Snowboarders cited for triggering avalanche at Eisenhower tunnel

[adrenalated]

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.

[FiveLarge]

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.

[FiveLarge]

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.

[whipski]

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

[cravenmorhead]

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)

[Danno]

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.

[Hacksaw]

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.

[skiracer88_00]

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.

[Danno]

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.

[fastfred]

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

[FiveLarge]

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?

[Danno]

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.

[MakersTeleMark]

https://coloradosun.com/2021/03/05/c...s-phil-weiser/

[m2711c]

See?

[simple]

Interesting opinion. Still remains to be seen

[total_immortal]

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