Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

[altasnob]

I don't have access to the court records, but news articles say the charge is Reckless Endangerment, which in Colorado states:

A person who recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person commits reckless endangerment, which is a class 3 misdemeanor.

https://law.justia.com/codes/colorad...tion-18-3-208/

Reckless Endangerment is a catch all charge that can encompass a variety of dumb behavior when there is no other specific statute that makes that conduct illegal. I really doubt they will have to pay any restitution. My guess is they get some kind of diversion where they do some community service, stay out trouble for a period of time, and the charge get dismissed. Lower courts focus their limited resources on DUI and domestic violence. Snowboarders skiing open terrain and causing avalanches is the least of their concerns.

9/23/20 8:30 AM 1Hr HANNIBAL, EVAN Arraignment C592020M142 Summit County Courtroom C

9/23/20 8:30 AM 1Hr DEWITT, TYLER Arraignment C592020M141 Summit County Courtroom C

[MakersTeleMark]

The reckless standard is also very high. I don't know many people, outside of addicts, who put their own life on the line of reckless.

[Hacksaw]

9/23/20 8:30 AM 1Hr HANNIBAL, EVAN Arraignment C592020M142 Summit County Courtroom C

9/23/20 8:30 AM 1Hr DEWITT, TYLER Arraignment C592020M141 Summit County Courtroom C

Well, I won't make it to the hearing. It would have been interesting.

[altasnob]

10/27/20 9:00 AM 1Hr DEWITT, TYLER Status Conference C592020M141 Summit County Courtroom C

10/27/20 9:00 AM 1Hr HANNIBAL, EVAN Status Conference C592020M142 Summit County Courtroom C

[Hacksaw]

Did anyone hear what the outcome was?

[altasnob]

Arraignment is the first hearing where 99.9% of everyone pleads not guilty. Status conference is the next hearing where their case may be resolved. So you might see a resolution after the next hearing on October 27.

[skiracer88_00]

I don't have access to the court records, but news articles say the charge is Reckless Endangerment, which in Colorado states:

A person who recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to another person commits reckless endangerment, which is a class 3 misdemeanor.

https://law.justia.com/codes/colorad...tion-18-3-208/

Reckless Endangerment is a catch all charge that can encompass a variety of dumb behavior when there is no other specific statute that makes that conduct illegal. I really doubt they will have to pay any restitution. My guess is they get some kind of diversion where they do some community service, stay out trouble for a period of time, and the charge get dismissed. Lower courts focus their limited resources on DUI and domestic violence. Snowboarders skiing open terrain and causing avalanches is the least of their concerns.

9/23/20 8:30 AM 1Hr HANNIBAL, EVAN Arraignment C592020M142 Summit County Courtroom C

9/23/20 8:30 AM 1Hr DEWITT, TYLER Arraignment C592020M141 Summit County Courtroom C

I think the charge gets completely dismissed and the state winds up with egg on their face. No way in hell that skiing legally accessible terrain on a moderate day will be seen as "reckless" by a judge, particularly when the skiers did the right thing and immediately reported the avalanche to the authorities. Despite the TGR expert witnesses who will say with certainty how obvious it was and that they themselves would have predicted that slope would avalanche on that day with that trigger, take out a gazex and the road but it never would have gone without a skier (despite the fact that CAIC recorded no large avalanches in Colorado for weeks before the incident).

[Name Redacted]

Did it take out a Gazex? Kinda weird that they'd place one where it could be taken out. I'd say that's poor planning on their part, or they were just willing to accept the loss to begin with.

[summit]

O'Bellx is what they put around the tunnel, coon hill, berthoud, professor, widowmaker and many other paths


https://www.9news.com/article/weathe...b-edfb27b27497

Gazex is on the 7 Sisters and other locations

[Kinnikinnick]

I do have to wonder about the placement of that mitigation device. If a small slab from skiers could trigger a larger slide that takes it out, then I’d be inclined to say that it was going to be taken out by the first natural from that location or from itself triggering something and hence poorly placed.

[adrenalated]

(despite the fact that CAIC recorded no large avalanches in Colorado for weeks before the incident).

You keep saying this, but it is not accurate. If you actually go look at avalanche observations on the CAIC site (https://avalanche.state.co.us/observations/avalanches/) there are 359 reported avalanches between 2/25/2020 and 3/24/2020.
Of those 359 avalanches:
34 were reported as Hard Slab avalanches
110 were human triggered
136 were R2 in size
19 were R3
1 was R4 (there were no R5 avalanches)
141 were D2 or D2.5 in destructive potential
10 were D3 (there were no D4 or D5 avalanches)

Now, I'm not sure what you're defining "large" as but CAIC would generally classify anything R2/D2 or above as a "large" avalanche so using that definition, there were most certainly a number of large avalanches reported in Colorado in the month preceding the accident, and a few very large (R3+ or D3+).

[altasnob]

I think the charge gets completely dismissed and the state winds up with egg on their face.

You underestimate how broken the criminal justice system is. The only way you can present your case to a judge is to take the case all the way to trial, which only 1% of criminal defendants do. And you would almost always chose a jury, not judge (bench) trial because in judge trial, only one person has to disagree with you where as with a jury trial, the entire jury must unanimously vote to convict you. To go to trial, you must keep on going to court repeatedly for status conferences until finally your day in court arrives and you get your trial. Some are able to take the time off of work to do this, others cannot and are forced to accept whatever plea offer is presented. The only way this case gets dismissed before trial is if the prosecutor (who was the person who decided to charge) changes their mind and dismisses. That does happen occasionally. But a stubborn prosecutor has the power to extort pleas out of the innocent.

[mall walker]

I think the charge gets completely dismissed and the state winds up with egg on their face. No way in hell that skiing legally accessible terrain on a moderate day will be seen as "reckless" by a judge, particularly when the skiers did the right thing and immediately reported the avalanche to the authorities. Despite the TGR expert witnesses who will say with certainty how obvious it was and that they themselves would have predicted that slope would avalanche on that day with that trigger, take out a gazex and the road but it never would have gone without a skier (despite the fact that CAIC recorded no large avalanches in Colorado for weeks before the incident).

I tend to agree that it seems like a pretty easy task for a defense lawyer to characterize their behavior as reasonable given the forecast and their follow up actions. I don’t think that MAKES it reasonable, but you don’t have to convince a bunch of highly avy-conscious bc skiers who are justifiably scared of a continental snowpack... just the general public, who could easily say “moderate doesn’t sound so bad to me... if it could take out a road, sounds like the forecast was wrong” etc

[skiracer88_00]

You keep saying this, but it is not accurate. If you actually go look at avalanche observations on the CAIC site (https://avalanche.state.co.us/observations/avalanches/) there are 359 reported avalanches between 2/25/2020 and 3/24/2020.
Of those 359 avalanches:
34 were reported as Hard Slab avalanches
110 were human triggered
136 were R2 in size
19 were R3
1 was R4 (there were no R5 avalanches)
141 were D2 or D2.5 in destructive potential
10 were D3 (there were no D4 or D5 avalanches)

Now, I'm not sure what you're defining "large" as but CAIC would generally classify anything R2/D2 or above as a "large" avalanche so using that definition, there were most certainly a number of large avalanches reported in Colorado in the month preceding the accident, and a few very large (R3+ or D3+).

I guess I was referring to the CAIC report of this avalanche where they acknowledge that "very few" avalanches were documented as stepping down to deep layers in the snowpack for the 4 week period proceeding the incident. If there really were many that did, maybe CAIC should have checked their own data before writing a report.

I wouldn't have skied that line on that day. I tend to only ski consequential lines in a spring snowpack or a unicorn green day with a winter snowpack. I realize that many of the "experts" berating this guy ski consequential terrain in winter snow regularly. That's fine, but recognize that avalanches don't give a crap if you are an expert, and you can't know it all.

Nevertheless, I think there is a large amount of armchair quaterbacking going on trying to make this guy's actions look more egregious than they actually were. I get it, you don't like the guy. That's fine. You Avy 2/3 certified folks can go on and on how obvious it was, with your benefit of hindsight. It happens all the time, the "experts" always chime in to make themselves feel better and convince themselves and everyone else that they could never make a similar mistake. Maybe take a dose of humility. Sorry that everyone isn't as perfect as you.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I'm not sure what I think of the court case. I have mixed feelings. I have no idea how it will turn out. And I am not an avy expert. But I try very hard not to die while skiing, and I do think skiing where he did was obviously a bad idea, especially if he was familiar with the area.

Yes, the persistent deep layers hadn't reared their ugly head much recently BUT he was skiing where the snowpack was very thin. He chose to ski in a spot where he was most likely to influence that weak layer (as opposed to a spot where the weak layer was buried under meters of snow). I think that standing at the top of that line it would be impossible not to notice this if you were looking for it.

Yes, the avy report didn't reference west facing slopes as the most likely location for wind slabs, BUT you can see the cross loading on that face. And we are told he was familiar with the area.

If you're going to ski in avy terrain in CO in the winter you need to either be actively searching for those "BUTs" or be pretty damn lucky. If he had avoided either of those BUTs we likely wouldn't be talking about this. Looking at his decision based only on the rating and the aspects mentioned in the report makes it seem fine. On the other hand, if you understand the potential problem (which is described in the report and discussion that day) and terrain he chose to ski, it's obvious that he didn't do so well.

And if he wasn't familiar with the area, and had poor visibility, and was unable, for whatever reason, to conduct a reasonable assessment of the snowpack in the line he was skiing, well, that indicates a different kind of problematic decision making.

[adrenalated]

I guess I was referring to the CAIC report of this avalanche where they acknowledge that "very few" avalanches were documented as stepping down to deep layers in the snowpack for the 4 week period proceeding the incident. If there really were many that did, maybe CAIC should have checked their own data before writing a report.

I wouldn't have skied that line on that day. I tend to only ski consequential lines in a spring snowpack or a unicorn green day with a winter snowpack. I realize that many of the "experts" berating this guy ski consequential terrain in winter snow regularly. That's fine, but recognize that avalanches don't give a crap if you are an expert, and you can't know it all.

Nevertheless, I think there is a large amount of armchair quaterbacking going on trying to make this guy's actions look more egregious than they actually were. I get it, you don't like the guy. That's fine. You Avy 2/3 certified folks can go on and on how obvious it was, with your benefit of hindsight. It happens all the time, the "experts" always chime in to make themselves feel better and convince themselves and everyone else that they could never make a similar mistake. Maybe take a dose of humility. Sorry that everyone isn't as perfect as you.

Man, I don't know how much of this is directed at me personally, but if it is, I think you seriously misunderstand both my position on this avalanche and my general mentality about backcountry skiing. I typed up a more detailed response but it was well over the 10,000 character limit. You have my number though, if you do want to chat about it more.

I'll just add that I strenuously do not consider myself to be an expert. Just a guy that is an avid backcountry traveler, reasonably experienced and educated, and passionate about furthering both my own and others understanding of safe winter backcountry travel.

[Danno]

J, you're a beater and you know it.

[adrenalated]

J, you're a beater and you know it.

I agree with Danno's assessment, I'm much more beater than expert!

[summit]

And they posted a gofund me https://www.gofundme.com/f/avalanche-legal-fees

Their narrative remains that they made no mistake, did everything right, and they should not be blamed for anything...

[summit]

I guess I was referring to the CAIC report of this avalanche where they acknowledge that "very few" avalanches were documented as stepping down to deep layers in the snowpack for the 4 week period proceeding the incident. If there really were many that did, maybe CAIC should have checked their own data before writing a report.

It was not a DEEP layer that was a problem. The deepest break was less than 80cm down from the surface. That is not deep. Most aspects and elevations found basal facets to start more than a mere 80cm from the surface. It doesn't take an avalanche rocket surgeon to figure out what happens to facets exposed to moving avalanche debris. It was in the wheelhouse of two people with 15 and 7 years of experience and advanced avalanche classes.

You are again trying to say that the forecast was wrong so who could fault people who went by the forecast. You did not successfully make that case last time either. To use a forecast, or criticize it, you must understand the basic Avi1 terminology used to describe the snowpack in a forecast.



https://www.avalanche.state.co.us/ca...inv&acc_id=754

There's plenty to consider here, whether the charges are just or appropriate, what their best approach to the situation was... but to say this situation was a product of bad public forecasting is flat incorrect.

[altasnob]

And they posted a gofund me https://www.gofundme.com/f/avalanche-legal-fees

"I am starting this goFundme because I am unable to pay for the legal expenses making only $20 an hour working in an a hospital."

If they are indigent, they get a free public defender. The public defender knows that particular court and that particular prosecutor better than any attorney out there. Despite public perception, the public defender is not a bad option. And if for some reason they think their public defender sucks, you can always hire a private attorney at a later date. Maybe they make too much money to qualify for the public defender?

[whipski]

The avalanche doesn't know you're an expert

[skiracer88_00]

Man, I don't know how much of this is directed at me personally, but if it is, I think you seriously misunderstand both my position on this avalanche and my general mentality about backcountry skiing. I typed up a more detailed response but it was well over the 10,000 character limit. You have my number though, if you do want to chat about it more.

I'll just add that I strenuously do not consider myself to be an expert. Just a guy that is an avid backcountry traveler, reasonably experienced and educated, and passionate about furthering both my own and others understanding of safe winter backcountry travel.

It wasn't directed at you personally, it wasn't directed in anyone in particular. I know you are a genuine and incredible person, and you do a ton of work to educate yourself and others in a quest to keep people safe.

I just want to make people stop and think. Just because someone made a mistake, it doesn't mean that person is a reckless asshole who doesn't care about their own safety or the safety of the people around them. For a variety of reasons, my risk tolerance has decreased in recent years to the point where I typically only ski consequential terrain during melt-freeze cycles. But, I guess the reason why I am so strung up in this one is that prior to this point in my life, I could see myself conceivably making the same mistake, and I certainly don't think of myself as reckless. It just bugs me that people who I genuinely look up to (such as you and Aaron) are so quick to condemn this guy. I also know people who regularly ski the sisters, and those people use the same argument this guy did that CDOT manages the risk. I know that you and Aaron know these people as well. And I don't think any of us would classify those people as reckless assholes.

I think there is a double standard here. This guy is clearly disliked and tends to put his foot in his mouth on social media. But that should not come into play when judging the act. Reckless to me, is the cat skiing company that took clients out in avalanche terrain on a day when old growth forests and roadways were being taken out by naturals. That is not this. It is clear to me that this guy made a completely honest mistake, and I think the DA's actions are completely unreasonable.

[MakersTeleMark]

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail-...nche-incident/

[~mikey b]

sounds like they need a good attorney