or Connect
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 - Page 2

post #31 of 180
" 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,”

Reminds me of an incident last year at my hill. Several patrollers were working on an injured person when a 17 year old skier on park skis skied out of control straight through the middle of us. I chased him down and watched him ski, straightlining to every jump that the trail had to offer. He looked great in the air, but on the snow, not so good. When I pulled him over, his comment was.. "I was in control, but didn't see the accident scene soon enough to avoid it." After several minutes of trying to explain the concept of control and he still didn't see the error of his ways, I pulled his ticket and sent him down to security for a long talk....
so it's not just snowboarders, moreso it's teens that don't see the consequences of their actions. Maybe we should just ban teenagers from the slopes....
post #32 of 180
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?
Spoken like a free man. He must be guilty. You may or may not be correct, but it still goes to trial. Maybe more facts come out when he testifies, or when others testify.

A sixteen year old going too fast is not an uncommon situation. Kids in general tend more so than adults to do unsafe things. They lack experience. They crash their cars more often, too.

I think the court should be somewhat reasonable in this case. Everywhere you look people are going fast. He just didn't know where to draw the line.

Crud, he should be punished but a year in jail would not be right for a situation like this. The kid was an a$$hole and his behavior caused the death of another person. He needs to held accountable, but a year in jail for a sixteen year old (at the time) would in my opinion be wrong.

Furthermore, locking his a$$ up will not help the victim.
post #33 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr
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?
Ullr,

No, you're not being argumentative... I was unclear. To be clear:
  • I don't think JH is financially liable here (although a jury might).
  • I'm not basing my comments on the type of planks the guy way using (iow, snowboarder, skier, doesn't matter to me).
  • I'm not advocating additional laws/regulations as a solution.
What I was trying to get accross is that most states (or resorts) have codes of conduct or responsibility rules -- either legislative or terms of use based -- that put the responsibility on the rider/skier to follow those codes. The problem I see is that those existing codes are often not enforced for fear or alientating paying customers.

The codes are meant to lower the "pain bar" for not following those rules; i.e., lowering the bar from getting oneself killed to something less dramatic like losing their tickets/passes. (If a city of people knew they would never get a traffic ticket for not following traffic laws, we all know what would happen. Just go to some other countries and go driving.)

When we have those rules and don't enforce them, we create in a sense a type of moral hazard where the risky behavior is not discouraged and the bar goes back up to the ultimate level: injury or death. Some resorts are great at this, and some really suck.

As a local example (for me), Mt. Baker appears to be cracking down on reckless skiing and riding -- both inbounds and out-of-bounds. The reason? Too many deaths this year.

So, all I'm going for is places should enforce the codes / rules that are in place; this itself will go toward saving lives.

david
post #34 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahoetr
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.
misdemeanor homicide is another word for mansluaghter, which is not a felony. There was no intent to kill.


on another note.... if his board broke, the force of impact must had been extreme
post #35 of 180
As reprehensible as it was, I think this is at least part of the equation behind the "old man and the girl" thread. Reckless behavior isn't being addressed in ways appropriate for the transgressions. I watch "juvies" flip off patrollers/ambassadors when they are told to slow down in congested areas, then speed away. Some chase after and others don't.

Parents are watching and seeing a general lack of attention to safety- by the perps and the "management". The old man wasn't waiting for someone to "take his daughter out" with a direct hit. Just getting close was enough for him. Bad assessment of the situation... probably. I don't know I wasn't there.

Such a waste of both lives, but a precedent needs to be set. One family loses for a year... the other for a lifetime. No parent is going to watch this "kid" get a year and feel like it will change anything on the slopes tomorrow.

More brawls to come...
post #36 of 180
Seems that the law is also buying into the furphy that skiing is a "dangerous sport" and we've all signed up to have our lives endangered by other people when we step onto the hill.

I wonder if the ski resorts have really thought this one through. If this stuff happens more and more, just who is going to go skiing?! The very low education and enforcement levels at resorts do not give me much optimism.

The charges laid against the killer are an insult to the family and friends of the dead woman.
post #37 of 180
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.
Speed alone "for the conditions, terrain & situation" is enough to be negligent!

For example, let's take a traffic situation,

Posted speed limit, say 70 MPH,

Conditions, driving rain & sleet, drivers speed, 60 MPH. easliy could get a negligent driving ticket for exceeding speed appropriate for the conditions.

Why is skiing any different.



Posted speed limits are for ideal conditions.

I submit that if there are other skiers on a run, and you are skiing too fast for the your ability level, the situation, conditions or terrain, (ie, can't see the other skiers because of terrain) you are absolutely without a doubt negligent regardless of what the skier down the hill from you does due to the fact that without a doubt, By the skiers code of conduct the skier downhill has the right of way and you have an obligation & responsiblity to avoid them!

As I have stated if you hit someone downhill from you, you are clearly in the wrong, It does not matter how, why or where except,
if that person was standing still on the side of the trail and commenced to skiing without looking uphill first. Again this is covered in the skiers code of conduct.

Someone above said "he ran into er when he was in control". I agree, wouldn't that make it 1st degree murder!!!! Who hits prople whne they are in controll?

Last weekend I was witin a out about 1/10 of second of being completely taken out by some dumbass ga-zork intermediate straight running a fairly mild pitch on his tails completely out of control. I was just making relaxed turns bAck & forth across the pitch. When I chased this moron down and bitched him, out his brillant response was, you turned left, I thought you were going to turn right.

I don't have eyes in the back of my helmet. this was absolutely frighteneing. But, I have been tatooed before by a stupid ass snowboarder who jumped on the piste out of the woods and absolutely tatooed me in the face with his board. Fortunately I had a helmet & googles on. It knocked me absolutely silly. I lost both skis and never saw & could not have seen him coming. I had no idea what had happened or where i was & was bleeding all over everything. Fortunately, nothing was broken & I had the opportunity to sternly speak to him and his parents a few days later. Had my cheek or nose been broken, i would have filed charges against him.

Understand i was the only skier on the slope. when i proceeded down the hill it was completely empty. No one in sight anywhere. Needless to say I have little sympathy or patience for any of these complete idiots. Unfortunately more times then not they are boarders!
post #38 of 180
I agree with others who stated the only way to lower the risk of more accidents like this is to hold the mountain partially responsible. As part of a risk management plan, mountains need to do more policing and educating. Riders must be made aware of the dangers in going very fast near others. A single incident like this is not going to lower the risk on the slopes unless we learn from it and make some changes.

I have no sympathy for this kid. Anyone with half a brain should know when they are going fast enough and skiing near enough to others so as to kill them if they collided. A year in a juvenile house will hopefully prevent this moron from killing someone with his car some day.
post #39 of 180

Responsibility

This kid needs to be jailed for three years. That would mean a sentence of five years. After he gets out of jail he needs to be put on probation for a year or two. I would like him to receive a lifetime ban from the slopes. You can fine him a few thousand dollars and use the money to set up a database for people like him. You can enforce the ban by making it a felony for him to be caught on the slopes again with five or ten years in jail. The reason he needs this is to learn about consequences. Consequences are something this young man managed to avoid learning about. Had he known about them he might have acted differently and an innocent woman might still be alive. The added tragedy to this story is that he will not receive a punishment that would help him develop a sense of communal responsibility. He will undoubtedly be on the slopes again. Maybe he'll take up skiing this time around.
post #40 of 180
Just off the top of my head I can think of 73 "good" reasons for crashing into someone or something else. If I gave it time and thought I could probably come up with another 10,795 more reasons. But for the Life of ANYONE I cannot come up with ONE SINGLE SOLITARY EXCUSE for this totally negligent, disrespectful, behavior. Serious sentance should be handed down and published for others to see what can and does happen when you are not sliding in a manner such that you are able to turn or stop to avoid hitting other people or objects.he consequences of
post #41 of 180

lloyd

Fact is here, and we all know this, is that we do not know all the facts.

We have not convicted him ... that will come .. or not?

What we have is a summary of the facts presented by the prosecutor to a grand jury and it appears that they saw cause for indictment, by issuance of a "true bill".

All of this will come before a jury. We know that too!

Quite frankly, you seem predisposed to let him off despite what has been presented? This sounds like a few guys that I work with who piss and moan about cops .... then slam down six brews and jump behind the wheel. That's why defense lawyers make so much money I guess?

For what it's worth, he will probably only see 6 months of jail even if he gets the max of one year. Only the feds have "hard time" where a year = 1 year.
post #42 of 180
who are you arguing against? you built a scarecrow of words, "defeated" it, and pretended you were responding to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskinow
Spoken like a free man. He must be guilty. You may or may not be correct, but it still goes to trial. Maybe more facts come out when he testifies, or when others testify.

A sixteen year old going too fast is not an uncommon situation. Kids in general tend more so than adults to do unsafe things. They lack experience. They crash their cars more often, too.

I think the court should be somewhat reasonable in this case. Everywhere you look people are going fast. He just didn't know where to draw the line.

Crud, he should be punished but a year in jail would not be right for a situation like this. The kid was an a$$hole and his behavior caused the death of another person. He needs to held accountable, but a year in jail for a sixteen year old (at the time) would in my opinion be wrong.

Furthermore, locking his a$$ up will not help the victim.
post #43 of 180

Complete Bull Crap!!!!

You know the risks when you buy your lift ticket!! If I'm playing basket ball and I collide with someone else and he hits his head and dies am I responsible? This in horrible!! If you're afraid of being hit on the ski slopes don't go on the mountain!!! Mountains and snow on a pitch are inherently dangerous. We need to stop this sue and blame culture in society this is dreadfull!!!
post #44 of 180
poor analogy with basketball, try one more.

driving in boston may have affected your sense of reason .. consider it.
post #45 of 180

fair warning

If ski=free's analogy bares out there should be a "truth in advertising clause" ..

Mountains should not be allowed to advertise ... "Family Fun"

Large warnings should be posted at the entry to the lot ... "Anarchy Zone"

"Do whatever you want" ..... "No Patrol Zone" ... etc.

Aussies could be employed for the voice over like Outback Steakhouse ... "No rules just ________ "
post #46 of 180
What are the rules? Stay in control all the time or go to jail? What if you're not going fast an catch an edge? Off to prison. What is too fast? Should we have cops with radar on the slopes giving out tickets? How about you ski blacks and blues at your own risk. I know skiing is risky, sorry to break the news to you people.
Blame Blame Blame. To me I take resopnisbility for being in a risky situation!!
post #47 of 180
Basketball analogy works perfectly my friend.
post #48 of 180
From the seat I'm sitting in the resorts should step-up and enforce a speed patrol. Anyone O. of C. gets a warning. Second time ticket pulled for the day. And so on. Want to go faster than you can......bomb the trees. By the way it's not Mt.s and Snow that is dangerous,it's the people on them.
post #49 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski=free
What are the rules? Stay in control all the time or go to jail? What if you're not going fast an catch an edge? Off to prison. What is too fast? Should we have cops with radar on the slopes giving out tickets? How about you ski blacks and blues at your own risk. I know skiing is risky, sorry to break the news to you people.
Blame Blame Blame. To me I take responsibility for being in a risky situation!!
If you are going fast, catch an edge and hit someone you are at fault. Skiing fast is part of the fun for some skiers, myself included. It's pretty easy to identify a skier who's going fast but is putting others in potential danger by skiing near them. This is where I draw an absolute line in the sand. If you want to bomb down a hill, make sure the coast is VERY clear beneath you. It's the uphill skiers responsibility to observe the downhill skier and give them the right of way. If in doubt check your speed immediately to reduce the risk of collision. Once you are in the clear again, speed can be increased. This is skiing 101 but not everyone "gets it" including you.
post #50 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski=free
Basketball analogy works perfectly my friend.
It does work perfectly for me...

In this basketball game, during a timeout, an opposing player is standing along the sideline, and you charge him, hit him from behind, and injure him (fatally or not). Are you responsible?
post #51 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki
Fact is here, and we all know this, is that we do not know all the facts.

We have not convicted him ... that will come .. or not?

What we have is a summary of the facts presented by the prosecutor to a grand jury and it appears that they saw cause for indictment, by issuance of a "true bill".

All of this will come before a jury. We know that too!

Quite frankly, you seem predisposed to let him off despite what has been presented? This sounds like a few guys that I work with who piss and moan about cops .... then slam down six brews and jump behind the wheel. That's why defense lawyers make so much money I guess?

For what it's worth, he will probably only see 6 months of jail even if he gets the max of one year. Only the feds have "hard time" where a year = 1 year.
Yuki,

your comments about the police and defense lawyers could not be further from the truth. First and foremost a defense lawyer is there to protect your constitutional rights. Not to prove your innocence. anyone in this country has the right to have his or her constitutional rights protected under our system. How would you feel if you or someone you know was accussed of rape but didn't do it. the cops come and take a statement from the alleged victim, and subsequently go and arrest you or your friend without even asking you, your side of the story. The cops then present the facts to the DA and boom you are charged with a felony. Wouldn't you want a lawyer? Don't you think everyone would take the side of the alleged victim? Here is the real kicker, with the above example. What if that was you that was wrongly accused. you go to court, spend 20,000 dollars on attorneys to get yourself out of trouble, guess who pays. YOU! not the cops who, if they did a proper investigation, would have let you off cause there was no proof. You have no recourse except to pay your hard erned money for something that you should have never had to pay for in the first place. We have too many innocent people charged with crimes because the cops don't know the laws. We also have many criminals that are incorrectly arrested because the cops make a bad stop/contact etc... and the criminal that should be repremanded is let free, because the cop didn't have a good/legal reason to contact that person.

Now onto your comment about the cops. Most cops are un-educated bullies that don't seem to have a clue about the actual laws. Most are not there to protect you, they are there to arrest you and collect evidence for the case against you. If a cop comes to ask you questions, you are under investigation. The police lie and cheat, they act like a judge not a witness. That is what thier postiton is stated to be.

Please don't give me the "protect and serve" bull! Go to your county court and listen to the lawyers and your will be appauled at how the cops do thier jobs, i assure you.
post #52 of 180
try this since you don't seem to grasp the gravity of the situation.

he did not "catch an edge" and hit someone.

do not introduce a "canard" into the scenario as reported.

when the trail is open in front of me, i tend to go pretty fast.

when there are "sensitive receptors" ahead of me, i back off.
post #53 of 180
Slider, Mountains and snow can be dangerous by them selves. I would bet most injuries are self inflicted.
post #54 of 180
another canard ... most injuries are self inflicted .... that's not the topic.

try sticking to the point.
post #55 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski=free
Slider, Mountains and snow can be dangerous by them selves. I would bet most injuries are self inflicted.
You're right, and this encompasses the inherent danger of the sport. I think reasonable people understand and accept this risk when they purchase a ticket and catch the lift up the mountain.

The risk they are not prepared for, is the risk of getting hit from behind by some careless, out of contol a$$hole who thought they were going to turn right, but happened to turn left.
post #56 of 180
Who is to judge "out of control"? If you suddenly stop on a trail you are putting me at risk. Look at highway laws, there are minimum speed limits and in certain highways you cannot stop.
If a person is on a ski slope they accept the risk that someone may be out of control.
The basket ball analogy works very well. Think of this. If I'm shooting around at a hoop and grabbing rebounds and you are as well, and we collide who is at fault? Are you to say I was out of control?
According to some, skiing at 35mph is out of control. To others 35 is not fast at all.
"Skiing out of control" is subjective and I wouldn't want to be locked up on a judgement call or something so subjective. If you are afraid don't ski or don't ski weekends!!!
post #57 of 180
The risk they are not prepared for, is the risk of getting hit from behind by some careless, out of contol a$$hole who thought they were going to turn right, but happened to turn left.[/quote]

Prepare for it!! I do!!
post #58 of 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeskinow
....Furthermore, locking his a$$ up will not help the victim.
It's not supposed to help the victim. By your logic, no murderers would ever go to jail.
post #59 of 180
Yuki, I love your quote at the bottom. " Fall seven times get up eight" Can I add: get sued, serve time. Looks like you've been out of control.
A quote more to your thinking would be: "fall seven times, sue or be sued seven times" Or: "fall, and get your pass pulled yoo out of control maniac!!!"
post #60 of 180
Thread Starter 
Hmmm, basketball...
You are about to inbound the ball (in one of those multi-court complexes), when some frustrated wannabe from two courts over
blindsides you (at full speed) from behind.
Oh, and he pops you square with a baseball bat?
I guess you should not have been playing.
Yeah, that basketball analogy works.
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