Sexual Assault: Discussion

[mrobinson]

Seems to bias to be offical...

 

[mrobinson]

And it's nice too how the husband is somehow (insinuated) at fault with an assault

 

[markfm]

...surely all accusers should be viewed as truthful until proven as liars? ...

Nauticalbutnice :fruit:

Actually, in the country I live in the theory is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the reverse of what you suggest. I kind of like that approach, personally -- the Salem Witch Trials are something people aren't proud of in Mass where I grew up.

(the ellipsis is an edit by me, just capturing the part I disagree with)
(Edit -- I admit it's only a theory, I know that life isn't "fair", but it's a laudable goal.)

A huge number of posts on this topic, over a very short period of time. The plus side is that people are expressing their opinions, clearly strongly held (good, bad, or indifferent). The minus side is that it does seem to be flaring off into never-never land, at least sometimes (mods and staff included -- power is best wielded gently [I mod in another board, which includes leaving up things I disagree with])

Personally, I deeply appreciate the constructive comments by the various instructors, how they do handle mixed-gender training. It's to your credit that you clearly do take such things seriously, try to be appropriate in an activity which does, at times, inherently involve contact.

 

[Ishie]

mxracer19: this is in response to the letter itself, not in response to you who posted it...

Seems a bit suspicious?
If the student was "extremely panicked" on her first day of diving, what precautions were taken between the first day and the second day of diving? If she showed a tendency to rocket up out of control, how did she make it past a first dive? No dive instructor would take a student doing that to sixty feet on a repetitive dive because of the liability of having the student croak on your watch, which she would be likely to do if she kept panicking and bolting.

What is the relevance of the husband's activities during the dive in the manner it is addressed? It seems like it is added to attempt to portray the couple as mistrustworthy; she lies and panics; he steals. Can anyone confirm the theft? He would have had to pass through customs with the items, and as these were both students on their OW dives, why was the husband not more carefully supervised or restricted from subsequent dives? If no assault or allegations had taken place between the female student and instructor, you still have a male OW student unaccounted for that could have been dead on the bottom on dive three. In my OW class, for every dive, everyone was accounted for given an assumption that newbies may do things like wander off distracted, bolt for the surface, pick up souveneirs without knowing better, etc.

Also, the significance of mentioning the tats?

It seems like the guy is saying no assault happened because he was too preoccupied being almost criminally negligent as a dive instructor? It seems more likely that he is attempting to portray the couple in an extremely negative light, as I said above, in an attempt to discredit her account? It might hold more water to me if he were acting as a group leader to divers claiming experience, but aren't these OW students?

If my DI had to fight me back down to the bottom on dives one AND two, you can bet there wouldn't have been a dive three.

So that would be my conclusion from the letter had I only seen it and not had the opportunity to hear the other side of the story. It just doesn't seem to logically fit the situation, nor PADI's reaction, nor the immediate reaction of local law enforcement. The original poster's scenario, on the other hand, remains logically consistent.

 

[Jim Ernst]

mxracer19: this is in response to the letter itself, not in response to you who posted it...

Seems a bit suspicious?
If the student was "extremely panicked" on her first day of diving, what precautions were taken between the first day and the second day of diving? If she showed a tendency to rocket up out of control, how did she make it past a first dive? No dive instructor would take a student doing that to sixty feet on a repetitive dive because of the liability of having the student croak on your watch, which she would be likely to do if she kept panicking and bolting.

What is the relevance of the husband's activities during the dive in the manner it is addressed? It seems like it is added to attempt to portray the couple as mistrustworthy; she lies and panics; he steals. Can anyone confirm the theft? He would have had to pass through customs with the items, and as these were both students on their OW dives, why was the husband not more carefully supervised or restricted from subsequent dives? If no assault or allegations had taken place between the female student and instructor, you still have a male OW student unaccounted for that could have been dead on the bottom on dive three. In my OW class, for every dive, everyone was accounted for given an assumption that newbies may do things like wander off distracted, bolt for the surface, pick up souveneirs without knowing better, etc.

Also, the significance of mentioning the tats?

It seems like the guy is saying no assault happened because he was too preoccupied being almost criminally negligent as a dive instructor? It seems more likely that he is attempting to portray the couple in an extremely negative light, as I said above, in an attempt to discredit her account? It might hold more water to me if he were acting as a group leader to divers claiming experience, but aren't these OW students?

If my DI had to fight me back down to the bottom on dives one AND two, you can bet there wouldn't have been a dive three.

So that would be my conclusion from the letter had I only seen it and not had the opportunity to hear the other side of the story. It just doesn't seem to logically fit the situation, nor PADI's reaction, nor the immediate reaction of local law enforcement. The original poster's scenario, on the other hand, remains logically consistent.

this is very well said!!!!!!!! and a valid point

 

[sharpenu]

The point I want to make is this:
I appreciate that it is difficult for a victim of a sex crime to come forward to the authorities, and I applaud any victim for that. When this happens, it is the place of the courts, the involved attorneys and law enforcement to sort out the truth. It is none of our business to question or judge either side until that process is complete.

When a victim then brings those same accusations out into a public forum, they place themselves in a position where they invite investigation, discussion and criticism. When we are discussing such events, we are doing so BECAUSE we have been included and invited into the discussion.

In my job, I have seen cases where the sexual assaults were real and I have seen where the allegations were used by the accuser to gain leverage over the accused, whether the gain was financial, revenge or to win a domestic civil case. To blindly accept any testimony, no matter who makes it is unfair to both parties.

Once one party brings this into a public forum, it is the resposibility of the forum to either allow the opposing viewpoint or to edit out the names of those involved. Anything less is a miscarriage of justice. The fact that PADI decided to take action in this matter is immaterial, as the PADI organization is going to do what is best for PADI, not what is best for the truth or for justice.

 

[shark.byte.usa]

:bigun2: Why can't I stop looking at this thread???? Arggg...

in an attempt to discredit her account....The original poster's scenario...

Did she actually say what happened, give an account??? I didn't think she had.

(Sick curitosity, I guess...kindof like why people watch Law and Order: SVU, or car crashed on the shoulder of the road)

I'm guessin' the guys not in jail, if he is sending faxes to defend himself on the internet, and as he put it, "I’m having a lot of work (thanks God) and making things clear here in Huatulco".

 

[Ishie]

:bigun2: Why can't I stop looking at this thread???? Arggg...

Did she actually say what happened, give an account??? I didn't think she had.

Really, I just like to know what happened, what kindof sexual assault could have happened 60' underwater assumingly with a wetsuit on. Aside from being groped.
(Sick curitosity, I guess...kindof like why people watch Law and Order: SVU, or car crashed on the shoulder of the road)

I'm guessin' the guys not in jail, if he is sending faxes to defend himself on the internet, and as he put it, "I’m having a lot of work (thanks God) and making things clear here in Huatulco".

Not the exact details of her account, but the details leading up to the assault, given by the poster, seem to fit logic more than his account. The poster also said the instructor was not wearing a wetsuit on that dive.

The guy was in jail, and I'm not sure the current status and won't claim knowledge of the Mexican legal system, bail, trials, and so forth.

I'm also curious about the kind of work he's doing. If he's been kicked out of PADI, should he be working as a dive shop/instructor representing them? (not saying he is) Do you find the details of the note to be convincing? It's not that I don't find them to be so because I'm a woman and he's a man and the accuser was here first. His actions do not make sense from a scuba perspective. Based on his letter alone and with the assumption that he's telling the truth (I'm not, because it doesn't follow logic, and since he's been in the business for what, twenty years? I'm inclined to think he'd be a better instructor than this):

-He took a student that was dangerously panicky on repeated dives after numerous incidents, confirming that the panic was not limited to one time, thus endangering the student AND himself repeatedly.
-While dealing with his "problem" student, he was totally and completely negligent in completely losing track of the husband not once but on three dives?? Did he abort the dive to end the female student's panic or find the husband? Doesn't sound like it.
-Has the 60' claim been debated? That seems pretty deep to take a student with panic issues, not to mention that since OW students suck air, why take them to a depth where they'd burn through it faster?

And it's not like he explains where the misunderstanding could have occurred or like he explains why this woman would feel sufficient malice towards him to make something up. Usually, in contested sexual assault cases, at least you seem some attempt by both parties to explain why the assault claim was made, ie "she was so mad that I wouldn't let her do her third dive that she said she'd report me for sexual assault". Instead, we essentially get "Well, the man and woman were dumb and shifty. That's why I didn't do it." He creates a strawman.

 

[hdtran]

...snip...

Did she actually say what happened, give an account??? I didn't think she had.

Really, I just like to know what happened, what kindof sexual assault could have happened 60' underwater assumingly with a wetsuit on. Aside from being groped.
(Sick curitosity, I guess...kindof like why people watch Law and Order: SVU, or car crashed on the shoulder of the road)

...snip...

Look at post #43 on the other thread.

I don't care whether the assault (alleged, for the lawyer types) is sexual in nature or not. From the description, the instructor's actions were ***way*** out of bounds. When I did my OW checkout, and I did the equipment remove/put-on, my instructor took *his* BCD off & put it back on, then, pointed to me. That was my message for me to do the same. For removing weight belt (simulated weight belt ditch), he had discussed "upstairs," so I removed (but didn't drop) weights & put back on. Lastly, my skills checkout were done in 15-20 ft of water, not 50-60 ft (!!!).

Can we close this discussion? I don't see much new (but then, I'm fairly dim). What I really want to see is some discussion from instructors & students on how to communicate (for example, one post here, paraphrased, where the instructor said that he or she might grab your crotch strap, and don't take it wrong). That, to me is useful Basic Scuba Discussion. The stuff about society, lawyers (don't take me wrong, H2Andy not withstanding, I like a good (or dead) lawyer joke just as much as anyone else!), law, etc. belongs in Whine, Cheeze, or Non-Scuba (I think).

Cheers!

 

[aquaoren]

You'll excuse me if I don't take the findings of an organization like PADI as completely true and unbias. None of them are judges or prosecutors. They for sure have lawyers though that would have recommend severing all connections to the person in question because of reasons of liability and bad PR. PADI's actions aren't to protect us, they are to protect PADI, regardless of the consequences to anyone else beside PADI.
We don't know what really happened but hey, we don't need to know it because if PADI excluded him it must be true (Even if to cover their own behind). :06:
Do we have any information about any legal steps taken against the person in question? IMO, this would have much more validity than anything PADI could say. Do we know whether he was arrested or only "questioned"?
Don't get me wrong, he should rot in jail for a long time and I don't think Mexican jails are fun.

This is a very emotional issue and everybody has their point of view depending on their own personal experiences and the most we can do is agree on some things and disagree on others but nothing will be solved here. This is a matter for the criminal courts and not for a diving board.