Ok, Blinky, I realize you think I brown nosed. Not my intent. I just felt that a response was due but didn't have the time or energy and felt Tom's post covered it.
Alas, you didn't read that story did you, Here's some key points from it,
"Ward did have rock climbing experience, Gibbs found, but it was not recent. “In his teens, he climbed with friends at several popular single-pitch sport cliffs in Henderson County. And while rare, he occasionally participated in more advanced mountaineering.
“In 1992, Ward did a three-pitch climb with a guide while on a vacation in Wyoming. In 1995, he climbed a Fourteener with a guide in Colorado. This required intermediate climbing skills. Most of the ascent was off-belay.
“The decedent’s family reports that Ward quit the sport entirely in 1995 after graduating college. He didn’t climb again until Justin Morgan invited him on the Hell’s Angel ascent.”
You seem to have thought that the victim had climbed this several times with these guys. Not the case at all. The other three had. Morgan assumed a leadership role first by making the invitation then by his ensuing actions.
Morgan kept asking Ward and "trashed-talked" the guy when he wouldn't go. He finally relented. It says the three guys, Morgan, Bishop and Martin had climbed the route 4 times and and had extensive experience compared to Ward who hadn't climbed in 13 yrs.
Here's where Morgan really assumes a leadership role.
“Bishop and Martin said that there was some miscommunication about the difficulty of Hell’s Angel. They said that on the morning of the climb, Morgan told the decedent that it was an easy climb. Morgan characterized it as ‘mostly a scramble,’ not a technical ascent. Neither Bishop nor Martin clarified or contradicted these statements to the decedent, although both knew them to be misleading."
and,
"Before starting the climb, Ward asked Morgan if he needed a pair for Hell’s Angel. Bishop and Martin said Morgan replied in the negative, indicating that the climb was sufficiently easy and that tennis shoes would be adequate."
I could go on but I think the point is made. If it goes to trial then a jury of his peers will decide if his actions go beyond "social responsibility" and into the realm of legal responsibility. That is the total of it. the cop and the judge felt there was sufficient evidence for that to occur.
Blinky, your rant at me is unfounded. I have a life, a job, hobbies and I really don't need or want a puppy.
Camping, hiking, canoeing, climbing with the guys, been there done that. When I did things that were beyond my skill level I did look to get some guidance from those with more experience. When I had be invited to try something new and dangerous I got leadership from those that made the invitation. Never did they diminish the risk nor downplay it. If it was best done with specific equipment it was strongly suggested I get it. If I didn't then it was my choice.
I've witness a climbing death that was the fault of the victim. I felt badly for the person supervising the group but knew that it was poor judgment on the victim's part. I've slacked on safety a long time ago and it caught up with me. I live with the resulting injuries and chronic pain. I was shown what to do and I didn't do it. My bad judgment.
I climb for a living and take plenty of calculated risks but where I may have a leadership role to play with someone who has limited skills and experience then I take that seriously. I really don't want anymore "regret" tapes playing.
Yeah life is dangerous and it is well worth the risks to experience the thrills but a man needs to know his limits and his cohorts need to respect them.