Booby traps on Provo Canyon hiking trail.

[Jaxx]

I hike this trail all the time. Sometimes with my kids. What assholes.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ng-hikers?lite

By msnbc.com news services
SALT LAKE CITY -- A deadly booby trap rigged along a popular Utah trail could have killed someone if they had tripped a ground wire set up to send a 20-pound, spiked boulder swinging into an unsuspecting hiker, authorities said Monday.
Another trap was designed to trip a passer-by into a bed of sharpened wooden stakes, authorities said.
"This looks like something done just for the sake of hurting someone ... it's like something just out of someone's evil mind," Utah County Sheriff's Sergeant Spencer Cannon said. "This was not something just done as an afterthought. They took a lot of time to carve those sticks."



Two men arrested over the weekend on suspicion of misdemeanor reckless endangerment told authorities the traps were intended for wildlife, but investigators didn't believe the story.
Benjamin Steven Rutkowski, 19, of Orem and Kai Matthew Christensen, 21, of Provo were booked in the Utah County Jail on Saturday and released on bail. Prosecutors believed the misdemeanor reckless endangerment allegations were the strongest claims they could pursue without anyone being injured.
The suspects built a dead-wood shelter as a possible lure for hikers who could step inside only through the two booby-trapped entrances, Cannon said. "This is a shelter put together by people, visited by people

[Sombeech]

Despicable. These kinds of traps are set for mountain bikers, dirt bikers, and even horseback riders too. Should be tried as attempted murder.

[BruteForce]

I've love to slap the smirk off that jackass's face. These guys are now known and hopefully justice will be meted out next time they're seen on any trail.

[tcott]

Despicable. These kinds of traps are set for mountain bikers, dirt bikers, and even horseback riders too. Should be tried as attempted murder.

X2
What a bunch of morons.

[Scott Card]

And the one has quite attractive earlobes.

[bowjunkie]

And the one has quite attractive earlobes.

[accadacca]

I heard about this and now reading it. Couple jackasses...

[Iceaxe]

I hope the courts really hammer these guys for this..... if someone placed an IED in downtown SLC they would be sent to jail and never see the light of day for the rest of there lives. The same should apply to this weapon.. it is a terrorist device and tactic which should carry a severe penalty.

[ChanManYFZLV]

What a bunch of A-Holes !!!!!

[tallsteve]

I've had the opportunity to work with LEO James of the Forest Service on a few occasions and, because of the volunteer work I do with them, I have his cell phone number on my phone. The best was about a year and a half ago when some elk hunters threatened myself, another volunteer and Ranger Cheryl when Cheryl told them to stop shooting from the road. We watched them lay down on the Cascade Springs paved road and shoot, across the road, an elk up in a meadow, about 400 yards away. It was a TENSE situation. They had rifles, we didn't. I was fully prepared to place myself in harms way to protect her and told her I had her back. These idiots had no regard for ANYONE in a uniform. It got heated enough that Cheryl radioed for James, who was already in the area. He showed up a few minutes later and defused the situation. I wouldn’t want to mess with the guy. He carries the confidant air of a man that isn’t afraid of much and knows how to take care of himself.

[Scott Card]

Depending on when and where the court is held, I may just pay a visit to these two at the time of sentencing. I would be glad to voice the above opinions on behalf of an outdoorsman and all outdoorsman. I have rarely involved myself in any case other than my client's but there needs to be a clear message sent to these jerks and to others out there that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated by society.

[restrac2000]

I hope the courts really hammer these guys for this..... if someone placed an IED in downtown SLC they would be sent to jail and never see the light of day for the rest of there lives. The same should apply to this weapon.. it is a terrorist device and tactic which should carry a severe penalty.

Hopefully these two young men will be tried to the full extent of the law (which unfortunately doesn't sound like much in the newspaper). It was a disturbing and violent choice they made. But lets not add "terrorism" to the list of charges or we may further devalue that term. Lest we forget, terrorism and terrorist implies a political aim by even the vaguest of definitions.

[Scott Card]

Hopefully these two young men will be tried to the full extent of the law (which unfortunately doesn't sound like much in the newspaper). It was a disturbing and violent choice they made. But lets not add "terrorism" to the list of charges or we may further devalue that term. Lest we forget, terrorism and terrorist implies a political aim by even the vaguest of definitions.

That is not completely accurate. Utah Code Annotated section 53-2-102(12) states:
"Terrorism" means activities that:

(a) involve acts dangerous to human life;
(b) are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of this state; and
(c) to a reasonable person, would appear to be intended to:
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

Notice paragraph is "c" is disjunctive and that c(i) doesn't have a political component to it.

I think that terrorism under the code is appropriate particularly section 76-5-107.3 which is the Threat of Terrorism code section and a third degree felony. I wish they could find or I hope they have found a grow operation or drugs in the area because they could potentially pin a first degree felony on these two for setting a booby trap to protect drug activity.

The above are a couple of state laws. I haven't heard whether they will be tried in State Court of Federal Court. As of a few minutes ago they were not listed on the dockest of the State courts.

[restrac2000]

You sound vindictive, Scott. Now you are hoping for imaginary crimes so they receive more severe penalties. Thats a disturbing interpretation of justice.

Can I ask how a disguised booby trap is meant to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population"? Thats beyond stretching it to me. Its inconsistent with the fact that the officer and article mentioned the device took a skilled person to even notice. Historically, before all the 9/11 hyperbole and posturing, terrorism was a very public act of intimidation and aggression. This was a subtle, hidden device (that was obviously meant to inflict harm). Hard to intimidate and coerce with such a hidden mechanism.

As to the "political" element.....yep, laws are now broader than every on terrorism charges. This has been well documented for at least a decade. Our legal system is often very reactive and not very considerate. But that doesn't eradicate that sometime before 9/11 and Oklahoma that terrorism implied political coercion. You will notice 2/3s of the definitions in the law you cited recognize that history.

[Scott Card]

Not vindictive, Phil, experienced. Not to in any way sound condescending but, I have seen prosecutors file just such charges on a client of mine based on a dry ice bomb placed on the front porch of a person's home. In my client's case, a one liter bottle was hidden at night and went off and slightly dented the siding of the home. That was it. The bottle was placed as a joke. This statute is precisely the kind of charge that could be filed in this case. What you may not understand is that prosecutors, many of them at least, file any and all charges they can think of that they think will or could stick. In law school, criminal law exams were known as "race horse" exams -- meaning that given a fact pattern by the professor, the object of the exam was to write as many statutes that applied to the facts and then justify them- however you could. I can see a very viable argument for this statute being charged. Would this kind of trap not be construed by a reasonable person as intimidation -- intimidation to stay away in the future, stay away from that area, stay away from the mountains in general? Are these guys environmental extremists? Can the prosecution paint them as such? Are they lovers of South Fork and want no one else there? One has a drug history... are they protecting a stash, a grow or a party place? This is the kind of stuff that keeps people out of the mountains. As to your point that the trap required a trained eye, isn't a backpack full of bombs a disguised or subtle and hard to determine "terroristic act"? You don't have to label a thing or act or make it obvious to the untrained eye to be a terrorist act or thing. Almost everything a terrorist does is hidden, subtle, or covert and is not known until often too late. Also, hindsight is used to build the case of motive and perhaps terrorism. I assume the investigators are doing exactly that as we speak. Charging on this statute is not a hard sell to a jury, particularly post 9/11. As a defense attorney, you gotta think like a prosecutor at times and realize that a jury could very well convict on these charges. Even if you don't like the argument, I would not be surprised if these guys were charged with a terrorism related charge.

Yes I agree that 2/3's of th statute applies to something political. But one third does not. But that is not what I said in my previous post. I said that you were not "completely accurate" - which is accurate.

[canyonphile]

I can see a very viable argument for this statute being charged. Would this kind of trap not be construed by a reasonable person as intimidation -- intimidation to stay away in the future, stay away from that area, stay away from the mountains in general? Are these guys environmental extremists? Can the prosecution paint them as such? Are they lovers of South Fork and want no one else there? One has a drug history... are they protecting a stash, a grow or a party place? This is the kind of stuff that keeps people out of the mountains. As to your point that the trap required a trained eye, isn't a backpack full of bombs a disguised or subtle and hard to determine "terroristic act"? You don't have to label a thing or act or make it obvious to the untrained eye to be a terrorist act or thing. Almost everything a terrorist does is hidden, subtle, or covert and is not known until often too late. Also, hindsight is used to build the case of motive and perhaps terrorism. I assume the investigators are doing exactly that as we speak. Charging on this statute is not a hard sell to a jury, particularly post 9/11.

As a "reasonable person", this very much strikes me as a type of terrorist act. If I were living in the area and used that hiking trail, I'd be anxious knowing this had even happened, regardless that no one was injured. And definitely intimidated.

Even if it was done for no specific reason (like those you mentioned, Scott) and this is just their manifestation as sociopaths, I hope as many charges as possible stick to these two. They are, assuming they are found guilty and thus responsible for installing this trap, a menace to society and a possible threat to the safety and well-being of citizens. If they never saw the light of day again, I am sure many people would be relieved.

I bet that smirking jackass won't be smiling when he becomes someone's prison bitch; I'd love to see his expression then.

I see it occurred on USFS land. Which means it falls under the jurisdiction of the US District Court, and thus, will go before a grand jury (who will presumably find probable cause to have it go to trial) and thus be prosecuted as a federal crime - is that correct, Scott? I know here in CO it would be. Interesting to be a juror in a trial like this...

[restrac2000]

Not vindictive, Phil, experienced. Not to in any way sound condescending but, I have seen prosecutors file just such charges on a client of mine based on a dry ice bomb placed on the front porch of a person's home. In my client's case, a one liter bottle was hidden at night and went off and slightly dented the siding of the home. That was it. The bottle was placed as a joke. This statute is precisely the kind of charge that could be filed in this case. What you may not understand is that prosecutors, many of them at least, file any and all charges they can think of that they think will or could stick. In law school, criminal law exams were known as "race horse" exams -- meaning that given a fact pattern by the professor, the object of the exam was to write as many statutes that applied to the facts and then justify them- however you could. I can see a very viable argument for this statute being charged. Would this kind of trap not be construed by a reasonable person as intimidation -- intimidation to stay away in the future, stay away from that area, stay away from the mountains in general? Are these guys environmental extremists? Can the prosecution paint them as such? Are they lovers of South Fork and want no one else there? One has a drug history... are they protecting a stash, a grow or a party place? This is the kind of stuff that keeps people out of the mountains. As to your point that the trap required a trained eye, isn't a backpack full of bombs a disguised or subtle and hard to determine "terroristic act"? You don't have to label a thing or act or make it obvious to the untrained eye to be a terrorist act or thing. Almost everything a terrorist does is hidden, subtle, or covert and is not known until often too late. Also, hindsight is used to build the case of motive and perhaps terrorism. I assume the investigators are doing exactly that as we speak. Charging on this statute is not a hard sell to a jury, particularly post 9/11. As a defense attorney, you gotta think like a prosecutor at times and realize that a jury could very well convict on these charges. Even if you don't like the argument, I would not be surprised if these guys were charged with a terrorism related charge.

Yes I agree that 2/3's of th statute applies to something political. But one third does not. But that is not what I said in my previous post. I said that you were not "completely accurate" - which is accurate.

I can understand the "not being surprised" perspective with your legal background. I don't think much would surprise me anymore and even people labeling this as "terrorism" doesn't surprise me.

On the other hand, labeling it as appropriate and vocalizing a lust for them finding even more so they get significantly more time seems odd to me.

Per the trained eye element......classic examples of terrorism could involve a hidden device but how often are they of such limited violence? The example you use to me is the difference; a backpack full of bombs is intentionally a diffuse attack intended to kill as many people as possible. These "booby traps" were at most a 1-2 person affair from the sounds of it. That to me is the difference between a violent attack on a couple people versus a terrorist attack on a "civilian population".

Its an abortion of justice to me when people comment like I have heard on this event. Yep, these guys are despicable and obviously wanted to hurt someone. But seeking charges of such a loose definition of "terrorism" to me is sickening. I devalues the word and history of what it truly means. Its one thing to hear a civilian population reacting in such a way but it seems that such a loaded, historically specific charge should be a "hard sell" for the legal system.

I will stick by vindictive even though you backed off a bit (going from I wish and hope to "not surprised"). Hard not see stretching such an isolated event to its most extreme interpretation of intent as anything but vindictive.

Feel grateful that I am not a lawyer or a client in such a fouled up system. Really reminds me that there is a difference between law and justice. I think we are talking across that wide gap. I lose even more faith in the idea of law every time I hear people engaged in the process talk like this. I lose even more faith in our citizens every time someone uses the word in such a historically disingenuous manner. Long live a reactive, overly fearful population......we accomplish such great things with that mindset.

Phillip

[restrac2000]

And to clarify....I have had run in with lots of terrorists with this type of interpretation. The fish hooks hung from the Appalachian Trail near easements through private property would definitely be a form a terrorism.....despite the fact everyone walked around them. The night my friends a few tents down from me were circled by ATVs by drunken locals. The bullets fired over our heads while sleeping outside of Zion NP a few years back of course must count. How about the guy down the road last week who swerved at me. Hell, road rage must be a form of terrorism. Or the folks who through large fireworks into the campfire on Powell. I feared camping there ever again so that must count.

I feel pity for people who live by such fear that everything is terrorism.

[canyonphile]

[...] The night my friends a few tents down from me were circled by ATVs by drunken locals. The bullets fired over our heads while sleeping outside of Zion NP a few years back of course must count. How about the guy down the road last week who swerved at me. Hell, road rage must be a form of terrorism. Or the folks who through large fireworks into the campfire on Powell. I feared camping there ever again so that must count.

I feel pity for people who live by such fear that everything is terrorism.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, Phillip, and I respect your thoughts and personal opinions about this subject. FTR, I'm not one who goes fearing that everything is terrorism.

I think, the way I view it is, is the difference with the situations you describe is that they only meet a few of the criteria Scott listed as per the Utah Code. Also, context is everything: I doubt anyone here has not had encounters with drunken a-holes shooting off guns or fireworks (and maybe a few here would even admit to having participated in similar unsavory drunken behavior in the past...), but it's usually an isolated incident, unplanned, and perhaps not necessarily designed to kill people. People being reckless dicks, basically, is how I'd describe those incidents.

Things that have happened domestically that I consider terrorist acts:

- Spreading of anthrax spores through the US mail
- the pair of snipers that were shooting random people in the DC area (I think?)
- everything the Unabomber did
- me trying to bring a bottle of drinking water onto an airplane (oh, wait...that's just my nod to the absurdity of that particular stupid and over-the-top TSA restriction)

If someone started planting mines in Lake Powell that would blow up boats, that I would define as domestic, terrorism. Or if someone started tossing grenades into campgrounds around Moab during peak season. Or, setting up IED's along the Poison Spider Jeep trail. Etc.

With that intent in mind, the booby trap could fall into that category. It might be a bit of a stretch, but given the intent to kill, intimidate and change policy of the government, it could fit. About the only thing that keeps it from squarely falling into a terrorist act is that it probably would only injure or kill a few people instead of many. Still, if they planted those buried spikes and made more trip wires along different trails...?

[restrac2000]

Actually my examples meet all the requirements mentioned by Scott:

"(a) involve acts dangerous to human life;
(b) are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of this state; and
(c) to a reasonable person, would appear to be intended to:
(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"

The others below c-i are disjunctive as Scott pointed out, i.e. it only need to meet one of the three sub categories. The fish hook example I used is the exact same thing as this situation. They were strung across trails at head height and very much intended to injure people (i.e dangerous).

I have yet to see them wanting to change political policy and Scott has argued that is not needed in the prosecution.

I agree with the examples you provided and I think there have been countless other examples. I think using the word in this case is a disservice to the people and populations who were victims of what I consider intentional/legitimate terrorism. Even more so I would say Shane's IED comparison is disrespectful to the thousands of American soldiers who have been maimed, disabled and killed by those weapons. Its not remotely similar.

I could see this as terrorism if there were multiple sites and they intentionally mentioned a purpose. Their response shows a cowardice that isn't often common with terrorist. Most terrorist own their actions as to increase the intimidation and coercion. Not very coercive or intimidating to civilian populations when you claim your aim was to kill animals.

Who knows what will come out of this investigation. Maybe they are cowards who did have larger plans and broader goals that could fit my understanding of terrorism. Still a lot of time for the case to develop. Until then I am not willing to lob these stupid, young punks into the same category as Al Quieda, Timothy McVeigh, the Austin plane attack, anthrax or their ilk. They are a specific, despicable group in my book who deserve all the implications the word terror carries.

I don't want to confuse this critique with any pity for these idiots. They should get serious jail time and deal with the social repercussions. I just have faith that the legal and social structure of our country can delineate between this type of violence and terrorism (back to Shane's comment...there is a fundamental difference between an IED placed downtown and this isolated, primitive weapon).