Results 201 to 225 of 417
-
10-29-2020, 07:13 PM #201
-
10-29-2020, 07:39 PM #202
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!
-
10-29-2020, 11:39 PM #203
-
10-30-2020, 07:50 AM #204
-
10-30-2020, 02:33 PM #205
-
11-04-2020, 02:31 PM #206Burning the bridge
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- The Cell
- Posts
- 17
-
12-04-2020, 12:07 PM #207
https://snowbrains.com/men-triggered...ghts-violated/
Here we go again.
-
12-04-2020, 01:01 PM #208Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Posts
- 2,508
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
Last edited by SKIP IN7RO; 12-04-2020 at 03:26 PM.
-
12-04-2020, 02:55 PM #209
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.north bound horse.
-
12-04-2020, 04:33 PM #210Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Posts
- 303
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.
-
12-04-2020, 06:46 PM #211
-
12-04-2020, 08:15 PM #212
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?
-
12-04-2020, 08:16 PM #213
So there was 168K in claimed damages and now we will spend ??$$ to try these ding-dongs?
I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
12-05-2020, 07:40 AM #214Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,672
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:
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.
-
12-05-2020, 09:17 AM #215
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?
^^ This. I'll sure think twice before posting anything to CAIC ever again.north bound horse.
-
12-05-2020, 09:35 AM #216
-
12-05-2020, 01:51 PM #217
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.
-
12-06-2020, 08:02 AM #218Banned
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Location
- In Your Wife
- Posts
- 8,291
-
12-06-2020, 09:45 AM #219
-
12-06-2020, 10:21 AM #220
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.Last edited by Bunion 2020; 12-06-2020 at 10:50 AM.
I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
12-06-2020, 10:28 AM #221Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,672
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?
-
12-06-2020, 10:57 AM #222
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.
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.
-
12-06-2020, 12:14 PM #223
So, if he hadn’t said that outloud, everything would have been fine?
-
12-06-2020, 01:50 PM #224
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.
-
12-06-2020, 01:59 PM #225Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- Posts
- 303
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.
Bookmarks