That makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I'd just chalk it up as classic "lazy" reporting. It's probably easier to explain to the public that it's a state agency represented by the AG's office and just reference the actual AG in everything rather than get into the weeds of assistant AGs, etc.
is anyone actually reading this thread
or are you just posting ?
I already feel like the CAIC receives an almost shockingly small number of field reports/observations from the public.
how many have you given?
not unusual for there to be 1-4 pages of obs on a given day after a storm cycle
Yeah well, it IS Blevins we are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soups
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I generally don’t like to give my opinions in my writing so I’ll do it here....
the more times I watch that video the more I think those guys are fucking idiots and I hope they are found guilty in a jury trial
how many have you given?Quote:
Originally Posted by glademaster
Don't feed the troll:rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by ~mikey b
I’m sure the answer is zero. I just find it funny that he won’t answer.
amazing how much time and money the da's office is wasting
guess they want to make sure cdot gets paid for there toy that they put in the wrong place and forgot to use
they better hope to put a jury of boomer gaper retirees who like to blame everyone for everything together its there only hope at a guilty
Interesting mention of the plea negotiations in that article.
my article was updated this morning
https://snowbrains.com/judge-rules-c..._3m7yfWIFPajgA
indeedQuote:
Originally Posted by cravenmorhead
But that is blood from a rock. Why not chop off a zero and add some volunteer hours and save everyone this wasteful drama...Quote:
In a rare instance of a prosecutor openly talking about plea negotiations, Cava said Hannibal and DeWitt declined a deal to plead guilty to a lesser misdemeanor, pay a fine of $25,000 and serve volunteer hours in the community.
Seriously. $25K, who would take that when it hardly seems like an open and shut case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Personally I still think this could be a bad precedent and a slippery slope (pun intended).
I believe when you screw up you own it. Thankfully nobody was hurt. This should be treated the same as running over a street sign or destroying other public property. I think the $25K is a good deal. Put this thing to bed and move on.
I still don't think CDOT has a good case here. I think they are working the media angle hoping for a settlement. Can CDOT prove the $168k damages? Where is this mystery broken Obeelx? Reckless endangerment has been discussed plenty but the damages I still think are suspect
The fact that they are riding a clearly wind slabbed slope and one of them Yell's "That's what I was worried about" when his partner remote triggers the slide is not real defensible. But, it is easy to Monday morning QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~mikey b
“good call, good call!”
wtf does that even mean?
CDOT does not prosecute crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by simple
neither does CAICQuote:
Originally Posted by cravenmorhead
I agree. If you're dumb enough to publicly admit that you anticipated the possibility of burying a road with an avalanche, and went ahead and skied a line anyway, maybe you ought to deal with some consequences. That's a fucked up thing to do. It deserves to be condemned. Community service seems reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada1
But I don't think paying for damages to the O'bellx system should be one of those consequence.