EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Charges filed in JH Laramie Bowl death
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Charges filed in JH Laramie Bowl death

post #1 of 180
2/6/06 at 4:49am
Thread Starter 
http://www.jacksonholenews.com/
Reply
post #2 of 180
2/6/06 at 5:19am
Quote:
" Doda said he rode his snowboard at a fast speed, but he “was not out of control” while coming down Laramie Bowl, according to court documents. “Doda said he felt like he did not have any way of avoiding the collision between him and Donahue,”
I guess turning or stopping wasn't an option for this kid, despite the fact that he "was not out of control".

The obvious tragedy in all of this is that a young woman lost her life due to the wrecklessness of another. A close 2nd is the demonstration that it's punishable by a slap on the wrist.

Unbelievable.
Reply
post #3 of 180
2/6/06 at 5:55am
35 - 60 mph, that's quite a range.

Sixteen years old, I don't feel a year in jail is benificial to anyone. I'm sure others will disagree.

A better solution would be to ban snowboards from the mountain. There are too many problems where the board is involved.

If he had been on skis the likelyhood of an accident like this would be much lower.

I am not saying he should not be punished but jail time should be limited, IMHO.
Reply
post #4 of 180
2/6/06 at 6:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach13


I guess turning or stopping wasn't an option for this kid, despite the fact that he "was not out of control".
His definition of control is probably the same as "not about to fall".

How very sad.
Reply
post #5 of 180
2/6/06 at 6:58am
Snowboard?

Skis?

Honda "ricer" @ 90 mph?

I fail to see a difference.

Hang em!
Reply
post #6 of 180
2/6/06 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskinow
35 - 60 mph, that's quite a range.

Sixteen years old, I don't feel a year in jail is benificial to anyone. I'm sure others will disagree.

A better solution would be to ban snowboards from the mountain. There are too many problems where the board is involved.

If he had been on skis the likelyhood of an accident like this would be much lower.

I am not saying he should not be punished but jail time should be limited, IMHO.
I don't see much logic in your points. you don't want to punish or help the guilty person, but instead want to punish anyone who chooses to ride a snowboard?
Reply
post #7 of 180
2/6/06 at 7:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
His definition of control is probably the same as "not about to fall".

How very sad.
like my HS friend Kerry Haynes, who used to say that he wasn't "drunk" until he'd had at least "a case".
Reply
post #8 of 180
2/6/06 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskinow
35 - 60 mph, that's quite a range.

Sixteen years old, I don't feel a year in jail is benificial to anyone. I'm sure others will disagree.

A better solution would be to ban snowboards from the mountain. There are too many problems where the board is involved.

If he had been on skis the likelyhood of an accident like this would be much lower.

I am not saying he should not be punished but jail time should be limited, IMHO.
Where do you get your statistics from? Based on that logic at least three mountains in Colorado would be snowboarder only mountains. Your objectivity and knowledge of the snow sports is outstanding.

The only difference in banning snowboarders would make is now the same people would be out of control on ski's. Then what?

I don't think this kid is going to do a year in jail. A month? Six months? That's not unreasonable. He is only 17 now and I can't see him doing more than 30 days. Still his actions took away another young persons life and that is pure BS. Of course he is full of remorse now. When he was bombing down that line "in control" (yeah right) I am sure no thoughts of what the consequences could be crossed his mind. Quite frankly he is lucky to be alive. A similar collision at Breckenridge involving a skier hitting a snowboarder a few years ago ended up with both of them dead after the collision. At least this kid will get to pick up the pieces and move on with his life.
Reply
post #9 of 180
2/6/06 at 8:51am
There was a snowboarder yesterday at Montana Snowbowl going DIRECTLY down Grandstand, not a single turn, practically at the speed of sound. The lady on the chair with me said she's seen him do that repeatedly. My response was, "...and he probably thinks he's a terrific skier." But why isn't someone policing this type of thing? I know this is Montana, but I think that the area should be yanking lift tickets. Some woman shouldn't be telling me that she's seen this guy doing this before!
Reply
post #10 of 180
2/6/06 at 8:56am
I'm glad that he's at least being charged. It's taken so long to bring charges that we were all wondering whether he would face any consequences whatever.

The maximum penalty under the charges of misdemeanor homicide are one year in jail and $2,000 in fines. I have to say that even if he were to be convicted and even if he received the maximum sentence, I don't think that's very much punishment. One year out of a 17-year-old's life somehow doesn't seem like enough penalty for taking the life of a completely innocent young woman.

I guess we have to assume that the county attorney felt this was the best he could go for.

The young man had better hope that I'm not selected for jury duty. :
Reply
post #11 of 180
2/6/06 at 8:57am
If he was "in control," I guess that means he aimed at her and killed her deliberately. On that basis, perhaps his charge should be amended to murder in the first degree.
Reply
post #12 of 180
2/6/06 at 9:14am
The outcome of this case should accomplish punishment for the reckless behavior resulting in loss of innocent life; and deterrence to ensure a clear message is given to those inclined to reckless behaviors. Such is the nature of our social contract. We cannot restore the life of Heather Donahue, but a citizen jury will be asked to punish the person responsible for that death, and to establish a deterrence that her life was not lost in vain. It should be severe enough that it gets attention, and a response. The instrument of recklessness (snowboard or skis) is not even an issue.
Reply
post #13 of 180
2/6/06 at 9:42am
I have got to agree, the punishment should make some eyes pop. The "Vail incident" where a skier hit and killed another skier does not leave much hope. The guy had been drinking and was high, was skiing out of control and hit and killed another skier. Yet I think he got 30 days in jail and I am not sure that he was even in for that long.
Of course the hit to the wallet that this kids parents are going to take and stuff like that will hopefully serve as a wake up call of some sorts.
It's really hard, we have to remember we are talking about a kid here. If you make the punishment too stiff you can potentially just throw his life away and create yet another burden on society. Yet Heather's family will never get to enjoy her presence again.
Reply
post #14 of 180
2/6/06 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by John J
Click on "Todays News" (Feb 6 ) to find this.

No spmpathy for the Md snowborder.
Condolances to the 29yr old woman from Mass. family.:
Reply
post #15 of 180
2/6/06 at 9:50am
I am for public shame/ humiliation for both the juvy and the mountain. No, I am not kidding.

In a cival case I would like to see the judge order JH and the family to post posters with the kid's age, a picture of him on his sliding device and a very clear statement as to nature of his stupidity and the punishment.

there are a very, very, few of us who know the details- they could send to away for life and no one would know or care-

I/M/O the mountain does have a little piece of this pie should be told to help spread the word- the small print on the back of the ticket is not exactly everyday reading for your basic snow sports enthusiast.

f/w/i/w
Reply
post #16 of 180
2/6/06 at 9:59am
They had video of the collision and it took this long? They better get a conviction!

I think that the charge is appropriate, but the punishment weak for this charge. I'm sure he didn't intend to kill anyone, so the charge seems appropriate. However, 1 year in jail and $2k seems a bit light for killing someone, regardless of intent.
Reply
post #17 of 180
2/6/06 at 9:59am
Something like an insane amount of community service (trauma ward?) and giving speeches at schools/mountains might be a better punishment than jail time, wich he will probably never serve in full.

That, or being banned for a few years from every mountain in that state.
Reply
post #18 of 180
2/6/06 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by killclimbz
.... The guy had been drinking and was high, was skiing out of control and hit and killed another skier. Yet I think he got 30 days in jail and I am not sure that he was even in for that long.
Dogpile (or google) Nathan Hall or Alan Cobb. Here, I will give you one link.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...853EST0219.DTL

He was NOT drunk nor stoned, just stupid. He had some pot on him but nothing of note in him. He will never be able to vote, serve on a jury, or get a gun permit (Felony conviction for criminally negligent homicide).

I would love to see NSAA make a video of interviews with the skiers and riders who have killed or injured others when they were just "having fun". Then require every reckless slider view the video before getting their lift ticket back.
Reply
post #19 of 180
2/6/06 at 10:38am
^^^^ I stand corrected. I could have swore the local news reported that there was alcohol or pot involved.
I like the video idea.
Reply
post #20 of 180
2/6/06 at 11:09am
What I don't get here is how he's being charged w/ a misdemeanor?

I agree with the previous comment that JH owns some of this "pie." the resorts/mountains have become negligent/crappy at dealing w/ folks who are riding/skiing out of control.

Of all the places I've been skiing over the years, the only place that consistently goes after folks for not following The Code is Steamboat.

Baker has become, on some days this year, total mayhem. (Although I have noticed since they reopened, a lot of patrolers stopping folks who are speeding; so perhaps even they are getting concerned.)

If someone in my life was off-ed in this manner, I really don't know what I would do.

david
Reply
post #21 of 180
2/6/06 at 12:24pm
Am i missing something here, if so i would hope a lawyer type could maybe explain it.
Best to my knowledge, i thougt a homicide charge was considered a FELONY in any state. I have nevr heard of misdemeanor homicide charge .
Also is he being charged as an Adult or a minor. if its as a minor,, i bet he'll serve time till he turns 18, then let go , and his juvie records sealed.
I would like to see him ordered by the court on the yearly anniversary of the acciedent, buy a full page add in the the JH paper, and a yearly ad in all snowboard magazines saying he killed some one for being reckless..
To me he needs to be fed to the wolves.
As for banning snowboards at JH, that will never happen, cause they are on leased land form the Forest Service which is public land. But lets not go there, lets debate what should be done to the kid.IE: force to go to schools and promote the skier /snowboarders safety code.
Reply
post #22 of 180
2/6/06 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsuma
I agree with the previous comment that JH owns some of this "pie." the resorts/mountains have become negligent/crappy at dealing w/ folks who are riding/skiing out of control.
Not be argumentative, but what do you mean by, "owns some of the pie"? Do you think JH is financially responsible? If so, why? Was this person seen by numerous members of the JH Staff snowboarding in an "uncontrolled" fashion prior to the event, but unwarned of his actions? Was this teen a known violator of the skier’s responsibility code? What is the definition of riding/skiing out of control? Who determines what out of control is? Does it vary by resort? By state? By country?

I have seen many excellent skiers skiing at high rates of speed. They looked in control, but could they hit a bump or catch an edge and inadvertently collide with another skier and kill them? Maybe?

Don’t get me wrong, I am just as appalled by this as anyone, and yes I am scared at times skiing with my wife, 7 year old and 6 year old. I just don’t want to jump into some type of regulation, prior to some of my questions being answered. What do you think?
Reply
post #23 of 180
2/6/06 at 2:23pm

nathan hall

From memory, there were a few things that made the Nathan Hall case stand out. I tried to find the transcripts that were published on the web, but could not find them.

Alcohol was involved though he was not "legally drunk".

Possession .... pretty sure he had pot on him.

Comments to other ... he told some people he was going to straightline the trail.

He did make rude comments and gestures at the prosecutor and it wasn't till final sentence was passed .... he "got religion" and sobbed.

12 experienced skiers and boarders were on the jury.
Reply
post #24 of 180
2/6/06 at 3:23pm
it is so nice to see you all have already convicted this kid. what happened to innocent until.......well you know the rest.
Reply
post #25 of 180
2/6/06 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lloyd braun
it is so nice to see you all have already convicted this kid. what happened to innocent until.......well you know the rest.
as I recall the facts are known, lloyd, and they are these: he hit her, he admitted he hit her, he hit her from behind.

what else would you demand the "conviction" (as you put it) should require?
Reply
post #26 of 180
2/6/06 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle crud
as I recall the facts are known, lloyd, and they are these: he hit her, he admitted he hit her, he hit her from behind.

what else would you demand the "conviction" (as you put it) should require?
well you would need a jury of his peers to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting grossly neglegent. That is what needs to happen. If the police did their job correctly then the state may get a conviction, may not. The facts must prove that, to you they already do, to this kids friends and family they may not. Witness accounts and testimony are the only true facts and if one of the witnesses says something like the girl was out of control spinning infront of the suspect, well that could change everything. Speed alone is not being neglegent. What if the girl was not visible from above, would he still be neglegent, prob not! See, that is why we have the injustice system.
Reply
post #27 of 180
2/6/06 at 3:46pm
horrible and incredibly tragic.i don't mean to be insincere or cold, but these are reasons everyone out there should seriously consider wearing a helmet. just as seat belts work in our vehicles against careless, stupid, drunk, etc. type of people, perhaps the outcome might not have been so tragic.
Reply
post #28 of 180
2/6/06 at 3:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lloyd braun
well you would need a jury of his peers to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting grossly neglegent. That is what needs to happen. If the police did their job correctly then the state may get a conviction, may not. The facts must prove that, to you they already do, to this kids friends and family they may not. Witness accounts and testimony are the only true facts and if one of the witnesses says something like the girl was out of control spinning infront of the suspect, well that could change everything. Speed alone is not being neglegent. What if the girl was not visible from above, would he still be neglegent, prob not! See, that is why we have the injustice system.
You might want to read some of this thread:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=25078&highlight=laramie+bowl+deat h

Clear day, good visibility, wide-open slope, kid on board straightlining FROM NEARLY 500 VERTICAL FEET ABOVE. According to MANY eyewitnesses he made no attempt to stop, slow down, or turn to avoid hitting her.

That's MY synopsis, of course. Testimony (and video) at the trial will perhaps shed more light.
Reply
post #29 of 180
2/6/06 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters
You might want to read some of this thread:

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=25078&highlight=laramie+bowl+deat h

Clear day, good visibility, wide-open slope, kid on board straightlining FROM NEARLY 500 VERTICAL FEET ABOVE. According to MANY eyewitnesses he made no attempt to stop, slow down, or turn to avoid hitting her.

That's MY synopsis, of course. Testimony (and video) at the trial will perhaps shed more light.
Bob,

I don't know the facts but neither does anyone else who wasn't there. You all will choose the outcome. I am interested to see what happens. collisions happen on the mountain. all are accidents but not all are caused by being negligent. From what you tell me this kid was making mistakes all the way down the slope. Punishment is in order, just let your community choose.
Reply
post #30 of 180
2/6/06 at 4:01pm
personally, I never want to see the day when a resort is held financially liable for the actions of their guests ... it will be the end of skiing as we know it -- or, the end of ski resorts.

at the same time, I think that resorts should take, as part of their risk management program, steps to create the safest sliding environment possible. it's about education -- not just the folks who ski/ride recklessly. part of me wonders how you can be in a bowl without an awareness of someone BOMBING a straight line toward you ... did the person with the video camera not think to yell, "watch out"?

my two cents.
kiersten
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Charges filed in JH Laramie Bowl death