Goblin Valley vandals Charged

[deagol]

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica Neue]"I understand why the state brought felony charges

[Slot Machine]

An overcharge? How so?

Let's take it a step further. Let's say I took a rope, threw it over Delicate Arch, then pulled the arch over. A felony then?

Anyone that intentionally destroys one of the great works of nature should be punished as a felon. Our broken system punishes people that have done no wrong (couples that are getting divorced), and is far too often pussified for people that commit real crimes, like these jackasses. It is great to see the state take some action, act with real teeth, and go for the felony conviction.

I hope you fail miserably Mr Card. Hang em high.

[Iceaxe]

The guys deserve to be punished for shoving the rock formation over... and the high fives and posting on YouTube was stupidity at its finest.

The guys should certainly be punished, but a felony packs some serious consequences. You lose many of your rights as a US citizen for life. There are also numerous jobs you can no longer work. A felony haunts you for life.

A large fine and a stiff public service should be the penalty. We have all done really stupid shit in our lives, its just that most of us were bright enough not to get caught by posting our actions to the web. The penalty should be to provide something useful and valuable back to the public. The penalty should not be to try and destroy two lives, which also effects their families.




Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Deathcricket]

WTF!!!!!!! Scott Card, an avid nature lover who posts on Bogley all the time about his nature enjoyment activities feels that its not a felony to purposefully destroy amazing rock structures that don't exist anywhere else on the planet? That's super shocking to me, even though I didn't agree with Scott, I still respected the guy. Seems like he had a hardcore belief system and some integrity. I guess if there's money involved, people will do pretty much anything, hehe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore libertarian, and I've setup fed surveilence call recording data centers using voice recognition software to flag certain keywords. But I've always rationalized it with my capitalist compulsions. Hopefully when the court is finished, Scott can chat about it. Curious how a nature lover can defend a dumbass nature defiler like that. That's very interesting to me.

[Slot Machine]

We have all done really stupid shit in our lives, its just that most of us were bright enough not to get caught by posting our actions to the web.

Most of the time I would agree with your assessment, but very few of us have done something THIS stupid, so "we all" should not be lumped into that category. This exceeds really stupid shit (of which I'm sadly familiar) by miles.

Once a visitor (even a very stupid one) wanders into a National/State Park, a place designated by the public as 'special', then a different standard should be held. Every visitor should have reverence for the things in the park, and an understanding that severe consequences come with meddling with the special things in that park. It goes beyond stupid to walk into The Louvre, light a Van Gogh ablaze, laugh, then post it's destruction to YouTube. IMO, it clearly falls under 3rd degree felony mischief -

Damage caused by an act valued at between $1,000 and $5,000. This classification of felonies is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and fines of $5,000.

I think toppling an arch in Arches would be very much like toppling a goblin in Goblin Valley. Just imagine, people would be demanding a public beheading if he had toppled Delicate Arch.

I wouldn't mind at all if my Goblin Valley visitors guide said, "Vandalizing the Goblins in this valley is a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $5,000." Pretty sure most folks would nod and say, "That makes sense to me!"
_

Sidebar (ha!) - Isn't it utterly bizarre that SC would take this case? Like defending a guilty drunk driver when your wife was killed by a drunk driver?

[Iceaxe]

As for Scott Card.... even people that are guilty deserve to be well represented in court. This is one of the things that makes America better then many other countries. As a lawyer your job is to represent your clients to the best of your abilities without personal feelings. Selecting someone well versed in Utah's outdoors is a smart move by the defendants. In fact, it might be the first smart move the defendants have made to date.

[Deathcricket]

As for Scott Card.... even people that are guilty deserve to be well represented in court. This is one of the things that makes America better then many other countries. As a lawyer your job is to represent your clients to the best of your abilities without personal feelings. Selecting someone well versed in Utah's outdoors is a smart move by the defendants. In fact, it might be the first smart move the defendants have made to date.

I have to agree. Probably another good reason I'd never be a decent lawyer. I'd drop too many clients, haha.

[Rob L]

I have to agree. Probably another good reason I'd never be a decent lawyer. I'd drop too many clients, haha.

I don't know about the USA, but in the UK a lawyer cannot "drop" clients, or refuse to represent them to the best of their abilities, etc, etc (not an exact quote of the relevant statute). Even the most obviously-guilty defendant has a basic right of legal representation against his/her peers, either by themselves or by what you & I might call a "lawyer under no misapprehention as to his/her guilt".

I would imagine that the USA has similar principles of legal representation.

[TommyBoy]

Unfortunately respect for the outdoors is something we are taught and these days there are a lot of people being taught by parents who think like the idiots in the video. So when they grow up and do stupid stuff is it really their fault since they were raised that way? Hopefully this trial will send a message to all of them that the way they were raised was wrong and they will change. Most likely though they will just think, "oh better not post it next time so I don't get caught."

[Rob L]

...

Damage caused by an act valued at between $1,000 and $5,000. This classification of felonies is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and fines of $5,000....

(My snip of the original post).


So if I understand correctly, any criminal act that causes damage between those figures is a felony under legislation? That seems rather arbitrary, or are the figures updated regularly to reflect changes to the real value?

If they agree to plead guilty to an act of stupidity (insert the proper legal term), they should be fined and sentenced to some form of unpaid community service to atone for their misdeeds.

Just my humble opinion.

[Iceaxe]

Lets look at the punishment from a different angle.... the damage is done, there is no bringing the rock formation back.... so what is the best that can be salvaged from this sad situation?

Tossing the guys in prison does no good as paying $70K a year to house what in the past has been contributing members of society makes no sense what-so-ever. Not to mention the huge burden and punishment it would place on the men's wife and children who are really blameless. T me having the men paying taxes and supporting their family seems desirable to tossing them in jail for a long term.

So the question should be what is a fair punishment that allows the men to repay the public for what they have done. A fine and public service are the logical answer to me, How much I'm not sure.

Any other suggestions on what would be a fair punishment?

[Scott P]

A fine and public service are the logical answer to me, How much I'm not sure.

Don't forget the money he likely lost from his disability claim. I bet he loses that, if he hasn't already. :wink:

Anyway, I'm guessing prison time is very unlikely.

[Slot Machine]

So if I understand correctly, any criminal act that causes damage between those figures is a felony under legislation? That seems rather arbitrary, or are the figures updated regularly to reflect changes to the real value?

Not just any criminal act. The act of felonious mischief, which sounds about right, to my non-expert ears.


Tossing the guys in prison does no good as paying $70K a year to house what in the past has been contributing members of society makes no sense what-so-ever. Not to mention the huge burden and punishment it would place on the men's wife and children who are really blameless. T me having the men paying taxes and supporting their family seems desirable to tossing them in jail for a long term.

We are talking 'a just' punishment, not repercussions of punishment, no? If talking repercussions, I'm very concerned about his 401k, his muscle mass, his relationship with his dog, and his chances of winning the World Series of Poker. His wife, children, and cost of incarceration aren't part of any legal argument (hoping you see my point).

Likewise, "damage is done", is not an argument of any kind. Aw, he is all done raping, damage is done... :roll:

What can be salvaged from this sad situation? Putting the fear of God into anyone that dares consider doing something similar.


So when they grow up and do stupid stuff is it really their fault since they were raised that way?

Yes, 100% their fault. They are grown men with minds of their own. If I was raised by aliens I would still know that particular act was wrong, so should they.

[Wasatch]

I'm surprised it's not held in Federal Court, since it was on Federal land/installation, or was it?

[jman]

I'm surprised it's not held in Federal Court, since it was on Federal land/installation, or was it?

State land actually. Goblin Valley State Park. So it's Taylor v. State of Utah....something, similar to that.

[flatiron]

Lets look at the punishment from a different angle.... the damage is done, there is no bringing the rock formation back.... so what is the best that can be salvaged from this sad situation?

That is terrible logic - totally agree with Slot on his.

Not to mention the huge burden and punishment it would place on the men's wife and children who are really blameless.

Again - poor logic. If we use that reason for every crime then what?? Your Honor, if I lose my drivers license it will be an enormous burden on my family :cry1:

So the question should be what is a fair punishment that allows the men to repay the public for what they have done. A fine and public service are the logical answer to me,

Yes- I can agree that I am not sure what is fair. But I do think a fine as large as possible, lots and lots of public service, AND lots of publicity. Make it known that this kind of behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.


And yes they deserve a good defense- as everyone does.

[Iceaxe]

They are grown men with minds of their own. If I was raised by aliens I would still know that particular act was wrong, so should they.

You convinced me.... they should only be given a retarded midget for defense council.... and immediately after the trial they should be taken out and shot.

/sarcasm



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Slot Machine]

You convinced me.... they should only be given a retarded midget for defense council.... and immediately after the trial they should be taken out and shot.

:haha:

I made no argument against him obtaining a solid defense council, which of course he deserves. Hiring SC is wise, and will likely pay dividends.

My point was: if I was SC, I would pass on this case in the blink of an eye. SC was not assigned to the defendant by the state, SC chose to take the case on, which I find perplexing from a personal, a moral, standpoint. (Not perplexing from a professional, or financial standpoint.)

It is more of a question than a condemnation. How could an avid outdoorsman take on such a case and sleep OK at night? Also, I would have a huge personal bias against my client if I were SC... how does he get past that?

*puts on gameshow host cap*

Can anyone name the countries where Mr Taylor would have already been shot by now? North Korea aaaaannnnd? :haha:

[brettyb]

These buffoons definitely should face stiff charges, but I'm with those who advocate more innovative punishment than incarceration. While incarceration is absolutely necessary in many cases, it is also a huge financial burden on the taxpayer. Thus, for non-violent offenders such as these, I favor a stiff regimen of corporal punishment, combined perhaps with sterilization. Then they can keep working and contributing to society, but the specter of facing a couple days of waterboarding would likely deter many other would be vandals.

[ratagonia]

:haha:

I made no argument against him obtaining a solid defense council, which of course he deserves. Hiring SC is wise, and will likely pay dividends.

My point was: if I was SC, I would pass on this case in the blink of an eye. SC was not assigned to the defendant by the state, SC chose to take the case on, which I find perplexing from a personal, a moral, standpoint. (Not perplexing from a professional, or financial standpoint.)

It is more of a question than a condemnation. How could an avid outdoorsman take on such a case and sleep OK at night? Also, I would have a huge personal bias against my client if I were SC... how does he get past that?

*puts on gameshow host cap*

Can anyone name the countries where Mr Taylor would have already been shot by now? North Korea aaaaannnnd? :haha:


In Singapore, it is much simpler. They would be caned. Quick, easy, effective. Actually, they would have been caned two weeks after their offense.

Mr. Card's taking on the case is not an endorsement of their actions, as Mr. Machine seems to think. Mr. Card (I presume) is under no illusion that they are innocent, or should "get off". But they should get a fair shake in the system, and that is the point of effective legal counsel. I would also presume that Mr. Card represents quite a few members of society that are loathsome and vile, and that would not be welcome around our campfire. Comes with the territory. AND those people, too, deserve effective counsel and a fair shake from our rather screwy legal system.

Tom

[hank moon]

A large fine and a stiff public service should be the penalty. We have all done really stupid shit in our lives, its just that most of us were bright enough not to get caught by posting our actions to the web. The penalty should be to provide something useful and valuable back to the public. The penalty should not be to try and destroy two lives, which also effects their families.

X 2

Casual online reading of the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony suggests that these guys weren't even close to committing a felony. Pulling over an iconic landmark such as Delicate Arch - yeah, that would qualify.

Toppling a random, nondescript goblin among thousands? No.

[Slot Machine]

Mr. Card's taking on the case is not an endorsement of their actions, as Mr. Machine seems to think.

Perhaps defending Mr Taylor from a felony charge is a battle worth fighting for Mr. Card. Taking the case is not precisely an endorsement, but...

There was a moment where Mr. Card had to make a decision; yes/no, to take the case. The increased likelihood of people spitting in his root beer around the campfire... that surely must have crossed his mind.

[hank moon]

p.s.

Does anyone have definitive evidence that the Bogley <John Wayne avatar> Scott Card is the same Scott Card referenced in the OP?

All I know at this point is that some link points to some page that mentions "a" Scott Card.

[hank moon]

Perhaps defending Mr Taylor from a felony charge is a battle worth fighting for Mr. Card. Taking the case is not precisely an endorsement, but...

There was a moment where Mr. Card had to make a decision; yes/no, to take the case. The increased likelihood of people spitting in his root beer around the campfire... that surely must have crossed his mind.

Part of being charged with a crime is the stigma. Lots of folks on this board regularly engage in slow-vandalism practices that degrade our slot canyons (e.g. rope grooves).

One day, perhaps we'll have stiff laws to address rope grooves. Will we all (who have contributed to rope grooving at one time or another) then be instantly transformed into sleazebags? If we're charged, yes, we will be instantly stigmatized. But we'll still be just ordinary folks, just like these guys are (though now they're famous).

The mob (as always) should be shouting at itself.

[jman]

X 2

Casual online reading of the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony suggests that these guys weren't even close to committing a felony. Pulling over an iconic landmark such as Delicate Arch - yeah, that would qualify.

Toppling a random, nondescript goblin among thousands? No.

In the large scope of things...it's just "a" goblin. So should a punishment be "tsk tsk... Shame on you guys" and that's it? I agree it may not deserve a 5yr prison term, but again, you want to protect copy-cats from doing the same thing.

And making an example of the guys, maybe a bit unfair as they are contributing members of society, pay taxes, have families, etc. but a precedence needs to be set. And High. Same with vandalism on rock-art, stealing historical mediums (pottery shards, etc.)

It's not like we are receiving any more untouched rock art and non-vandalized Indian ruins and un-toppled goblins anytime soon...

[Slot Machine]

Casual online reading of the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony suggests that these guys weren't even close to committing a felony. Pulling over an iconic landmark such as Delicate Arch - yeah, that would qualify.

Toppling a random, nondescript goblin among thousands? No.

"Casual reading" is not an argument of any sort. Please state your case Mr Moon. (friendly tone)

Perhaps I overstate my case with Delicate Arch (not apples-to-apples). Indeed, it is iconic, but it does convey my point -where should the line be drawn? I suggest that it be drawn at 'intentionally destroying anything of significant value to the state/national park'. Goblins in GV would qualify. Rope grooves in Spry would not, because they are a nearly unavoidable consequence of passing through that canyon, and those ledges are not of significant value to the park (so, again not apples-to-apples).

Saying "nondescript goblin among thousands" takes his crime out of context. (not thousands of 'em in the valley proper BTW) In context, the reaction of most folks is, "He toppled a goblin in Goblin Valley State Park??!!"

I maintain that it would be much like toppling a nondescript arch in Arches, or crashing a nondescript GMC Denali in Denali National Park. :haha: So, this case, context is VERY important!

The two most damming 'in context' facts are:

1. Being in Goblin Valley when tipping over a goblin, and;

2. Intent. Mr Taylor intentionally and gleefully toppled that goblin.

The combination of these two facts nudges his crime into felony territory, but not by much. If he was anywhere else, or, if it was some flavor of accident, I would agree with a misdemeanor charge.

-----

Add: There are many, many people behind bars that have families, had jobs, paid taxes and are non-violent. I'm pretty sure these are non-factors in criminal cases. Remember Martha Stewart?

[hank moon]

"Casual reading" is not an argument of any sort. Please state your case Mr Moon. (friendly tone)

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-felonies-misdemeanors-infractions-classification-33814.html

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/state-felony-laws/Utah-felony-class.htm (http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/state-felony-laws/Utah-felony-class.htm)

From the second link (Utah-specific):

Felonies of the Third Degree

[FONT=Arial]A third degree felony is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Third degree felonies are the least serious felonies in Utah. (Utah Code Ann.

[Iceaxe]

There was a moment where Mr. Card had to make a decision; yes/no, to take the case. The increased likelihood of people spitting in his root beer around the campfire... that surely must have crossed his mind.

Jesus.... if I'm not mistaken Mr. Card spends a lot of his time as a divorce lawyer.... talk about a job where half the folks involved hate you from day one. To me defending the Goblin boys has got to be a lot more interesting then representing a lying and cheating spouse.



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Slot Machine]

*friendly debate tone* :mrgreen:

Interesting reads (your links) that don't really say much about felony vandalism or criminal mischief. I wish there was another case or two we could compare it with. :hmm2:


So perhaps these guys are being charged with 3rd degree felony (OP link info matches the fine and prison sentence above).

Yes probably.


The example given above is theft. To my mind, theft is worse than vandalism, which is where I would place this "crime".

Depends on the theft. Depends on the object being vandalized. In general, I'd agree with you, but not in Mr. Taylor's case.


Interesting to look at intent. Very, very subjective. I don't see the value in saying someone's intent was to topple something. A large part of examining "intent" is to determine whether the accused person(s) deliberately and consciously tried to break the law. Do you believe these guys did that?

Does any criminal wake up and say, "I'm going to go break statute 104.5.08 today!" No. Breaking a law simply because it exists is almost never motive for committing a crime. So, of course he broke the law unconsciously.


In many cases, intent is subjective.

Not in Mr Taylor's case. His intent was incredibly obvious -to damage property. His thoughts about the law before/during/after are irrelevant. If SC argues that Mr Taylor was trying to keep others safe, I will vomit uncontrollably.


Note: all of the above is not meant to be a legal discussion ('cuz I'm not a lawyer) just a somewhat-supported expression of my gut reaction that this particular goblin-toppling incident does not warrant a state prison sentence, which is what felony conviction is mostly about at this level.

Too bad Mr Moon! You're knee deep in legal discussion! :lol8:


Does anyone have definitive evidence that the Bogley <John Wayne avatar> Scott Card is the same Scott Card referenced in the OP?

All I know at this point is that some link points to some page that mentions "a" Scott Card.

Dontcha think SC would have shown up by now to clarify?? :roflmao1:

[hank moon]

*friendly debate tone* :mrgreen:

Me, too :)



Does any criminal wake up and say, "I'm going to go break statute 104.5.08 today!" No. Breaking a law simply because it exists is almost never motive for committing a crime. So, of course he broke the law unconsciously.

For a quickie on intent and motive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(law)



<not an actual quote from me> with this as response: Not in Mr Taylor's case. His intent was incredibly obvious -to damage property. His thoughts about the law before/during/after are irrelevant. If SC argues that Mr Taylor was trying to keep others safe, I will vomit uncontrollably.

As I said, I'm no lawyer, but the questions you easily dismiss seem important to the courts. And, how do you know what Taylor's intent was, given the net-legal definition in the link above? You might be confusing intent with motive.


Too bad Mr Moon! You're knee deep in legal discussion!

[Slot Machine]

As I said, I'm no lawyer, but the questions you easily dismiss seem important to the courts. And, how do you know what Taylor's intent was, given the net-legal definition in the link above? You might be confusing intent with motive.

Not confusing motive with intent, but you make a good point...

I was not aware of the various flavors of intent, thus I breezed over your questions, which are good ones.

He intended to push a rock over, but did not deliberately intend to damage the property of the state. A critical distinction that veers away from a felony charge. I think?

Now I'm neck deep in a legal discussion, beyond the scope of my expertise! :help:

*concedes that the conviction will likely be a misdemeanor, disappointed, wanders off to watch the Superbowl*

[Iceaxe]

*friendly debate tone* :mrgreen:

Interesting reads (your links) that don't really say much about felony vandalism or criminal mischief. I wish there was another case or two we could compare it with. :hmm2:


Anyone remember what they charged Fatali with for lighting the fires beneath Delicate Arch? That was certainly a worse crime as it was a very famous landmark in a National Park.

What about the dude that climbed Delicate Arch? Was he ever charged for the rope grooves in the top of the arch caused by the rappel?

Several people have been caught defacing rock art. Anyone know the outcomes of any of those?

I remember the Blanding pot hunters were hammered hard with Federal crimes a few years back, but the Federal antiquity laws they violated were clear cut.

What was the penalty for filling Nutty Putty Cave with concrete?

Some of the irresponsible ATV guys do a lot more damage by riding off trail, what is the penalty for that?

Seems like there is plenty to cross reference if one were so inclined.



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Sombeech]

A felony charge should not be fueled by emotion alone.

We all love the park, but how will I benefit if the felony sentence is carried out, rather than heavy fines?

Like Iceaxe says, a felony can have massive lifelong consequences. We should accept the fact that these boys have learned their lesson, have them pay their dues, and give them more of a chance to teach a valuable lesson to other would-be vandals, rather than spend time behind bars.

What good does a felony charge do for you?

[Sun Dance]

What was the penalty for filling Nutty Putty Cave with concrete?


Nice joke. You think the government would ever turn on one of its own (UT County Sheriff Jim Tracy) for doing this evil at the behest of SITLA?

[ratagonia]

A felony charge should not be fueled by emotion alone.

We all love the park, but how will I benefit if the felony sentence is carried out, rather than heavy fines?

Like @Iceaxe (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=36) says, a felony can have massive lifelong consequences. We should accept the fact that these boys have learned their lesson, have them pay their dues, and give them more of a chance to teach a valuable lesson to other would-be vandals, rather than spend time behind bars.

What good does a felony charge do for you?

A chess game.

prediction: they will plead guilty to a lesser charge, a misdemeanor. Will pay a painful but not debilitating fine (5k?) and a painful number of community service hours. 2 years probation, record wiped clean on successful completion of probation.

The example has been made: be careful what you post to Facebook!

Tom

[TommyBoy]

I think part of the reason for the charges is to send a message to other would be vandals. I'm not sure whether I'm for it or not about how the message is being sent, but if we are too lenient then we send exactly the wrong message.

[Scott P]

I agree with Sombeech and Shane that prison time isn't going to do any good. I think a big fine and/or probation/misdemeanor would fit the crime.

I also believe Tom is right. They are going to plead to a lesser charge and prison time is unlikely.


The example has been made: be careful what you post to Facebook!

Or on outdoor forums.

[Sun Dance]

I hope Tom is right.

[xxnitsuaxx]

Dontcha think SC would have shown up by now to clarify?? :roflmao1:

I don't think Scott Card owes anyone, especially you, an explanation of the philosophy behind his client selection. In thread after thread on here... Edited because there's no reason for me to be a dick

[ratagonia]

Dontcha think SC would have shown up by now to clarify??

I would guess it would be a breach of lawyerly ethics to discuss this matter in public.

Tom

[Rob L]

And more to the point (if he is even the same person of the same name... and we can't nor need be 100% sure of that...), his profession, and what he does in that profession, has no bearing upon his standing here in this forum which to my knowledge is of the highest order.

[Scott P]

Dontcha think SC would have shown up by now to clarify??

Really? I don't know that much about the legal system, but I do know that posting on a public forum such as this would be a huge no-no.

I'm pretty sure it is him. The odds of having two lawyers in the same town with the name of Scott Card are pretty slim.

[dude9478]

Scott is right, it would be a really bad move for an attorney to post on an public forum about a ongoing legal matter.


Really? I don't know that much about the legal system, but I do know that posting on a public forum such as this would be a huge no-no.

I'm pretty sure it is him. The odds of having two lawyers in the same town with the name of Scott Card are pretty slim.

[cchoc]

Vandalism is such a casual thing and I expect most vandals don't really think about the consequences and are under little risk of getting caught. These guys destroyed a natural formation, not just tipped over a porta pottie, and deserve to be punished. If a felony fits they should wear it.

[Sun Dance]

If a felony fits they should wear it.

The point is that a felony and jail time DON'T fit. It fits about as well as incarcerating pot smokers.

[cchoc]

The point is that a felony and jail time DON'T fit. It fits about as well as incarcerating pot smokers.

Nope. That formation is gone forever, smoking pot is not a valid comparison. Nor is them turning your car upside down or tagging your house. since man made objects can can be repaired. Letting them off easy gives sends the wrong message, but you're probably right that they will skate.

[Sun Dance]

Fine. Give the guy that tipped it a felony. No one will ever do it again, at least while allowing themselves to be filmed. You can only legislate good behavior to a point. All scofflaws that really want to will find ways to commit crimes and not get caught.

How about his filming buddy? Does he deserve a felony too? Since when did it become illegal to film something, as long as the party being filmed gave consent? What kind of Nazi Gestapo police pig state do we live in?

[Sun Dance]

And smoking pot IS a valid comparison, as far as the DEA is concerned. You smoke pot, your brain cells are gone forever, thus negatively impacting society to the point we must incarcerate them to avoid the opportunity cost.

[TommyBoy]

Its not just that he filmed it, but he obviously didn't try to stop it either and so was complicit in the act.

[Sun Dance]

Its not just that he filmed it, but he obviously didn't try to stop it either and so was complicit in the act.

So what? What obligation do I have to stop a crime I see happening? Last I checked, our government went out of its way to encourage us to not interfere with criminals in the act, lest we get hurt. And if it's a crime to not report a crime you happen to observe, even that you stood and watched, I call bullshit. The reaponsibility lies with the person that committed the act, no one else.

[Sun Dance]

Its not just that he filmed it, but he obviously didn't try to stop it either and so was complicit in the act.

And is the filming buddy guilty of the same degree of crime? Really? You're going to slap both with equal felonies? Something doesn't add up. Obviously the judge will have common sense and give the main perp the higher sentence, but the state park bureaucrats had to make a statement.

[TommyBoy]

Sure if its a random criminal on the street, but this was his friend I highly doubt he would get shived for telling him to stop. You are probably right about the legal obligation, but he damn well had a moral obligation to tell him to stop and so I say go for the charges. If they stick great, if not maybe it will at least make him think twice about standing around cheering on his criminal friends.

[TommyBoy]

Oh and I do agree that the guy standing around should get the lesser sentence. I'm sorry for not being clear on that. I do think he should be charged with something though.

[cchoc]

Oh good grief. I guess people should just have the right to go around Utah knocking things over to prove we don't have a police state. :crazycobasa:

[Iceaxe]

Really? I don't know that much about the legal system, but I do know that posting on a public forum such as this would be a huge no-no.

^^^THIS^^^

There is only one lawyer registered with the name Scott Card in the state of Utah.

[Sun Dance]

You are probably right about the legal obligation, but he damn well had a moral obligation to tell him to stop and so I say go for the charges.

So does that mean it's OK to start using the state to force my moral views on people? Haven't you been watching the gay rights movement over the last few months? Is it now OK for me to throw someone in jail for giving his wife oral sex because I think it's wrong and will degrade society? I hope you see the hilarity, ridiculousness, and futility of this kind of thinking. This is the reason we have laws - so we can tell the difference between morality and legality.

[deagol]

And smoking pot IS a valid comparison, as far as the DEA is concerned. You smoke pot, your brain cells are gone forever, thus negatively impacting society to the point we must incarcerate them to avoid the opportunity cost.
Humans are replaceable... natural features are not..

[Absolute Gravity]

Really? I don't know that much about the legal system, but I do know that posting on a public forum such as this would be a huge no-no.


Scott is right, it would be a really bad move for an attorney to post on an public forum about a ongoing legal matter.


^^^THIS^^^

There is only one lawyer registered with the name Scott Card in the state of Utah.

I think that was Bob's point. The fact that Scott hasn't shown up to clarify ( for this obvious reason) points to it being him.

[oldno7]

How dare he(SC) take a case without first consulting the bogley attorneys..:haha:

[cchoc]

Looks like the scouts visited Death Valley too:

71773

Too bad they'll never catch these jerks unless someone turns them in.

[Sun Dance]

What did they do here? I guess I'm not seeing it.

[cchoc]

What did they do here? I guess I'm not seeing it.

This is a place called the Racetrack Playa in Death Valley. It's a great place to take pictures of the rocks and their paths across the playa. Right by where the white truck is parked is a sign that says to stay off when muddy, It will probably take years for nature to clean up their footprints. It's basically just having respect for those who come along after you do.

[ratagonia]

It's basically just having respect for those who come along after you do.

Why would anyone ever do that????




















:moses:

[SRG]

Nope. That formation is gone forever, smoking pot is not a valid comparison.

When you find the pot that isn't "gone forever" after you smoke it... please give me some :haha:

[Slot Machine]

I don't think Scott Card owes anyone, especially you, an explanation of the philosophy behind his client selection. In thread after thread on here... Edited because there's no reason for me to be a dick

???

Was just saying SC would clear his own name if Taylor wasn't his client. And faster than a fat boy could push over a hoodoo, I might add.

[Sombeech]

Looks like the scouts visited Death Valley too:

71773

Too bad they'll never catch these jerks unless someone turns them in.

Sometimes, "damage" means it won't be as cool as a photograph for the next visitor, as in footsteps in the mud. No ecosystem is disrupted by scouts, creatures aren't changing their feeding habits, it just doesn't look as awesome on facebook because your friends will know you're not the first one there.

The footprints in the above picture were left at different times by different people as well. I believe "sharing the environment" means that from time to time, we won't get the photograph that we really wanted. It doesn't necessarily mean a Disturbance in the Force. Time will "heal" these footprints with each rainstorm, and then the photographers can be at peace with the illusion of solitude, just as long as they crop that parking spot out of their photograph so their fans will assume they hiked 3 days in to get the shot.

As for tipping over the goblin, yeah, that is a permanent change to the landscape, although none of us would never ever know where this particular goblin was without trying to research it.

Riding or walking on a trail when it's muddy? That constitutes actual trail damage, because ruts or holes can be left on the trail making the riding / travel difficult and bumpy. Horse riders, hikers and mountain bikers can be ticketed when traveling certain trails in the mud. This has nothing to do with how photogenic it is.

[cchoc]

So ignoring a sign saying to stay off when wet is cool? I know many people don't value being considerate of others, I just don't have much use for them.

And if you have ever been out to the playa you'd realize its a long way to drive just to get your boots muddy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Sombeech]

So ignoring a sign saying to stay off when wet is cool?




Nope, never said anything of the sort.

I'm saying some consider it damage when they don't get the photograph they desired.

[Scott P]

Time will "heal" these footprints with each rainstorm, and then the photographers can be at peace with the illusion of solitude, just as long as they crop that parking spot out of their photograph so their fans will assume they hiked 3 days in to get the shot.

Time will; it just takes a long time to erase the marks in this location. When muddy, footprints there can last several decades or even hundreds of years. It doesn't rain often there, so muddy conditions are rare.

Anyway, the moving rocks are pretty cool:

http://www.nps.gov/deva/planyourvisit/the-racetrack.htm

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=moving+rocks+in+death+valley+national+par k&qpvt=moving+rocks+in+death+valley+national+park&FORM=IGRE

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Death+Valley+Moving+Rocks+Theory&FORM=RESTAB

There are several theories of why the rocks move, but no one really knows for sure and no one has ever seen one move:

http://geology.com/articles/racetrack-playa-sliding-rocks.shtml

Time lapse is hard to catch since they only move an estimated few seconds in a period of three or more years.

[cchoc]

Nope, never said anything of the sort.

I'm saying some consider it damage when they don't get the photograph they desired.

That's not what I said, and I'm not trying to impress you or anyone else with my photos. That said, I still consider the folks who did this inconsiderate jerks. I do try and love my neighbor, but there are some I'd just rather not have as a neighbor.

[Sombeech]

Time will; it just takes a long time to erase the marks in this location. When muddy, footprints there can last several decades or even hundreds of years. It doesn't rain often there, so muddy conditions are rare.

For sure, and although there are only theories to how the rocks move, moisture is most likely involved. So i was going to add that footprints probably won't change the course of the rock, as that same moisture that moves the rock will most likely erase the footprints.

Definitely an intriguing mystery as to how they move.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Scott P]

So i was going to add that footprints probably won't change the course of the rock, as that same moisture that moves the rock will most likely erase the footprints.

Yes, moisture will for sure eventually erase them. But it could take decades or hundreds of years. If moisture erases the footprints, it would also erase the "trail" behind the rock.

As for changing the course of the rock, actually it would. Although no one knows for sure, the ice raft theory is the most plausible and accepted. Unlike a rock, the footprints wouldn't move while skimming across on an ice raft. For the rocks to move, the surface has to be almost completely flat.

You can tell that the rocks moved at different times (notice the different paths) and probably years apart as well:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7052/6860995155_03f8e95968_z.jpg

If the "trails" are still there after several years, footprints will be as well. When dry, the surface is almost rock hard, so footprints aren't much of a problem.

[xxnitsuaxx]

???

Was just saying SC would clear his own name if Taylor wasn't his client. And faster than a fat boy could push over a hoodoo, I might add.

And I'm saying that he shouldn't give a single thought to "clearing his name" in your eyes. Scott Card likely doesn't care what you think, and for good reason. What kind of special breed of arrogance motivates you to expect someone to justify their career choices to you? Why should anyone waste a single minute worrying what you think about their decisions? You've come a long way, Slot Machine. Your bombastic and contemptuous screeds used to be directed at people who disagreed with your canyoneering philosophies; you now expect others to take all of your opinions seriously and justify themselves to you. It's been fun watching your trajectory.

[Slot Machine]

And I'm saying that he shouldn't give a single thought to "clearing his name" in your eyes. Scott Card likely doesn't care what you think, and for good reason. What kind of special breed of arrogance motivates you to expect someone to justify their career choices to you? Why should anyone waste a single minute worrying what you think about their decisions? You've come a long way, Slot Machine. Your bombastic and contemptuous screeds used to be directed at people who disagreed with your canyoneering philosophies; you now expect others to take all of your opinions seriously and justify themselves to you. It's been fun watching your trajectory.

:roll: :yawn:

Not arrogance motivates, but endless curiosity about all people that make choices that are opposite of what I would choose. Not saying that so-and-so is wrong, or I am right. I simply like to push people to prove me wrong. (Which on this thread, if SC could have participated, he clearly would have.)

You ask some questions that seem rhetorical, but are not. Nobody has to play on the Bogley playground, including you Austin. You don't have to read OR care about what I write. Neither does SC, which I assume he does not. How much a person cares is entirely up to the individual. I expect nobody to care about anything I write. From experience, Bogley is just not a wise place to invest any emotion.

71784

That being said, I like it when SC plays, as he often has well thought out opinions, not that I agree with any of them.

Back on topic: This thread is about law, a criminal, and his defender, NOT canyoneering. I've stayed on topic, and learned a bit. Do YOU have any content to share Austin? Do YOU have anything to contribute to this thread OTHER than personal attacks? :coffee:

[Sombeech]

I still consider the folks who did this inconsiderate jerks.

Absolutely! I agree. To ignore the warnings and to walk in the mud is inconsiderate. I just wouldn't call these footprints damage. They have temporarily interrupted the photogenic opportunity of this one particular racetrack.

Graffiti on canyon walls? Yeah, that's damage.
Tipping over goblins? Yeah.
Fire damage outside of a designated campfire spot? Yeah
Muddy ruts on a trail that will harden into a rough road? Yeah

Muddy footprints on the flats that make a photo less appealing, in my opinion, not damage. Ignoring the sign/policy though is still inconsiderate, but whether or not the sign is there, you can draw a distinction if this is damage or not.

[cchoc]

Absolutely! I agree. To ignore the warnings and to walk in the mud is inconsiderate. I just wouldn't call these footprints damage. They have temporarily interrupted the photogenic opportunity of this one particular racetrack.

Graffiti on canyon walls? Yeah, that's damage.
Tipping over goblins? Yeah.
Fire damage outside of a designated campfire spot? Yeah
Muddy ruts on a trail that will harden into a rough road? Yeah

Muddy footprints on the flats that make a photo less appealing, in my opinion, not damage. Ignoring the sign/policy though is still inconsiderate, but whether or not the sign is there, you can draw a distinction if this is damage or not.

Most of the people who come to the playa do so for photography. It will take years for the footprints to go away. If someone took a crap on the playa it wouldn't be damage, leaving muddy footprints is.

I do a *lot* of traveling and try to leave each place I visit as much as it was when I arrived as possible. To me that's just being responsible.

[Sombeech]

If someone took a crap on the playa it wouldn't be damage .

No, it could be indecent exposure, it could be considered littering, it could be considered a lot of things.

Let's not get in a pissing match over it anyways.

[cchoc]

No, it could be indecent exposure, it could be considered littering, it could be considered a lot of things.

Let's not get in a pissing match over it anyways.

Long after the big deuce was gone the footprints would still be there, ruining the view for those that made the drive. You are the one splitting hairs on what defines damage, I'm just trying to help you understand the distinction - and it would take a much more massive pissing match than either of us could complete to clean up the footprints. :lol8:

As it is, I feel like we have made our opinions clear on the subject. :nod:

[accadacca]

I just got back from Death Valley last weekend. I didn't visit this area but did wonder how they kept people from damaging the area. Strange enough, when I got home I heard about this incident.

[canyoncaver]

No, it could be indecent exposure, it could be considered littering, it could be considered a lot of things.

Let's not get in a pissing match over it anyways.


Ummmmm, sorry but you are the one promoting the pissing match. You have had several people state that the racetrack footprints will likely be around for decades, yet you continue to insist that they are ephemeral, and will be erased by the next rain. They will not. As someone else pointed out, the fact that you can see the rocks' trails proves you wrong.

This is most certainly damage, and was perpretrated in clear violation of a sign that not only asks you not to do it, but also explains the very good reasons why they don't want you to do it.

For me, this falls in the same category as Goblin-toppling. It is only a slightly different flavor of ignorance. I would support charges against the people that willingly did it. Maybe not a felony conviction, but felony charges that get plea bargained to misdemeanor fines and community service would suit me just fine.

As for this quote:


Sometimes, "damage" means it won't be as cool as a photograph for the next visitor, as in footsteps in the mud. No ecosystem is disrupted by scouts, creatures aren't changing their feeding habits, it just doesn't look as awesome on facebook because your friends will know you're not the first one there.

This quote describes exactly the reason why society places a high value on conservation. We are really protecting it for ourselves, and for those that will succeed us. There is little doubt that the earth and most of its processes will out-live the human species. The aim of conservation is to preserve the earth for the benefit of humans. We as a society believe that society is better off with un-toppled goblins and racetrack playas that are untracked by humans. National parks exist for the "benefit and enjoyment of the people." For Racetrack visitors, that enjoyment will be diminished for the next few years. Is it really so unfathomable that someone should pay a nominal fine as a token repayment for this loss of enjoyment?

[Sombeech]

For me, this falls in the same category as Goblin-toppling. It is only a slightly different flavor of ignorance. I would support charges against the people that willingly did it. Maybe not a felony conviction....


"Maybe" not a felony for these footprints? Imma hafta say definitely not a felony, unless a law exists stating the opposite.

This is where the contrast between emotion and law come into play. You should get a felony conviction if certain laws were broken and that they are punishable by felony conviction.

There are many policies, rules, and suggestions that shouldn't have a felony tied to them, and in my opinion this is one of them. Should there be a consequence? Absolutely. But when you start pushing for felony charges every time a rule is broken by some dumbass, then the significance of a felony starts to decrease and everything is a felony.

So when our buddy Scott Card successfully defends these idiots in keeping them out of felony zone, we'll have a bunch of armchair lawyers that think they know how the law should really work and "what Scott Card did wrong".

It's similar to how I work for a School District, when I hear somebody did 10 over in a School Zone, and that person should be arrested, I just roll my eyes. It doesn't mean I support speeding in School Zones, I just support the documented punishment that fits the law.

I've never said, nor even suggested it's ok to break these rules. I support the notion that it doesn't take a felony charge to make these idiots sorry for what they've done, and that this whole incident has taught a lot of people these acts of vandalism are unacceptable.

The publicity of this case has done more to reform them and many others, than a felony could have EVER done. I do support due punishment though.

[deagol]

when the sentencing happens (assuming they are found guilty) there should be another wave of publicity that should hopefully send another message about how wrong it was to even think about doing something like this

[Spidey]

I can end the speculation if you would like. Yes it is the Scott Card that posts on Bogley, John Wayne avatar and all.
No he won't discuss it here.
Yes the accused deserve the best possible defense team as does anyone accused of a crime. (Regardless of anyone's feelings about the crime.)
I agree with Austin, He owes no one an explanation of any kind, unquenchable curiosity or not. (Regardless of anyone's feelings about the crime.) I will not discuss his reasoning to take the case either. (Not my place)

Scott Card is a Great attorney, but a much BETTER man. Tread Lightly.

Take Care, Spidey

[deagol]

This has been posted elsewhere, but
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57695025-78/goblin-hall-state-rock.html.csp

[hank moon]

This has been posted elsewhere, but
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57695025-78/goblin-hall-state-rock.html.csp

From the link:

"The men were sentenced Tuesday afternoon to a year of probation and no jail time after pleading guilty to knocking over an ancient rock formation in the state park."

Nice job keeping them out of jail, Scott! I hope the warning signs don't diminish the beauty of the place.

[Sombeech]

Posted here:
http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?71637-Goblin-Valley-Clowns-get-off-with-probation

[Scott Card]

From the link:

"The men were sentenced Tuesday afternoon to a year of probation and no jail time after pleading guilty to knocking over an ancient rock formation in the state park."

Nice job keeping them out of jail, Scott! I hope the warning signs don't diminish the beauty of the place. We have no say in how the restitution will be spent but the word is that it will be for signs. Ya, I know, signs......<sigh> I offered to build trails, fix campgrounds, remove trash or graffiti, etc. but our offers to actually help the community were summarily rejected by the powers that be in the state. So we get signs.

[ratagonia]

We have no say in how the restitution will be spent but the word is that it will be for signs. Ya, I know, signs......<sigh> I offered to build trails, fix campgrounds, remove trash or graffiti, etc. but our offers to actually help the community were summarily rejected by the powers that be in the state. So we get signs.

(sigh)

Yes, a bunch of signs is a REALLY GOOD WAY to enhance the natural beauty of Goblin Valley.

Perhaps it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway -

If you can't figure out that a goblin or two might fall over once or twice a year, and that you should not be underneath it when it does; or that it is not your job to push over goblins because "it's awesome yeeee haaaaawwww"; then... (facepalm)

Tom

[deagol]

hopefully they will put the signs up at the parking lot and not down amongst the goblins...