diving like this and came across this post. I used to be a Private Investigator and consider this my personal mission to find out what REALLY happened to Chad that night. I have also heard that this Instructor lost another person at this spot 3 years ago.

If anyone has info on the this incident or the one 3 years ago, or any info at all. Please call me, I'm not sure when I will get a chance to check this post again.


I would also like to hear from Grateful Diver as it sounds like you may be of some help to me.



Thank you all for your well wishes to the family of Chad.....





Neil 206-200-5787 Call ANYTIME!!

 

[Penopolypants]

Neil, I am so sorry for your loss. Regardless of the reasons for the accident, the sad fact remains that family and friends lost a loved one, and that's a terrible burden to bear.

I am curious about one thing...the viz was reportedly very bad. How bad was it at depth? According to one poster, Chad was at 180 fsw when he saw the distressed diver at 200-211 fsw. That's a long way away to see someone in really bad viz.