SoCalHiker wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Would you apply this logic to a parent who drives out into a Winter Warning or other severe weather with a kid in the car?

There are SO MANY potential ways this logic can trip up even the best of parents.

Its such bad precedence...

DMT

I am aware that there cannot be strict criteria of when it's too risky and when not. It will always be a judgement call. There is a fine line of what seems reasonable and responsible and what is negligent and irresponsible. In my opinion taking kids to this event is certainly negligent if the parents knew or were warned about the very high risk of avalanches.

This 'judgement call' issue is a problem for outdoor enthusiasts. In a trial by jury, I imagine a lot of what determines the verdict is the jurors asking themselves "could I have been/put myself in this situation?" Most of those on your jury would automatically say no, as they don't participate in these sports, whereas leaving your child in the car for a couple minutes is much more tangible to the average Joe. Both are questionable things to do, but one situation is more likely to be penalized than another.

It's trite to say, but any parent who cares about their child will suffer for the rest of their life - EVERY DAY - after an incident like this. A criminal charge will have no additional corrective power.

SoCalHiker wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Would you apply this logic to a parent who drives out into a Winter Warning or other severe weather with a kid in the car?

There are SO MANY potential ways this logic can trip up even the best of parents.

Its such bad precedence...

DMT

I am aware that there cannot be strict criteria of when it's too risky and when not. It will always be a judgement call. There is a fine line of what seems reasonable and responsible and what is negligent and irresponsible. In my opinion taking kids to this event is certainly negligent if the parents knew or were warned about the very high risk of avalanches.

Yes there are strict criteria of when it's too risky.

In the Revelstoke accidents, the sledders were warned for weeks, to stay out of extreme avalanche terrain. But they chose an activity that, by its nature, puts them into extreme risk, on known hazards.

Secondly, people got killed. That is unacceptable. In my mind this really is a case of negligence causing injury and death. You just have to figure out how many of them were guilty.

Don't forget, they were doing this for fun, for recreation.

Hanging out in an avalanche runout path on a high- or extreme-rated avalanche day would never be safer than driving in a vehicle! In avalanche lingo, high really means high, it's not overemphasized! A semi-competent winter backcountry traveler should have known that what they were doing was incredibly dangerous/stupid and bound for disaster. Because of the extreme negligence on the part of everyone, the parents included, this situation is much different than simply taking your kid climbing or hiking. It would be like deciding to take your kid climbing while big rocks continue to rain down on you from above every minute.

dan2see wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Would you apply this logic to a parent who drives out into a Winter Warning or other severe weather with a kid in the car?

There are SO MANY potential ways this logic can trip up even the best of parents.

Its such bad precedence...

DMT

I am aware that there cannot be strict criteria of when it's too risky and when not. It will always be a judgement call. There is a fine line of what seems reasonable and responsible and what is negligent and irresponsible. In my opinion taking kids to this event is certainly negligent if the parents knew or were warned about the very high risk of avalanches.

Yes there are strict criteria of when it's too risky.

In the Revelstoke accidents, the sledders were warned for weeks, to stay out of extreme avalanche terrain. But they chose an activity that, by its nature, puts them into extreme risk, on known hazards.

Secondly, people got killed. That is unacceptable. In my mind this really is a case of negligence causing injury and death. You just have to figure out how many of them were guilty.

Don't forget, they were doing this for fun, for recreation.

How about thinking about this from a climbing point of view. If the two unfortunate individuals who were killed were mountaineers who climbed when the CAA issued high avalanche warnings would we consider their actions negligent? I think many of us would and there would be a lot of criticism posted about how they should never have been there. Now what if those two climbers took their young sons and daughters along with them that day.

dan2see wrote:Yes there are strict criteria of when it's too risky.

I disagree. This always depends on the individuals and their personal judgment. But in my eyes, this tragedy certainly qualifies as reckless negligence.

WoundedKnee wrote:It's trite to say, but any parent who cares about their child will suffer for the rest of their life - EVERY DAY - after an incident like this. A criminal charge will have no additional corrective power.

I agree, any parent who <b>cares</b> would suffer. But any parent who cares about their children should have used better judgment of the situation beforehand.