Comments about ‘2nd not-guilty plea in LDS office building BASE jump’

If they had "manned up" and pleaded guilty they wouldn't no have to be paying attorney fees .... on top of the fines they'll pay if found guilty.

When you are on someone else's private property you are expected to behave yourself and obey the rules. Had one of these brave souls managed to kill himself doing this stunt his family would have sued the LDS Church for letting it happen.

Not Guilty??? If there's so much evidence that proves it was these guys they deserve to have the book thrown at them for pleading not guilty!

What exactly could they plead not guilty to? "No, your honor, that wasn't me floating down in a parachute from the top of the LDS office bldg." "I know that's the tallest bldg in the area, but we floated down from the capitol."

Wow!

So, what kind of plea agreement are they hoping for? Seems like they should get something other than just probation.

I wonder on what grounds are they claiming they are "not guilty"?

Are they saying the people on the elevator video wearing parachutes wasn't them?

Or are they contending that what they did is not illegal?

Or that the laws don't apply to them?

I wish we knew the grounds on which they are basing their innocence. I guess it will all come out in the trial. This should be interesting to see what kind of case they present.

I hope they don't try the "we're fun lovin kids, we don't have to obey the law" or the "base-jumping is fun, how can it be illegal"... defense.

That leaves the, "That wasn't us on the video", defense.... THAT's going to be a hard one.

Well... was it worth it...

It had to be a pretty big rush... And for the rest of their lives, they will be able to say that they have done something that no one else did...

But then, of course they will have a criminal record to go along with their story... Reduced job opportunities... Lack of trust in the community...

juni4ling: I doubt very much that these guys care about their criminal records, reduced job opportunities, or lack of trust in their community.

really i can see no reason that the practice is against any law---it is exceedingly dumb and not my thing but if people want to risk killing themselves i really don't think we should stand in their way---i think the same way for all risky activities---

i do have a caveat---if they cause a problem for some other party or parties then they need to rectify that instantly and without coercion---and we really should change our legal system to preclude any potential lawsuits from activities such as this from survivors claiming somebody should have stopped them---so if they did it and no harm done then that is the end of it---if they did it and harmed something or someone then pony up the fix immediately---

@ rnoble:

While I agree that jumping out of airplanes, off of cliffs, bridges, etc shouldn't be illegal as long as no one else is at risk, I think the issue here is one of trespassing. Should these guys be able to come to your home and jump off the roof, or climb on your car and jump off of it without asking? Likewise, they shouldn't be excused for climbing over security railings, ledges, etc and going someplace on LDS Church property without asking.

I think that the DA needs to make an example out of these two as well- throw the book at them. This WAS putting others at risk below, and unfortunately I fear they'll inspire others to do other risky, illegal stunts in public if not prosecuted aggressively.

re - Rifleman | 11:43 a.m
"When you are on someone else's private property you are expected to behave yourself and obey the rules"

are you saying there was a sign saying "no jumping"?

"his family would have sued the LDS Church for letting it happen."

that's a problem with the legal system, not these people or the church.

this is stupid. they didn't do anything wrong... they are being charged with criminal trespassing and disturbing the peace.

so obviously they are not guilty. they didn't sneak into the building - people saw them and I'm sure other people are allowed to be in the building. No one told them to leave so how could they be trespassing? if the owners see you on site and don't tell you to leave, it is assumed you are allowed to be there.

and then they jumped. how is that "disturbing the peace"? was there a panic? did they break something?

they are pleading not guilty because they aren't guilty of anything!! the church should pay them for adding some excitement in the lives of those that got to watch!!

the church should let it go.

re - 2 bits | 12:35 p.m
"I wonder on what grounds are they claiming they are "not guilty"?"

re - Johnny Triumph | 11:53 a.m
"Not Guilty??? they deserve to have the book thrown at them for pleading not guilty!"

well, because they didn't do anything wrong!! they didn't trespass and they didn't disturb the peace.

why would they plead guilty???

re - UtahMD | 2:23 p.m
"I think the issue here is one of trespassing. Should these guys be able to come to your home and jump off the roof, or climb on your car and jump off of it without asking?"
and
"I fear they'll inspire others to do other risky, illegal stunts in public"

if they came to my house I would tell them to leave. If they climbed on my car, I would tell them to leave.

no one told them to leave.

if people are not allowed into that building, why didn't someone ask them for identification?

and why does anyone care if we do risky things as long as we cannot sue?

stop trying to save us from ourselves. if we want to jump, why do you care?

re- charlie91342
"his family would have sued the LDS Church for letting it happen."
that's a problem with the legal system, not these people or the church.
NO- the problem IS these two ... you can't just go and do anything you want on private property without asking first. It's called common courtesy ... something these two and you apparently lack.

common courtesy aside---they really didn't hurt anyone including the owner of the building---and frankly jumping from my home is entirely different because only a few people are invited to my home but the church office building allows anyone to enter for business purposes---just because their business was not expected or desired does not mean it was prohibited---by the way i have had several people jump from my roof over the years including myself and my friends when yet a pre-teen---

to all of you who can not understand "not guilty". look up utahs criminal trespass law. they legally entered the building, they did not unlawfully remain in the building, so please one of you explain the pair "criminal trespass"?

they didn't criminally trespass, and they know it, so why plead guilty to a crime one did not commit?

(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and (b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

was the building open to the public? and did the cause substantially interference to the use of the building.

thank you John, you are a wise dude. This explains it and people who are freaking out need to relax. these guys are studs and this will be awesome for the rest of their lives!

Gol, based on some of the comments on this board you'd think that these two were leading a Nazi lynch mob or something:

"Make an example out of them!"

"I can't believe they pleaded not quilty! The gall they have!"

"Throw the book at 'em!"

Yet, people like Kevin Garn get a standing ovation in the halls of our legislature.

In regards to this whole BASE jumping story, I have two words to say:

Who cares?!

OK - so no harm came from this particular episode but what if they had misjudged or somehow had landed in the street with moving traffic, precipitating an accident involving vehicles or people? If someone suffered severe damages, personal or property, or died, because of such activities, then is that when they should "pony up" and pay for any damages, as one reader put it? If someone dies, it's kinda hard to bring them back! Do you allow such activities in business-type environments and wait to see if something bad happens before you take it seriously or do you recognize those risky activities in people-occupied surroundings as illegal and prosecute those who break the law - I'm in favor of the latter action.

Gol, you'd think these two were the re-incarnations of Saddam Hussein and Cain from the Bible!

"Throw the book at 'em!"

"I can't believe that they plead not guilty - again! The utter gall!"

"We need to make an example out of these two!"

Really?! Really?!

Two words:

Who cares!?

Meanwhile, up at the legislature...

Yes, they COULD have killed someone, but they didn't. We shouldn't transform our society into the one depicted in the movie, "Minority Report," where people are arrested for even just thinking of killing someone.

These two men didn't kill anybody. No traffic accidents occurred from it.

Yes, it was reckless, and irresponsible, and risky, etc... But we can't charge them with those things because they didn't do them! We can only charge them for what they DID do, not what they COULD'VE done.