Scuba assault investigation - Hawaii

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!

"Well aren't you just the the judge, jury, and executioner."


Is it your intent to justify the actions of a man who assaults a woman at 16 meters depth, or did you just see an opportunity to be snarky and could not resist the compulsion? (BTW I am not being snarky, I'd really like an answer to this question, because your motive is opaque to me.) If you had a real point, make it. If you thought you were being clever or whatever - epic fail.



"Are you serious... If you can't put a regulator back in your mouth you have no business diving..."

Have you ever been assaulted by a person much larger than you who is being aggressive and malicious (as opposed to just spanking you for being a dolt, for example)? I assume not, given your lack of empathy. First, she was likely scared, and while an instructor might not panic under any other circumstances, the assault could have caused such a reaction. All it takes is a few seconds to do damage in a runaway ascent. Second, she needed to keep her eyse on him as well, and was likely uncertain if a second round was imminent, which gets complicated. I doubt her training covered this scenario. Third, someone with your lack of concern for the victim of an assault has no business judging anybody for anything, and I wouldn't take you diving (or do anything else with you) for any price.
I can picture you now, while your buddy is panicking and can't find his reg, with a snarky look in your eyes, and you then signal in a series of hand gestures, "
If you can't put a regulator back in your mouth you have no business diving..." while others come to his rescue...
Not cool, not tough, not manly, just pitiful.


---------- Post added March 9th, 2015 at 11:54 PM ----------

It is very funny for an european: you guys in the US can relate any action to assault, crime and lawyers............................:blinking:. You are getting hot on a MAUI instructor that was in life danger because she had lost her primary regulator at 25 feet...............give me a break. Please be aware that I am not saying that the fisherman did behave correctly. But to talk about assault and endangered life :confused:

How often have you been attacked , either on land or underwater? How many times?? Please answer!
If the answer is zero, as it is with most people, please tell us why a European thinks it very funny to speak about assaults without knowing WTF you are talking about. People react, or fail to react, to a malicious attack in unpredictable ways. Even Europeans who are too cool for school.

I guarantee you that if you and I were on land and you had on scuba gear, and I decided to come at you with what my wife so lovingly calls my "Jim Tucker" impersonation, and I ripped the reg out of your mouth, you would not be able to find it or even know how to look for it for long enough to ascend 25 feet. If you have never been attacked and had no training, I'd bet 50 against 10 it would make you pee your pants.

And can you remember from your OW course how much the air in your lungs will expand from 8 meters to the surface??

(BTW Jim Tucker was my father. He was a Master Sargent in the Marine Corps. 'nuf said.)
 
@gsteven. Your comments really made me laugh. You sound like the "funny american" that we love here in Europe. My guess? you have a few guns at home and take everything serious, no place for second degree jokes. Common get relaxed :).
 
Sure. Forcefully removing a person's reg underwater isn't assault. It's a joking matter. Don't take it seriously. Just some harmless rough play, right?


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug
 
As Storker noted: no, it's not funny here either.

On the other hand, anyone seeking to justify grabbing that reg is either a dink or a troll. In either case we should probably just ignore them.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Hey guys, look at my original post # 26 and you will see that I clearly said that the guy misbehaved.:no:

You will also see that I did not use vulgar terms like "WTF" into criticizing another contributor.:no:

Ms Umberger came with 5 other persons in order to film and harass the guys underwater and, for sure, the fisherman was stupid and inpulsive.

But look at https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/spotlight-to-return-to-hawaiis-marine-aquarium-fishery/. and you will see that the lady and her partners have tried to put these people out of business since years..................and this with very little evidence in their favour.

Again, while I do not think that fish collecting is a good thing, I just wanted to put the whole thing under perspective. For me, his (stupid) reaction, simply was not un unexpected assault. Nothing less, nothing more. If you think that, to be without air at this depth is a life treatening situation for an instructor, you are pushing it over the limit.:cool2:
 
Hey guys, look at my original post # 26 and you will see that I clearly said that the guy misbehaved.:no:

"Misbehaved"? Well, I'm sure you can hand-wave away a physical assault by calling it "misbehaving".

Ms Umberger came with 5 other persons in order to film and harass the guys underwater and, for sure, the fisherman was stupid and inpulsive.
"Stupid and impulsive"? I guess you can hand-wave away an act of violence by excusing it as "stupid and impulsive".

[video=youtube;Z4-pexSVWzM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4-pexSVWzM[/video]

Excitable boy, they all said
Well, he's just an excitable boy

But look at https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/spotlight-to-return-to-hawaiis-marine-aquarium-fishery/. and you will see that the lady and her partners have tried to put these people out of business since years..................and this with very little evidence in their favour.

Again, while I do not think that fish collecting is a good thing, I just wanted to put the whole thing under perspective.
I totally agree, the whole thing should be put in a perspective. Let's try putting it in the perspective of what the law says about assault, violence and self-defense.

Is violence allowed for ordinary civilians? Yes, under very strict circumstances, i.e. in self defense. In a civilized country, to qualify for self defense, the violence has to:
  • be the only reasonable way of averting an attack (e.g. if I have a very good chance of walking away scot-free, I'm not allowed to continue the pushing match and knock you down)
  • be proportional to the threat (e.g. if you slap me in the face, I'm not allowed to whack you over the head with a two-by-four or shoot you)
  • stop at the moment the threat is averted (e.g. if you run away after hitting me, I'm not allowed to run after you to knock you down, or shoot you in the back)

Now let's put the assault into that perspective:

  • The guy initiated the assault. He swam over to her and ripped her reg out of her mouth. No matter how obnoxious the woman was, he was the one initiating the violence. Fail #1.
  • The guy attacked another person with potentially deadly consequences. A diver that is downright attacked and has their reg pulled out by another person without any reason, is at a significant risk of panicking. Panic is known to kill divers. In this case, involuntary inhalation of water or a panic ascent followed by an embolism were significant risks. The violence was not proportional to any threat, because the action was potentially deadly, Besides, there was no physical threat. Fail #2.

So, the guy fails miserably on at least two of the three requirements for a private person to exert violence without judicial consequences. The sentence was totally appropriate.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". When my kids were small, I taught them that if they ever initiated a fight, they were in the wrong. Period. No matter the situation, the guy who hits first has lost the argument. OTOH, if the were physically attacked, they were free to fight back, including using their martial arts training, within the limits of reasonable use of violence. You obviously haven't been taught so by your parents, so they must have missed something vital when they brought you up.
 
quote from Storker :"You obviously haven't been taught so by your parents, so they must have missed something vital when they brought you up."

Again, verbal personal attacks. Or shoul I call it "assault".

Just for your information. The last time that I hit a kid ( of my age ) was at school. I guess I was 15 years old :) He laid down for 2 seconds . This is when I decided that violence was not an option for myself. Unlike you, who is a hunter and a fisherman, I never killed or injured willingly anything on this earth. So your statement is plainly wrong and offending.

Repeat your statements and I will charge you for verbal assault and violence in the Hawaaïen court. :).

Keep it cool, like the waters in your fjord, men :kiss2:. And understand it again. The guy WAS PLAIN WRONG. But he was not the only one. When one harrasses somebody else, he SHOULD be prepared to get something back, including violence. By the way, that's a lesson I got from my parents :). So I never harass anybody, I just make fun of them :kiss2:
 
Last edited:
verbal personal attacks. Or shoul I call it "assault".
Get real. :shakehead:

When one harrasses somebody else, he SHOULD be prepared to get something back, including violence.
This is where we disagree, fundamentally and irreconcilably.

The only situation where a civilian adult is allowed to use violence, is if it's used to avert (serious) bodily harm, and then under very strict conditions (regulated by the rules for self-defense). The only ones who have a license to use violence in a civilized society is the police, and even then it is strictly regulated. No "harassment" can defend the use of violence, unless it's violent and puts the guy in direct danger of his life and/or health. And the last time I checked, being videoed while you engage in an activity isn't particularly dangerous.
 
Get real.
shakehead.gif
.

Well, I will get real, you are off my list. I stopped, years ago, to try to convince people like you.

Let me repeat myself a last time: "I NEVER SAID THAT THE GUY WAS RIGHT TO DO IT, in fact I SAID IT WAS PLAIN WRONG". Can you read and, on top of that, understand it?
 
Let me repeat myself a last time: "I NEVER SAID THAT THE GUY WAS RIGHT TO DO IT, in fact I SAID IT WAS PLAIN WRONG". Can you read and, on top of that, understand it?

Sure. I did understand it the first time. Problem is, you follow up by basically saying that she had it coming. It kind of destroys your argument.

It reminds me of the old "Rape is of course wrong... but she oughtn't have worn that dress".


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug
 
Back
Top Bottom