Was the ski village really in the path of the avalanche anyway? Building a ski village in a prime avalanche area doesn't seem like a good idea.
Avalanche survivor may be charged
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
Was the ski village really in the path of the avalanche anyway? Building a ski village in a prime avalanche area doesn't seem like a good idea.
No. If they owned the land, then it would be a repressive law, trying to make people do what's best for them. As it is, they DON'T own the land they're messing about on. It's not their right to go ANYwhere they've been told not to.
Me and a buddy got lost on Mt Seymour once. We didn't need rescuing but came close to it. I was freezing to near death and almost gave up. Actually I did give up but he managed to come back for me after he found a way back. I was very inexperienced on the mountain and he was virtually an olympic skier. I trusted the guy and it almost cost both of us our lives (or another rescue). He felt he knew the mountain well but we got socked in by fog and could barely see 20 feet in front of us. It was extremely disorienting. Going out of bounds is not a good idea..trust me.
I'm somewhat apprehensive about the idea as I have gotten myself in trouble before just skiing inbounds. Fortunately, I never injured myself skiing, rather I just asked myself was that such a good idea. The back country does have a lore to it. Hopefully if I ever go I'll know somewhat what I'm doing.
s243a:
The village is at the bottom of a mountain (hence the whole ski-village thing) - there are a lot of places people go that might be in a debris chute. Yeah, it's entirely possible there are multiple debris chutes crossing highways, parks, and other transportation/recreation areas - it's the nature of mountain geography.
Sure avalanches stabilize snow slopes, and that's why Parks Canada, Transport Canada and mountain communities blast potential avalanche sites. Can they get to all of them? No. Can they get to all the accessible ones every time the weather changes? No.
Does telling people that certain areas are really dangerous and it's important for them to stay out, lest they die or worse, kill others, help? Yes.
Do you have to be an a-hole to ignore those signs? Yup.
Pangloss
The village is at the bottom of a mountain (hence the whole ski-village thing) - there are a lot of places people go that might be in a debris chute. Yeah, it's entirely possible there are multiple debris chutes crossing highways, parks, and other transportation/recreation areas - it's the nature of mountain geography.
Sure avalanches stabilize snow slopes, and that's why Parks Canada, Transport Canada and mountain communities blast potential avalanche sites. Can they get to all of them? No. Can they get to all the accessible ones every time the weather changes? No.
Does telling people that certain areas are really dangerous and it's important for them to stay out, lest they die or worse, kill others, help? Yes.
Do you have to be an a-hole to ignore those signs? Yup.
Pangloss
If the avalanche shoot crosses a populated area or a rode then okay, support people not being allowed to ski there. If it crosses a ski trail I expect the resort to do enough avalanche control to make the risk acceptable. If it is the back country then as far as I'm concerned it is there personal choice how much risk they want to accept.
What? Pass that over here so I can have a puff.....
You first suggest that the ski hill should do a better job at avalanche control.... wasn't that what they were trying to do in the first place by putting all those big fences and big red signs up telling everyone not to ski in this area because of the probability of an avalanche?
But then you tell us that they shouldn't have any right to do this and shouldn't be able to control what people do on their privately run resorts?
So what are you suggesting? That these resorts go up to the mountains in the dangerous areas which have been naturally prone to avalanches since their creation and do what? Grab some paddles and start packing down the various square Km's of snow in some dangerous areas so that idiots like these two don't kill themselves by their own stupidity?
Come on now.
These two morons didn't just disregard their own safety but the safety of everybody else in the general area who were obeying the rules of the privately run facility.... these people are experts in the area, the mountians and the snowfall... for them to make big maps with big red lines and borders showing everyone where the safe zones are and where the dangerous zones are, and clearly stating the rules and what to do while on their property, you think it should be alright for idiots like these two to think they know better and go and risk everybody's lives in the area?
What would have occured if they picked an area that didn't just fling them off a cliff area, but rather kept building up as the avalanche piled down onto everybody below?
Just as if you smash up your car while drinking but don't hurt anybody else but yourself, you can still be charged, this is just as similar... someone not knowing what the heck their getting themselves into, putting other's lives at risks at the expense of their own personal enjoyment and then when something bad occurs.... oh it wasn't my fault officer, I didn't know.
One thing I remember in Law Class way back when, "Ignorance is not an Excuse." ~ Esspecially when you have big signs and fences smacking you in the face telling you what will happen.
Last edited:
The problem isn't they did something stupid. The problem is personal responsibility.
If you want to charge the survivor with trespassing, with other charges related to what he did. I don't think anyone would care.
When you charge the survivor for the death of his friend, who went into this idiotic escapade of his own free will as sure as the survivor had, then its irritating.
Use this legal mechanic in another incident. Your friend dares you to jump off a bridge into the river with him, you agree (being stupid young people in this case). He dies, you are held liable for his death.
Why? Why should the other person have no personal responsibility? Why is their death your fault and not their own?
If you want to charge the survivor with trespassing, or send them for a psych evaluation to see if they are suicidal thats fine. But to charge them with not stripping the free will from another individual like they were some kind of slave is just wrong.
If you want to charge the survivor with trespassing, with other charges related to what he did. I don't think anyone would care.
When you charge the survivor for the death of his friend, who went into this idiotic escapade of his own free will as sure as the survivor had, then its irritating.
Use this legal mechanic in another incident. Your friend dares you to jump off a bridge into the river with him, you agree (being stupid young people in this case). He dies, you are held liable for his death.
Why? Why should the other person have no personal responsibility? Why is their death your fault and not their own?
If you want to charge the survivor with trespassing, or send them for a psych evaluation to see if they are suicidal thats fine. But to charge them with not stripping the free will from another individual like they were some kind of slave is just wrong.
This banter fails to explains how two individuals can go somewhere and have something bad happen then have one of them held responsible for the others death when they participated in an activity together but as individuals. Logic dictates that each person endangered themselves, individually, and one died by misadventure.
To answer your point would mean that I repeat what has already been written here: that would waste your time and mine, and would not be as useful as going back and reading what has already been written.
Pangloss
Pangloss
To be fair, they don't answer the question.
they describe how one has been a detriment to society and risked others lives and should be charged with that.
the existing posts do not explain why he should be responsible for his co-conspirator's actions and his co-conspirator should bear no personal responsability for the actions he chose to partake in.
they describe how one has been a detriment to society and risked others lives and should be charged with that.
the existing posts do not explain why he should be responsible for his co-conspirator's actions and his co-conspirator should bear no personal responsability for the actions he chose to partake in.
The example you gave, to me, does not parallel what we are discussing. Jumping off a bridge, falling into water and dying, is dying with no cause from the other person. The avalanche on the other hand, is something they CAUSED. They went onto the hill together, but they caused the event that brought about the death. Not the same as simply jumping off a bridge. But you already knew that, as indicated by your opening post, that you would simply claim the other guy caused it, not you.
Going into a closed area and causing an avalanche, risking either your own harm or anothers', is and ought to be a crime.
Trespassing being the least of them.
Why is this point, of all, an argument?
Pangloss
Trespassing being the least of them.
Why is this point, of all, an argument?
Pangloss
Ok, Kreskin, but not to be too much of a smart@ss here, lawyers will argue any nonsensical thing to either get a conviction or avoid one.
Pangloss
Pangloss