ACCOUNTABILITY

scooter wrote: Ken, I think we agree for the most part. I'm glad to hear you say except that you say "most of them are that way because of a lack of discipline and adequate, parental guidance."...I agree with you but I can't belame my parents for how my brother ended up since I ended up on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from my brother...I think also too location maybe, schooling, mental issues - add/adhd perhaps? play into the situation of what causes some chum to loose or just not develop his common sense and awareness of consequences. I do agree with both of you that "by the age of 12, you should know if you are doing something that is probably really fucking stupid." but look at the number of kids drinking & driving - killing friends, family, strangers...whomever or like when I lived in the Fort, kids drinking themselves to death? The decisions people make are asinine...and you're left thinking why/who would someone do something so stupid? and slim - yes...if my brother ever has kids, society's hosed.

I agree with most of your post except for your inference that this guy is a kid. He is, without exception, legally an adult. Sighting examples of irresponsible actions by minors is not germane to this particular case.

I've been following the responses to this tragedy both on this thread and the original thread that pointed out the tragedy. This is a truly horrible tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with the family of this great man.

As far as judging the guy who did it, here's my two cents.

Legally, I don't see how this incident differs from involuntary manslaughter (IM). When someone is guilty of IM it means he had no intention to kill, but the death he imposed was due to recklessness. Obviously we don't know the motivations or mindset of this guy when he threw the rock, so I'm not even going to speculate on that (and I think it's pretty foolish for us to do so). However, given that he's a 23-year old who has finished two tours of duty in war, and since he had to hike/scramble his way up to where he threw the rock, I don't think any jury of his peers would agree that he was completely ignorant of the potential consequences of throwing a 20 pound rock into an area he can't see. So, unless he was insane, he caused an unintentional death via a reckless action - he committed IM. You can say what you want about how he has to live with the knowledge that he killed someone, or that it's a shame to ruin another life unnecessarily, etc. - I'm framing the situation in legal terms because that's how we ultimately deal with events like these in our society.

Obviously, this forum isn't a court of law, and the guy hasn't had a chance to defend himself to my scrutiny in the above paragraph. There could be facts of which we aren't aware, I'm just going off the facts as stated by the news articles. So to some degree, even this is speculative.

For what it's worth - my two cents.

In terms of crime & punishment, accountability, and legal issues Nate makes the most important point for consideration:

Nate Oakes wrote:Legally, I don't see how this incident differs from involuntary manslaughter (IM). When someone is guilty of IM it means he had no intention to kill, but the death he imposed was due to recklessness. Obviously we don't know the motivations or mindset of this guy when he threw the rock, so I'm not even going to speculate on that (and I think it's pretty foolish for us to do so). However, given that he's a 23-year old who has finished two tours of duty in war, and since he had to hike/scramble his way up to where he threw the rock, I don't think any jury of his peers would agree that he was completely ignorant of the potential consequences of throwing a 20 pound rock into an area he can't see. So, unless he was insane, he caused an unintentional death via a reckless action - he committed IM. You can say what you want about how he has to live with the knowledge that he killed someone, or that it's a shame to ruin another life unnecessarily, etc. - I'm framing the situation in legal terms because that's how we ultimately deal with events like these in our society.

It was in all likelihood NOT murder. If he intentionally threw the rock then it is involuntary manslaughter. If the rock just happened to fall when he walked by (he had no intent of sending it down the face) then it is a tragic accident with no legal consequences. I'm no attorney; this opinion is simply based on my layperson's knowledge of the law.

As far as soldiers being held to a higher standard? Don't count on it. A stupid 23yr old is still a stupid 23yr old (no offense to the smart 23yr olds). Trust me, I've been through Basic Training; a lot of those guys aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

As far as Lundburg goes, Ken, he is pretty fascist. As a social philosopher he follows David Hume quite a bit in his theories of behavior and the 'natural state' of man vs. the society and the necessity of governance. He acceptably proports that most men are more aware of their immediate needs than of the needs of society and the delayed gratifications that compliance with legal and social norms might have... that is not fascism, it's philosophy.

Lundeburg also extends the line of thought quite greatly into crime and punishment, an area in which I find his conclusions debatable, and I thought you might be interested in contemplating yourself. Lundburg concludes that maximizing punishment for the populace will separate otherwise deviants from their immediate and personal needs enough to make them more responsible. He seems not to factor into his equasion at all the consideration of if or not they think they might be caught. He also argues about how perversions in those who govern effect the motivations and behaviors of the populace. I can follow him here, but scarely agree with his direction. Hume was closer to the mark in my opinion and could have done without Lundburgs theoretical revisions.

When I said Lundburg is a fascist, I was speaking of his conclusions on how to clean up society- a stretch that by his means would go as far as possible towards eliminating 'the human condition' as I can imagine... or for that matter, about as far as Orwell could. Lundburg suggests that one's personal motivations should be demoted to below the needs of the society, which he defines as the state. Imagine public monitoring, "PSA's" broadcast in public places to remind people to be socially responsible (Japan has this), severe (even pernicious) punishments for minor crimes, an outright statement that any moral patriot will religiously follow even the most petty laws of the state, etc... HIS examples start with speeding in your car by the way, so those about to cast the first stone, put it down. I'm sure we've all gone 57 in a 55 zone, even if carelessly or accidentally if not on purpose.

Now, for those debating whether or not the rock thrower was a 'kid' well, yes and no. No, not leagally. He was entrusted to drive at 16, to marry, enter contracts, and own property at 18, and to drink at 21. So at which of these points did he become an adult? Research has proven incontrovertably that none of these are a distict answer. The physical structures in the brain that deal with decision making and premediative behavior (and reason or the lack thereof, which we call 'stupid kid crap') are not even fully formed or active until about 25. So now what? Am I saying he has no responsibility? No. Am I saying that he is a fully grown adult? Definately not. I challenge anyone to tell me at what moment in time someone reaches full maturity? At my age I have not either. I doubt anyone here will challenge the idea that this individual will become more mature and more cautious as a result of this accident.

Hey Ken
I respect your opinion, but we all need to keep in mind that the kid did not know anyone was there. You will fire back that his ignorance is no excuse and that climbers could have been there at any time, but keep in mind that to the average person a cliff-face in a remote wilderness area is not someplace people go. IT seems normal to us, but not to the average muggle.
Yes, it could be involuntary manslaughter.
Yes, the kid screwed up and society could make him pay.
But what good would come from it...

Like I said Ken, I respect your opinion, but this is a bit of witch hunt (except that you are mostly on your own and witch hunts require mobs). Personally, if a kid (and a 23 year old is a kid) screwed up and accidently killed me, I'd want you to leave him alone. Clearly it was an accident, not intentional.

Jeff Fiedler wrote:Mark: You seem to be reading the phrase "prosecute to the maximum extent of the law" to mean "go for life or the death penalty," when I would read it more as "we are going to press charges, i.e., bring this issue into the legal system." Sure, it has some bluster to it, but I think you can be "1/2 pregnant" under this phrase.

Yes, when I hear "prosecute to the max extent of the law" a person basically says: we're gonna have a trial, conviction, & punishment all in one statement. Well, okay, for the prosecutor to say that, fine. But I don't agree with it. There is still an adversarial due process that holds everyone to account including defense, peer jury decision, & appeals -- or plea bargain.

Being 1/2 pregnant, you either get prosecuted or you don't; it doesn't mean the prosecutor will be successful, the burden of proof is on them. As far was what the extent of the law is, that's determined in the due process system along with either a judge and/or jury decision, & appeal review.

I like Sam's thoughts, yes, we've all done something; most of the time without consequence, sometimes with consequence but didn't get caught. But we're still accountable in any respect. Just because we've tossed a rock off a cliff before or saw a bunch of other people do it, does that give us a free pass the next time we do it and hit someone? No, we're accountable for our actions.

"The legal system is pretty pragmatic in taking into account intent, reasonableness of actions, etc. ... I think you can prosecute and take all those questions into account."

Yes, I'll agree with that.

"In colorado Lisl Alman got life without Parole "
Don't really understand this case, I guess based on technical respects; but I think she was found guilty because she didn't do anything to stop the crime, but there's a real strong argument, what could she have done? I don't think she could have foreseen the events that took place; but I didn't sit on the jury & don't know what they were afforded about the situation.

Also, don't really understand how being a U.S. soldier has anything to do with what happened, I guess enlighten me, though you'd be hardpressed to tell me that they can't handle their jobs & have to take it out on U.S. civilians.

A common question seems to be 'what good would come from prosecuting the trundler?'

I would argue the answer is that it sets an example for others to use better judgement in the future. Granted, this is potentially a huge price for the man to pay in the name of an arguably minimal increase in awareness, but what is the alternative? Some benefit should come from this, and if it serves as an example for others, that's about the best we can hope for. Alternatively, if the man/fetus goes free, we can hope that he spends the rest of his life on an endless world tour educating the masses on the dangers of rock throwing, but I think that's a lot to hope for.

Rock climbers have a right to be on the side of a cliff, and we have a right to defend that right. And we can and should be 'outraged' that the rest of our society has so little regard for our right to exist on the side of a cliff that they think its totally acceptable to randomly hurl rocks off whatever cliff is closest. To me this is a simple matter of self defense. Stupid morons trundle rocks all over the country, in the wilderness and in established climbing areas. That will only change when it becomes common knowledge that chucking a rock off a cliff could get you 10-15 years in federal prison.

The scariest day of my life was climbing Stettner's Ledges late August a few years back for one reason: Rock Fall. I honestly thought that that day was going to be my last because basketball sized rocks were coming down due to climbers kicking them off Broadway heading for Kiener's. I was freeballing the route and didn't have any beta once so ever. We walked up and got on the route not even knowing it's rating and into the second pitch the shower began, the terrifying sound of humming birds on crank zizzing by, I just about crapped my pants when I realize it wasn't a psycotic bird but rather big rocks moving the speed of bullets straight towards my head. I quickly realized how happy I was to have my helmet and how little it would do in the event something struck me.

My point is that if one of these rocks that these climbers had kicked off had killed me or my partner does that mean that they should go to jail for a long period of time for neglectfully kicking rocks down the route I was climbing?

Quickly after climbing this route I came to find out that it is notorious for horrible rock fall due to climbers on Broadway not being careful. A lot of these parties that were putting our lives in danger were first watching us on the route and then shortly after trying to kill us, unknowingly. If something had happened who is truly at fault. Rock climbing is dangerous and people die doing it, we all know that yet we continue to do it. I also know that at times I am in great jeopardy of losing my life and realize this through all the others that have lost their lives partaking in this sport (real experienced and capable and not). Bad luck can play a big part in whether you live or die on certain days and certain climbs.

What is the difference between this neglectful kid throwing a rock off a cliff not knowing that people were climbing up vs. climbers that know more about the mountains and educate of climbing, kicking rocks on me when they know I am below them but not realizing that huge rocks are falling hundreds of feet and hitting the wall feet from where I am coming up? The difference is I lived and Peter died but had I died I would think these climbers would be more responsible for my death than this kid is Peter's. Only b/c they should know better. On the other hand I should know better than to get on a route like that without knowing exactly what the prevalent dangers are and I too could and maybe should be held responsible for ruining someone else's life because they have to live with that guilt.

Death is a touchy subject, someone always has to be at fault even when no one really is. I don't see a big difference in my analogy here between the 23 year old and climbers on Kiener's not being careful when they know climbers are on Stettner's aside from negligence. We all know that what we do is dangerous and when in the face of danger consequences can be paid whether we like it or not.

Tony Bubb wrote:As far as Lundburg goes, Ken, he is pretty fascist. As a social philosopher he follows David Hume quite a bit in his theories of behavior and the 'natural state' of man vs. the society and the necessity of governance. He acceptably proports that most men are more aware of their immediate needs than of the needs of society and the delayed gratifications that compliance with legal and social norms might have... that is not fascism, it's philosophy. Lundeburg also extends the line of thought quite greatly into crime and punishment, an area in which I find his conclusions debatable, and I thought you might be interested in contemplating yourself. Lundburg concludes that maximizing punishment for the populace will separate otherwise deviants from their immediate and personal needs enough to make them more responsible. He seems not to factor into his equasion at all the consideration of if or not they think they might be caught. He also argues about how perversions in those who govern effect the motivations and behaviors of the populace. I can follow him here, but scarely agree with his direction. Hume was closer to the mark in my opinion and could have done without Lundburgs theoretical revisions. When I said Lundburg is a fascist, I was speaking of his conclusions on how to clean up society- a stretch that by his means would go as far as possible towards eliminating 'the human condition' as I can imagine... or for that matter, about as far as Orwell could. Lundburg suggests that one's personal motivations should be demoted to below the needs of the society, which he defines as the state. Imagine public monitoring, "PSA's" broadcast in public places to remind people to be socially responsible (Japan has this), severe (even pernicious) punishments for minor crimes, an outright statement that any moral patriot will religiously follow even the most petty laws of the state, etc... HIS examples start with speeding in your car by the way, so those about to cast the first stone, put it down. I'm sure we've all gone 57 in a 55 zone, even if carelessly or accidentally if not on purpose. Now, for those debating whether or not the rock thrower was a 'kid' well, yes and no. No, not leagally. He was entrusted to drive at 16, to marry, enter contracts, and own property at 18, and to drink at 21. So at which of these points did he become an adult? Research has proven incontrovertably that none of these are a distict answer. The physical structures in the brain that deal with decision making and premediative behavior (and reason or the lack thereof, which we call 'stupid kid crap') are not even fully formed or active until about 25. So now what? Am I saying he has no responsibility? No. Am I saying that he is a fully grown adult? Definately not. I challenge anyone to tell me at what moment in time someone reaches full maturity? At my age I have not either. I doubt anyone here will challenge the idea that this individual will become more mature and more cautious as a result of this accident.

Tony,

Your conclusion that I that my views are fascist, based on my belief in accountability for one’s actions, and the writings of philosophers, whose theories I am not convinced you thoroughly understand, is, at best, myopic. I can’t speak to Lundburg, as I am not acquainted with his work, although I am familiar with several of Hume’s treatises. I dare say that you have read too much into my words. The idea that I am a fascist is comical on the face of it. A brief synopsis of my political ideology would dispel that notion in a nanosecond.

I went as far as to qualify what accountability for this person’s actions might encompass. I also stated, clearly and on several occasions, that I could not presume to know what the appropriate punishment for the action might be until charges, if any, were leveled. I think your argument is that this person’s intention was never to hurt anyone, and that he feels remorse, so, consequently, he should be exempt from prosecution for his actions.

Certain people somehow get to the point of beating their wifes and/or children, often feeling remorseful after the fact. Their feelings of remorse eventually subside. After a period of time, some of these people repeat the process, eventually developing a pattern of such behavior. This behavior is generally the result of some sort of antisocial conditioning, and will usually continue until the perpetrator is held accountable for his or her actions. We don’t know that they will beat their children a second or third time, although our legal system is set up in such a way that we don’t wait around to find out. The first action is severe enough to warrant investigation and, possibly, psychological evaluation.

This situation is similar in that our guy chose to disregard the possible consequences of his action - the result of that action being the death of a human being. We have yet to determine our guy’s state of mind at the time of the incident, although his action was questionable enough, and the outcome so severe, that not holding him accountable, at least for psychological evaluation, would be socially irresponsible. And, as Nate pointed out, our laws are in place to help insure that attention to these matters is addressed.

Our guy should at least be tried for his actions in order to determine whether or not there is a recognizable potential for similar behavior in the future. We don’t know that he hasn’t sustained psychological damage from his participation in the war or if he is just the victim of poor judgment. We do, however, know that his lack of judgment allowed for an action severe enough to kill another human being. That, in my opinion, is reason enough to bring charges against his action. This is a matter of prevention and public safety, not moral absolutism or fascism.

Your legal adult vs. mature adult argument is not relevant to this case, unless it is determined that our guy was mentally incapacitated at the time of this incident and can’t be held responsible for his actions. The bottom line is that he is legally an adult, which makes him subject to prosecution as an adult.

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:Hey Ken I respect your opinion, but we all need to keep in mind that the kid did not know anyone was there. You will fire back that his ignorance is no excuse and that climbers could have been there at any time, but keep in mind that to the average person a cliff-face in a remote wilderness area is not someplace people go. IT seems normal to us, but not to the average muggle. Yes, it could be involuntary manslaughter. Yes, the kid screwed up and society could make him pay. But what good would come from it... Like I said Ken, I respect your opinion, but this is a bit of witch hunt (except that you are mostly on your own and witch hunts require mobs). Personally, if a kid (and a 23 year old is a kid) screwed up and accidently killed me, I'd want you to leave him alone. Clearly it was an accident, not intentional.

Sam,

I have to say that your position here is downright hypocritical in its relation to your attitude about Dean Potter's having climbed DA. That, almost by definition, was a witch hunt with you right at the head of the pack. You were quick to condemn Potter's action, in spite of the fact that he broke no laws and hurt no one.

No offense, Sam, but your understanding of what I've said seems so skewed that you might consider going back and more carefully read my posts. Read what I said - not into what I said.

Ken Cangi wrote: Tony, Your conclusion that I that my views are fascist, based on my belief in accountability for one’s actions, and the writings of philosophers, whose theories I am not convinced you thoroughly understand, is, at best, myopic.

Sigh...

Can you please point at anywhere where I said anyone other than Lundberg was fascist? You made a conclusion. What I did was make a disclaimer that I don't wholly endorse Lundburg and am really rather critical of some of his logic and extensions of it.

How dare you lecture me on what I do and don't understand of someone else's writings that you have not read, especially when you are not carefully reading mine, of which you are so critical...

It seems that there are 'several' people like me out there that just can't seem to understand you, and who have 'visceral resposes' to your carefully worded arguements.

Sigh, (again) I am tierd too...

Ken Cangi wrote:Certain people somehow get to the point of beating their wifes and/or children, often feeling remorseful after the fact. Their feelings of remorse eventually subside. After a period of time, some of these people repeat the process, eventually developing a pattern of such behavior.

Fascism aside, your suggestion that our guy somehow fits the profile of a wife/child-beater and that he furthermore may be a repeat offender is patently absurd. He may well be some kind of sociopath, but there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion, at least none that has been presented on this thread or in the media, and so we have no choice but to assume otherwise. I doubt if he "chose [emphasis mine] to disregard the possible consequences of his action"; rather he (probably) never even considered that there would even be any consequences. If he is (was?) reasonably mentally/psychologically healthy, it would be highly unlikely that he will turn into some kind of sociopathic monster. Unless, of course, he spends a few months or more in prison. Then, who knows?

I'm all for accountability. This guy probably and rightfully will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. The punishment is another story and will take into account many considerations that have already been brought up on this thread; e.g., his state of mind, the wishes of Peter's family, etc.

I think the point being made by most of the posters is that we have all been guilty of a boneheaded move once or twice in our lives. Rarely have the consequences been so dire, but we can sympathize (to some extent) with the rock-thrower because it could have been us. I dare say, your apparent failure to acknowledge this simple truth leaves one with the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that your views are inflexible. Perhaps not fascism, but "moral absolutism" seems pretty darn close to the mark.

Tony Bubb wrote: Sigh... Can you please point at anywhere where I said anyone other than Lundberg was fascist? You made a conclusion. What I did was make a disclaimer that I don't wholly endorse Lundburg and am really rather critical of some of his logic and extensions of it. How dare you lecture me on what I do and don't understand of someone else's writings that you have not read, especially when you are not carefully reading mine, of which you are so critical... It seems that there are 'several' people like me out there that just can't seem to understand you, and who have 'visceral resposes' to your carefully worded arguements. Sigh, (again) I am tierd too...

I actually revised that word several times, from "inference" to "conclusion" and back, until it occurred to me that you obviously view my position as at least bordering on fascist. I am willing to draw that conclusion, and I challenge to you disprove it. That, of course, would entail your stating reasons why you don't think I'm a fascist.

"sigh" Why the sigh, Tony? You bring this on yourself. And why do you constantly us others to support your position? You speak as though you represent the majority. Did it ever occur to you that most people are averse to controversy, and so express their opinions privately? That is what Email is for. Just for the record, several people have emailed to say that they agree with my position, which is neither here nor there, but I just thought I'd clear that up for you.

I didn't start this thread to gain support for my position. My sole intention was to move the debate away from a thread which was opened to morn a respected peer. Moreover, my OP was posted out of frustration, and it was in no way meant to promote this type of debate. That having been said, I have no problem debating the issue, because I believe that it is important. Do you?

Look, Tony. You might be a nice guy. You probably are, in person, although your constant baiting and badgering of my posts is getting obnoxious. I can live with it, if that is your style, although I believe that debates are more productive when we don't allow them to become personal. You got what you asked for. You kept playing the fascist card, and I finally called your hand. Big f--cking deal. Lets move on.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Fascism aside, your suggestion that our guy somehow fits the profile of a wife/child-beater and that he furthermore may be a repeat offender is patently absurd. He may well be some kind of sociopath, but there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion, at least none that has been presented on this thread or in the media, and so we have no choice but to assume otherwise. I doubt if he "chose [emphasis mine] to disregard the possible consequences of his action"; rather he (probably) never even considered that there would even be any consequences. If he is (was?) reasonably mentally/psychologically healthy, it would be highly unlikely that he will turn into some kind of sociopathic monster. Unless, of course, he spends a few months or more in prison. Then, who knows? I'm all for accountability. This guy probably and rightfully will be charged with involuntary manslaughter. The punishment is another story and will take into account many considerations that have already been brought up on this thread; e.g., his state of mind, the wishes of Peter's family, etc. I think the point being made by most of the posters is that we have all been guilty of a boneheaded move once or twice in our lives. Rarely have the consequences been so dire, but we can sympathize (to some extent) with the rock-thrower because it could have been us. I dare say, your apparent failure to acknowledge this simple truth leaves one with the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that your views are inflexible. Perhaps not fascism, but "moral absolutism" seems pretty darn close to the mark.

Richard,

I am well aware of the point being made by several in here. I am not unsympathetic to the reality that this person might have made a mistake, although neither you nor I know that at this point. After two tours of duty, this guy could have flashed back into a psychological mindset of warfare. To call that improbable or patently absurd, given the circumstances, would be very short-sighted.

There are numerous, documented cases in which war veterans suddenly snapped and wrought havoc upon their communities. You and I DO NOT know what this guy's mindset was at the time of the incident, so how can you call me inflexible? All I have suggested is that his case is serious enough to warrant prosecution and subsequent evaluation. What seems inflexible to me is that some of you won't or can't fathom the reality that this guy's action might have been the result of something much more serious, e.g., a psychological meltdown.

You also brought up a point that has been made a few times in here. You said, and I am paraphrasing, that this guy's punishment, if any, should be contingent, in part, on the wishes of the aggrieved family. When a person is killed as the result of an action by another, the wishes of the aggrieved family don't necessarily have any bearing on whether or not the case is prosecuted and punished.

As for my description of the child beater, I said this:

Ken Cangi wrote:This situation is similar in that our guy chose to disregard the possible consequences of his action - the result of that action being the death of a human being.

Those, highlighted, are the key words in qualifying the similarity. The body of the description was meant to make the bigger point that we shouldn't allow a dangerous action to happen more than once without invoking accountability and evaluation. Again, it's all there if you read it carefully. I never said nor insinuated that this guy's action was necessarily the same as the child beater's.

Ken Cangi wrote: ... What seems inflexible to me is that some of you won't or can't fathom the reality that this guy's action might have been the result of something much more serious, e.g., a psychological meltdown.

Ken, I'd believe that if the guy knew there was somebody that was going to get hit & then also didn't call for aid. If he did snap, why not toss multiple objects at the climbers below?

I think his mindset is not a question. He just didn't think about the possibility that someone could be climbing underneath him.

Points well made, the most important being that "You and I DO NOT know what this guy's mindset was at the time of the incident". I concede that it would be imprudent to not consider all possibilities, including that he "flashed back". However, I also believe that particular explanation should be at the bottom of the list. We have no choice but to assume that the current reports are accurate; i.e., he threw the rock without knowing that anyone was below him. Meaning that in all likelihood he was goofing around, not having some kind of war-induced craze-fest. I just believe that the proportion of people who have done stupid, usually harmless things far, far outweighs the number of people who have gone ballistic as a result of being involved in a war. It doesn't mean he didn't, but we're being speculative one way or the other. In any case, I have no doubt that he will at least be evaluated if not prosecuted. If he's a danger to society and all goes as it's supposed to, that will be revealed. Which leads to a second point:

Ken Cangi wrote:You said, and I am paraphrasing, that this guy's punishment, if any, should be contingent, in part, on the wishes of the aggrieved family. When a person is killed as the result of an action by another, the wishes of the aggrieved family don't necessarily have any bearing on whether or not the case is prosecuted.

I didn't actually say that, but if we assume that he was just being an immature bonehead, then I do think it's appropriate, specifically in this case, for the family to have input during the sentencing phase of any legal action. This does happen. Concerning your other point about the family and prosecution, I'm not sure if that's correct, although I'm certainly not an attorney (thank god). Note, I'm not saying you're wrong. It would be helpful if someone with legal expertise could comment on this.

Richard Radcliffe wrote:I have no doubt that he will at least be evaluated if not prosecuted. If he's a danger to society and all goes as it's supposed to, that will be revealed.

I agree.

Richard Radcliffe wrote:if we assume that he was just being an immature bonehead, then I do think it's appropriate, specifically in this case, for the family to have input during the sentencing phase of any legal action. This does happen. Concerning your other point about the family and prosecution, I'm not sure if that's correct, although I'm certainly not an attorney (thank god). Note, I'm not saying you're wrong. It would be helpful if someone with legal expertise could comment on this.

I am surprised that we haven't already heard from an attorney. Maybe they just know better and wouldn't touch this forum with a ten-foot pole.

Climbers are too smart and too stupid, at the same time, to become lawyers...

The death of Peter Absolon occurred because of someone's egregious lapse in or lack of judgment. It's not only because of the irreversible consequences resulting from this incident, but also because of the potential danger associated with throwing or trundling boulders from cliffs, that I have been so persistent in trying to make the point about the importance of accountability.

This was, by all published accounts, a tragic albeit avoidable accident. That it could, and should, have been avoided is the key to why I believe the rock tosser should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Doing so, in my opinion, would reinforce, at least in the minds of some potential tossers, that the consequences for such acts of recklessness may carry a very high price.

It lacks common sense and forethought for people to assume that they are alone when in popular hiking and climbing destinations like the Tetons, Yosemite, etc.. Park service officials regularly post signs cautioning against activities that could endanger oneself and others. Because people choose to ignore those warnings, and common sense, should not exempt them from responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Prosecuting cases like this will not affect the majority of responsible hikers, who take safeguards to avoid being reckless, but it might help to motivate the less disciplined among us to at least look before leaping.

I want to clarify what I mean by "full extent of the law", because some of you have the impression that it means throwing the book at someone.

If a misdemeanor is prosecuted to the full extent of the law - that particular law carrying a maximum sentence of a ten dollar fine, and the person is sentenced to paying ten dollars - then that person can be said to have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This has always been my understanding of the term, and is how I meant it to be understood in my posts. Apparently the term means different things to some of you, and I apologize for not clarifying that earlier.

Ken, you're like an effin Kung Fu master fending attacks from all directions and everyone really wants a piece of you. The drama is thick here.

Round #2