Maltese court convicts dive buddy
- Thread starter Miyaru
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Okay, I missed that he was originally charged with murder in Queensland and then pleaded to manslaughter. In relation to this thread, the main point remains. As you point out, the original murder and then manslaughter charges in Queensland were based on an unusual (and now repealed) law that seems similar to the absurd theory behind the Malta conviction--if it's your buddy, you have to perform a successful rescue, or else you are a murderer.
In contrast, the murder charge that was thrown out in Alabama was based on the theory that his rescue attempt was so very incompetent that it must have been intentional murder. The two murder charges are very different.
In the Watson case, the two were certified as rescue diver and OW diver by the same NASDS instructor, and the indications I saw were that both certification processes were woefully deficient. As incompetent as Gabe was as a rescue diver, Tina was at least that incompetent as an OW diver. In contrast, in the Malta case, both divers were highly trained.
Hell, even your basic recreational rescue class says not to become a victim yourself. Guess in Malta they expect you to commit suicide if needed to save a buddy.
RobPNW
Contributor
This is incredible.
Or even better - you should blow off deco obligations and become a cripple for the rest of your life. No way would I ever go to Malta if I was so inclined.
SlugLife
Contributor
Forget Malta law. You seem to be good at evading questions that people asked over and over. For example, when people were asking if you were talking about commercial or recreational diving. Lets try this again, back to the question:
Do you think this scenario, a diver "failure to rescue" a recreational dive-buddy including not jeopardizing his own safety, ought be sufficient to be found guilty of criminal manslaughter, deserving years in jail?
^ Underlined part being the most important component of the question. And yes, we're talking from a moral perspective, no need to cite not being a lawyer or familiar with Malta law.
Woe betide anyone in Malta having an "accident". Seems that someone must be blamed and punished.
With Stephen Martin's problems (linked to on page 1), he was charged with attempted murder. The only reason was that the Maltese could falsely invoke the International Arrest Warrant which is only for use in serious cases: this wasn't strong enough to bring a prosecution for health & safety let alone the fictional murder.
Was a good reminder to put Malta firmly on the Sh!t list. Plenty of other diving locations without the irrational legal system they appear to have in Malta.
I think we can conclude that @mac64 dives in a very restricting and confined set of parameters that doesn't match basically anyone anywhere. In his world, the basic rules of putting oneself at risk don't exist because there is someone else to step in. Besides the fact that he would never do the kind of dive that Gauci & Castillo were doing, but let's just say hypothetically he could set up his rope and bells and took Castillo's place. It would be someone else taking care of Gauci, not him.
That's how his world works. That isn't how the world works for everyone else.
That's how his world works. That isn't how the world works for everyone else.
This reminds me of something that happened to a friend of mine years ago. He was driving in the winter and hit a patch of what is called black ice. He slid off the road and hit another car that had hit that same patch of black ice and slid off the road seconds before him. When the police came, he was ticketed for causing the collision.
He challenged it in court. When the ticketing officer was put on the stand, the judge asked him for the rationale for charging my friend. He said that the department's philosophy is that if there is an accident, then someone MUST be at fault, and that person MUST be charged with causing the accident. No exceptions! Since there were only two people there, he had to choose from those two options, and the obvious choice was the guy whose car slid into the first guy. The judge said that was ridiculous, and he dismissed the case.
I think a lot of people in positions in law enforcement have a similar notion--in any kind of incident or accident, someone must be at fault, and that someone must be charged.
I have seen that attitude in threads on ScubaBoard over the years, even in cases where the victim clearly suffered a heart attack during the dive. Well, what happened during the dive that caused that heart attack? If the dive buddy didn't do something to cause the diver to panic and have that attack, then the fault must lie with the instructor and agency that did not supply the quality of instruction that would have prevented the (unseen) panic that caused the attack. (After all, all heart attacks are the result of panic.)
- Status
Similar threads
