Kevin Carlisle
Contributor
Its happened on here before. Myself and several others have been told that they didn't care what we said they knew what they were doing and were gonna keep doing it. They don't make many dive buddies after that tho.
Deaths at Eagles Nest - Homosassa FL
- Thread starter TempUser
- 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
grey2112
Contributor
What concerns me is what if the person or persons who loaned equipment to the father/son team were also in on the recovery, which includes their gear? Wouldn't it be suspicious if suddenly it disappeared, or if was tampered with after the fact and then the sellers/manufacturers got sued? Grieving family members are ripe targets for ambulance chasers (no disprespect intended to the few good lawyers out there - and yes, there are a few.)
EDIT - I see in the news story linked on page 1 that the equipment was taken by forensics, so maybe I'm just being paranoid about all this.
EDIT - I see in the news story linked on page 1 that the equipment was taken by forensics, so maybe I'm just being paranoid about all this.
I think this discussion is about to reach critical mass.
Two guys are dead, we can't fix stupid, and for the next 3 years any minor who even looks at spring fed waters wrong is going to be mobbed by cave divers.
There are no longer any solutions in this thread (hard to say there ever were). Unless this mysterious gear lender pops in with his side of the story (which would, for reasons stated, be a very bad idea), we can offer no more than tender, juicy, passionate conjecture. It's Friday night - go have a beer.
Two guys are dead, we can't fix stupid, and for the next 3 years any minor who even looks at spring fed waters wrong is going to be mobbed by cave divers.
There are no longer any solutions in this thread (hard to say there ever were). Unless this mysterious gear lender pops in with his side of the story (which would, for reasons stated, be a very bad idea), we can offer no more than tender, juicy, passionate conjecture. It's Friday night - go have a beer.
The "mysterious" gear lender -Robert Brooks based on what I've read in news reports - might be a bit late to decide he wants to remain mysterious. Should have avoided giving interviews the day of the two deaths.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...ng-wildlife-refuge-for-missing-divers/2158541
RDRINK25
Contributor
I have over 200 dives and have many specialties from deep,rescue,aow,drift, and I am even a padi master diver. Yet I am not cavern,cave or wreck certified. I have never been in a cave nor will without proper training. I have been in the cenotes in Mexico which are cavern with a guide. Have I gone in a wreck? Yes I recently and when I say recently I mean my last 4 dives where at the Spiegel Grove and I went through a few swim throughs with a guide. I hired him because I didn't have the proper training to do it by myself. Not that I didn't feel comfortable but because it was the unknown to me.
DevonDiver
N/A
I have over 6000 dives and teach technical and technical/advanced wreck penetration diving (a skill-set and training near identical to full cave). Nonetheless, I wouldn't enter a cave without completing the training specific to that environment and having received approval following appraisal by an environment-specific expert.
The more experience I've gained in diving, the more respectful of dangers I have become. I recognize that specific training; targeted to individual environments and activities, increases surviveability through the mitigation of hazards or the provision of options when hazards aren't avoided. I recognize that external validation by someone with specific expertise is vital in ensuring competency; as self-appraisal is prone to over-estimation for many reasons.
I've had friends who have perished diving, doing the same dives, the same activities that I participate in daily. I'm also ex-military and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. I harbor no false illusions about the nature of death whilst trapped in an overhead environment, from drowning or from DCS. It's a ghastly way to expire.
---------- Post added December 28th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ----------
In other respects, there are similarities:
1) Over-estimation of competence.
2) Under-appreciation of hazards.
3) No training for given activity/equipment/environment.
4) No appropriate experience progression for the given activity/equipment/environment.
There are also differences:
1) I am not aware what warnings, if any, Marcia received. She certainly received 'enabling' support via the forums and friends. I wonder if the cave fatality received the same?
2) The diving industry / community is much more categorical about the need for overhead environment training, compared to drysuit training (although the need for appropriate equipment training is nonetheless espoused by agencies).
The more experience I've gained in diving, the more respectful of dangers I have become. I recognize that specific training; targeted to individual environments and activities, increases surviveability through the mitigation of hazards or the provision of options when hazards aren't avoided. I recognize that external validation by someone with specific expertise is vital in ensuring competency; as self-appraisal is prone to over-estimation for many reasons.
I've had friends who have perished diving, doing the same dives, the same activities that I participate in daily. I'm also ex-military and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. I harbor no false illusions about the nature of death whilst trapped in an overhead environment, from drowning or from DCS. It's a ghastly way to expire.
---------- Post added December 28th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ----------
One incident didn't include the death of a minor (not an idiot, as one has suggested - but a child not deemed sufficiently mature to make the necessary decisions).
In other respects, there are similarities:
1) Over-estimation of competence.
2) Under-appreciation of hazards.
3) No training for given activity/equipment/environment.
4) No appropriate experience progression for the given activity/equipment/environment.
There are also differences:
1) I am not aware what warnings, if any, Marcia received. She certainly received 'enabling' support via the forums and friends. I wonder if the cave fatality received the same?
2) The diving industry / community is much more categorical about the need for overhead environment training, compared to drysuit training (although the need for appropriate equipment training is nonetheless espoused by agencies).
Has anyone established the gear lent by Mr. Brooks was in use at the time of the drowning? It appears we established Mr. Brooks definitely lent them gear, but we also established the minor child received new gear for Christmas. We also know both divers ran out of air. Can anyone conclusively make the link to the borrowed gear being used at the time of the accident?
Based on my understanding, Mr. Brooks could have lent the gear to the Father to take a class. He didn't take the class. The gear was returned, and the Christmas gear is what allowed their latest push to depth. Or perhaps the gear wasn't even in use at the time of the accident. I am unclear on these points.
On the legal issue. I'm curious what the standards are for trespass?
Based on my understanding, Mr. Brooks could have lent the gear to the Father to take a class. He didn't take the class. The gear was returned, and the Christmas gear is what allowed their latest push to depth. Or perhaps the gear wasn't even in use at the time of the accident. I am unclear on these points.
On the legal issue. I'm curious what the standards are for trespass?
No, I'm just assuming I was one of the people that knew what this guy was up to. Seemed to be an awful lot of folks who did. Hell the kid shared their exploits with >500,000,000 people on FaceBook...
Jack Hammer
Contributor
DevonDiver
N/A
Please ask more questions, which obviously cannot be answered, in your effort to defend the indefensible...
---------- Post added December 28th, 2013 at 01:35 PM ----------
827.03(2)(c) ("Knowingly or willfully encouraging another person to commit an act that resulted in or could reasonably have been expected to result in injury to the victim"
Which equipment, or how it was used, or whether it contributed to the cause of the accident is immaterial. RJP quoted a law that covers 'encouragement'.
US Legal Definition of Encouragement:
Supplying equipment may be considered to 'raise confidence' or 'to help'. It may also be interpreted as 'advice'.
In a legal case, I am assuming, it would have to be balanced against specific verbal communication that the lendor made discouraging it's use for cave penetration, or that they may have placed caveats on the lease, restricting its use to open-water environments etc etc... Although that itself would be balanced against the stated knowledge that the victims did already engage in cave penetrations... so reasonable expectation of intended use may be seen to exist.
I wonder how much 'encouragement' towards such scenarios is given on forums like Scubaboard?
Similar threads
