Alpine Touring Thread

[Ripitz]

Defense is that CDOT and CAIC should have mitigated the risk for them. Here's a video of the actual slide:

Restitution figure may be high but that's what a restitution hearing is for.

Why the F#K are people skiing above tunnels and roads in avy terrain? It should have been a permanently closed area to begin with. Are there not better places to ski? Everyone is at fault for this shitshow.

 

[JTG]

If I’m not mistaken, I think the eye rolling may have been toward the snowboarders in the video, with the second guy indicating “they (CDOT) could have mitigated it”. First guy indicating he had no thoughts that anything might hit the road doesn’t say much for him either. With these guys seeming failure to consider the possibilities and relying on CDOT to mitigate all avy risk....they are a defense attorney’s worst nightmare.

I’d imagine the defense attorney would rather focus on the fact that the area is not the subject of permanent closure, combined with the forecasted avalanche risk for the day and how it was factored into defendants decision making, throw in how the small initial storm slab released stepping down to deeper layers couldn’t reasonably have been anticipated.....and tie it up with the reasonable doubt that it can’t be proven that the boarders in question definitely released the deeper avalanche that impacted to avy control equipment and roadway.

 

[tirolski]

Why the F#K are people skiing above tunnels and roads in avy terrain? Are there not better places to ski?

The shuttin of Colorado lift service mountain access down just before this happened might be an answer.
Wouldn’t do it if ya paid me to ski that.

 

[raisingarizona]

Personal attacks are uncalled for on this forum. I'm being completely civil and have a professional background in this field.

That’s definitely not a personal attack.

you are being a bit dramatic.

 

[raisingarizona]

If I’m not mistaken, I think the eye rolling may have been toward the snowboarders in the video, with the second guy indicating “they (CDOT) could have mitigated it”. First guy indicating he had no thoughts that anything might hit the road doesn’t say much for him either. With these guys seeming failure to consider the possibilities and relying on CDOT to mitigate all avy risk....they are a defense attorney’s worst nightmare.

I’d imagine the defense attorney would rather focus on the fact that the area is not the subject of permanent closure, combined with the forecasted avalanche risk for the day and how it was factored into defendants decision making, throw in how the small initial storm slab released stepping down to deeper layers couldn’t reasonably have been anticipated.....and tie it up with the reasonable doubt that it can’t be proven that the boarders in question definitely released the deeper avalanche that impacted to avy control equipment and roadway.

Ok, that’s fair but homes was eluding to I think it’s the cdot’s responsibility to make the area safe for irresponsible recreation. That’s not what I was getting at and felt was annoying.

 

[JTG]

Ok, that’s fair but homes was eluding to I think it’s the cdot’s responsibility to make the area safe for irresponsible recreation. That’s not what I was getting at and felt was annoying.

I honestly read it as him rolling his eyes at the info, in their own defense, that the two guys seemed to be offering up in the video.....rather than indicating the easy/obvious defense was that it was CDOT’s responsibility.

 

[Huezee]

...

I’d imagine the defense attorney would rather focus on the fact that the area is not the subject of permanent closure, combined with the forecasted avalanche risk for the day and how it was factored into defendants decision making, throw in how the small initial storm slab released stepping down to deeper layers couldn’t reasonably have been anticipated.....and tie it up with the reasonable doubt that it can’t be proven that the boarders in question definitely released the deeper avalanche that impacted to avy control equipment and roadway.

There's an argument there. However, I think the DA would likely come back and say that they consciously disregarded an unjustifiable risk as evidenced by the video where [snowboarder 1] says something like "I was worried that would happen!"

A judge in NY would likely give this charge to the jury: [a] person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person: when he or she engages in conduct which creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious physical injury to another person, and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk, and when that risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation (this is not legal advice, so don't take it as such).

 

[Huezee]

I honestly read it as him rolling his eyes at the info, in their own defense, that the two guys seemed to be offering up in the video.....rather than indicating the easy/obvious defense was that it was CDOT’s responsibility.

This.

 

[raisingarizona]

This.

Ok. That’s definitely legit. My bad. No attack was meant or to be perceived as such. I’m feeling a bit sassy today.

in all honesty I haven’t watched the video. If they said a bunch of dumb, goofy stuff they will probably have a harder time getting out of this one.

 

[Ripitz]

Reasonable people don’t ski above tunnels