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.

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...

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

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.

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?

[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]

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?

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