Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[tursiops]

But if you’re going to bother teaching a class, teach it other than half-assed.

People who know you say you do.

I hope -for your sake- I am misreading this.

Yes, I think you misread it. He said "paraphrasing" If you are going to teach a class, teach it well, and people say you do (teach it well)."

 

[Omisson]

Dan, do you understand the difference between “certification is silly” and “if you’re going to do something, do it right”? I have stated many times that I think most certifications are silly. But if you’re going to sell certification cards, give quality instruction in accordance with the standards of the organization you certify through.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Snow taught a class outside of the standards of her agency.

The agency failed to ensure she was teaching to their standards, even though they have a program that exactly ensures that.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. Here I agree - these are different and not mutually exclusive. However- it is also not possible to argue that both certifications are unnecessary while at the same time criticizing standards which are certainly not necessary- and then claim logical consistency. In teaching anything deemed "unnecessary" means more or less that

Also, IF there was evidence that PADI was aware BEFORE this incident that Snow was given to standards violations, I'd agree. There wasn't. But how do you reasonably police that issue Agency-to-Instructor? That's something in 60 years the dive industry hasn't figured out- and I doubt they ever will.

Yes, I think you misread it. He said "paraphrasing" If you are going to teach a class, teach it well, and people say you do (teach it well)."

then I apologize...

 

[Omisson]

Sorry, I meant it exactly as I said it, but I said it awkwardly.

I know many people in the dive business. Many know you, and have dived with you. Every one says you are a good diver and instructor, and don’t know why I attack you.

Which is, of course, because you are aggressive as hell.

Fair enough. Sorry that I jumped to the wrong conclusion. My apologies.

I am glad at least that my reputation... in dive circles... is in-tact. (Yes self deprecating humor is on the table)

 

[PirateFoxy]

Not to split hairs, but- if the ISB investigators immediately AFTER the incident did not request the computers, then they remained the property of the dive shop, which owned them, no? You call it "Linnea's" computer- but it wasn't, was it? Wasn't it a rental from the dive shop- it was the Dive Shop's computer that Mills rented, right?

Therefore, if the owner (the dive shop) voluntarily surrendered the computers THEY OWNED to the PADI investigators, who then began analysis - what issue is there?

Until you sued civilly and Discovery was ordered, AND you demanded them, or a criminal investigation subpoenaed them, what exactly is the legal issue in what happened from a "chain of custody" perspective? As far as I can tell, there is none.

They (PADI) safeguarded potential evidence, via counsel, did not destroy it, and engaged in their own investigation with voluntarily acquired dive computers directly from the owner (the diveshop) of those computers, after criminal investigators passed on taking them.

Or are the facts something else?

Do you think that the ISB was behaving properly in *not* taking charge of the equipment (including the computers) until they could be documented and investigated properly by experts chosen by the ISB? I don't see how someone who is a defendant in a (potential) criminal case having custody of evidence is an acceptable thing.

 

[Omisson]

Do you think that the ISB was behaving properly in *not* taking charge of the equipment (including the computers) until they could be documented and investigated properly by experts chosen by the ISB? I don't see how someone who is a defendant in a (potential) criminal case having custody of evidence is an acceptable thing.

It’s wholly irrelevant whether or not the ISB should or shouldn’t have done anything- they are the relevant criminal investigative body. It was their call to make- right or wrong. But, THEY made a choice. Once they did -the OWNER of the property was free to do what they wanted with THEIR property.

Moreover, there is no “duty” for someone to incriminate oneself. Perhaps you don’t reside in the US and don’t understand our constitutional law system. But there is no potential “defendant” duty - and to be accurate the shop/instructor didn’t hold the “evidence” a third party (PADI) attorney did- AND they safeguarded and analyzed the data….

They (PADI0 also were investigating the incident as the credentialing scuba agency…. a duty they did have….

nice straw man argument though….

 

[PirateFoxy]

It’s wholly irrelevant whether or not the ISB should or shouldn’t have done anything- they are the relevant criminal investigative body. It was their call to make- right or wrong. But, THEY made a choice. Once they did -the OWNER of the property was free to do what they wanted with THEIR property.

Moreover, there is no “duty” for someone to incriminate oneself. Perhaps you don’t reside in the US and don’t understand our constitutional law system. But there is no potential “defendant” duty - and to be accurate the shop/instructor didn’t hold the “evidence” a third party (PADI) attorney did- AND they safeguarded and analyzed the data….

They (PADI0 also were investigating the incident as the credentialing scuba agency…. a duty they did have….

nice straw man argument though….

I said nothing about PADI. I asked your opinion about the behavior of the ISB. You're the one who is reading it as some kind of attack on PADI or Snow. The ISB are not infallible, and as I use the National Parks rather a lot for a variety of activities, I'd rather prefer that they conduct investigations appropriately and properly. Letting evidence wander off while determining the details of an incident does not seem appropriate or proper investigation technique. (Especially given that the information on the dive computer would quite plausibly be needed to determine the details in the first place. "We haven't reviewed any of the information available that would tell us if there was a crime, but we're certain there was no crime!" is not investigation.)

 

[Omisson]

I said nothing about PADI. I asked your opinion about the behavior of the ISB. You're the one who is reading it as some kind of attack on PADI or Snow. The ISB are not infallible, and as I use the National Parks rather a lot for a variety of activities, I'd rather prefer that they conduct investigations appropriately and properly. Letting evidence wander off while determining the details of an incident does not seem appropriate or proper investigation technique. (Especially given that the information on the dive computer would quite plausibly be needed to determine the details in the first place. "We haven't reviewed any of the information available that would tell us if there was a crime, but we're certain there was no crime!" is not investigation.)

Red Herrings much?

This thread is about the case and its implications to the dive industry. There are few if ANY people here capable of understanding the complexities of criminal investigative process AND federal criminal law.

So, you asked a question irrelevant to the points I was making when you quoted me, making a “just so” inference (a straw man) and so I explained procedurally what happened and why…and what my point was…. You also spin facts “evidence just wander off”…. If there is no case, there is no “evidence”. And it didn’t “wander off”- it was taken into possession by attorneys during an investigation of the conduct of an instructor for their client, an Agency…hence why I mentioned PADI- the people who had the evidence YOU claimed
‘wandered off”….

But you still want me to evaluate the conduct of a quasi-criminal investigation without any real facts to draw conclusions from- one you apparently think you have sufficient data to conclude the decline to prosecute was in error.

As I said in many posts in this thread- the feds were never going to find criminality here beyond a reasonable doubt - which they would need to successfully prosecute- because of federal requirements. Under state law it may well have been criminally negligent homicide…. the controlling federal law wouldn’t support any similar charge. This happened on federal parkland. The AUSA made a call - based on the ISB investigation. Prosecutorial discretion is absolute…. What you or I think is irrelevant.

So again, What does that have to do with the issue I raised that you quoted in your post?

 

[PirateFoxy]

Red Herrings much?

This thread is about the case and its implications to the dive industry. There are few if ANY people here capable of understanding the complexities of criminal investigative process AND federal criminal law.

So, you asked a question irrelevant to the points I was making when you quoted me, making a “just so” inference (a straw man) and so I explained procedurally what happened and why…and what my point was…. You also spin facts “evidence just wander off”…. If there is no case, there is no “evidence”. And it didn’t “wander off”- it was taken into possession by attorneys during an investigation of the conduct of an instructor for their client, an Agency…hence why I mentioned PADI- the people who had the evidence YOU claimed
‘wandered off”….

But you still want me to evaluate the conduct of a quasi-criminal investigation without any real facts to draw conclusions from- one you apparently think you have sufficient data to conclude the decline to prosecute was in error.

As I said in many posts in this thread- the feds were never going to find criminality here beyond a reasonable doubt - which they would need to successfully prosecute- because of federal requirements. Under state law it may well have been criminally negligent homicide…. the controlling federal law wouldn’t support any similar charge. This happened on federal parkland. The AUSA made a call - based on the ISB investigation. Prosecutorial discretion is absolute…. What you or I think is irrelevant.

So again, What does that have to do with the issue I raised that you quoted in your post?

Do you actually read these threads or do you just skim so you have enough to start pontificating and then assume people said whatever you need them to have said to go along with your speech?

 

[Omisson]

Do you actually read these threads or do you just skim so you have enough to start pontificating and then assume people said whatever you need them to have said to go along with your speech?

Clearly YOU don’t read these threads- because if you did you’d see the dozens of posts I’ve made over the last three years on this issue- and all the data, standards, and legal analysis I’ve posted.

and I noticed of course your non-responses to the actual issues.

 

[rsingler]

Also, IF there was evidence that PADI was aware BEFORE this incident that Snow was given to standards violations, I'd agree. There wasn't. But how do you reasonably police that issue Agency-to-Instructor?

Did Gull not have a previous significant incident? I seem to recall reading that it did. If so, why should one not expect Gull to have had extra QA scrutiny from an agency which touts its QA program ... perhaps nipping this incident in the bud?