• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Got to say, I'm a bit surprised we've heard no more on the original Bear Creek case from any legal authorities now three months after the incident. Although we've hashed out many complexities of it here, it doesn't seem like if there was going to be a criminal charge it would take this long. Obviously, civil matters are different.
 

LiquidFeet

instructor
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,697
Location
New England
The incident in that link just posted happened at Jackson Hole. No one was hurt, but two skiers got lost on the backside after ducking a rope and had to be rescued.

I will never forget the moment, two weeks following the incident, when I saw Ranger Schuster enjoying a concert in the town square with his family. Amidst recalling the wonderful experiences I shared with my own father, it became profoundly apparent that the ripple effect of my action could have taken away a lifetime of these moments from another.

I have been advised by many to seek legal counsel and fight these charges in court as the others accused have chosen to do. However, it seems to me this would only waste further time and valuable public resources, of which I have spent enough already. I feel that it would be in the best interest of the community to take responsibility for my actions and live with knowledge I did everything in my power to right my wrong.
(https://www.tetongravity.com/story/...il&utm_term=0_02c03531f8-51d4cfcc93-273070065)
--------------------------------

All this guy did was duck a rope and ski alongside it in fresh snow next to the run. Three acquaintances were following him on the trail. He expected them to stay on the run while he poached some fresh tracks. They did not; they followed. One stayed right behind him, the others went down the backside, evidently by accident, and got lost. This guy reported that they were lost to ski patrol and a successful rescue followed. Evidently he works for Jackson Hole. He was ordered to pay $1,500 to the community service fund and $1,500 in fines. It doesn't say whether he lost his job.
 
Last edited:

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Granite Canyon, where the skiers were lost, is just about the worst sidecounty you can be lost in on a High avalanche day in North America.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Got to say, I'm a bit surprised we've heard no more on the original Bear Creek case from any legal authorities now three months after the incident. Although we've hashed out many complexities of it here, it doesn't seem like if there was going to be a criminal charge it would take this long. Obviously, civil matters are different.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

Given the warning from the Sherrif about not ducking ropes and the loss of life, I think it would send the wrong message if no charges are filed. Can't imagine why it's taking so long.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
I am not a lawyer -- but I don't think you typically file charges because of wanting to "send the right message". You file charges because you believe there is sufficient evidence someone acted criminally.

I imagine there is a ton of pressure to file criminal charges if they are able.
 

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
No need to argue over the rules which are very clear. However the whole idea of prosecuting people because they accessed backcountry from a gate is getting pretty absurd. If it's that dangerous just close the whole forest down or don't do anything.

Prosecuting only those who duck gates could make the nfs liable for the man's death because they chose to ignore an avalanche season which was out of control. Soon the nfs would be responsible for all avalanche deaths in their jurisdiction. They are after all the experts and the responsible party. It's like shoveling two steps on your walkway and leaving the other two icy. Once you take responsibility for the steps it's your obligation to bring them to safe standards. Better to do nothing at all or try to police the whole range.
 
Last edited:

coskigirl

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,590
Location
Evergreen, CO
I am not a lawyer -- but I don't think you typically file charges because of wanting to "send the right message". You file charges because you believe there is sufficient evidence someone acted criminally.

I imagine there is a ton of pressure to file criminal charges if they are able.

Depends on whether the prosecutor subscribes to utilitarianism or retributivist theories of punishment. Deterrence, including deterrence of others, is a part of utilitarianism so it absolutely could be a factor in a decision. (Fresh out of criminal law this semester.)
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Depends on whether the prosecutor subscribes to utilitarianism or retributivist theories of punishment. Deterrence, including deterrence of others, is a part of utilitarianism so it absolutely could be a factor in a decision. (Fresh out of criminal law this semester.)

I suppose the risk with using filing a charge to be a deterrence strategy, is you file a charge but cannot successfully prosecute it. Perhaps risking some precedent being set that makes it harder in the future to bring like cases?

Perhaps the public-awareness deterrence that happens by bringing the charge is worth that risk though. Tricky matrix to figure out.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,436
Also depends on whether prosecutors are elected or appointed, no?

In general we ascribe to punishment = deterrence. It's all conditional though depending on who you are.
 

Mike King

AKA Habacomike
Instructor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,381
Location
Louisville CO/Aspen Snowmass
No need to argue over the rules which are very clear. However the whole idea of prosecuting people because they accessed backcountry from a gate is getting pretty absurd. If it's that dangerous just close the whole forest down or don't do anything.

Prosecuting only those who duck gates could make the nfs liable for the man's death because they chose to ignore an avalanche season which was out of control. Soon the nfs would be responsible for all avalanche deaths in their jurisdiction. They are after all the experts and the responsible party. It's like shoveling two steps on your walkway and leaving the other two icy. Once you take responsibility for the steps it's your obligation to bring them to safe standards. Better to do nothing at all or try to police the whole range.
Guess you've never heard of sovereign immunity. The government has to actually consent to being sued.
 

coskigirl

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,590
Location
Evergreen, CO
I suppose the risk with using filing a charge to be a deterrence strategy, is you file a charge but cannot successfully prosecute it. Perhaps risking some precedent being set that makes it harder in the future to bring like cases?

Perhaps the public-awareness deterrence that happens by bringing the charge is worth that risk though. Tricky matrix to figure out.


Also depends on whether prosecutors are elected or appointed, no?

In general we ascribe to punishment = deterrence. It's all conditional though depending on who you are.

Utilitarianism also includes other factors such as making it impossible for the offender to repeat the crime for the period of time they are locked up and rehabilitation of the offender. Retributivists believe that a person must be punished because they did the crime and don’t care about the side benefits.

Prosecutorial discretion is a whole other factor in the decision process. In Colorado the District Attorney is elected butt why would have other prosecutors under them who are not. With the high profile nature of this case I would assume the DA would be heavily involved in the decision to prosecute this case.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top