Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25 million

Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
million

http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

"newz" <Newz@scuba.newz> wrote in message news:<3fd2ceb2$0$271$45beb828@newscene.com>...

> Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
> million
> http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
suit.

Salty left this mess on 7 Dec 2003 03:38:55 -0800 for The Way to clean up:
>
>"newz" <Newz@scuba.newz> wrote in message
>news:<3fd2ceb2$0$271$45beb828@newscene.com>...
>
>> Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
>> million
>> http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html
>
>Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
>Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
>suit.

If Scuba Booby had bothered to plagiarize a real reporter's work on the story,
it would have noted the resort, "Our Lucaya" failed to post warnings about
sharks in the area, or that shark feedings were happening twenty five feet from
the resort's beach, with no underwater barrier blocking the beach from the
feeding area.

And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
out.

But you wouldn't know that, 'cause Scuba Booby is a jackass.

Tao te Carl
"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

de Valois <devalois@nailedandused.com> pounded away at his keyboard
resulting in:
:And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
:did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
:out.

Discretion being the better part of valour and all that stuff. If
sharks are feeding, I don't think the lifeguards should have entered
the water.

Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"newz" <Newz@scuba.newz> wrote in message news:<3fd2ceb2$0$271$45beb828@newscene.com>...
> Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
> million


Saw that elsewhere.

Greedy jerk should know that you swim in the ocean you might get bit.

<http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=22&art_id=qw107029728060B226&se t_id=1>

de Valois <devalois@nailedandused.com> wrote in message news:<bqv8ck0q09@drn.newsguy.com>...

> Salty left this mess on 7 Dec 2003 03:38:55 -0800 for The Way to clean up:
> >"newz" <Newz@scuba.newz> wrote in message
> >news:<3fd2ceb2$0$271$45beb828@newscene.com>...
> >> Shark feeding victim? Krishna Thompson sues Our Lucaya resort for $25
> >> million
> >> http://www.cdnn.info/industry/i031205a/i031205a.html

> >Someone failed to tell this guy that there were sharks around ??
> >Perhaps he should name the shark-feeding operation in an additional
> >suit.

> If Scuba Booby had bothered to plagiarize a real reporter's work on the story,
> it would have noted the resort, "Our Lucaya" failed to post warnings about
> sharks in the area, or that shark feedings were happening twenty five feet from
> the resort's beach, with no underwater barrier blocking the beach from the
> feeding area.
> And if I'm not mistaken, if memory serves, the lifeguards watched the attack and
> did nothing until the guy struggled back to the beach once the shark cleared
> out.
> But you wouldn't know that, 'cause Scuba Booby is a jackass.

Hmmm ?? Did you read the same article that I did ?? Everything that
you mention was in the article that I read from the website posted.
Regardless, when I dive in the ocean, I expect that I'll encounter
some fish. Some of those fish could be man-eaters. That's the risk I
take. The bizarre stuff in the article/charges about the
shark-feeding within the beach, etc is just that. Bizarre. No one
complains about how uncool it is for divers to feed sharks until
someone gets bit. Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
!! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment contract
?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
off of the guest or else act as a decoy."

"Salty" wrote

> The bizarre stuff in the article/charges about the
> shark-feeding within the beach, etc is just that. Bizarre. No one
> complains about how uncool it is for divers to feed sharks until
> someone gets bit.

Funny, I seem to remember quite a bit being said about it right here on
rec.scuba back when Florida was still debating a fish/shark feeding ban.
What I find really funny is that somebody is now claiming that shark feeding
near the beach contributed to the attack that occurred. That, of course, is
something that the shark feeders claimed would not happen. Anybody want to
bet on whether the shark feeder in question was one of the people that
testified about how safe it was when the Florida debates were going on?

> Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
> !! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
> him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment contract
> ?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
> read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
> haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
> off of the guest or else act as a decoy."

Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those in
trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any time
doing so would risk their own lives?

Lee

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:V9MAb.3418$7p2.1983@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> "Salty" wrote
>
> > The bizarre stuff in the article/charges about the
> > shark-feeding within the beach, etc is just that. Bizarre. No one
> > complains about how uncool it is for divers to feed sharks until
> > someone gets bit.
>
> Funny, I seem to remember quite a bit being said about it right here on
> rec.scuba back when Florida was still debating a fish/shark feeding ban.
> What I find really funny is that somebody is now claiming that shark
feeding
> near the beach contributed to the attack that occurred. That, of course,
is
> something that the shark feeders claimed would not happen. Anybody want
to
> bet on whether the shark feeder in question was one of the people that
> testified about how safe it was when the Florida debates were going on?
>
> > Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
> > !! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
> > him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment contract
> > ?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
> > read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
> > haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
> > off of the guest or else act as a decoy."
>
> Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
> lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those
in
> trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any time
> doing so would risk their own lives?

Interesting take on the situation. During my lifeguard training, I was
taught that you should do everything in your power to save the drowning
victim while minimizing your own risk. This training even went so far as to
say (basically) that if the person is thrashing, leave them alone (at least
until they either calm down or go unconscious). We were trained in
avoidance as well as (in water) escape tactics. We were taught to perceive
that the person who was drowning was already dead and we had the ability to
bring them back to life. If we killed ourselves in the process, it would
mean that there were now 2 people dead instead of 1.

C Guynn

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"
<chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote:

>
>"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:V9MAb.3418$7p2.1983@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
>> "Salty" wrote
>>
<snip>
>>
>> > Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
>> > !! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
>> > him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment contract
>> > ?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
>> > read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
>> > haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
>> > off of the guest or else act as a decoy."
>>
>> Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
>> lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save those
>in
>> trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any time
>> doing so would risk their own lives?
>
>Interesting take on the situation. During my lifeguard training, I was
>taught that you should do everything in your power to save the drowning
>victim while minimizing your own risk. This training even went so far as to
>say (basically) that if the person is thrashing, leave them alone (at least
>until they either calm down or go unconscious). We were trained in
>avoidance as well as (in water) escape tactics. We were taught to perceive
>that the person who was drowning was already dead and we had the ability to
>bring them back to life. If we killed ourselves in the process, it would
>mean that there were now 2 people dead instead of 1.
>
>C Guynn

That rings true for me. I took a NAUI Rescue Diver course a couple of
years ago, and we learned avoidance techniques, too.

All through the scuba courses, we were instructed to avoid putting our
own lives at risk while, of course, you always try to help, but not if
you put your own life at immediate risk.

During the Rescue Diver course, you approach a diver on the bottom and
prod them to see if they're conscious and analyse the situation. You
then apply a technique to take them from the rear, around the tanks,
and use their power inflator to bring them to the surface. Everything
was about hazard avoidance.

---
Mike from Ottawa

"Mike from Ottawa" <mev@tikacanoe.ca> wrote in message
news:m1a7tvc7ftiifk55pohbed648e4ohjda00@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:45 GMT, "Chris Guynn"
> <chrisguynn@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:V9MAb.3418$7p2.1983@newsread2.news.atl.earth link.net...
> >> "Salty" wrote
> >>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> > Hey, maybe this should be a freaking wake up call
> >> > !! And as far as the lifeguards not jumping into the water to save
> >> > him, well DUH !! was that *really* part of their employment
contract
> >> > ?? I mean I find it hard to believe that their job description
> >> > read... "If you witness a guest being torn up by a shark, you will
> >> > haul your sorry ass into the water anyway and either beat that shark
> >> > off of the guest or else act as a decoy."
> >>
> >> Interesting question. The answer seems obvious, but on the other hand,
> >> lifeguards are paid and do agree to put their lives at risk to save
those
> >in
> >> trouble in the water. What use are they if they decline to help any
time
> >> doing so would risk their own lives?
> >
> >Interesting take on the situation. During my lifeguard training, I was
> >taught that you should do everything in your power to save the drowning
> >victim while minimizing your own risk. This training even went so far as
to
> >say (basically) that if the person is thrashing, leave them alone (at
least
> >until they either calm down or go unconscious). We were trained in
> >avoidance as well as (in water) escape tactics. We were taught to
perceive
> >that the person who was drowning was already dead and we had the ability
to
> >bring them back to life. If we killed ourselves in the process, it would
> >mean that there were now 2 people dead instead of 1.
> >
> >C Guynn
>
> That rings true for me. I took a NAUI Rescue Diver course a couple of
> years ago, and we learned avoidance techniques, too.
>
> All through the scuba courses, we were instructed to avoid putting our
> own lives at risk while, of course, you always try to help, but not if
> you put your own life at immediate risk.
>
> During the Rescue Diver course, you approach a diver on the bottom and
> prod them to see if they're conscious and analyse the situation. You
> then apply a technique to take them from the rear, around the tanks,
> and use their power inflator to bring them to the surface. Everything
> was about hazard avoidance.
>
> ---
> Mike from Ottawa

Same with PADI rescue diver. id they're thrashing panicked and don't calm
when you talk to them, do a duck dive and come up behind, holding solidly to
the tank or BCD so they couldn't reach you, and inflate them, then there are
a number of tows to get them to shore/boat without getting into their reach.

If they do get hold of you theres always clubbing them uncounsious.

interesting course.

rhys