Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

These two are idiots when it comes to avalanche awareness. They may be badass riders...but who gives a shit about that?
That is not how you safely cut a slope. If that is what he was trying to do.
Clearly active wind loading. Avy conditions are changing by the minute. Any assumptions they made before starting their tour are out the window. Should have had a plan B before starting and willing to back off once they saw the wind loading. Based on their indecision of how to proceed after triggering, they didn't think this through ahead of time.
They are on a thin snowpack near the trigger point - always weak.
Says "that's what I was afraid of". Wait...if you were afraid this would happen, WTF are you doing on that slope? You must not be that confident the slope is safe from the obilex (which isn't intended to make this slope safe to ski on). Your confidence level better be higher than that if you are going to risk a road and infrastructure. Sounds like they knew there was a good chance this could happen.
Their dumbass hindsight continues - "Fuck, we buried the road, hope no one was on it." Those are the thoughts you should be having long before you are standing at the top of a line like this.
I don't know if this meets the legal standard of reckless, but for sure was reckless by a common sense standard.

Genuinely glad no one was injured or killed, including the two responsible. But, seriously, get these morons out of the backcountry before they do injure or kill themselves or someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talbash

.

Genuinely glad no one was injured or killed, including the two responsible. But, seriously, get these morons out of the backcountry before they do injure or kill themselves or someone else.

---

The massive group of new backcountry riders expected this year will make every day exciting for everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talbash

These two are idiots when it comes to avalanche awareness. They may be badass riders...but who gives a shit about that?
That is not how you safely cut a slope. If that is what he was trying to do.
Clearly active wind loading. Avy conditions are changing by the minute. Any assumptions they made before starting their tour are out the window. Should have had a plan B before starting and willing to back off once they saw the wind loading. Based on their indecision of how to proceed after triggering, they didn't think this through ahead of time.
They are on a thin snowpack near the trigger point - always weak.
Says "that's what I was afraid of". Wait...if you were afraid this would happen, WTF are you doing on that slope? You must not be that confident the slope is safe from the obilex (which isn't intended to make this slope safe to ski on). Your confidence level better be higher than that if you are going to risk a road and infrastructure. Sounds like they knew there was a good chance this could happen.
Their dumbass hindsight continues - "Fuck, we buried the road, hope no one was on it." Those are the thoughts you should be having long before you are standing at the top of a line like this.
I don't know if this meets the legal standard of reckless, but for sure was reckless by a common sense standard.

---

Great post. If this case goes to trial, this is a good summary of what the State's expert witness will testify. For fun, here is what the expert witness for the defense would say:

The snowboarders were very familiar with this line, as they have driven by hundreds of times. The area is normally unskiable because the predominant winds blow snow from the upper line to the East side of the continental divide. Southern winds in the weeks before the event filled the upper line enough to make it skiable, but it was still a very thin, shallow, snowpack on the upper run. The snowboarders had skied a similar line (same area, aspect, ect) in the days before the event without incident, and there was no significant weather changes from that date. Because the snowpack on the upper run was very shallow, and very steep, the snowboarders assumed that even if a slide were to occur, it would not be large enough to sweep them off their feet and would be something they could easily ski out of (the crown for the slide they triggered was 4 to 6 inches). Of course, even a small slide can run down, gain momentum, and step down to weak layers on the apron causing a much larger slide. However, the snowboarders (incorrectly) assumed the avy mitigation equipment had prevented the build up of weak layers on the apron throughout the winter. So the snowboarders (incorrectly) assumed that worst case scenario, they would trigger a small slide that would run on the surface the entire path and not step down. They assumed this small slide would pose no danger to the avy mitigation equipment, the road, and the buildings below. There was active wind loading at the start point. And their ski cut was not executed well. But again, the snowboarders were not concerned with triggering a large slide because the snowpack at the start zone was so shallow, and their incorrect assumption that the avy mitigation equipment had stabilized the lower part of the run. Bad decision, yes. Criminal recklessness beyond a reasonable doubt, no.

^^ If those are the two closing arguments then I see a guilty verdict.

If anyone hears when the trial will be, I'd like to attend.

That was a classic windloaded aspect.
One I won't normally ski or skoochcut.

CDOT builds infrastructure in avalanche terrain and is now seeking compensation because an avalanche took it out.

I don't even know what ya'll are arguing but I'll say this. That behavior doesn't register real high on the "look how much of an idiot this guy is!" meter in Colorado. Point being, if you want to set some arbitrary standard of negligence from your armchair, understand exactly how many people you are parking the bus on top of. It's a nice idea the think that the backcounty is full of Avi 2 educated 10+year experience Grade A decision makers but that ain't the case. Right or wrong, people gonna do dumb shit. Rules and regulation don't seem like the best way to address the problem.

see? Even the bots agree.

sorry to interrupt the scooching and bro smooching from a euro perspective: But how is it even possible to hit an open road in the us? There would be like 20 Avie galleries and tunnels in that spot overe here. IF you can hit a road (and that is mostly high remote mountain roads....if you can hit a Highway/Autobahn, it would the snow apocalypse) in Europe, it's Avi level 4+ and those idiots would probably have killed themselves prior to hitting that road.

And being sued is pretty much the standard here if you endanger other people, in italy it's enough to trigger an avie to get problems.(edit: which is pretty ridiculous from my persective if I only edanger myself. But endangering other people is a VERY different thing.)

Agreed with Frush.

the video (and their comments) show a powerful argument for they 'knew or reasonably should have known' .. and as usual jury selection would be key - but maybe more likely to seat users of the road than shredders of the guhnar.

Either way, if I was betting? No way DA dismisses, trial unlikely. I bet they take a guilty plea, maybe to a lesser charge even: 6 months deferred, maybe some community service, and pay some restitution - CDOT agrees to not sue them for damages. If I was these guys I'd take something like that. In the end no criminal record, and it sends the message that BC users potentially can be accountable for damage they cause.

fwiw, I kinda oddly appreciate the guys for stepping up and being accountable, even if they did kinda shoot their own foot as a result. A lot of us might stand to learn a lot from this situation, no matter what the end result is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subtle plague

sorry to interrupt the scooching and bro smooching from a euro perspective: But how is it even possible to hit an open road in the us? There would be like 20 Avie galleries and tunnels in that spot overe here. IF you can hit a road (and that is mostly high remote mountain roads....if you can hit a Highway/Autobahn, it would the snow apocalypse) in Europe, it's Avi level 4+ and those idiots would probably have killed themselves prior to hitting that road.

And being sued is pretty much the standard here if you endanger other people, in italy it's enough to trigger an avie to get problems.(edit: which is pretty ridiculous from my persective if I only edanger myself. But endangering other people is a VERY different thing.)

---

You answered your own question -- Europe vs US.

But just for a little more context, they didn't bury a highway. The buried a service road that serves a highway. And it took a big slide to do that. To my knowledge, the highway itself has never been directly impacted by anything sliding in this area.

Ya, I am not sure it would be possible to cover the freeway with an avalanche down the line they skied. It has to cross the access road, and then there is the structure at the entrance of the tunnel that would block debris from getting to the actual freeway. The access road is open to the public, but normally only used by maintenance workers who would (hopefully) be smart enough to not hang out along the road any longer than necessary.

Attachment 344993

Attachment 344994

I can't think of too many snowsheds protecting US roads from avalanches. The only one that covers a freeway comes to mind is the one recently completed on I-90 East of Alpental ski area. In Europe, building a crazy road or train through the mountains is considered an engineering achievement where as in the US, it would be considered an environmental travesty.

Attachment 344995

If they go to trial, the jury will only be from Summit County, CO, so most likeley skiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Ya, I am not sure it would be possible to cover the freeway with an avalanche down the line they skied. It has to cross the access road, and then there is the structure at the entrance of the tunnel that would block debris from getting to the actual freeway. The access road is open to the public, but normally only used by maintenance workers who would (hopefully) be smart enough to not hang out along the road any longer than necessary.

Attachment 344993

Attachment 344994

I can't think of too many snowsheds protecting US roads from avalanches. The only one that covers a freeway comes to mind is the one recently completed on I-90 East of Alpental ski area. In Europe, building a crazy road or train through the mountains is considered an engineering achievement where as in the US, it would be considered an environmental travesty.

Attachment 344995

If they go to trial, the jury will only be from Summit County, CO, so most likeley skiers.

---

There’s no snow sheds on I90 anymore there’s a new wildlife crossing but that isn’t near a slide zone

My mistake, there was a snowshed there but they instead raised the freeway up so that slides would go under the freeway rather than over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

My mistake, there was a snowshed there but they instead raised the freeway up so that slides would go under the freeway rather than over.

---

Their plan was to build them but during construction the bean counters figured out the cost of building and maintaining the fire suppression systems for the snow sheds would cost more than building the bridges

There are snowsheds on highways 550 and 160 in Colorado (but those are not interstates).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

There are snowsheds on highways 550 and 160 in Colorado (but those are not interstates).

---

The one on 160 is where most of the auto accidents happen, horrible design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doebedoe

You answered your own question -- Europe vs US.

But just for a little more context, they didn't bury a highway. The buried a service road that serves a highway. And it took a big slide to do that. To my knowledge, the highway itself has never been directly impacted by anything sliding in this area.

---

Avalanches have definitely buried the highway from the south facing slidepaths near the tunnel on the west side, don't have a link handy but have seen it in the report before. I'm not aware of the highway having been buried from the westerly aspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

Avalanches have definitely buried the highway from the south facing slidepaths near the tunnel on the west side, don't have a link handy but have seen it in the report before. I'm not aware of the highway having been buried from the westerly aspects.

---

yeah 2 (edit: maybe 3? idk time has no meaning anymore) seasons ago during that wild historic avalanche cycle weren’t there a few slides that hit 70? I think the road was closed for control work but still. also maybe a different road, I was observing from a distance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mall walker

yeah 2 (edit: maybe 3? idk time has no meaning anymore) seasons ago during that wild historic avalanche cycle weren’t there a few slides that hit 70? I think the road was closed for control work but still. also maybe a different road, I was observing from a distance

---

I don't recall ones at the tunnel burying the highway 2 years ago, but there were definitely some crazy slides that did that, not all that far away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKIP IN7RO

The one on 160 is where most of the auto accidents happen, horrible design.

---

Fun fact (well, not really fun, but...). Quite a few years ago, a couple of friends were riding WC backcountry, one of them had been there before (with me). He was trying to ride the stuff we had hit before, where you come back out to 160 well below the snow shed, by (IIRC) MM 171. Well, they got well off track and almost got caught in a slide (they have video), and came out right at the snow shed. Which he described as a "tunnel". I don't think they realized that they were skiing a line that slides so much that CDOT built a snow shed (I know they didn't realize that). I have not ridden backcountry with either of them since, lol.

They had court on 10/27. I can't find the new court date on the docket search but the article below says a jury trial has been set in March 2021.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/10/...rch-avalanche/

Going to trial seems so wasteful and risky. But I don't know if the prosecutor is offering them a shitty plea or if they're trying to make a stand on principle (or a little of both).

I'd absolutely take this to trial. Not that they aren't DB's, but this is retarded.

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/trial...valanche-case/

If I was their attorney, I would advise them to accept no plea offer that requires them to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and lose, they will likely get no jail and have to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and win, then they don't have to pay a penny. The jury (I believe six for this charge in Colorado?) must be unanimous to convict. If there is a single hold out juror, then it is not a guilty verdict. So what do they have to lose by going to trial? The $168,000 restitution can be paid off with a payment plan but the balance accrues interest at the statutory rate (12% in Washington). So even if they start making payments the balance can keep going up. The snowboarders don't pay for the trial, the Colorado taxpayers do.

I just took a reckless endangerment case this week. Seems like the flavor of the month in the 5th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

I'd absolutely take this to trial. Not that they aren't DB's, but this is retarded.

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/trial...valanche-case/

---

That reporter should be put on trial for such a shitty article. Few details about the accident but goes into where the guys work and how busy their jobs have been? WTF?

Avalanche equipment was put in an avalanche path and then it was destroyed by an avalanche. It was installed last year, so who's to say that that slide couldn't have slid naturally someday or during O’bellx use and done the same damage? Who's to say that the reason that the slope was so unstable wasn't because of the O’bellx system? This sounds more like negligence of CDOT to me. The system is new, and they apparently haven't learned how to install the equipment correctly. I bet there's even a line item in the budget for replacing these when they are destroyed by avalanches during their learning curve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

If I was their attorney, I would advise them to accept no plea offer that requires them to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and lose, they will likely get no jail and have to pay the $168,000. If they go to trial and win, then they don't have to pay a penny. The jury (I believe six for this charge in Colorado?) must be unanimous to convict. If there is a single hold out juror, then it is not a guilty verdict. So what do they have to lose by going to trial? The $168,000 restitution can be paid off with a payment plan but the balance accrues interest at the statutory rate (12% in Washington). So even if they start making payments the balance can keep going up. The snowboarders don't pay for the trial, the Colorado taxpayers do.

---

Well if you seek the opinion of a surgeon they will usually recommend surgery...a lawyer will recommend trial...it's how they make a living...(all you dentists calm down) but legal fees can be substantial

See, all this is why I'm wondering what they were offered. I agree, if they weren't offered a reduction in the 168k then it's worth fighting.

I highly doubt they were offered a plea deal that would reduce the restitution amount. Restitution is not the prosecutor's money, it is the victim's, so they would need the blessing of the victim to reduce. Plus, this case is all about the prosecutor using the criminal justice system as leverage to extort money from the snowboarders.

The article says Hannibal is not working at his patrol job this winter to focus on med-school. If his income is low, he should demand a public defender be appointed. If they make too much money for a public defender, they need to try harder to find an attorney who will take this case to trial for free or at least cheap. Lots of defense attorneys take prominent cases that are getting media attention for free. It's great advertising. Get a not guilty verdict on this case and the attorney will own the Summit County defense market.

Or just represent themselves. This shit aint rocket science. They already gave a full confession on tape, so there is nothing they could say or do to make their case any worse. I appreciate their honesty and the fact that they are not trying to hide anything. They truly believe what they did is not criminal. At trial, the $168k restitution amount should be suppressed because it is not relevant to the charge, and highly prejudicial. So at trial, you have to find 6 num nuts in Summit County who have never heard of this case. And they won't know how crazy expensive the damage was. This is not an easy case for the prosecutor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Restitution is not the prosecutor's money, it is the victim's, so they would need the blessing of the victim to reduce.

...

They already gave a full confession on tape, so there is nothing they could say or do to make their case any worse.

---

These statements are both wrong.

How so? Every dollar of restitution payment goes to the victim. There is no legal rule that says prosecutors cannot negotiate a restitution amount. But when the amount of restitution is not being disputed (i.e. the snowboarders are not objecting that the devices they destroyed costs $168k) I have never seen a prosecutor agree to lower the restitution amount just to get a plea. For one, if the victim does not agree to this you know they are going to be livid that the prosecutor caved. Victim's view prosecutors as their "free" attorney even though this is not technically correct. And prosecutors just want to make the victim happy.

On the confession (video) they are making consciousness of guilt statements (I hope no one was down there, I hope the cops don't come). Those statements are coming in at trial and provide the basis of the prosecutor's case. They KNEW it was RECKLESS and yet jumped in anyway. As a defense, I would focus on the fact that the run slid, and the fact the slide caused damage, is irrelevant to whether their action was reckless. The reckless act was skiing a line that that had a high likelihood of sliding and that if it slid, would cause harm to a PERSON. Harm to property is not enough. The conduct must created a "substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person." The Colorado recreation attorney in the article agreed with me. He said there must be a person at the bottom for this case to stick. Since there was no one at the bottom, this charge could get dismissed at a motion hearing pre-trial because legally, even assuming the facts of the prosecutor's case are true, as a matter of law, it does not amount to Reckless Endangerment.

Snowboarders should get a buddy to testify as an expert witness that says there was no way that slide could get to the freeway (which is true). And testify that the access road almost never has anyone parked on it, so they assumed no PERSON was endangered by their actions. In closing, point out that if the snowboarders actions are criminal, that means every skier who ever skis a slide path in Colorado that leads to a highway in high, or moderately high avy conditions is committing the same crime (there are 200+ of these types of runs in Colorado). That would be the whole theme of my defense.

The snowboarders have this prosecutor on the ropes. Time to go for the jugular. The Summit County Prosecutor has quite possibly the most cush lawyer job in the country. I assume they are elected? All they have to do is not rock the boat and they can keep their fat govy pay check and fat govy pension for as long as they want, while sipping champagne at their house in Breck. But charging a case like this, which a lot of people think is bs and a waste of tax dollars, could cost this prosecutor their job, particularly if the prosecutor loses at a jury trial.

https://recreation-law.com/2020/10/1...-right-to-rem/

"I keep trying to figure out the motivation for the District Attorney’s actions. The chance of getting any money out of these two men is zero. Does he want to keep people from going out in the backcountry? Probably. No doubt there is going to be a lot of Search & Rescue this winter based on sales of backcountry equipment. However, idiots in the backcountry is not a new thing.Instead of wasting the time, money, and resources to prosecute these two men, which will not stop idiots in the backcountry, why not try to educate them.

Besides, any expert who is going to get on the stand and say that these two triggered the avalanche is possibly wrong. Even with the men saying on tape, they started the slide; they could still be wrong."

^^^ this.

As I posted back a few pages, a great opportunity to educate a lot of BC users as to their responsibility not to be an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

How so?

---

I'm aware of how restitution works; I'm a former deputy district attorney. The victim may think the prosecutor represents them, but that misconception doesn't mean the victim needs to sign off on a reduction of restitution.

Everybody can make their own criminal cases worse, particularly if they don't have representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cravenmorhead

Everybody can make their own criminal cases worse, particularly if they don't have representation.

---

Most of the time, yes. All of the time, no.

Defendant Marcus Carter, who is not an attorney, represented himself pro se (by himself) for over a decade on this case and ultimately prevailed.

The State appeals the dismissal of a machine gun possession charge, contrary to RCW 9.41.190(1) and .010(7), against Marcus Alton Carter. The trial court dismissed the charge because the State lacked sufficient evidence to prove that an ammunition supply device, defined by RCW 9.41.010(7), was present at the scene. The State argues that the statute does not require it to show the presence of an ammunition supply device and that the trial court erred in disregarding its evidence that such a device was present. Because RCW 9.41.010(7) contemplates a weapon accompanied by an ammunition supply device and because the State did not respond with an affidavit containing evidence of an ammunition supply device, the trial court did not err in dismissing the State's case on Carter's Knapstad motion. We affirm and construe the trial court's dismissal to be without prejudice.

State v. Carter, 161 Wn.App. 532, 255 P.3d 721 (Div. 2 2011)

The point being, if I had nothing to lose by going to trial I wouldn't let the cost of a private attorney stop me from going to trial. The world would be a better place if more people followed this advice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

The snowboarders have this prosecutor on the ropes. Time to go for the jugular. The Summit County Prosecutor has quite possibly the most cush lawyer job in the country. I assume they are elected? All they have to do is not rock the boat and they can keep their fat govy pay check and fat govy pension for as long as they want, while sipping champagne at their house in Breck. But charging a case like this, which a lot of people think is bs and a waste of tax dollars, could cost this prosecutor their job, particularly if the prosecutor loses at a jury trial.

---

The D.A. serves Clear Creek, Summit, Lake, and Eagle Counties. He is also term limited, and his Deputy is running unopposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thefrush

....."
Besides, any expert who is going to get on the stand and say that these two triggered the avalanche is possibly wrong. Even with the men saying on tape, they started the slide; they could still be wrong."

---

I don't get this part. Like...really? Is it up for debate what started this avalanche? CAIC report says skier trigger. The skiers say skier triggered. What reasonable expert could say it wasn't skier triggered?

Ahem, snow sliding enthusiasts.