Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12
Results 276 to 291 of 291
  1. #276
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    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.

  2. #277
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,664
    Quote Originally Posted by m2711c View Post
    wonder how many folks are going to refrain from reporting now that its 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.
    I french kissed Kelly Kapowski.

  3. #278
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,664
    Quote Originally Posted by billyk View Post
    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.
    I french kissed Kelly Kapowski.

  4. #279
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Salida, CO
    Posts
    1,387
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    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

  5. #280
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by fastfred View Post
    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)

  6. #281
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    25,033
    Quote Originally Posted by cravenmorhead View Post
    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)
    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.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  7. #282
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post

    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.
    It would be interesting to watch.
    "True love is much easier to find with a helicopter"

  8. #283
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Danno View Post
    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.
    Seems pretty clear to me that their actions don't meet that definition.

  9. #284
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    25,033
    Quote Originally Posted by skiracer88_00 View Post
    Seems pretty clear to me that their actions don't meet that definition.
    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.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  10. #285
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    your vacation
    Posts
    2,467
    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

  11. #286
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,664
    Quote Originally Posted by fastfred View Post
    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

    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.

    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?
    I french kissed Kelly Kapowski.

  12. #287
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    PRB
    Posts
    25,033
    Quote Originally Posted by FiveLarge View Post
    I bet CAIC/CDOT knows more about best placement of the obellx than any of us do.
    Nah, man, that's crazy talk. Fred is clearly the avalanche mitigation equipment expert here.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "I'd eat a bag of Dicks and wash it down with a Coke any day." - iceman

  13. #288
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,553

  14. #289
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    on the banks of Fish Creek
    Posts
    3,466
    See?

  15. #290
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,241
    Interesting opinion. Still remains to be seen

  16. #291
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    280
    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.”
    Yikes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •