Equipment tampering?

In article <73Avh.26953$uW.19270@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, pleebell2
@bellsouth.net says...

> Thanks Charlie. It is quite interesting. It makes sense to me that Ryan
> would wish to download information from the computer as soon as possible.
> It makes no sense, to me, to accuse him of attempting to destroy evidence,
> particularly since I saw no indication that a criminal investigation was in
> progress.

If the account of what happened is accurate, the issues look simple to
me. When a LEO tells you to do something, you do it. Even if he's wrong,
you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later. The deputy
was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear alone,
especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear. She didn't understand
what the guy was doing, and his reported responses were inappropriate.
He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
although she would have been absolutely correct in telling him again to
leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy charged the guy
with a felony without getting some guidance from her superiors. In all
probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or more
of the lesser charges.

In article <73Avh.26953$uW.19270@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, pleebell2
@bellsouth.net says...

> Thanks Charlie. It is quite interesting. It makes sense to me that Ryan
> would wish to download information from the computer as soon as possible.
> It makes no sense, to me, to accuse him of attempting to destroy evidence,
> particularly since I saw no indication that a criminal investigation was in
> progress.

If the account of what happened is accurate, the issues look simple to
me. When a LEO tells you to do something, you do it. Even if he's wrong,
you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later. The deputy
was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear alone,
especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear. She didn't understand
what the guy was doing, and his reported responses were inappropriate.
He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
although she would have been absolutely correct in telling him again to
leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy charged the guy
with a felony without getting some guidance from her superiors. In all
probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or more
of the lesser charges.

In article <73Avh.26953$uW.19270@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, pleebell2
@bellsouth.net says...

> Thanks Charlie. It is quite interesting. It makes sense to me that Ryan
> would wish to download information from the computer as soon as possible.
> It makes no sense, to me, to accuse him of attempting to destroy evidence,
> particularly since I saw no indication that a criminal investigation was in
> progress.

If the account of what happened is accurate, the issues look simple to
me. When a LEO tells you to do something, you do it. Even if he's wrong,
you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later. The deputy
was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear alone,
especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear. She didn't understand
what the guy was doing, and his reported responses were inappropriate.
He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
although she would have been absolutely correct in telling him again to
leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy charged the guy
with a felony without getting some guidance from her superiors. In all
probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or more
of the lesser charges.

Al Wells wrote

> If the account of what happened is accurate . . .

A pretty big if.

> . . . the issues look simple to me. When a LEO tells you to do something,
> you do it. Even if he's wrong,
> you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later.

That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not the rule of law. The LEO must
be operating within the law which, in this case is a bit cloudy. There was
no crime or evidence of a crime. The LEO presumed one, probably
incorrectly, but reasonably if she had little or know knowledge of diving
issues. The guy was probably a fool, but, in fact, may have been doing a
better job of preserving evidence than the LEO. What is possibly more
important, is that he was probably gathering information essential to the
treatment of the victim. Won't it be interesting if it turns out that the
victim's life could have been saved if that information had been available
to those that provided the treatment. It's quite possible, if not confirmed
that the LEO could have contributed to the unfavorable outcome by her
actions. Let's keep in mind that the dive shop representative stated he was
a former LEO himself and that he knew what he was doing. This strongly
suggests the officer on the scene should have proceeded with caution.

> The deputy was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear
> alone, especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear.

She may have killed the victim. Still so sure she was right?

> She didn't understand what the guy was doing, and his reported responses
> were inappropriate.

That he was a former LEO and that he knew what he was doing? Not so
imappropriate in my opinion. Not right either, but it's not all that clear
a case.

> He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
> although she would have been absolutely correct in telling
> him again to leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy
> charged the guy with a felony without getting some guidance
> from her superiors.

I don't.

> In all probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or
> more of the lesser charges.

All charges probably should be dropped, particularly if the guy has the
sense to say "I was trying to save her life."

Lee

Al Wells wrote

> If the account of what happened is accurate . . .

A pretty big if.

> . . . the issues look simple to me. When a LEO tells you to do something,
> you do it. Even if he's wrong,
> you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later.

That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not the rule of law. The LEO must
be operating within the law which, in this case is a bit cloudy. There was
no crime or evidence of a crime. The LEO presumed one, probably
incorrectly, but reasonably if she had little or know knowledge of diving
issues. The guy was probably a fool, but, in fact, may have been doing a
better job of preserving evidence than the LEO. What is possibly more
important, is that he was probably gathering information essential to the
treatment of the victim. Won't it be interesting if it turns out that the
victim's life could have been saved if that information had been available
to those that provided the treatment. It's quite possible, if not confirmed
that the LEO could have contributed to the unfavorable outcome by her
actions. Let's keep in mind that the dive shop representative stated he was
a former LEO himself and that he knew what he was doing. This strongly
suggests the officer on the scene should have proceeded with caution.

> The deputy was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear
> alone, especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear.

She may have killed the victim. Still so sure she was right?

> She didn't understand what the guy was doing, and his reported responses
> were inappropriate.

That he was a former LEO and that he knew what he was doing? Not so
imappropriate in my opinion. Not right either, but it's not all that clear
a case.

> He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
> although she would have been absolutely correct in telling
> him again to leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy
> charged the guy with a felony without getting some guidance
> from her superiors.

I don't.

> In all probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or
> more of the lesser charges.

All charges probably should be dropped, particularly if the guy has the
sense to say "I was trying to save her life."

Lee

Al Wells wrote

> If the account of what happened is accurate . . .

A pretty big if.

> . . . the issues look simple to me. When a LEO tells you to do something,
> you do it. Even if he's wrong,
> you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later.

That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not the rule of law. The LEO must
be operating within the law which, in this case is a bit cloudy. There was
no crime or evidence of a crime. The LEO presumed one, probably
incorrectly, but reasonably if she had little or know knowledge of diving
issues. The guy was probably a fool, but, in fact, may have been doing a
better job of preserving evidence than the LEO. What is possibly more
important, is that he was probably gathering information essential to the
treatment of the victim. Won't it be interesting if it turns out that the
victim's life could have been saved if that information had been available
to those that provided the treatment. It's quite possible, if not confirmed
that the LEO could have contributed to the unfavorable outcome by her
actions. Let's keep in mind that the dive shop representative stated he was
a former LEO himself and that he knew what he was doing. This strongly
suggests the officer on the scene should have proceeded with caution.

> The deputy was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear
> alone, especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear.

She may have killed the victim. Still so sure she was right?

> She didn't understand what the guy was doing, and his reported responses
> were inappropriate.

That he was a former LEO and that he knew what he was doing? Not so
imappropriate in my opinion. Not right either, but it's not all that clear
a case.

> He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
> although she would have been absolutely correct in telling
> him again to leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy
> charged the guy with a felony without getting some guidance
> from her superiors.

I don't.

> In all probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or
> more of the lesser charges.

All charges probably should be dropped, particularly if the guy has the
sense to say "I was trying to save her life."

Lee

A bully is a bully whether they have a badge and a gun or not. Fortunately
they do not make the law and they do not interpret the law. The system can
weed out the bad cops and justice will prevail. IMHO LEO's need to be more
aware that they are public servants. I wonder what will happen when the
price of fuel puts LEO on foot and bicycles. My bet is they will be better
then when the radar guns go away.

PDH


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8%Hvh.43470$jA.40613@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
> Al Wells wrote
>
>> If the account of what happened is accurate . . .
>
> A pretty big if.
>
>> . . . the issues look simple to me. When a LEO tells you to do something,
>> you do it. Even if he's wrong,
>> you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later.
>
> That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not the rule of law. The LEO
> must be operating within the law which, in this case is a bit cloudy.
> There was no crime or evidence of a crime. The LEO presumed one, probably
> incorrectly, but reasonably if she had little or know knowledge of diving
> issues. The guy was probably a fool, but, in fact, may have been doing a
> better job of preserving evidence than the LEO. What is possibly more
> important, is that he was probably gathering information essential to the
> treatment of the victim. Won't it be interesting if it turns out that the
> victim's life could have been saved if that information had been available
> to those that provided the treatment. It's quite possible, if not
> confirmed that the LEO could have contributed to the unfavorable outcome
> by her actions. Let's keep in mind that the dive shop representative
> stated he was a former LEO himself and that he knew what he was doing.
> This strongly suggests the officer on the scene should have proceeded with
> caution.
>
>> The deputy was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear
>> alone, especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear.
>
> She may have killed the victim. Still so sure she was right?
>
>> She didn't understand what the guy was doing, and his reported responses
>> were inappropriate.
>
> That he was a former LEO and that he knew what he was doing? Not so
> imappropriate in my opinion. Not right either, but it's not all that
> clear a case.
>
>> He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
>> although she would have been absolutely correct in telling
>> him again to leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy
>> charged the guy with a felony without getting some guidance
>> from her superiors.
>
> I don't.
>
>> In all probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or
>> more of the lesser charges.
>
> All charges probably should be dropped, particularly if the guy has the
> sense to say "I was trying to save her life."
>
> Lee
>

A bully is a bully whether they have a badge and a gun or not. Fortunately
they do not make the law and they do not interpret the law. The system can
weed out the bad cops and justice will prevail. IMHO LEO's need to be more
aware that they are public servants. I wonder what will happen when the
price of fuel puts LEO on foot and bicycles. My bet is they will be better
then when the radar guns go away.

PDH


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8%Hvh.43470$jA.40613@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
> Al Wells wrote
>
>> If the account of what happened is accurate . . .
>
> A pretty big if.
>
>> . . . the issues look simple to me. When a LEO tells you to do something,
>> you do it. Even if he's wrong,
>> you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later.
>
> That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not the rule of law. The LEO
> must be operating within the law which, in this case is a bit cloudy.
> There was no crime or evidence of a crime. The LEO presumed one, probably
> incorrectly, but reasonably if she had little or know knowledge of diving
> issues. The guy was probably a fool, but, in fact, may have been doing a
> better job of preserving evidence than the LEO. What is possibly more
> important, is that he was probably gathering information essential to the
> treatment of the victim. Won't it be interesting if it turns out that the
> victim's life could have been saved if that information had been available
> to those that provided the treatment. It's quite possible, if not
> confirmed that the LEO could have contributed to the unfavorable outcome
> by her actions. Let's keep in mind that the dive shop representative
> stated he was a former LEO himself and that he knew what he was doing.
> This strongly suggests the officer on the scene should have proceeded with
> caution.
>
>> The deputy was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear
>> alone, especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear.
>
> She may have killed the victim. Still so sure she was right?
>
>> She didn't understand what the guy was doing, and his reported responses
>> were inappropriate.
>
> That he was a former LEO and that he knew what he was doing? Not so
> imappropriate in my opinion. Not right either, but it's not all that
> clear a case.
>
>> He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
>> although she would have been absolutely correct in telling
>> him again to leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy
>> charged the guy with a felony without getting some guidance
>> from her superiors.
>
> I don't.
>
>> In all probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or
>> more of the lesser charges.
>
> All charges probably should be dropped, particularly if the guy has the
> sense to say "I was trying to save her life."
>
> Lee
>

A bully is a bully whether they have a badge and a gun or not. Fortunately
they do not make the law and they do not interpret the law. The system can
weed out the bad cops and justice will prevail. IMHO LEO's need to be more
aware that they are public servants. I wonder what will happen when the
price of fuel puts LEO on foot and bicycles. My bet is they will be better
then when the radar guns go away.

PDH


"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8%Hvh.43470$jA.40613@bignews1.bellsouth.net.. .
> Al Wells wrote
>
>> If the account of what happened is accurate . . .
>
> A pretty big if.
>
>> . . . the issues look simple to me. When a LEO tells you to do something,
>> you do it. Even if he's wrong,
>> you let him do his job and let the system sort it out later.
>
> That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not the rule of law. The LEO
> must be operating within the law which, in this case is a bit cloudy.
> There was no crime or evidence of a crime. The LEO presumed one, probably
> incorrectly, but reasonably if she had little or know knowledge of diving
> issues. The guy was probably a fool, but, in fact, may have been doing a
> better job of preserving evidence than the LEO. What is possibly more
> important, is that he was probably gathering information essential to the
> treatment of the victim. Won't it be interesting if it turns out that the
> victim's life could have been saved if that information had been available
> to those that provided the treatment. It's quite possible, if not
> confirmed that the LEO could have contributed to the unfavorable outcome
> by her actions. Let's keep in mind that the dive shop representative
> stated he was a former LEO himself and that he knew what he was doing.
> This strongly suggests the officer on the scene should have proceeded with
> caution.
>
>> The deputy was absolutely right in telling the guy to leave the gear
>> alone, especially if she has no knowledge of dive gear.
>
> She may have killed the victim. Still so sure she was right?
>
>> She didn't understand what the guy was doing, and his reported responses
>> were inappropriate.
>
> That he was a former LEO and that he knew what he was doing? Not so
> imappropriate in my opinion. Not right either, but it's not all that
> clear a case.
>
>> He could have stopped and then tried to calmly sort it out with the cop,
>> although she would have been absolutely correct in telling
>> him again to leave the gear alone. I doubt very much that the deputy
>> charged the guy with a felony without getting some guidance
>> from her superiors.
>
> I don't.
>
>> In all probability the felony will be dropped and he will plead to one or
>> more of the lesser charges.
>
> All charges probably should be dropped, particularly if the guy has the
> sense to say "I was trying to save her life."
>
> Lee
>

In article <8%Hvh.43470$jA.40613@bignews1.bellsouth.net>, pleebell2
@bellsouth.net says...
> Al Wells wrote
>
> > If the account of what happened is accurate . . .
>
> A pretty big if.

Agreed.

> That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's not the rule of law. The LEO must
> be operating within the law which, in this case is a bit cloudy.

In my younger days, I may have had some interaction with LEO's, and I
found that being in control is a big issue with them. If they are trying
to establish control, they will escalate (sometimes inappropriately) as
much as they feel they need to. Even if they're outside of the law, let
them be in control and sort it out later. Once the cop is happy with his
control, there can sometimes be a dialogue. Judges, especially in the
south, have little sympathy for defendants who display a lack of respect
for the LEO's.

> What is possibly more important, is that he was probably gathering information essential to the
> treatment of the victim. Won't it be interesting if it turns out that the
> victim's life could have been saved if that information had been available
> to those that provided the treatment.

This is a bit of a myth. While the information in the dive computer is
certainly interesting, the treatment is a standard Table 6 unless the
diver got whacked really deep on helium. The information from the
computer has no effect on what the doctor does. I heard this from Dr.
Dick Clark at a DAN function in SC, and confirmed it last night with a
doctor who is associated with DAN.

> that the LEO could have contributed to the unfavorable outcome by her
> actions. Let's keep in mind that the dive shop representative stated he was
> a former LEO himself and that he knew what he was doing. This strongly
> suggests the officer on the scene should have proceeded with caution.

It suggests to me that he should have known better. Of course, we don't
know what really happened.

> She may have killed the victim. Still so sure she was right?

At best, they would have had her dive time and maximum depth, and maybe
a little arrow that says her ascent was too fast at some point. Her
buddy also had that information. They were diving on a hard bottom with
sigle tanks. If they were using CCR's the computer is more important to
see if there was an equipment or operator malfunction, but that is not
of interest to the doctor - he's going to do a Table 6.

> That he was a former LEO and that he knew what he was doing? Not so
> imappropriate in my opinion. Not right either, but it's not all that clear
> a case.

It's definitely not clear, but if he said he knew what he was doing and
ignored her instructions to stop, IMO he was wrong. A cop who feels like
he/she is not yet in control can be dangerous.

> All charges probably should be dropped, particularly if the guy has the
> sense to say "I was trying to save her life."

Again, we don't know what really happened. I hope we hear how this one
plays out. There was probably some bad judgement made on both sides.