Goblin Valley vandals Charged

[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. 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-encycloped...ion-33814.html

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*

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.

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!

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??

[hank moon]

*friendly debate tone*

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!

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

[Iceaxe]

*friendly debate tone*

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.

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 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??

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