Interesting article about current lawsuit regarding slide above Eisenhower Tunnel

[Ken_R]

Yup. Lesson learned from their mistakes: don't report, don't provide any evidence, make use of your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself and just stfu. It's a legal system; not a justice system.

Its sad but you are correct

 

[Tricia]

Seems like this just leaves all the important questions unanswered, and doesn’t really change anything about the optics of the case.

What were the charges they plead to? Why did this become a criminal issue in the first place? Right now, most of what I’m seeing is a whole bunch of reasons for Colorado skiers not to report avalanches and especially not to provide any evidence to the CAIC, and that’s not good.

Since I’m not a legal expert, my instinct would also be to apply any lessons from this case to other states and reporting centers as well.

I kind of agree with you. I would like to have heard what they had to say.

 

[Nobody]

Very interesting reading, enlightning too.
Can't resist and say that here in Italy, any slide, be it dirt or snow, triggered by humans or happening as a consequence of human activities, is a criminale offende and lible to charging with, to say the least 'reckless behavoiur leasing to lives endangerment". Even if it were to occour i the middle of friggin' nowhere and hardened no one.
The la mandating this is an old law from the fascist era, a.d. 1930 nonetheless, never declared forfeited ("Codice Rocco" art 426 and 449). It was being revised, lat that I hard, but not sure whether has been forfeited and replace by a never one or not (usually, lawmakers tend to write laws ignoring that often there is already a predating law, imperfect as it might be, that should either updated or forfeited, otherwise as it happens often, all that will happen is that two laws will partially cover the same area, possibly contrasting and contradicting each other...

 

[Primoz]

@Nobody are you sure about this? I heard that this depends on region and only region or two have this law, where triggering avi is criminal offense. But I'm not sure about this.

 

[Nobody]

@Primoz , as said, the aove law is old and might have been amended (but I am not 100% sure this has happened), it is a state law, and as such it has "precedence" on the regional laws. But it is nonetheless a good example of the jigsaw of laws that exists here, to the point that no one is really sure of one way or another. This said, in cases where (a skier) someone triggered a victimless avalanche, in plain view of Law Enforcement (it has happened @ our little Presena glacier, I do recall reading the adventure of a couple of off piste skiers, germans I think, who did that) the guilty is usually "just" fined. In other cases, if the slide has caused harms , either to things or - god forbid - injuries or deaths to persons, well, then a full investigation and charged would be pressed (can't find the above episode or the other about two skiers in the Arabba area whowere fined a couple - or more - winters ago, but think of the Rigopiano Hotel tragedy of some years ago...)

 

[PowHog]

While legal regulations certainly vary between countries and regions common ground is as soon as you put someone or something at risk or even induce harm prosecutors come out of their holes and go after you, no matter what. You better have good legal advisors then.

When triggering an avalanche you are always on the hook because 'evidently' you failed to do a proper risk assessment. That's how they are always going to argue in an incident.

 

[Mike King]

20 hours of community service plus court fees.

Snowboarders get 20 hours of community service in Summit County avalanche case

The men who started a March 2020 avalanche above Eisenhower/Johnson Memorial Tunnels pleaded guilty Monday to misdemeanor charges of reckless endangerment. “It would have been ridiculous to pass up 20 hours of community service and gamble with a financial loss for the rest of our lives. So it’s...

www.aspentimes.com

 

[James]

So now failure to go down one at a time can put one in legal jeopardy?

———————
Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Cava said there was evidence that the men did act recklessly in triggering the avalanche. She pointed to a video circulating of the incident that shows the two snowboarders heading down the slope at the same time with some distance between them instead of one at a time. She also noted the avalanche forecast for the day, which warned of possible avalanches in high-elevation, wind-prone, easterly facing slopes. The snowboarders were on a west-facing slope, but Cava said the other parts of the forecast should have raised red flags.

“It’s sort of like they disregarded all of the other information and said, ‘Well, we’re on a west-facing aspect, so we’ll be fine,” Cava said. “It’s akin to saying, ’I’m going to drive to Denver, and it’s only forecast for 3 inches of snow.’ But when I get out there, it’s 15 inches. … You have to be ready to adapt. I think part of the issue was they had this line in their mind, and it was going to happen that day.”
——————————

 

[Primoz]

Well truth is, whenever you are in avalanche, you were "acting recklessly". If you didn't, you wouldn't be in avalanche. But in my mind, it's still difference between having bad day and being in avalanche and doing that on purpose. I guess legally that doesn't matter at all, but still. And honestly I seriously doubt, anyone would ever go on slope and hope to trigger avalanche on purpose.

 

[Mike King]

So now failure to go down one at a time can put one in legal jeopardy?

———————
Deputy District Attorney Stephanie Cava said there was evidence that the men did act recklessly in triggering the avalanche. She pointed to a video circulating of the incident that shows the two snowboarders heading down the slope at the same time with some distance between them instead of one at a time. She also noted the avalanche forecast for the day, which warned of possible avalanches in high-elevation, wind-prone, easterly facing slopes. The snowboarders were on a west-facing slope, but Cava said the other parts of the forecast should have raised red flags.

“It’s sort of like they disregarded all of the other information and said, ‘Well, we’re on a west-facing aspect, so we’ll be fine,” Cava said. “It’s akin to saying, ’I’m going to drive to Denver, and it’s only forecast for 3 inches of snow.’ But when I get out there, it’s 15 inches. … You have to be ready to adapt. I think part of the issue was they had this line in their mind, and it was going to happen that day.”
——————————

It is sad that it didn't go to trial so that these ridiculous arguments from the DA could have been torn apart by the DA's own reluctant witness from the CAIC.

 

[James]

It is sad that it didn't go to trial so that these ridiculous arguments from the DA could have been torn apart by the DA's own reluctant witness from the CAIC.

Right, but how much practical precedent has been set? You could just haul in everyone who sets a slide off. With that, no one is going to stick around.

 

[Unpiste]

The major problem here, as I see it, was really involving the CAIC at all. If they needed an expert on snow safety, there are certainly plenty of other options.

For all I know, it could be that the prosecutor is 100% right. It could be that, up to the point these snowboarders sent their video in to the CAIC, they were acting recklessly and irresponsibly, and they had no business being on that slope on that day. If the prosecutor had been able to make their case without involving the major avalanche safety organization in the state, which relies on the trust of backcountry travelers to do its job, I'd be inclined to believe there was no agenda and that they were making an objectively good case.

Instead, this comes off to me as a prosecutor really trying to make an example, and if I were to somehow find myself in the position of having triggered an avalanche where I wasn't absolutely 100% sure no damage had been done, I'd have a hard time getting the thought out of my head that I might be the next target.

 

[Mike King]

The major problem here, as I see it, was really involving the CAIC at all. If they needed an expert on snow safety, there are certainly plenty of other options.

For all I know, it could be that the prosecutor is 100% right. It could be that, up to the point these snowboarders sent their video in to the CAIC, they were acting recklessly and irresponsibly, and they had no business being on that slope on that day. If the prosecutor had been able to make their case without involving the major avalanche safety organization in the state, which relies on the trust of backcountry travelers to do its job, I'd be inclined to believe there was no agenda and that they were making an objectively good case.

Instead, this comes off to me as a prosecutor really trying to make an example, and if I were to somehow find myself in the position of having triggered an avalanche where I wasn't absolutely 100% sure no damage had been done, I'd have a hard time getting the thought out of my head that I might be the next target.

Bingo!

 

[pchewn]

And just today in a new event two skiers "Fail to report" an avalanche. Well, maybe they were afraid of being prosecuted?

https://www.summitdaily.com/news/sk...-backcountry-near-loveland-pass-on-wednesday/

The two skiers who triggered this avalanche on Black Mountain on Wednesday, March 22, 2023, failed to report the slide to emergency services, according to Summit County Sheriff Jaime FitzSimons.