Update - Linnea Mills Drysuit Fatality - No Criminal Charges

[jagfish]

Was the instructor charged incorrectly/with the wrong charge?
In a disappointing situation for the family of Linnea Rose Mills, the U.S. Attorney, District of Montana declined to criminally prosecute Deborah Snow, the instructor whose action was described in the last video. It has been alleged that the negligence and ignorance of instructor Deborah Snow were directly causal to the drysuit death of Linnea Mills.

If anyone would like to inquire with the office of Leif Johnson to present any reasoning why one of the pasts or proposed charges might be appropriate, the public office contact is provided below. This channel does not endorse spam or online harassment in any way.

Family announcement Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lisa.k.mills.7/posts/4623978230962823 Copy of

US Attorney Release: Facebook

Leif Johnson, Acting US Attorney, Leif M. Johnson – States Attorney.
leif.johnson@usdoj.gov


The original incident video can be seen here:

 

[Omisson]

This is not a surprise. The US Attorney rarely takes on a case unless it’s a guaranteed conviction. In hazardous activities, without information on mental state there are few “experts”, and those there are are usually civil litigation hired guns…they make really easy targets on cross examination. There are no in house specialists in this type of case…

Given the location on federal parkland… in sum, this was always gonna be a civil litigation matter….

 

[MaxTorque]

I find this absolutely astonishing. ;-(

Had Linnea's scuba equipment been correctly provisioned and she had died as a result of failure to use that equipment correctly or the equipment had failed DURING the dive, then sure, there is some question to who is at fault legally speaking.

But in this case, where it seems pretty clear the instructor allowed her to dive with a vital and safety critical part of her equipment completely and obviously missing (video evidence shows this to be the case), that is the clearest case of negligence i have ever seen.

Consider the missing suit inflator hose, these are the possible scenario's

1) Instructor fails to notice their student has not installed their drysuit inflator hose prior to the dive:

Negligent: Failed to check the students kit properly - The agency has a clear pre dive check procedure that must be followed, and is required to be conducted prior to all dives.

2) Instructor notices missing hose, but ignores it and starts dive:

Negligent by failing to meet the standards set out by their agency - it is quite clear that defects with equipment should be fully rectified pre-dive, and if they cannot be rectified to a reasonable standard, the dive should be aborted.



Perhaps my biggest worry however is that anyone, let alone an instructor level diver could even start a dive without a functional drysuit system. I would expect a novice drysuit diver to understand why that hose is required, how it works, and the criticality of it's action. But for an instructor to start a dive with a student in a drysuit, but without that hose is litterally mind boggling. Without a way to compensate for increasing ambient pressure in a sealed drysuit, there is simply no way the dive can be conducted. It is not an "optional" or "useful" part of the exposure protection system, it is a manditory part, and the system is rendered invalid without it.

It would be like taking a driving lesson, getting in the car and finding the brakes don't work, but continuing with the lesson anyway.

IMO, in the UK, that instructor would be facing a lengthy prison sentence as our Health and Safety Exectutive are extremely clear on this sort of thing. Once you pay for a service, you fall under a duty of care, and if standards are not met, the person providing that care is negligent.

My heart absolutely goes out to Linnea's family, this is such a sad and totally unnecessary death, which was entirely preventable within the diving industrys current knowledge base and systematic procedures.

 

[Centrals]

Absolutely NO justice. Unbelievable!

NEGLIGENT.

 

[kelemvor]

Shocking. What more than an actual video do they want for evidence? Seems so bizarre as to give you the idea something untoward is at play.

 

[Reef Madness]

Students hire instructors to learn how to dive safely. Anyone can teach you how to dive but we pay for someone to teach us how to do it safely. For an inexperienced diver, the instructor’s word holds incredible influence, especially in matters of safety. The victim’s final moments must have been horrifying. I’m not an attorney but I think the idea of only charging a crime when it’s a sure thing reeks of incompetence on the part of the prosecutors.

 

[Samlaw97]

As an attorney for over 25 years, I am more than comfortable in saying that the facts here (as outlined in the complaint) are more than enough to support charges of Criminal Endangerment or Negligent Homicide.....the U.S. Attorney was clearly only thinking about his conviction statistics and not about justice....if the level of conduct by the instructors here didn't rise to the level of criminal conduct then nothing would.

 

[MaxTorque]

For an inexperienced diver, the instructor’s word holds incredible influence, especially in matters of safety..

It's even more than this ^^^ thought. The instructor here, allowed a diver (any diver) under their charge to enter the water with their equipment missing a critical component.

Without a suit inflation hose, one cannot compensate for suit squeeze.

That really is as directly lethal as simply allowing a student to enter the water without a second stage, and certainly water of significant depth.

I simply could not think of a better description of "negligent" if i tried.

 

[Lorenzoid]

As an attorney for over 25 years, I am more than comfortable in saying that the facts here (as outlined in the complaint) are more than enough to support charges of Criminal Endangerment or Negligent Homicide.....the U.S. Attorney was clearly only thinking about his conviction statistics and not about justice....if the level of conduct by the instructors here didn't rise to the level of criminal conduct then nothing would.

I'm curious what kind of intent would have to be proven for Criminal Endangerment or Negligent Homicide? Sorry--the last time "intent" crossed my path was in law school many years ago, but as I recall, crimes all require proving some sort of intent. Yes?

 

[rjack321]

Negligent endangerment is not exactly a big time criminal offense in MT.
45-5-208. Negligent endangerment -- penalty, MCA (mt.gov)
$1,000 and up to a year in jail? That's really minimal

Negligent homicide carries a much larger penalty
45-5-104. Negligent homicide, MCA (mt.gov)
Up to 20 years.

I don't know the case law there to understand where this death would fit on that spectrum but it seems hard to believe that there was totally zero criminality here.