Haha very funny motherfuckers (hiking trail boobytrapped)

[Snowboarder Bo]

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.

What the fuck was going on in these guys heads? Did they think this would be a terrific late April Fool's joke? Were they gonna come back to the scene and laugh at the corpse?

What.
The.
Fuck?

I'm a hiker, and the thought of going off with a couple of friends for a good hike, only to have someone end up injured or dead because of malice aforethought by some anonymous douchebag pisses me off. Luckily, the anonymous douchebags in this case weren't very bright about keeping their fool mouths shut.

a tipster alerted authorities about comments on Facebook that mentioned the traps and the shelter. Detectives then tracked down the suspects, Cannon said.

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.

I'd like to know when the trial date is, and then hear what the verdict & sentence are. If someone got hurt, then a whole slew of charges could be filed, including assault, mayhem and possibly attempted murder, but thankfully that didn't happen. Unfortunately, that means that authorities are prolly limited to charging the pair of idiots with something like misdemeanor reckless endangerment, which means that they'll get off fairly lightly for their heinous acts.

Assholes.

[drewtwo99]

Let me be the first to say that if you're going to setup traps to kill or maim people, do NOT go around telling others about the traps. Totally defeats the purpose.

And if you're going to use stakes, use sharpened metal spikes instead. Wood will rot and decay or get eaten up over time, reducing the effectiveness of your trap.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

I agree with your pitting, SnowBoarderBo, but you should have quoted the following from your linked article:

Originally Posted by Associated Press

The 20-pound spiked boulder was rigged to swing at head-level with just a trip of a thin wire - a military-like booby trap set on a popular Utah canyon trail. <<snip>> two men arrested over the weekend on suspicion of misdemeanor reckless endangerment told authorities the traps were intended for wildlife

The fuckers claimed it was meant for "wildlife". A spiked boulder at Human head height was meant for "wildlife". Unless they have velociraptors in the area, I don't buy that at all.

[Manduck]

Originally Posted by A Monkey With a Gun

I agree with your pitting, SnowBoarderBo, but you should have quoted the following from your linked article:
The fuckers claimed it was meant for "wildlife". A spiked boulder at Human head height was meant for "wildlife". Unless they have velociraptors in the area, I don't buy that at all.

Bigfoot!

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by A Monkey With a Gun

The fuckers claimed it was meant for "wildlife". A spiked boulder at Human head height was meant for "wildlife". Unless they have velociraptors in the area, I don't buy that at all.

Does wildlife in Utah commonly use hiking trails?

[gamerunknown]

Sound like psychopaths.

Originally Posted by Jesse Ventura

Until you've hunted man, you haven't hunted yet

Maybe they took that to heart and were planning on eating their prey?

[constanze]

Originally Posted by Associated Press
The 20-pound spiked boulder was rigged to swing at head-level with just a trip of a thin wire - a military-like booby trap set on a popular Utah canyon trail. <<snip>> two men arrested over the weekend on suspicion of misdemeanor reckless endangerment told authorities the traps were intended for wildlife

They are being charged with a misdemeanor? Isn't that the same category as a parking offence? Shouldn't they be charged with murder - setting a deadly trap with malice aforethought?

Also, a trap along a hiking trail was once used in a crime novel of the Anna Pigeon series. I wonder if they read that book and thought "good idea" or just watched some Rambo/ played some video games.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally Posted by Manduck

Bigfoot!

First off, a spiked boulder swinging at human head height is just going to hit a sasquatch in the shoulder (or mid upper arm if it's a male). It's not going to hurt it.

Second off: The spiked boulder is tied to a tree. Not many people know this, but bigfeet love tetherball. Last time I played that game with one of those chewbaca looking motherfuckers, he beat me 11 to 9 and got my last six pack of Sierra Nevada. There is no way in hell I'll play using a spiked boulder.

[Scholar Beardpig]

Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by Scholar Beardpig

Let's go to the quarry and throw stuff down there!

In this case it sounds like people were dragging stuff up from the quarry.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

Does wildlife in Utah commonly use hiking trails?

Wildlife everywhere commonly use hiking trails. It's much easier for bigger animals not to have to fight with the underbrush. Animals ain't stupid.

But these idiots need to have the book thrown at them. Perhaps an old World Book Encyclopedia Volume M. Then they should be put on trial.

[MOIDALIZE]

This is sort of the redneck version of chucking a cinder block off a freeway overpass.

[Bricker]

In their defense, the Roadrunner NEVER gets hurt when the Coyote does this stuff.

[CalMeacham]

I haven't hiked that trail (Provo was an hour's drive south of me), but I've hiked trails in the mountains near Salt Lake City. Certainly Provo, one of the larger metropolitan areas in Utah, and home of Brigham Young University, is a populous area with well-frequented hiking trails. Big Spring is apparently a short (3.5 - 5 mile, depoending on your source) trail that is rated "easy", is just off the road, and is even used for mountain biking:

http://www.utahmountainbiking.com/trails/bigsprng.htm


http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail...lid=HGS542-051




It's not as if they set these traps somewhere off in unfrequented wilderness. This report notes that they were half a mile from the trailhead, and that the trail is "popular":

http://www.goerie.com/article/20121204240583

The spiked ball had itsa tripwire set in a shelter, fer cryin' out loud:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ovo-trail.html

http://www.utahoutside.com/2012/04/b...ikers-in-utah/


Video of the traps in action (!)

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=960...r-hiking-trail

[carnivorousplant]

I wonder if they were after someone in particular.

[billfish678]

If the local legal system can't come up with something that will net these idiots some actual jail time I'd say the laws on the books need some updating and or the local prosecutors need to be a bit more creative/zealous.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by A Monkey With a Gun

The fuckers claimed it was meant for "wildlife". A spiked boulder at Human head height was meant for "wildlife". Unless they have velociraptors in the area, I don't buy that at all.

Don't believe everything Spielberg tells you. A raptor's head would be about knee-height on a human.

I'd still like to see half a dozen of them chow down on those fuckers.

[Dendarii Dame]

Originally Posted by constanze

Also, a trap along a hiking trail was once used in a crime novel of the Anna Pigeon series. I wonder if they read that book and thought "good idea" or just watched some Rambo/ played some video games.

Somehow, I don't see either of these guys reading an Anna Pigeon novel.

[CalMeacham]

Originally Posted by tdn

Don't believe everything Spielberg tells you. A raptor's head would be about knee-height on a human.

I'd still like to see half a dozen of them chow down on those fuckers.

Although curiously enough Utahraptors (!!) were about the size of the Velociraptors in that movie.


Appropriate, kinda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor

[tdn]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Although curiously enough Utahraptors (!!) were about the size of the Velociraptors in that movie.


Appropriate, kinda.

That explains a lot.

[Anne Neville]

Could these traps be set up to keep people away from some illegal activity that's going on in the park? I've heard of people using national parks to grow marijuana or to set up meth labs.

Anyone doing something like this would, of course, have a motive to lie about why they set up booby traps.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Could these traps be set up to keep people away from some illegal activity that's going on in the park? ... Anyone doing something like this would, of course, have a motive to lie about why they set up booby traps.

...but probably wouldn't post about the booby traps on facebook.

[silenus]

Take a look at their mugshots.

These smug little assholes need to do hard time.

[SmithCommaJohn]

Originally Posted by constanze

They are being charged with a misdemeanor? Isn't that the same category as a parking offence? Shouldn't they be charged with murder - setting a deadly trap with malice aforethought?

A misdemeanor is less severe than a felony, but a parking offense is generally classified as an "infraction." The exact categorization varies from state to state, but misdemeanors can typically carry up to a year in jail.

Also, one of the elements of murder is the actual killing of a person.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by constanze

Shouldn't they be charged with murder

Are you aware that a murder charge usually requires an actual, you know, death?

Originally Posted by constanze

...setting a deadly trap with malice aforethought?

Why don't you look up the Utah penal code and come back when you find that crime listed?

Look, i agree that it's pretty awful that something of this nature might only draw a misdemeanor charge, but we don't get to charge people with murder when no-one was actually killed, and we don't get to make up charges out of whole cloth to fit our sense of outrage.

[SmithCommaJohn]

So suddenly it's not good enough to T.P. your the principal's house?

[njtt]

Isn't attempted murder a felony?

[11811]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

This is sort of the redneck version of chucking a cinder block off a freeway overpass.

So cinderblock off an overpass is a white collar crime?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by njtt

Isn't attempted murder a felony?

Yes, i believe it is.

The issue, though, is whether something like this actually falls within the scope of Utah's Attempted Murder statute.

I'm of the opinion that, morally, it probably should, but that doesn't mean that it does. Anyone who has spent any time thinking and reading about legal issues knows that "What i think is right" and "What the law actually allows" are often two rather different things, and the prosecutors don't get to base their charges on "What i would like" if the law doesn't actually allow such charges.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by 11811

So cinderblock off an overpass is a white collar crime?

I say: Aloysius, old chap, the stunt I am prepared to enact posthaste shall be quite worth the attention should you be free to spare it.

[Anne Neville]

Originally Posted by bup

...but probably wouldn't post about the booby traps on facebook.

Unless, of course, they were an idiot. People post evidence of illegal activities online all the time, because they're idiots.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by mhendo

I'm of the opinion that, morally, it probably should, but that doesn't mean that it does. Anyone who has spent any time thinking and reading about legal issues knows that "What i think is right" and "What the law actually allows" are often two rather different things, and the prosecutors don't get to base their charges on "What i would like" if the law doesn't actually allow such charges.

Man,

I sure am glad someone cleared that up.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by billfish678

Man,

I sure am glad someone cleared that up.

Well, when someone asks, "Isn't attempted murder a felony" in a conversation like this, it seems to suggest that he or she believes that the person concerned should be charged with that crime under the current laws.

IOW: Bite me, fuck-knuckle.

[bup]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

Unless, of course, they were an idiot. People post evidence of illegal activities online all the time, because they're idiots.

True enough. I withdraw my observation. Whether or not they were 'protecting' some drug operation, posting about a lethal booby trap on facebook is hard to explain, except by idiocy.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Bricker

In their defense, the Roadrunner NEVER gets hurt when the Coyote does this stuff.

Yabbut that's in Arizona. THIS happened in Utah.

"What difference does that make?" I hear you cry.

"Shut up." says I.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Well, when someone asks, "Isn't attempted murder a felony" in a conversation like this, it seems to suggest that he or she believes that the person concerned should be charged with that crime under the current laws.

IOW: Bite me, fuck-knuckle.

And here I thought "asks" meant something more like asking...you know...a fucking question and not "grog thinks thing bad...grog think legal system do something...grog think legal system do whatever".

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by billfish678

And here I thought "asks" meant something more like asking...you know...a fucking question and not "grog thinks thing bad...grog think legal system do something...grog think legal system do whatever".

...You ain't from around here, are ya?

Scarcely a week goes by on this board where the difference between "what the law actually is/does" and "what [a RO devotee] would like for it to be/do" doesn't need to be painstakingly explicated to one poster or another. The only thing remarkable about this thread is that it's not Bricker doing the explicating for a change.

[SmithCommaJohn]

Originally Posted by Bricker

In their defense, the Roadrunner NEVER gets hurt when the Coyote does this stuff.

Unlike a certain canine trust-fund baby, these guys couldn't afford any of Acme's overpriced gizmos, and had to improvise.

They are the 99%, is what I'm saying.

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by tdn

Don't believe everything Spielberg tells you. A raptor's head would be about knee-height on a human.

Clever girls...

[sachertorte]

A slight tangent:

Prosecutors believed the misdemeanor reckless endangerment allegations were the strongest claims they could pursue without anyone being injured.

Does anyone else find this sentence strange/funny? I read it and thought for a moment that the prosecutors were afraid that if they brought higher charges someone would get hurt.
Just me? Okay.

Also, kudos to the badass park ranger.

[constanze]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Are you aware that a murder charge usually requires an actual, you know, death? Why don't you look up the Utah penal code and come back when you find that crime listed?

Usually the attempt for murder carries a stiff penalty, too.

Look, i agree that it's pretty awful that something of this nature might only draw a misdemeanor charge, but we don't get to charge people with murder when no-one was actually killed, and we don't get to make up charges out of whole cloth to fit our sense of outrage.

So they just need to try again? Funny how people can spend years in prison when nobody was hurt, just for firing a gun in the air to protect themselves, but attempted murder is not serious.

[constanze]

Originally Posted by mhendo

The issue, though, is whether something like this actually falls within the scope of Utah's Attempted Murder statute.

I'm of the opinion that, morally, it probably should, but that doesn't mean that it does. Anyone who has spent any time thinking and reading about legal issues knows that "What i think is right" and "What the law actually allows" are often two rather different things, and the prosecutors don't get to base their charges on "What i would like" if the law doesn't actually allow such charges.

Why would it not? There was intent and planning* and method. What else would a law need? (I hope you aren't going to tell me that this is one of those overly detailed laws?)

Planning is important to change from manslaughter - when a brawl spirals out of control, but there was no intent to kill - to murder: deliberate malice aforethought, not in the heat of emotions (or under influence) but with calm thought.

[constanze]

Originally Posted by MOIDALIZE

This is sort of the redneck version of chucking a cinder block off a freeway overpass.

Is that only a misdemeanor, too, in your country? Or at least serious bodily harm?

[constanze]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Well, when someone asks, "Isn't attempted murder a felony" in a conversation like this, it seems to suggest that he or she believes that the person concerned should be charged with that crime under the current laws.

So you disagree that attempted murder is serious, or do you disagree that they should be charged with it? I don't quite understand why it's just "ha ha misdemeanor, they are stupid" instead of "serious attempt to kill other people, lets put them in prison".

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Scarcely a week goes by on this board where the difference between "what the law actually is/does" and "what [a RO devotee] would like for it to be/do" doesn't need to be painstakingly explicated to one poster or another. The only thing remarkable about this thread is that it's not Bricker doing the explicating for a change.

Actually, i've called Bricker out on it before myself, and i don't like it when one person makes a moral or ethical or normative argument and someone else then rebuts it with a legal argument.

But we also need to be clear, in discussions like this, to be clear about whether the argument we are making (or the question we are asking) is a legal one, or normative one.

Someone asked, "Isn't attempted murder a felony?"

Well, the very simple answer to that question, which i gave, is that yes, attempted murder is a felony charge. But the very clear implication of the question is that the person asking it believes that this particular incident constitutes attempted murder, and thus should have been charged as a felony.

And this is precisely where it's important to be clear about what we believe the law should be, on the one hand, and what the law actually is, on the other. As i said, i tend to think that someone setting up a trap like this in an area specifically marked out for human use, should be subject to a charge of attempted murder. If i were the person writing the law, the attempted murder statute would include behavior such as this.

But the question, in determining whether these people will be charged with a felony, is whether the Utah statue does, in fact, encompass this type of thing.

Originally Posted by constanze

Why would it not? There was intent and planning* and method. What else would a law need? (I hope you aren't going to tell me that this is one of those overly detailed laws?)

Planning is important to change from manslaughter - when a brawl spirals out of control, but there was no intent to kill - to murder: deliberate malice aforethought, not in the heat of emotions (or under influence) but with calm thought.

Look, i don't claim to be an expert on the Utah penal code. I'm also not a criminal lawyer. I don't know "what else would a law need" to make thisparticular incident susceptible to an attempted murder charge.

But, in my years of reading about legal cases in works of history and also in books specifically devoted to legal issues, and also in my time debating on these boards, it has become very clear to me that what a layperson thinks a particular law should say is often not the same as what it does say.

Look, this is very simple. On the normative, moral issues i agree with you completely: the behavior of these idiots should be enough to sustain an attempted murder charge. But legally, under the Utah penal code, i don't know whether or not it does, and i also suspect that if it did, the prosecutor might have added that charge to the list. It could be that the DA is waiting, and will add the charge later.

I tell you what: since you're the person asserting that the actions of these people could sustain an attempted murder charge, why don't you look up the Utah penal code and support your assertion?

[Hippy Hollow]

Wow, the ranger deserves huge props. That guy's a mensch.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by constanze

So you disagree that attempted murder is serious, or do you disagree that they should be charged with it?

I believe he is saying that with the evidence of what they did, and the actual laws on the books in Utah, a charge of attempted murder is not possible. Or at least that is what the prosecutor appears to be saying. It's unfortunate, but the solution is to charge the idiots with the maximum you can support, and work the change the law.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by constanze

So you disagree that attempted murder is serious, or do you disagree that they should be charged with it? I don't quite understand why it's just "ha ha misdemeanor, they are stupid" instead of "serious attempt to kill other people, lets put them in prison".

Are you truly as stupid as this post seems to suggest?

In case you are, let me answer your questions in the smallest possible words, and in the simplest possible manner.

So you disagree that attempted murder is serious

No dimwit. Attempted murder is very serious. Did you really ask that question?

or do you disagree that they should be charged with it?

This answer has two parts. The first part is that, in an ideal world, where i write the laws and get to define what constitutes attempted murder, these two people would be charged with attempted murder.The second part is that, even while i feel that this should be the case, it could in fact be that the Utah penal code does not actually allow for an attempted murder charge in this case. If that is true, then the DA is left in a position where he or she cannot, in fact make the charge, no matter how much i might wish it were otherwise.

I don't quite understand why it's just "ha ha misdemeanor, they are stupid" instead of "serious attempt to kill other people, lets put them in prison".

Read this very slowly, so you grasp the issue: for me, their actions did constitute a serious attempt to kill other people. For the law, however, this may not be the case. I'm not claiming to know what the law does and does not allow in this case; i'm merely arguing that what it allows may not be congruent with your and my sense of what is right and just and moral in this case.

ETA: Telemark grasps the distinction i'm making here quite clearly.

[billfish678]

For somebody who claims to not even know the actual legal code you seem pretty butt hurt that somebody even asked a question that you don't know the answer to.

[mhendo]

OK, here's a simple question for you, then: If the Utah Penal Code defined attempted murder in such a way as to allow a charge of attempted murder for this particular incident, do you think that the prosecutors would have said this:

Prosecutors believed the misdemeanor reckless endangerment allegations were the strongest claims they could pursue without anyone being injured.

That quote is one of the main reasons that i've taken the position that i have on this issue.

If the prosecutors had simply said, "We're working out the charges, and will decide what charges to file over the next couple of days," that would be different. But the AP story actually says that the prosecutors themselves believe that the actions of these two people will only sustain the misdemeanor charges.

If the prosecutors do find, over the next few days, that they are indeed able to prefer a felony charge against the two men, i will be very happy. As i've made quite clear, i believe that what they did warrants serious punishment.


ETA: sachertorte, i initially read that sentence the same way that you did. it's not very well written.