Equipment tampering?

Lee,
You would be surprised how many incidents go unreported in the keys.
The local papers cover them. Its just no one in the groups, including
me, want to constantly bring those bad tidings that can also hurt
friends in the business.

The only reason I posted this was the bizaare police reaction. Perhaps
the divemaster suspected that the gear would sit unwashed in an
evidence locker for some time, coming out trashed.

Lee Bell wrote:
> What a shame that we'll probably never hear what actually happened to the
> victim or to Ryan.
>
> Lee

> You would be surprised how many incidents go unreported in the keys.
> The local papers cover them. Its just no one in the groups, including
> me, want to constantly bring those bad tidings that can also hurt
> friends in the business.

I'm not all that surprised. You don't see many reports of shark sightings
off Ft. Lauderdale or Miami Beach for much the same reason.

> The only reason I posted this was the bizaare police reaction. Perhaps
> the divemaster suspected that the gear would sit unwashed in an
> evidence locker for some time, coming out trashed.

I'm glad you did and I agree with your opinion. It was quite bizaare.
While it would be good to know what happened to the victim, I would be very
interested in the outcome for Ryan. I put my money on a plea bargain for
some misdemeanor, perhaps with a small fine.

Lee

Lee Bell wrote:
>
> I'm glad you did and I agree with your opinion. It was quite bizaare.
> While it would be good to know what happened to the victim,
>
> Lee

Unfortunately

http://keynoter.com/articles/2007/01/19/news/news06.txt

"An Ohio woman involved in a diving accident off the Upper Keys last
weekend has died."

"Mrs. Motter is the Keys' first dive death of 2007."

"In 2006, 15 people died in Florida Keys waters while involved in scuba
diving or snorkeling."

R.I.P. Mrs. Motter

> "picked up Motter's dive computer, attached to the equipment, and
> reportedly appeared to be attempting to alter it in some way,"

Interesting. This might explain the tampering with evidence charge, but is
unlikely to be significant unless Ryan was trying to take the battery out.
That's the only way I know of to alter information on a dive computer
without a link to a non dive computer.

Anybody know of a computer that can be altered by pushing buttons?

Lee

On Jan 24, 12:37 am, "Lee Bell" <pleebe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
"Interesting.
>
> Lee

More intersting:

http://keysnews.com/crimereport-1.bsp.htm

"A first-time diver whose husband was instructing her while scuba
diving last weekend died Jan. 18, after almost a week in critical
condition at a Key Largo hospital.

Kendra Motter, 40, a community college instructor from Canton, Ohio,
had been at Mariners Hospital since the Jan. 13 incident aboard
Horizon Divers in Key Largo. "

Charlie

> More intersting:
>
> http://keysnews.com/crimereport-1.bsp.htm

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.

Lee

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.

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.

>> 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