Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

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.

Have a safe winter.

---

Fair question. I post obs from other people's skier triggered avi's (that I've seen but been uninvolved in), from pits/analyses where I've decided backed off, or very small sluffs, block failures, or even naturals I've witnessed. And in full disclosure, I have posted a couple where I made a mistake or missed a terrain feature. Not proud of those. Nobody has been caught or hurt and no 'highway fixtures damaged.'
I always posted for the same reasons these guys did; awareness and maybe it'll help someone else be safer.
Where I live, we are all very quick to MMQB any avi mistakes and the court of public opinion is often way more critical than it is understanding. So like Redacted said, could a 'good' lawyer take all that and spin it up to make it look bad? Yeah maybe so.
So that's my point, just makes me think twice.

Have a safe winter also

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

Guess you don't know much about the subject so it is easy to be critical.

---

Yup.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyk

Does anyone find it odd that a system designed to create avalanches was destroyed by an avalanche? Sounds like a design defect to me.

---

This.

The O'Bellx clearly would have been taken out by a slide at some point. This was just a golden opportunity for the "experts" to blame someone else and not take the ding on their insurance premium.

OK, great, so what?

Were they charged with destruction of property?

@ MoN, got it and understand. Best wishes for some snow.

They were charged with reckless endangerment, and the DA is seeking restitution, which they can get if they can prove (1) the defendants committed a crime and (2) the crime was the cause of the property damage at issue. For all the talk of "precedent" in this case, these are all pretty standard elements of criminal procedure. Any time somebody does something stupid (and arguably reckless) that causes six figures of damage, it shouldn't be a surprise that they get charged with a crime.

Incase anyone wants to watch the motions hearing today at 3pm

https://judicial.webex.com/webappng/...532906FC0AAFD8

video and photos to be allowed at trial. No 4th amendment violation.

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/cri...sed-avalanche/


Trial set for mar25

wonder how many folks are going to refrain from reporting now that it’s known that it will be used against them in court...

How often do avalanche incidents end up in Court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2711c

wonder how many folks are going to refrain from reporting now that it’s known that it will be used against them in court...

---

This is what I'm flummoxed by - surely the public interest in sharing information for the purposes of education trumps the public interest of prosecuting / sending the message, however dumb their actions may have been. But I suppose if you're the Sheriff's Office, that unintended consequence of putting a chill on avy information sharing isn't as much of a concern as it would be for CAIC.

They better hope for at least one backcountry skier in the jury.

Given recent events related to avalanches, right or wrong.
I think these guys are Fucked.

Blood in the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2711c

wonder how many folks are going to refrain from reporting now that it’s known that it will be used against them in court...

---

How many folks are at risk of ending up in court? The ones who are probably know it. These guys knew it while they were still standing on the hill and literally said so on the video footage they handed over to an agency governed by open records laws. It is like posting it on youtube or giving it to the paper! Analogy, who posts dash cam footy to youtube? Tons of people. Who posts dash cam footy of doing 225mph on a public road? Idiots who then get arrested.

These two riders probably wouldn't have ended up in court if they had been straight forward and shown humility instead of blaming everyone for what happened. They still think this avalanche is CDOTs and CAICs fault.

They also could have taken any number of offered plea bargains to end this crap... but they think they've done no wrong and want to fight to the bitter end. That is bad for literally everyone!

I wish they would plea out and this would all go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

How many folks are at risk of ending up in court? The ones who are probably know it. These guys knew it while they were still standing on the hill and literally said so on the video footage they handed over to an agency governed by open records laws. It is like posting it on youtube or giving it to the paper! Analogy, who posts dash cam footy to youtube? Tons of people. Who posts dash cam footy of doing 225mph on a public road? Idiots who then get arrested.

These two riders probably wouldn't have ended up in court if they had been straight forward and shown humility instead of blaming everyone for what happened. They still think this avalanche is CDOTs and CAICs fault.

They also could have taken any number of offered plea bargains to end this crap... but they think they've done no wrong and want to fight to the bitter end. That is bad for literally everyone!

I wish they would plea out and this would all go away.

---

There are parts of this post I agree with, but my understanding is that they are not in court because of attitude, they are in court because of damaged equipment and a DA who wants to make some kind of example of them. While I have seen reports that they are kind of d-bags, and I have seen them post and get very defensive on social media, not once (before your post) have I seen the suggestion that any of that has anything to do with the prosecution.

Also, I have not seen any details re any plea deals offered them. My understanding is that the DA is insisting on restitution, which is a huge amount of $, and in large part that dollar amount is what has spurred them to fight (that last part is conjecture, I don't know them). If they are being asked to agree to restitution that is six figures, I don't think it's fair to say that they should have just agreed to the plea deal to make this go away.

If you have details re why they are being prosecuted and what plea deals they have been offered, please share.

https://snowbrains.com/court-case-of...020-continues/

https://coloradosun.com/2021/02/19/s...SER_2021-02-19

I know the judge and the D.A. very very well. Not surprised by the ruling which was to suppress, but curious about the end goal here.

I am almost 100% sure this is a case where criminal charges are being used to achieve civil damages, just like the fire in Basalt a year or so ago. I suspect the same outcome, ney, I guarantee it.

Of course there will be a jury trial, so that leaves it up to the D.A. to prove reckless. Not going to happen. She will go for trying to make the state of Colorado whole as much as possible, hit them as hard as possible in their pocketbooks, and send a message with a shitton of community service and hopefully save everyone from some dubious precedent on both sides.

I am not a dentist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

https://coloradosun.com/2021/02/19/s...SER_2021-02-19

I know the judge and the D.A. very very well. Not surprised by the ruling which was to suppress.....

---

actually, the ruling denied the motion to suppress

Anyone, know when the trial is and is it open to the public?

Halstead. I meant that it was a motion to suppress which is almost never granted unless a flagrant violation.

Yes, it is open to the public. It won't go to trial, but if it does, I can get you a virtual link, or in the courthouse if you so choose.

copy that

share a link if it comes to that please

Roger.

aaaaand break out the jiffypop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted

They better hope for at least one backcountry skier in the jury.

---

After reading some of the harsh and judgemental posts in this forum I'm not so sure.

This reminded me about the Telluride Tempter incident that was just a few years ago. I wonder where that's at now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raisingarizona13

After reading some of the harsh and judgemental posts in this forum I'm not so sure.

---

Ha, you may be right.

Legal setback for them. Their GoPro footage can be used in court
https://www.aspentimes.com/news/snow...ttle-in-court/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

If you have details re why they are being prosecuted and what plea deals they have been offered, please share.

---

Great idea for a new, anonymous poster.

Summit is not new, or anonymous. Why are you trying to get him to narc on his sources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lone Star

Great idea for a new, anonymous poster.

Summit is not new, or anonymous. Why are you trying to get him to narc on his sources?

---

It's all good. Danno is old school mag. Hehas helped me out besides being a professional of the subject of a different type than I

I have been paying attention to this for some time now
figured that the (new) da would drop the charges since this is pretty absurd
the only thing they are guilty of is being ski town dip shits which are a dime a dozen
seems like cdot was asleep at the wheel as usual why did they place the cannon where they did? did someone screw up at cdot? how come they went out and bought a nice toy but didn't bother using it?
going to trial is a great idea but the chances of getting screwed harder through a trial is higher than taking a shitty plea deal
if you have never been through the legal system lucky you, it's pretty messed up system, I can spend pages describing its failures, the goal of the police and da is to throw as many charges as they can come up with at someone and hope that a few of them stick to the wall at the end of the day, pretty much this is a consperacy to dick slap two idiots and set a terrible precedence for the future

I'm happy they are wasting tax payers money and the da's office as well as the courts money and time but I'd do the exact same thing if I were them the goverment does not like trails they want pleas that create a good score card for being tough on crime (see george brachler) or whatever the hell his name is

these two clowns had no intent, they just had stupidity on there side, so I want to know how the da's office is going to prove that they were out there that day to intentionally cause harm? I'd be happy to walk across town and be on the jury but I get dismissed asap when I show up for jury call, the da's office needs to save some money and deal with real crimes instead of this bs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastfred

these two clowns had no intent, they just had stupidity on there side, so I want to know how the da's office is going to prove that they were out there that day to intentionally cause harm? I'd be happy to walk across town and be on the jury but I get dismissed asap when I show up for jury call, the da's office needs to save some money and deal with real crimes instead of this bs

---

Intent isn't the only culpable mental state for criminal liability. They're being charged with recklessness.

whats reckless?
how do you define that?
i'm sure my definition and yours are very different
I always read these shit cock sucker slide zone threads but don't comment it's always a bunch of holy than you comments of how i would never do that I don't do that I only do low angle safe I'm avy one two certified I'm so fucking smark shit I'm the safest skier out there I make all the right decision which reads like fuck you your a dumb ass too bad you died got hurt or almost took it in the ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastfred

whats reckless?
how do you define that?
i'm sure my definition and yours are very different

---

Not a lawyer, but pretty sure words like "recklessness" have much more specific definitions in a court of law than in everyday use.

Was the area they were in even officially “closed” like the seven sisters?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick

Was the area they were in even officially “closed” like the seven sisters?

---

no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

no

---

Seems to me that they should have closed the area with signs or whatever if it was so obviously “reckless” to ski there.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick

Seems to me that they should have closed the area with signs or whatever if it was so obviously “reckless” to ski there.

---

This was discussed at length earlier in the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2711c

wonder how many folks are going to refrain from reporting now that it’s known that it will be used against them in court...

---

People keep saying this...but I would always assume if I self-report actions that resulted in loss of life or property, that will be used against me. How often does this happen in avalanche reporting? I'm not aware of any prior incidents (certainly not aware of all incidents that exist) where self-reporting where there was loss of life or property wasn't used against the offending party. Some bring up the Telluride/Tempters incident - but I haven't seen evidence the snowboarders self reported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyk

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 necessarily. I don't think we have the enough information to make that determination. They're not perfect, but I think CAIC and CDOT do a damn fine job of mitigating avalanche risk for drivers. I doubt they randomly placed that obellx, rather likely taking into account historical data for that slope, how it most typically loads/slides, and where obellx would be most effective for protecting the tunnel/road, NOT making it safe for skiers/riders above that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

Not a lawyer, but pretty sure words like "recklessness" have much more specific definitions in a court of law than in everyday use.

---

Guessing that's where the conversation on the go pro footage comes in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastfred

whats reckless?
how do you define that?
i'm sure my definition and yours are very different

---

Personal definitions don't matter.

“A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or a that circumstance exists.” § 18-1-501(8)