Quote:
Originally Posted by cmcrawfo
Type: HS
Trigger: AR - Snowboarder
Trigger (subcode): --
Size - Relative to Path: R3
Size - Destructive Force: D3
Sliding Surface: O - Within Old Snow
First sentence of report: "This was a hard slab avalanche triggered by a snowboarder."
This is Chewbacca, Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! None of this makes sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. DAMNIT!
That used to be my avatar way back in the day before Tits Or GTFO.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
And strangely he doesn't really support enforcement of the public health order.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
I wonder either the avalanche case or the public health order situation will change once she takes over from him?
Midget sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
The guy was a volunteer patroller with one maybe two years there. He makes no money as a ski patroller and is in no way associated with ANYTHING snow safety at that ski area. That team is not very pleased with his facade.
https://snowbrains.com/men-triggered...ghts-violated/
Here we go again.
They sure don't want you to forget that snowboarders triggered it. Part of me thinks this exposed a weakness in the avy control in that area, while the other part wonders why a person would drive all the way from Vail for that line....hollyhood
No reasonable expectation of privacy for video footage voluntarily sent to a state agency. Effectively, that's consent. Video gets in.
Voluntary, non-custodial statements made to the same agency, online, and in the video are similarly unlikely to be suppressed.
But I'm no dentist.
Your armchair dentistry is off, but you're on the right track. They volunteered the video, so search and seizure laws don't apply. Stupidity isn't a Miranda violation, or something of that sort. That said, a half decent lawyer should be able to get them off simply by showing (to a jury, no less, easily sway-able) that the slide they triggered was unintentional and the position of the equipment was fatally flawed. A natural release would have eventually done the same damage. Should be easy to get an avalanche expert to agree that a "100 year slide" would have done the same and 100 year slides seem to be happening every ten years or so nowadays.
Yeah that'll happen :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapow
Yeah I was just figuring that the "constitutional rights violations" part wouldn't get much traction.
Seems like the judge could make that decision. Gonna be contested but good point on how agressive the state was and maybe they got sloppy in their case building strategy. Don't lawyers like to dig into government following protocol?
So there was 168K in claimed damages and now we will spend ??$$ to try these ding-dongs?
They gave the video to CDOT, who then gave it to CSP and apparently that's where the rights violation stands if I understand correctly:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapow
https://www.summitdaily.com/news/att...sed-avalanche/
But yeah, as I've said before in this thread, the location of the equipment was their own fault. I wonder if there were any signs notifying BC travelers of the existence or location of the equipment.
Really hope that there's no lasting consequences to all BC travel because of this. Honestly, it would be bad if it caused people to be more reluctant to report incidents in general, which has been something the CAIC has worked hard to get people to do, and it is a really good resource for planning to know what is already sliding.
I'm afraid that once you give it up to an agency voluntarily, you lose control over what they choose to do with it. There might even be some agreement between those agencies that they are 'required' to disclose potential crimes they come across?Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Redacted
^^ This. I'll sure think twice before posting anything to CAIC ever again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Redacted
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by MiddleOfNight
I think it's a pretty reasonable expectation that giving a video to a public safety organization should be used for public safety, not to get arrested. It looks like CO's Good Samaritan law only applies to giving medical aid, but I feel like there's an argument there as well- they were trying to inform fellow backcountry users of danger.
For the record, I'm not sure what I think about this case overall, but I don't like their info and video being used against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenboy
By that same logic, I could install a dash cam, drive around slamming beers, and would get off scot-free as long as I called it a PSA about the perils of drunk driving when I post the footage.
Stupid is as stupid does.
I think theres a way to be anonymous. But if my obs, reports, and submissions could be used against me to i dunno, show a 'pattern of recklessness' if something happened someday. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but ...Quote:
Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!
Not trying to start a fight but if you are that worried about demonstrating a pattern of recklessness maybe you should be looking at your behavior.
This whole thing should have been handled better and differently to get people to really understand that their decision making in the BC could have effects on people besides their own group.
Have a safe winter.
I don't know, I think that any information that you put into the public sphere can be twisted to make you look good or bad these days. You could post a bunch of Avy obs from safe locations for a year. Then five years later, your partner dies in a freak avalanche accident and his wife and kid sue you for all you are worth, or using this case as precedent, the cops throw you in jail for man slaughter. Seems unlikely but who really knows anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
Yeah, all this is why I asked why. If Name Redacted's scenario really is possible then I would agree with his hesitance to share observations. I'm not so sure it is, but I'm listening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Name Redacted
I remain ambivalent about this case. Mostly the idea of introducing more litigation into BC skiing is reprehensible. But... I mean... these guys triggered an avy that buried a road and then one of them said "That's what I was afraid of." That's pretty fucked up.
So, if he hadn’t said that outloud, everything would have been fine?
Of course not. But it makes what they did much worse in my eyes. They knew they were above a road, they knew the snowpack was sketchy, and they went for it anyway. People make bad decision in the mountains all the time. I know I've made bad decisions. But when you anticipate that your actions could hurt other people, and you go ahead with your plan anyway, well, that's a profoundly selfish thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by m2711c
I would put a few avy experts up on the stand to show that ski cuts are a standard safety practice and his utterance was a reaction to the rare experience of having a big slide as a result, which is actually true. And then fall back to the fact that this would have happened eventually anyway, based on their having placed the avy equipment in the middle of a natural slide path. All you need is one juror to agree.
No respectable avalanche professional is going to claim that ski cutting slab that is likely to step down to the ground in that snowpack is a regularly recommended safety practice for the CO winter backcountry. It is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapow
Asking that would allow the avalanche professional to accurately testify that ski cutting inbounds is the most risky mitigation action ski patrollers engage in and that they only do it when terrain is closed, not over open roads.
It also opens the line of inquiry as to whether these two snowboarders were professionally trained to ski cut for mitigation. (answer: no)
You may be right about the advisability of ski cutting, etc., but I could ginny up 3 ski guides in a heartbeat who teach avy courses that would say ski cutting IS a standard safety practice for backcountry skiers. I don't need a DOT professional or pro patroller to make a convincing argument to a jury. Could produce plenty of articles too, to refute your expert opinion. And the fact that a tiny little ski cut could cause the avy that actually occurred will solidify the premise that the equipment was placed in a terrible spot. We're talking about reasonable doubt here. These guys will walk, scot free.
Ski guides aren’t avalanche control professionalsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wapow
Ha! Maybe not to you they aren't, but they will be for the purposes of this case. Anybody certified to teach Avy 1 courses will be accepted as an expert for the purposes of testifying on the reasonableness of the actions these guys took that day. Avy 1 is the gold standard for the minimum necessary for the everywoman "getting out there safely." BTW - As long as we're talking about professionalism, is there any science weaker than avy science? I have a hard time coming up with an example.
The only weak thing here would be not throwing the book at these two assholes.
let he who is without sin cast the first book.....
“Anyone with a trust fund and a pair of Dynafits is guide these days”Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapow
Avy 1 as the gold standard is kinda weak, it’s supposed to teach recreational users how to identify avalanche terrain and travel in it if I had a dollar for everyone that said they were “certified Avy 1” I would own a pair of Praxis RXs, these two guys were stupid for being in avalanche paths that are controlled to protect the highway telling the whole world probably even stupider
Everything else above is subjective bullshit but the last trumps all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapow
BTW just about every avalanche expert would also say that ski cuts are not an effective tool for dealing with a hardslab.Quote:
All you need is one juror to agree.
I want to tell you a story. I'm going to ask you all to close your eyes while I tell you the story. I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves. Go ahead. Close your eyes, please. This is a story about 2 snowboarders going on a tour. I want you to picture them. Can you see them? I want you to picture them. Now imagine there skiers.
Lol
I don't know you and I don't know where you are from, but your name suggests you are used to a maritime snowpack and not a continental snowpack. Ski cuts are not standard safety practice in a continental snowpack, they aren't L1 curriculum, and no halfway respected guide will say ski cutting a line that could bury a road is a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapow
It doesn’t matter that they were snowboarding, skiers are just as stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKIP IN7RO
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yeah, I'm sure ski cuts are just a maritime thing. Regardless, they will get experts who say otherwise. And what's your beef with that? We're talking about a court case here, not debating real life best practices. AFAIC, they probably shouldn't have put those avy devices there. And they definitely should have made the slopes above off limits. I suspect a jury will find those to be significant errors of judgement made by bonafide avalanche professionals, mitigating the culpability of hapless recreationalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Does anyone find it odd that a system designed to create avalanches was destroyed by an avalanche? Sounds like a design defect to me.
Not a Lawyer here, just a washed up former avalanche professional.Quote:
I suspect a jury will find those to be significant errors of judgement made by bonafide avalanche professionals, mitigating the culpability of hapless recreationalists.
Please explain how the siting of those Daisies by avalanche professionals has anything to do with the poor decision making on the part of two other people? Ostensibly people who by their own claim are avalanche experts or at least well educated in avalanche hazards.
Are you saying if the equipment had not been there these guys would be liable?
One has little to do with the other.
If there had been vehicles parked in the run out and they were damaged would that have made any difference? If there had been traffic on the bypass and someone was killed would these guys be liable for some sort of a Homicide charge?
Guess you don't know much about the subject so it is easy to be critical.Quote:
As long as we're talking about professionalism, is there any science weaker than avy science? I have a hard time coming up with an example.