jonege

I actually don't think Jimmy was posing a question at all. I think what he was simply saying that people should drop the ethics pretext as the basis for cracking someone who day-blazes objects and publicizes his or her jumps or otherwise tries to draw attention to him/herself because generally it is not the breach of BASE ethics that people making a fuss are really pissed about. Rather, it is simply that they don't like the jumper(s) in question--because of their attitude or some other reason. And if that is that case (and it appears that more often than not, it is), people should just say that--just go ahead and say that guy's an asshole and I hate him--instead of rolling out the moral indignation at their egregious breach of BASE ethics. Of course, given the rules of this forum, people can't really do that when the jumper in question is a registered user (unless they don't mind taking a timeout), so maybe that is one reason people don't do that. I doubt it, though. I suspect the main reason is that being honest and just saying you think someone is an asshole and you hate him makes you look a lot worse than if you can pass off your attack as outrage of ethical breaches.

Yes, the former is a lot more professional than the latter, but in the end, both people are knowingly doing something that goes against the "rule." In each of your examples (about soldiers, sex with minors and politicians) there is an operative mistake or misconception prior to the act, with the implication that the person under that mistaken impression would not have done the act if he or she knew the truth. But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about people knowing that they are breaking normal BASE protocol and still making the jump, but then getting different reactions from the BASE community after the fact, based on their attitude. That's a different deal, and it is one that is tough to justify. Having read this forum almost daily for several years, it's seems to me that the different reaction among the BASE community to people like Felix/Jimmy/the Red Bull crew on the one hand and people like Jeb on the other simply comes down to their attitudes, not their actions. Various members of the former group are brash, arrogant, in-your-face, while Jeb is much more easy going, friendly and inclusive of others in the BASE community. That may provide a very reasonable basis to like Jeb and not like the members of the first group, but it does not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that the members of the first group are acting "unethically" when they day-blaze an object and put it on a commercially distributed video but Jeb is not when he does the same thing. Either they both are or neither are, but whether they are assholes or good guys should have nothing to do with that determination. I think that was Jimmy's point, and so far, I haven't seen any compelling refutation of that. In fact, most of what I have seen in this thread confirms that that is what is going on.

It's HER friggin' RIG!!! Who are YOU to tell her what conditions she can or cannot put on the sale of it! It doesn't matter whether or not she is actually qualified to evaluate whether or not a potential buyer is "suitable" or not. If she wants to put that kind of a condition on the sale of HER rig, that's her right. And anyone who doesn't like it can go deal with someone else! But to get all bent about it and act like she's out of line for setting that condition seems ridiculous!

As for the touchdown that wasn't, yeah his knee was down, but they would have scored anyway. And speaking of plays that weren't reviewed but should have been, what about the Horns' interception on SC's last drive of the first half? That was CLEARLY an interception. He had control of the ball before he hit the ground, and he hit the ground ass-back-shoulders. The play should have been dead once ass hit, but he didn't let go of the ball until he was on his shoulders. Even the SC-awestruck announcers thought it was an interception. Yet that wasn't reviewed, and SC retained possession and got a field goal. If the right call had been made, no field goal (there's your three points, livendive), and the way Vince was moving the offense at that point, he easily could have taken the Horns all the way the other way prior to the end of the half to put Texas up 23-7 at the half. So there were plenty of bad calls that hurt both teams, but Texas didn't win it because of bad calls one way or the other. They won because they made a few more plays when the HAD to than SC did. With respect to Pete Carrell's decisions to go for it on 4th and 1 instead of punting, that was absolutely the right decision under the circumstances. Even if they had kicked and pinned Texas inside the 5, there was no stopping Vince. He would have simply taken them 95 yards instead of 55, and Pete Carrell knew that. Hell, I WANTED SC to punt because I knew if Vince could just get one more possession at that point, he would definitely pull it out. That is just Vince Young. He did this kind of stuff in high school, and he really came into his own in the college game late last year and since then, he has been unstoppable. I was worried as hell when they decided to go for it because they hadn't been able to stop LenDale White when they HAD to all night, and if they had made it, SC almost certainly would have won. But when they came up short, my celebration started right then, because I KNEW Vince would take them in for the game-winning score. People who haven't watched this guy much don't understand how special he is. It's not just physical ability. He definitely has loads of that--a "freakish athlete" as Leinart put it after the game--but in addition to that, he has an intangible quality about him that you just almost never see--a kind of aura that makes those around him just KNOW they are going to win. The only other football player I have ever seen who had that same intangible is Joe Montana. Montana was obviously a totally different kind of player, but the thing that made him great, both in college and the NFL was the same kind of aura. I know this sounds like Vince-worship, and I guess it is, but as everyone who has really followed this guy and watched his career knows, there is a real and legitimate basis for it. As a Texas grad, I would love to see him stay one more year, but after last night, I would be shocked if he did. On the bright side, I am also a Texan fan, so if he does come out this year, hopefully the Texans will make their first-ever really smart draft decision and take him with the first pick. HOOK 'EM!!!

Oh, my mistake. I thought it was just more or your usual knee-jerk anti-American bile. Now I see it wasn't that at all. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Uh, you DO realize that Mikki_ZH (you know, the person who started this thread) is NOT American, right? Bitter.

RICO has definitely been applied in contexts that were not contemplated by Congress when they passed it, but application of RICO beyond the mafia does not require a strained interpretation of the express terms of the statute. In fact it is a rather easy fit. But in this case to read "harm" as encompassing the commission of ANY illegal act is a BIG stretch, as there are MANY illegal acts that do not result in any kind of harm at all. BASE jumps, to the extent they involve the commission of a crime (i.e., trespassing, illegal aerial delivery, etc.) generally do not result in harm. And even when they do (crashing through a window of a building), there was no INTENT to do such harm. Furthermore, if Congress' intent WERE brought into the mix, I would think that would actually cut in favor of a jumper, as I am pretty sure Congress' focus was on people scoping objects with a view to some kind of attack as opposed to merely jumping off. Finally, I just can't see many federal prosecutors investing any of their time trying to stretch this provision to cover BASE jumping. Aside from the NPS, I don't think many people in this country really regard BASE as a public menace (if they are aware of it at all), so that kind of case would not be the kind of case that would get them anywhere within the DOJ, and thus, would not be the kind of case worth pursuing.

Cops can bust you any time for anything. But ultimately, the prosecutor still has to PROVE you had the intent to do harm. As for throwing you in jail without access to lawyers, an offense under the Patriot Act does not render you an "enemy combatant" and then allow the government to wisk you away to a dark hole Guantanamo. You are still entitled to due process, which includes representation by counsel.

Generally, I hate the Patriot Act, but I don't think there is much to be alarmed about with this language. For the video/photo portion to constitute an offense, it would have to be done "with the intent of doing harm." Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think most people video their jumps with such intent. With respect to the weapons portion, in order to commit an offense, you would have to attack someone near such a facility with a weapon. So as long as you don't attack anyone with your parachute, boots or hook knife (or other weapon) near such a facility, you should be in the clear (at least with respect to this provision). If you do, you have already committed an offense (aggravated assualt), so you would be in trouble anyway. This would just add the potential of a federal rap (and probably a more harsh penalty).

If you are climbing 900 and you are on the platform at 8:30, then based on the info you have given (hour drive round trip, 20 min. walk round trip, meet her between 8:30 and 9:00) you are going to be at least 10 minutes late, and you are going to fuckin' STINK when you get there! Good luck with that.

I needed that. Now I need to focus on living it!

Wow........ What an insightful............... response........... Sure hope................ this one can......................... match...... that.................

I agree this could be an important policy shift, but I am not so sure the shift is in favor of BASE. I think an absolute prohibition would probably be more vulnerable to attack and easier to have set aside than a policy such as the one proposed which, on its face, purports to permit BASE, provided certain seemingly reasonable safety requirements are met and an appropriate use fee has been paid. That sounds very positive, but because the NPS will likely still control the determination as to whether all of these seemingly reasonable requirements have been met, it will still allow them to effectively ban BASE but without appearing as unreasonable as an absolute ban makes them appear. This new policy may simply allow them to appear much more reasonable while at the same time reaching the same result--no BASE in the parks. If that is the case, I would view this as a step backward.

You forgot (at least) one other possible inference: he is simply responding to the comments of others. If after his first explanation no one else had commented, he probably would not have offered any further "explanations." But people HAVE commented, and Jimmy has simply responded. That's called dialogue, and it's supposedly what forums like this are for. If Jimmy hadn't responded to any of the comments, people would be on here screaming, "where's Jimmy? Answer our questions!" So, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what Jimmy is (now apparently WAS) doing, it is improper to conclude from the fact that Jimmy HAS responded that he now has "doubts" about what he is doing or is "concerned" about the responses or that he has a "guilty conscience" about it. As far as I can see, Jimmy has simply been responding to the many questions and comments people have asked and made, and for the most part (the chest-pounding remarks in response to suggestions of tar and feathering aside), I think he has done so with a great deal of patience and composure.

Application of the law is not a black-or-white exercise. While BASE is clearly dangerous and CAN result in injury or death, lots of other activities can, as well. If it were a slam dunk that what Jimmy is doing would violate the quoted statute, then it would also be a slam dunk that many other things people do everyday would, as well, such as downhill mountain biking, motocross, big wave surfing, certain skating disciplines. All of those things place the participant "in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered." Yet minors engage in such activities every day, with full knowledge of the authorities, and their parents are not being prosecuted for letting them do it. That is not to say that if Clair went in a prosecutor couldn't try to use this to prosecute Jimmy, but if he or she did, it would not be an automatic conviction. He or she would have to prove endangerment, and while her going in would appear to do that, each successful jump she makes without going in works in the opposite direction.

Opens up anyone and everyone they catch to an aiding and abetting charge.

Bill Murray, not Chevy Chase.

It doesn't sound like Jason has an exclusive or a right of first refusal on this piece of property, so anyone who is unhappy with the way he is doing things is free to contact the land owner and work out their own deal. You sound pretty disgruntled about what Jason is doing, so perhaps you and your friend should just bypass Jason, contact the land owner yourselves and have your friend buy it directly.

I am NOT a trial lawyer and have NO trial experience, but chuckbrown's assessment is in accordance with my understanding of the rules of evidence regarding admission of photographic evidence. However, the situation you raise where video is confiscated directly from a jumper (and presumably still in his/her camera) is significantly different than a situation where a prosecutor sees a video clip posted on a website. In the former case, you have at least most of the required chain of custody links, as the video was confiscated directly from the alleged jumper (again, presumably taken from his/her camera). In the latter, the prosecutor would have a very steep hill to climb to establish who shot the video, when, where and of whom, because anybody with a copy of the clip can post it to the web. I personally have lots of clips saved on my hard drive and on DVDs I have purchased, and I could easily post them on the web, but I don't even jump. If the video confiscated directly from the alleged jumper was NOT taken out of the jumper's camera, I would think it would be more difficult for a prosecutor to affirmatively establish the pre-reqs for admission because, as noted above, mere possession of jump video does not mean the possessor shot it or jumped. (Having it in the jumper's camera doesn't ABSOLUTELY prove it either, but it makes it far less of a leap of faith, and I would guess some judges might be willing to go with it and admit it under those circumstances). In any case, regardless of adimissibility issues, if it gets to the point where a prosecutor is involved, that presumably means charges have been filed. And in that event, a prosecutor can use video as leverage to encourage a deal because he/she knows that in order to fight it, the alleged jumper will usually have to spend a lot of money on legal fees, and often, the alleged jumper decides it is better to cut a deal and his/her losses than to spend lots of money and/or go into debt just to beat a relatively minor charge. It's not supposed to work that way, but unfortunately, it often does.

Was the canopy damaged when it came down on the candles marking the landing area?

I don't BASE and I don't even skydive anymore, but I have been lurking this forum almost daily since its inception and have been lurking the BASE board almost daily for about 4 years, and in all that lurking, that is one of the best posts I have ever seen! Awesome!

I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as a one man bash John Fest. For sure the first paragraph of 570's first post on this thread was a major dig at John, but if (and that is a big IF, as I don't know either of these guys personally) the events described in that paragraph are accurate, 570's point that it is ironic that John would now be posting this kind of message about another newbie is accurate--that is, it is pretty ironic. That being said, it doesn't seem to make much sense to make that point in a thread about the original subject matter on a public forum for a couple of reasons. First, even if the history described in the first paragraph of 570's first post is accurate, it is also HISTORY. The mere fact that John would be here posting his original message indicates that, regardless of how he got his own start, he now understands that inexperienced new guy running around doing the things he has been doing on his own is fairly reckless and not the preferred path to get into BASE. And as long as John gets that now, what good does it do to dredge up the past in a public forum? Second, it is entirely possible that this newbie will read this thread himself. And if he does and he sees 570's post, he may well completely disregard the last paragraph, which did appear to contain some constructive advice (albeit surrounded by a couple more digs), as well as the other helpful posts that preceded it, and instead take from this thread only the idea that if, notwithstanding all of John's cautionary admonitions, that's the way John actually did it and everything turned out okay for him, it should be fine for this guy to carry on as he has been. Thus, ironically enough, 570's message could actually make matters worse by merely solidfying this guy's resolve to ignore the counsel of more experienced jumpers and continue running amok.

It was brutal. I LET it happen because I kept telling myself that if I loved this girl, I just had to trust her. She just chose to take advantage of that. But looking back now, as hard as it was to go through that, I really dodged a bullet. My life would be shite if somehow we had ended up getting married, as I was so sure we should. The whole experience now only serves to make me appreciate my wife all the more. Again, good luck to you, and just have faith that you WILL find someone who is really right for you.

I have heard all of this stuff before from a girl I used to date, and in my case, there was definitely a "reason." Apparently, she had come to the conclusion that she did not want to be with me, but rather with one of her friend's boyfriend. However, she wasn't sure about it, and she did not want to cut me loose until she WAS sure. So instead, she gave me a bunch of business about how she loved me and ultimately wanted to be with me, but she needed a break to work on herself. This went on for several months, primarily because I WANTED to believe her. But eventually, I did a little checking, and it was very apparent she was seeing someone else (all the while still telling me she wanted things to work out with me). Finally she got to a point where she was pretty sure she wanted to be with the other guy, and at that point, she got very ugly with me and basically told me to get lost. It was an ugly scene and it hurt, but it also made it very easy to let go. On the bright side, though, after a couple of months to get past it, a friend at work introduced me to a girl he had been telling me about for months (he knew my other relationship was in a non-recoverable tailspin). Meeting her was like a revelation for me, as she and I had a tremendous amount in common and right off the bat seemed way more compatible than I ever felt the other girl and I were. After dating for 2 1/2 years, this new girl and I married, and now after almost 4 years of marriage, we are happier than ever. So, as someone else mentioned, frequently when one door closes (in my case, it literally closed, as she slammed the door in my face the last time I saw her!), another opens. Finally, I can't say the situation with your girlfriend is the same--maybe it's not; but I can say that usually when a person says they need a "break," that is NOT a good sign and it usually means it's over. I know that can be painful and scary to think about because you get used to being with someone and the idea of then having to go back to going it alone can be a bummer. But being in a bad or tumultuous relationship is worse than being on your own. Good luck, be strong and have confidence that you will eventually find someone better suited for you.