Equipment tampering?

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.

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.

>> 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.

In the context you use, probably true, but there might well be more than
just the DCS issue. Suppose, for example, the computer showed a profile
that made DCS a very unlikely source of the problem. Might not the time
required for a Table 6, perhaps be better spent looking for the real cause
of the problem?

>> 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.

My limited experience with former LEOs strongly suggests that many don't
leave their attitude behind when they change occupations. In fact, many
seem to get noticably more arrogant.

Lee

>> 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.

In the context you use, probably true, but there might well be more than
just the DCS issue. Suppose, for example, the computer showed a profile
that made DCS a very unlikely source of the problem. Might not the time
required for a Table 6, perhaps be better spent looking for the real cause
of the problem?

>> 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.

My limited experience with former LEOs strongly suggests that many don't
leave their attitude behind when they change occupations. In fact, many
seem to get noticably more arrogant.

Lee

>> 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.

In the context you use, probably true, but there might well be more than
just the DCS issue. Suppose, for example, the computer showed a profile
that made DCS a very unlikely source of the problem. Might not the time
required for a Table 6, perhaps be better spent looking for the real cause
of the problem?

>> 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.

My limited experience with former LEOs strongly suggests that many don't
leave their attitude behind when they change occupations. In fact, many
seem to get noticably more arrogant.

Lee

"Investigation of the incident took an unusual turn when Monroe County
Sheriff's Office deputies arrested dive-shop employee Michael Ryan, 53,
on several counts after he reportedly tried to tamper with Motter's
equipment.

Ryan, who identified himself as a dive instructor, was charged with a
felony count of attempting to destroy evidence and a misdemeanor count
of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He also was charged with
resisting arrest, but the level had not been determined. "

http://keynoter.com/articles/2007/01/17/news/news05.txt

Its thehe first time I've seen anything like this.
Lets hope and pray that she makes it.

Charlie

I too hope Ms. Motter has a full recovery.

Rinsing the gear would hardly be called tampering with evidence. Mr. Ryan
may have a hearing loss and if this is true the deputy over reacted. I have
a distrust of people who have a badge and a gun, and I admit I am
prejudiced. I also have a severe hearing loss.

Again I wish the diver, Ms. Motter a speedy and full recovery

PDH

<bestweb3d@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169219880.673402.306120@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> "Investigation of the incident took an unusual turn when Monroe County
> Sheriff's Office deputies arrested dive-shop employee Michael Ryan, 53,
> on several counts after he reportedly tried to tamper with Motter's
> equipment.
>
> Ryan, who identified himself as a dive instructor, was charged with a
> felony count of attempting to destroy evidence and a misdemeanor count
> of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He also was charged with
> resisting arrest, but the level had not been determined. "
>
> http://keynoter.com/articles/2007/01/17/news/news05.txt
>
> Its thehe first time I've seen anything like this.
> Lets hope and pray that she makes it.
>
> Charlie
>

> Ryan, who identified himself as a dive instructor, was charged with a
> felony count of attempting to destroy evidence and a
> misdemeanor count of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He also was
> charged with resisting arrest, but the level had not been
> determined.

> "Instead of giving the equipment to Deputy [Julie] Smith, he walked with
> it to a hose and began to hose it off," Sheriff's Office
> spokeswoman Becky Herrin related. "Deputy Smith ordered him to stop
> immediately.... Ryan reportedly ignored her orders and
> continued to rinse the equipment."

Something seems very wrong with this. The girl went unconscious. I can't
imagine anything that could be rinsed off the tanks or equipment with a hose
that would lead to that condition. I can't imagine how anyone could think
that rinsing the equipment off was a felony attempt to destroy evidence or
obstruction of a law enforcement officer.

What a shame that we'll probably never hear what actually happened to the
victim or to Ryan.

Lee

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:46:16 -0500, Lee Bell wrote:

>> Ryan, who identified himself as a dive instructor, was charged with a
>> felony count of attempting to destroy evidence and a
>> misdemeanor count of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He also was
>> charged with resisting arrest, but the level had not been
>> determined.
>
>> "Instead of giving the equipment to Deputy [Julie] Smith, he walked with
>> it to a hose and began to hose it off," Sheriff's Office
>> spokeswoman Becky Herrin related. "Deputy Smith ordered him to stop
>> immediately.... Ryan reportedly ignored her orders and
>> continued to rinse the equipment."
>
> Something seems very wrong with this. The girl went unconscious. I can't
> imagine anything that could be rinsed off the tanks or equipment with a hose
> that would lead to that condition. I can't imagine how anyone could think
> that rinsing the equipment off was a felony attempt to destroy evidence or
> obstruction of a law enforcement officer.
>
> What a shame that we'll probably never hear what actually happened to the
> victim or to Ryan.
>
> Lee

LEOs. There's your trouble.

<nospam@all.please.net> wrote in message
newsan.2007.01.20.05.32.38.657278@all.please.net ...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:46:16 -0500, Lee Bell wrote:

>> Something seems very wrong with this. The girl went unconscious. I
>> can't
>> imagine anything that could be rinsed off the tanks or equipment with a
>> hose
>> that would lead to that condition. I can't imagine how anyone could
>> think
>> that rinsing the equipment off was a felony attempt to destroy evidence
>> or
>> obstruction of a law enforcement officer.
>>
>> What a shame that we'll probably never hear what actually happened to the
>> victim or to Ryan.

The source, however accurate, is charliekeys, IIRC.


>
> LEOs. There's your trouble.

Speaking of considering the source...

LEOs are the only thing that protect your kind from mine.