More or less, yes. Under Colorado criminal law, "recklessly" is defined as "A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists."Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleOfNight
I remain confused as to how this is a criminal instead of a civil matter?
Because the actions involved can be construed to embrace elements of both types, like many alleged crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
And then this dude Madison is getting sued for effectively NOT putting someone else at risk. Or going backsies on an alleged pinky swear. Or whatever this is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...ummiting/page2
Not exactly apples to apples .. but it made me wonder if hypothetically one of these two were guiding the other, and refused to let them ride the line because of avi risk. Get sued or get charged? That sucks.
Here's the go pro footage of them triggering the slide. Judge for yourself
https://coloradosun.com/2020/10/18/c...Kh3lmNYWUz0wYQ
This is a bad quote for the purposes of a recklessness analysis: “F***, dude that is what I was worried about,” Hannibal says.
This whole "slippery slope" argument just doesn't land very well for me. Lots of avalanches and nobody got charged. It's almost like those other avalanches didn't hit roads or cause six figures in infrastructure damage. If this has a chilling effect on riders skiing lines that threaten roads and infrastrucutre, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
Skiing above a busy Interstate Highway in a avalanche zone is a dumb idea to begin with
That crew likes to thread the needle. Watching that video makes me feel even worse for them. Ty knew right then the shit got real. It isn't fun anymore when you realize your idea was a bad one. Back to the days of having to talk to the cops when skating at an illegal spot. We aren't kids anymore...
yeah but
we KNEW we were skating at an illegal spot and there was no way we were going to kill anyone
even if riding that line wasn’t illegal per se, it doesn’t seem like the thing to do, and that doesn’t seem to be the way you go about it
hard for me to judge, not sure how I’d see it as a member of a jury
I do not think the active wind loading will help their case.
But, their tracks would have looked So Rad, for everyone on the interstate.
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by powdrhound
Seems to me CDOT was like, 'those fuckers could have killed an employee of ours and they took out the device we use to keep our employees safe, let's sic the law on them and give them and also the backcountry community a lesson on what not to do'. CDOT may not care if the boarders win or lose, the message of 'don't ski above us' is now loud and clear: even beyond Colorado.
I have to admit I grimaced two seconds into the video seeing the wind loading, that was not a good video to share. I would have shared it though too.
does not look like one at a time from safe zone to safe zone, but we don’t see the whole thing
conversation is painful
They aren't on the slope at the same time. They were approaching the roll in at the cornice from the flats above. The lead rider was ski cutting the slope to test stability.
That "Joey" will shred way over your head in real terrain. Unless you are some pro badass.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this statement, including the defendants. The question is whether you should be criminally responsible. A fair resolution to this case would be to dismiss the criminal case and enter a civil order having them agree to pay for the damage that they caused. I don't think they would even argue with that. If I cause an avy and it wipes out a cabin, I assume I would have to pay for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownshoe
I'm defending them from criminal liability but I don't see any defense to civil liability.
Side note, a conviction for Reckless Endangerment could cost them their medical licenses (nurse and md certification does not like assaults and reckless endangerment, on paper, sounds like an assault). I really hope the overzealous prosecutor in this case does not cost them their profession.
Lot I agree with in here re:criminal vs civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
I do wonder about the reckless endangerment charge. I can see some merit in some variety of such a charge. These two knowingly skied a path that was a non-zero avalanche risk (as demonstrated not just by the slide, but their discussion that they were concerned with it) whose runout is clearly full of public infrastructure and a roadway. That's a brazen choice -- reckless? maybe.
Why would that happen? The observations posted that day noted both of the problems the boarders encountered (windslab and persistent slab). We now have compelling evidence that the boarders were aware of both problems and even concerned that it was possible to trigger a slide. Above infrastructure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownshoe
I doubt it's being raised by anybody who knows what they're talking about. Courts aren't about to hold NOAA liable for not perfectly forecasting a hurricane, etc. Though in this case the avalanche occurred in about the conditions that CAIC warned it would occur, so the case is even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownshoe
Yeah, it's not quite apples-to-apples, but if Vail isn't responsible for a slide that kills a kid in a ski resort, control teams aren't going to be responsible for not perfectly controlling a backcountry slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clownshoe
They really should have wiped that footage after seeing it the first time...Quote:
Originally Posted by total_immortal
Footyfortheboys
Insuring winners in the play dumbfuck games win dumbfuck prizes since instahoeing started
Speaking of not quite apples to apples.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by cravenmorhead
I think this needs to be a major educational moment and Ethan and the CAIC should be right out front banging the drum as loudly as possible.
That avalanches are unpredictable and even experts make mistakes, and all folks traveling in avalanche terrain really REALLY need to consider the run outs and unless they are 100% certain they should worry that people may be in those run outs and make their decisions accordingly. (yeah, that's the same message as every year but it might make a dent for a little while this season with a high profile incident to point at.)
From the footage and comments (thanks for that btw), these guys are not as expert at judging avalanche hazard as they may think they are.
thank youQuote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
That wasn't a ski cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by simple