Avalanche survivor may be charged
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
Trespassing in a nuclear facility and trespassing on barren property full of snow are quite different. One is a weapon of mass destruction. The other is snow. The latter has the significance of jaywalking on a busy street. There are laws against jaywalking, and those laws are there for similar reasons to the mountain event. If two people cross a highway and one is hit by a car and killed is the other criminally responsible for his death?
No, One is trespassing on trecherous terrain which is sensitive to sound and vibration and can pose bodily harm to anyone nearby, and the other is a Nuclear Power Plant.... Not a weapon of mass destruction. I mean if you plan on setting explosives in the plant to make it one big radioactive car freshener, then I could see it being a WOMD.
Tomato Tamata, they both can kill if left to the devices of morons.
That would all have to be determined based on information provided and a full investigation is held.... much as what is going on in this situation. I haven't heard any recent updates, but last I heard, they were pondering the idea of laying charges.
Should he be charged for his friend's death in this situation?
Well, would he have gone if his friend said no? Speculation and freedom of choice one could defend.
Well what happens to those people who are found dead in their homes from OD'ing on drugs they bought from their dealer? Usually if they trace it back, the dealer could be charged for the death, even though the user chose to use.
Is it right? Perhaps not, but I have heard of cases and that's the law for ya.
If someone throws a rock and accidentally takes someones eye out there is a linkage to cause and effect. The act of throwing the rock was intentional. If I understand it correctly in this case these people were skiing without the intent of causing an avalanche. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
From a moral standpoint, I have a question:
Why is it (for those who think this way) you cannot place responsibility for the death on the fellow who died?
I see 2 stupid young men, who were in an avalanche. The only real difference between them is one lived and one died. Why is it automatically the survivors fault, and not the dead?
Brushing aside legal matters, what is the moral justification of it? How can two people in identical acts have opposite levels of responsibility. The living is responsible for the death of his friend, the dead is not responsible for attempted murder on the survivor?
I just cannot see the problem with blaming the dead (and from a personal moral standpoint, the mature adult compared to a young kid) for the accident rather than the living.
Why is it (for those who think this way) you cannot place responsibility for the death on the fellow who died?
I see 2 stupid young men, who were in an avalanche. The only real difference between them is one lived and one died. Why is it automatically the survivors fault, and not the dead?
Brushing aside legal matters, what is the moral justification of it? How can two people in identical acts have opposite levels of responsibility. The living is responsible for the death of his friend, the dead is not responsible for attempted murder on the survivor?
I just cannot see the problem with blaming the dead (and from a personal moral standpoint, the mature adult compared to a young kid) for the accident rather than the living.
That is a very good point. If he is responsible for the friend then he should seek civil damages from the friend's estate for criminal negligence.
I imagine they would have, and most do place responsibility on him, I know I do... but you can't charge a dead guy.
Well granted I believe that even if both survived they would have both been still charged with some kind of endangerment of other skiiers, but I would guess that since there was a death that occured from this situation, whether it be an innocent bystander or one of the guys who started it, it does change the situation.
I believe looking at it logically and objectively, there most likely will not be any charges in relation to the other guys death to the guy who survived. They said it was a possibility, and technically since a death was involved, it is, but until they have their full investigation on the matter, it can not be ruled out or confirmed. I just believe some might be looking a little too far into what the officers were saying..... although personally, I'd like to see the idiot fry in some manner, but that doesn't cut it with the law.
Would I like to see him goto jail after probably being crippled for the rest of his life and knowing his friend is dead? Sure, I love a bit of evil irony with my coffee.... but I also am realistic and he's not going to get much thrown at him.... they may try but will fail.
Once again, the dead guy is dead.... I'm sure in some crazy southern states in the US there might have been a few who put a dead guy on trial, but I don't think it ever went too well.
But most when it comes to the morals you ask, automatically switch to the legal.... AKA: buddy is dead, we can't lynch him, so let's lynch his friend who did survive and try to pin him with the worst thing we can think of to deter others from doing the same thing in the future.
Once again, is it right? Probably not.
Because it'd be a waste of time... in the end, there's still going to be no justice found, you can't throw a crumpled-snowballed dead guy with a ski lodged into his brain, in jail for 5 years... the rest of the prisoners will complain about the smell... and they shouldn't have to pay for his crime
The "Just us" system can not collect any money from the dead guy, and unfortunetely the justice system is all about commerce and making money. They don't give a rats ass about making laws to protect people, they make them to collect money from people.
I still say that Whister resort is responsible......that area should have been made safe to 'all' skiers by means of avalanche control. It's their job to do so. That fact that the area runs out to an open, and accessible area below now leaves the responsibility to Whistler.
Sooner or later that area would have come down with or with out anyones help. That's how snow works, once enough snow builds up on top of an unstable snow pack it will come down. It's called gravity.
What is to say that a helecopter didn't fly over and set it off, are you going to charge the pilot for something that was the resorts responsibility to control.
Actually, Alberta, the dead man's estate can be sued, and ought to be. Let the courts decide if the deceased is financially culpable, but certainly sue.
This ground has been covered earlier in this thread. We're coming full circle.
Pangloss
This ground has been covered earlier in this thread. We're coming full circle.
Pangloss
Alberta:
Surrounding ski hills (almost every single one of them) are avalanche prone areas - sometimes the ski runs themselves are avalanche areas.
Sometimes a slope only becomes a threat after certain meterological conditions are met - warming/freezing cycles, snow load, etc.
These conditions are quite dynamic and can change dramatically from morning to afternoon.
This means that not all potential areas can be blasted - indeed in some cases, triggering the avalanche might not even be possible - meaning the practical solution is to rope off areas. These slopes most certainly not be threats all the time, but often enough to warrant an "out of bounds" area.
This is standard practice on every ski hill I've been to.
Pangloss
Surrounding ski hills (almost every single one of them) are avalanche prone areas - sometimes the ski runs themselves are avalanche areas.
Sometimes a slope only becomes a threat after certain meterological conditions are met - warming/freezing cycles, snow load, etc.
These conditions are quite dynamic and can change dramatically from morning to afternoon.
This means that not all potential areas can be blasted - indeed in some cases, triggering the avalanche might not even be possible - meaning the practical solution is to rope off areas. These slopes most certainly not be threats all the time, but often enough to warrant an "out of bounds" area.
This is standard practice on every ski hill I've been to.
Pangloss
If Whistler warned about the danger or he knew it was out of bounds then he alone is responsible for taking the plunge and putting himself at risk.
Whistler took steps to prevent an avalanche... these gentlemen circumvented and thus negated Whistler's attempts. It's not Whistler's fault. It's the men's fault. Plain and simple.
If this run runs out into an accessable area, which is the way I understand it to be, and it is also known to be a high risk area, which Whistler has stated. then just because you put a rope up that does not insure the safety of the people below. My example of the helecopter flying over could just as easily set of an avalanche. At the resort I worked at, after any amount of snow fall the resort must assess the danger and take the proper steps. In bound, out of bounds it does not matter any area surrounding the resort that has a potential to come in contact with the public must be controled and putting up a rope does not consist of taking the proper steps. Eventually that snow would have came down whether there was a skier on it or not, once the weight builds up to a point where the snow structure underneath can no longer hold it......it comes down.
That's right, that's why sometimes it is necessary to ski cut the slop in order for it to release any potential danger. before it happens.
Yes he is responsible for putting himself at risk and if Whistler did their job nobody else would have been at risk but him.
They were trying to be responsible in controlling it... it's their Private Property and they can allow or restrict access to any place the wish to do so. They have no obligation to make sure they blast every section of their property, esspecially if it's difficult to get there without setting it off to begin with. And besides placing fences and signs telling you to not go in a certain area and explaining why, what else exactly are they supposed to do besides get a couple of guys on skis and some rifles to shoot people who trespass in the areas they tell them not to?
If these morons wanted to go out on some fresh snow that nobody else went on and do what they feel they have every right to do, then perhaps they shouldn't have gone to the resort and instead headed off to find another mountain or hill elsewhere with nobody around to tell them what to do.
Then they could have had all the fun they wanted and kill themselves in their own avalanche without having to worry about this situation.
The Resort needs to ensure the safety of all of their clients, so they make rules to follow... these idiots broke the rules and put their clients at risk.... I hope this crippled idiot get's what's coming to him and perhaps if he survives long enough, he might learn to read posted danger signs next time.
They covered their asses as best one could do by telling people to not go into those areas or risk avalanche and death.... they can not completely be held liable for people being idiots and not following the rules they have laid down for their privately run organization.
The police tell you not to drink and drive... so should the police be sued or held liable for those tools who go out regardless, drink & drive and possibly kill someone.... possibly their own friend in the car they were driving? Everybody knows you're not supposed to drink and drive.... yet people still drink and drive. And besides, we don't own the roads and highways, the government does.... so technically by the above logic, anybody who dies on the highways and other roads, should fall responsibility on the government and police, rather then the twits who didn't follow the rules.
Sure... let's remove responsibility for everybody and just blame companies and governments for not forcefully restraining ourselves from our own actions. Maybe we'd all be better off if officials and people who own private land are permitted to shoot us in our legs or club the snot out of us to teach us a thing or two about what is permitted and what isn't.... I mean clearly well marked areas and signs are not doing enough.... and many are getting in an uproar over this idiot being possibly charged for disobeying rules of a private organization which he agreed and paid to use their property as they described on how they should use it.
I mean hell.... apparently the resort should be found liable for allowing them to get away with what they did, regardless of how many warnings and explinations they throw all over the area.... maybe to resolve this in the future they should have a goon squad up there to make sure nobody enters the areas they don't want people in.
You guys do also realise a little thing called Occupational Health and Safety? The main reason why they may not have blasted those areas in the first place was directly related to the risks to safety and well being of their employees to go in those areas to begin with..... and in Canada under the OHS, if you feel you are asked to perform a task which you feel is unsafe to your health or others, you have a right to refuse to do it, based under paticular circumstances.
Is it easier to send up some employees, risking their lives to blast areas which in turn could go any second while they're up there.... thereby putting themselves in the spotlight anyways by killing a couple of their workers.... or would it be easier if they just restricted those areas until they were safe again and try to properly designate and identify those areas clearly to their customers with signs, fences, directories showing overhead maps.... why they are restricted, etc.?
Quite simply, if you don't want to follow the rules and regulations of a privatly run organization on their privatly run property, then don't goto them and do what you want somewhere in the middle of nowhere where nobody will hear you scream as you plummet off a cliff.