Probably because he didn't want idiot dad to assault him again.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Snowboarder hits kid, kids father punches snowboarder (video)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
Probably because he didn't want idiot dad to assault him again.
MEtoVTSkier
Active member
Absolutely. No need of that, check make sure everyone is all right, argue later.
Are you saying that you think Dad sent the kid out without looking? From my viewing, I can't see enough to decide whether that was the case.
MadMadWorld
Active member
A few points:
That was a terrible place to stop. You should probably not stop on a section of trail like that unless absolutely necessary. And if you do, stop on the side.
If you do have to stop, the child should always be below you.
The accident was the snowboarders fault. You can't blame the father/child who were stationary. And the girl didn't make any crazy movements.
The snowboarder might have been responsible but the father was a complete ass hat. The accident was a mistake. It was something that could happen to anyone.
That was a terrible place to stop. You should probably not stop on a section of trail like that unless absolutely necessary. And if you do, stop on the side.
If you do have to stop, the child should always be below you.
The accident was the snowboarders fault. You can't blame the father/child who were stationary. And the girl didn't make any crazy movements.
The snowboarder might have been responsible but the father was a complete ass hat. The accident was a mistake. It was something that could happen to anyone.
From the moment he becomes visible on camera standing in the middle of the trail with his son standing in front of him, he does not appear to look up hill once.
Edit: Watched it again. I agree the video is not entirely clear on this point. However, if he did look uphill, I'm not sure how he could have missed the snowboarder heading toward them and how he could have failed to react when his kid started to move.
Last edited:
Unless you have been really, really misbehaving :lol:
Agreed. And as I said, when you're with a little kid I can imagine that a kid is going to stop in bad places. It is what it is.
From what I saw, the kid was below the Dad. And I still don't see enough to convince me that he was encouraging the kid to go ahead. It looks like they're just standing there.
Agreed.
I agree to some extent, but just being a Dad I know that if someone hurt my kid watch out. I would hope I would not hit someone but when your kid has been plowed over you have a right to be very upset....just instinctively. It's really easy for us to be Monday Morning Quarterbacks from our offices and living rooms while watching this in replay over and over again. But in the moment is there any Dad here who will tell me that they would not be ripped? I think not. Doesn't justify punching the guy.
I'm a new dad. I would be instantly thinking did my kid break a leg? Worse? I would definitely freak out. Again, I HOPE I wouldn't hit the kid.
mister moose
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,088
- Points
- 48
Many of you appear to have the facts wrong.
The kid on skis in the teal jacket is visible ahead of the boarder well before the collision. Like 30 seconds before. Relative position changes, but at 4:05 teal is clearly below and ahead of boarder.
4:09 Teal ahead and off to left of Boarder.
4:13 Teal ahead on left of Boarder.
4:14 Dad becomes visible ahead on right. Boarder clearly has heelside and back to teal.
4:15 Teal ahead, converging. Boarder passes several people, including patrol with a sled.
4:16 Imminent collision with Teal, Dad clearly visible ahead on right, child visible on right of Dad, moving right to left.
4:17 Fending off Teal, child is now to left of Dad.
4:17.5 Teal is now behind and shadow is visible close on left still. Collision imminent with Dad/child. Shadow shows boarder is on heels with board across the hill but going straight ahead, and not braking hard over the last 2 seconds.
4:18 collision with child.
4:22 Boarder still moving, trying to stop while on ground. Child is up hill with ski released.
4:24 Dad arrives with child's ski in left hand.
4:28 Dad moves ski to right hand, strikes Boarder on head with left.
4:40 Boarder now stays quiet, leaves scene of accident.
I really have to disagree with Dad being at fault for collision. He is shielding child, who is in motion. The child was not stopped. Boarder does not stop, not even slow down appreciably before, during or after encounter with Teal. There is no warning issued to Teal, ie "On your right!"
The only thing you can say in defense of Boarder is that he was distracted by the (near)collision with Teal and this led to collision with Child. This is a good defense???
Kudos to the Boarder for keeping his cool and not escalating. (Dad struck Boarder with hand, not ski) It's a lot to ask given the strike by the Dad, but he still should not have left the scene, that is a criminal act, isn't it?
I know it was congested, I know Boarder's speed wasn't excessively high, but he failed to travel at a speed slow enough to avoid a collision, twice. Boarder failed to warn downhill Teal of proximity. Dad and child is visible 4 seconds before impact. (Remember POV camera makes things appear further than they are) Boarder's fault for collision. Dad guilty of assault.
Yes, this was clearly an accident, and yes, accidents happen. But until I see a sign that says "minimum speed 15mph" you can't fault the child/Dad.
The kid on skis in the teal jacket is visible ahead of the boarder well before the collision. Like 30 seconds before. Relative position changes, but at 4:05 teal is clearly below and ahead of boarder.
4:09 Teal ahead and off to left of Boarder.
4:13 Teal ahead on left of Boarder.
4:14 Dad becomes visible ahead on right. Boarder clearly has heelside and back to teal.
4:15 Teal ahead, converging. Boarder passes several people, including patrol with a sled.
4:16 Imminent collision with Teal, Dad clearly visible ahead on right, child visible on right of Dad, moving right to left.
4:17 Fending off Teal, child is now to left of Dad.
4:17.5 Teal is now behind and shadow is visible close on left still. Collision imminent with Dad/child. Shadow shows boarder is on heels with board across the hill but going straight ahead, and not braking hard over the last 2 seconds.
4:18 collision with child.
4:22 Boarder still moving, trying to stop while on ground. Child is up hill with ski released.
4:24 Dad arrives with child's ski in left hand.
4:28 Dad moves ski to right hand, strikes Boarder on head with left.
4:40 Boarder now stays quiet, leaves scene of accident.
I really have to disagree with Dad being at fault for collision. He is shielding child, who is in motion. The child was not stopped. Boarder does not stop, not even slow down appreciably before, during or after encounter with Teal. There is no warning issued to Teal, ie "On your right!"
The only thing you can say in defense of Boarder is that he was distracted by the (near)collision with Teal and this led to collision with Child. This is a good defense???
Kudos to the Boarder for keeping his cool and not escalating. (Dad struck Boarder with hand, not ski) It's a lot to ask given the strike by the Dad, but he still should not have left the scene, that is a criminal act, isn't it?
I know it was congested, I know Boarder's speed wasn't excessively high, but he failed to travel at a speed slow enough to avoid a collision, twice. Boarder failed to warn downhill Teal of proximity. Dad and child is visible 4 seconds before impact. (Remember POV camera makes things appear further than they are) Boarder's fault for collision. Dad guilty of assault.
Yes, this was clearly an accident, and yes, accidents happen. But until I see a sign that says "minimum speed 15mph" you can't fault the child/Dad.
HD333
New member
How is "The Code" working out for all 3 of these folks?
Sucks the little guy got run over, also sucks that the Dad punched/hit the boarder, nice example for your kid.
Who is at fault? That will end up like the who's hotter Julia or Lindsay debate (Julia obviously for the record).
I don't get how the Dad let that kid go without looking uphill? My kids are 10 and when we stop I still look uphill for them. For that fact I say the dad is more at fault because he could have prevented the little guy from going.
Sucks the little guy got run over, also sucks that the Dad punched/hit the boarder, nice example for your kid.
Who is at fault? That will end up like the who's hotter Julia or Lindsay debate (Julia obviously for the record).
I don't get how the Dad let that kid go without looking uphill? My kids are 10 and when we stop I still look uphill for them. For that fact I say the dad is more at fault because he could have prevented the little guy from going.
MEtoVTSkier
Active member
I agree with Moose, in that the boy was already moving, which is why in the short time you can see Dad, he doesn't appear to look uphill, Dads skis are pointing right, as if Junior had just completed his turn, and was traversing back across to Dad, when the camera picks him up, he has just reached Dad. If they were stopped, and Dad was just starting Junior out, if would be more probable that his skis would be pointing in the direction that Junior was about to travel.
Child is in motion at 4:16. Child was not in motion when idiot dad first appears on camera at 4:14. A reasonable parent on that slope, in those conditions, with that kind of traffic would have looked up hill before letting his kid proceed.
Gotta agree.
Some more info:
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27909656&ni...s-caught-on-camera&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2
You know I read that and I really feel like the kid is milking it a little bit ...
statements like
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27909656&ni...s-caught-on-camera&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2
You know I read that and I really feel like the kid is milking it a little bit ...
statements like
from_the_NEK
Active member
Here's food for thought, if not for the hand check of the skier in teal by the snowboarding kid, does the teal skier hit the little kid instead?
C-Rex
New member
No, it's not. It's not a car accident, and I wouldn't expect him to stick around when the Dad is going off on him and being physically violent. He wasn't trying to avoid responsibility as he stopped and asked if the kid was ok. The boarder seemed more concerned with the kid's condition after the crash than the dad. As others have said, hitting the boarder was just stupid. He's lucky the kid didn't have a bunch of nutjob friends with him. He could have gotten his head caved in by some psycho right in front of his son. He could still end up facing assault charges. There is just no excuse for that behavior, and that is coming from someone with a pretty short fuse himself.
from_the_NEK
Active member
Damian?
Dickc
Active member
Ugly situation. Snowboarder ultimately at fault as he allowed himself to be squeezed out. He Should have slowed and gone to the left of the girl instead. Would have avoided collision completely. As for the Dad. He should be criminally charged. I am a parent of four, and grandparent of two. You have to control yourself at all times. Self control has been in decline in the country for a few decades. Not good.
By the way, had boarder gone to to left of girl, it looks like she might have hit Dad or the child instead. Bad spot on trail that should have another warning sign.
Lastly, I feel that the code is written with the most important rules first. Makes rule 3 & 4 less relevant if Dad was stopped.
By the way, had boarder gone to to left of girl, it looks like she might have hit Dad or the child instead. Bad spot on trail that should have another warning sign.
Lastly, I feel that the code is written with the most important rules first. Makes rule 3 & 4 less relevant if Dad was stopped.
Highway Star
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,921
- Points
- 36
Both of you clearly did not watch the video from the beginning. The group starts down the hill around the 3:00 mark and successfully avoids multiple people at a very reasonable speed. The snowboarder slows up at 3:55 for two kids, one of which later cuts into him at 4:15. I didn't day this before, but the kid who cuts in from the left was not following point 4 and should have looked over their shoulder before merging into the trail.
Similar threads
