Lost diver in Puget Sound

[Penopolypants]

Oh, the viz may well have been much better at depth. I've seen that many times, including there.

I am aware of that....it's one of the reasons why I like doing deep dives around here. It's also the reason why I initially asked what the viz was at depth.

The people that reported the 1-3' viz also reported that it did not get better the deeper they went, although I doubt they went to 200'. This is simply a puzzling piece of the puzzle to me.

 

[dsteding]

We called a tech dive (using approriate gear and gas for the dive, interestingly enough) the day before. We didn't want to chance it.

Even if it was much clearer at depth, you're still in the mud on the descent, stops, and ascent.

This is the dive I was referring to. I can't imagine wanting to do your stops in the mud on a dive like that, and the fact that people with appropriate gear and training were calling these dives makes the accident and the events leading up to it all the more remarkable.

 

[DandyDon]

We called a tech dive (using approriate gear and gas for the dive, interestingly enough) the day before. We didn't want to chance it.

Even if it was much clearer at depth, you're still in the mud on the descent, stops, and ascent.

Ok, I was just addressing this statement "Even with glowsticks and lights it would have been impossible to see that much detail 20-30 feet away in that viz, if he could even see the other diver at all." referring to Chad seeing the other diver in trouble at depth.

 

[Peter Guy]

At the risk of sounding too much "like an attorney" I feel I need to clarify some of the misconceptions about "criminal negligence" or "reckless endangerment" which would be important in any criminal prosecution.

First, there is no requirement for that the criminal actor have any intent to do harm -- in fact crimes like manslaughter exist because there is no intent to do harm.

Second, if the criminal actor's actions are a significant part of the chain which led to the injury, then there would be the causal connection sufficient to support a prosecution. Unless there is the "intervening, superceding event" which "breaks the chain of causality" (you gotta love those phrases!) the causal connection will be sufficient to create liability.

Some of you may remember the movie with Jodie Foster about the rape of a drunk woman in a bar (it is a real story). The onlookers were charged with aiding and abetting the rape (in effect, I can't remember the actual charges) and were eventually convicted. Their "crime?" They yelled encouragement to the guys who did the actual rape.

I'm sure you also have all heard about bar tenders who have been held liable (civilly not criminal as far as I can recall) when they let drunks drive and kill people. They didn't encourage the driving, but they were in a position of "authority" that gave them a duty to prevent it if they could.

And, lastly, there are the groups of drunks who actually DO play Russian Roulette -- and the survivors can, and have, been charged with manslaughter for letting the other idiot pull the trigger.

For some pretty good reasons, society has declared that people should not be permitted to encourage deathly activity and then not be held responsible for the resulting death.

Here, EVERYONE knew, or should have known, this was a reckless activity with a significant chance of a death occurring. Given the facts as we assume them to be, the one with the most culpability was the "instructor" because he had the special knowledge (not to mention the leadership role). It shouldn't be a huge leap to find this case to be a classic Man 2 or even Man 1 (I really think it was recklessness, not negligence and thus the higher standard/culpability).

Me, I'm glad Society has these rules to counter the toxic effects of testosterone.

 

[Web Monkey]

mention the leadership role). It shouldn't be a huge leap to find this case to be a classic Man 2 or even Man 1 (I really think it was recklessness, not negligence and thus the higher standard/culpability).

Me, I'm glad Society has these rules to counter the toxic effects of testosterone.

You might be able to hang some charges on some people, but you can't legislate common sense.

Want to counteract testosterone? Get all the dive rags to post the Darwin Award recipients and pictures of those that helped them get it.

Terry

 

[Adobo]

You might be able to hang some charges on some people, but you can't legislate common sense.

Want to counteract testosterone? Get all the dive rags to post the Darwin Award recipients and pictures of those that helped them get it.

Terry

I don't think common sense is what the scuba industry is generally after. How else can one explain programs like zero to hero?

Common sense might make it harder to sign up people who might not otherwise be inclined to take up scuba. It might make it harder to upsell specialties classes and advanced open water classes.

 

[diver12345]

I beleive that if this instructor let his divemaster canidiates plan a dive to a depth that they were not trained for, nor with in recreational limits he is responcible for the death. Why, he was negligent in his duties and knowingly put his students into harms way.It doesnot matter that they should have had common sense and not done the dive. They were paying for instruction.If he doesnt get jail he will lose any civil suit just on vialation of standards.

 

[lamont]

I'm not generally big on litigiousness, but I hope the civil suit or a criminal man 2 case are sought after in this case. I appreciate that all the divers involved were adults and were capable at any point of simply chosing not to do this dive. At the same time there seems to be a flagrant neglect of a position of responsibility here. There's also the fact that its obvious that if the instructor isn't stopped he's going to continue to rack up a body count, since he thinks there was nothing wrong with the plan. That's particularly bad and he needs to have his instructor credentials stripped and hopefully the civil or criminal cases will make him realize that this kind of diving is simply too risky to his finances and liberty if he can't be convinced that its just inherently dangerous and stupid.

 

[Thalassamania]

And, lastly, there are the groups of drunks who actually DO play Russian Roulette -- and the survivors can, and have, been charged with manslaughter for letting the other idiot pull the trigger.

Especially if they play with an automatic.

 

[Ed Palma]

I tried looking for ways to put this, but I would like views regarding the potential ramifications of a manslaughter charge here vis-a-vis other things related to scuba such as gear maintenance. Isn't this (the threat of litigation) the argument that LDS use that prevent people from buying parts for their regs, let alone servicing the regs themselves? Isn't this a sport where we all knowingly know the risks involved?