And then we have juries that get to decide whether they met that definition. Fred may think that different jury members may interpret that definition differently, and he's right, but that's the whole point of juries, and (for a prosecutor) deciding if you can convince a jury to convict or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cravenmorhead
It would be interesting to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Seems pretty clear to me that their actions don't meet that definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I waffle on this one depending on mood. I certainly think some will find that their actions DO meet this definition. But ultimately, I don't think the DA will be able to win over an entire jury. Which is why this is never going to trial unless the DA insists on the hudge restitution number.Quote:
Originally Posted by skiracer88_00
da's office doesn't have the money to goto trial or the time
straight up fishy
I hope they bring up the placement of the cannon (bad placement is my argument) why didn't cdot blow the hill if they had this toy?
it's pretty easy to demonize these clowns and make them look stupid that is the only hope the da has, finding a jury in thornton or highlands ranch that agrees they are idtiots would be easy finding people in a mtn town not so easy
the lesson to learn is to keep your mouth shut and keep walking don't say anything to anyone cause it will getused against you and don't post shit online it will be used against you too the new world order doesn't care about your rights
The obellx is below where the snowboarders triggered the avalanche. Of course, avalanches can be triggered from below, but the terrain where the obellx is located isn't very well connected to the trigger point in this incident. Even if the obellx was higher on the slope, we all know avalanche mitigation isn't perfect and can't be relied on 100%. I bet CAIC/CDOT knows more about best placement of the obellx than any of us do.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
These two made themselves look stupid, their video shows that.
What rights of theirs were violated? You believe "hit and run" is the best approach in life?
Nah, man, that's crazy talk. Fred is clearly the avalanche mitigation equipment expert here.Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveLarge
See?
Interesting opinion. Still remains to be seen
YikesQuote:
James Moss, an attorney with more than 35 years of experience in recreation law...
“You never report to CAIC from here on out, period,” Moss said.
“And I’m a big supporter of the CAIC. They do phenomenal work. It’s a horrendously difficult job that saves a lot of lives,” he said. “But this case is threatening future lives for a $170,000 piece of equipment and a road that gets buried probably every other week in the winter season.”
“You never report to CAIC from here on out, period,” Moss said.
Bullshit! No one I know will stop reporting avi observations because two dipshits were stupid enough to post their actions. The real shame is wasting Ethan's time except if he gets paid some sweet $$ as an expert witness! In fact I think the exposure might cause some big ego's to reconsider skiing a line that might result in damages. But I doubt it.
hoping for a jury summons
you guys ever notice that Jason Blevins publishes most of his articles at 420am - sorta makes a fella wonder
Thats some hardcore wake and bake
Very weird to write an article making it sound like Phil Weiser is weighing in, when the motion is the CAIC's attorney filing a motion. Phil's name appears on every. single. thing. that gets filed by an office of 250 attorneys. I mean, there's a reason for that, because he is ultimately responsible, but Ethan's attorney filing a motion doesn't mean that Phil is personally weighing in. Or is even aware of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Agree, but don't you think Weiser has been at least briefed on this by now? Its pretty high profile for two seperate state agencies. I know you are in this world and know WAY more than I. I've been involved with state cases and couldn't imagine, if this was in my world, that the Assisant AG wouldn't get buy off from whatever the hierarchy is over there. Again would defer this to you, but interesting if thats not the case.
working on a SnowBrains article as we type
any of you dentists want to weigh in on the record?
No idea; maybe. It is making news so I guess probably. But still, he's not writing the brief, and on the scale of high profile cases, this isn't really high up compared to opioid and ACA and voting rights and whatever. But getting buy off and treating the brief as if Phil wrote it himself are two different things. Not to mention that this is a case where the AG is representing a state agency, it's not the AG weighing in on its own (which does happen). It would be more accurate to treat that motion as coming from Ethan and not Phil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soups
I try to keep this stuff and the SB stuff separate
I might refer to "social media" but I don't post links to these pages or ever even refer to TGR Forums
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