PSA - Don't be a jackass out there

[Pony Soldier]

The hoodoos near my house are zones of alteration in the batholith with differential erosion. Similar but in igneous rocks.

 

[fwafwow]

Wow. It would be really cool if someone figure out who they are.

 

[Cmiller]

Smh!!

 

[goathunter]

Wow that is ignorant. Send it to the local FS ranger?

 

[eddielasvegas]

my greatest fear is that I look like these guys whenever I buy new hunting clothing

That's exactly why I only buy used clothing on RS.


Eddie

 

[7mm-08]

Now those are guys who have no capacity to anticipate what potential harm they could do by acting like children. One never knows how their (fill in the blank here - banker, dentist, financial advisor, delivery driver, etc.) acts when no one is looking! And, they're dumb enough to put it on a social media site. Pretty incredible!

 

[thinhorn_AK]

What a bunch of dorks. I wonder if they post on rokslide.

 

[98589]

Idiots violating a cardinal rule of being in the mountains, NEVER throw/kick/push rocks off a cliff.

.....errr......

Rokslide Cliff test?

Anyway, I think/thought this video was old, feel like I've seen it before. Harmless fun IMO, dumb and dorks sure. Probably much safer than shooting 44s towards someone...

I raised up my .44 and sent a round that way. They scattered. Hard to believe someone would be so callous and so stupid.

"stupid is as stupid does"

 

[Rich M]

Oh you are referring to rock cairns to mark trails. It’s increasing popular for some folks to make your own cairn off trial making it difficult to follow the actual trail. They can be really important when the trail is made of bedrock

I didnt even k ow they were trail markers! LoL!

Always see em w new age zen stuff and thot they were just new age spiritual things.

 

[Rich M]

.....errr......

Rokslide Cliff test?

Anyway, I think/thought this video was old, feel like I've seen it before. Harmless fun IMO, dumb and dorks sure. Probably much safer than shooting 44s towards someone...

If someone is throwing rocks at me or potentially starting and avalanche on me, i’d for sure thro some lead at em.

Gotta chose who’s safety comes first.

 

[Mike7]

I must be getting too old.

When did it become a major crime for a couple of young bored guys in the middle of nowhere to roll a rock down an avalanche shoot that they can see the bottom of?

Immature maybe, sure.

I think that I am more worried about the Karens that would call the authorities to report this heinous act, than I am of these guys.

 

[mtwarden]

.....errr......

Rokslide Cliff test?

Anyway, I think/thought this video was old, feel like I've seen it before. Harmless fun IMO, dumb and dorks sure. Probably much safer than shooting 44s towards someone...

Unless you happened to be in the canoe with 10-15 lb rocks landing next to the canoe with your wife in it- then that's the prudent thing to do

 

[Pony Soldier]

In 1974, I was working my way across a cliffy section of mine workings when a bunch of drunks below us starting shooting to see how close they could get to us. Each shot they fired brought peals of laughter from the group. We yelled for them to stop which only increased the gunfire.

When we reached a stable area with cover, I pulled out my 45 and marched three rounds across a beaver pond towards them. That broke up the fun and they scrambled into their rigs and ran.

Just one of many exciting experiences working for the government.

 

[tony]

******* dick head “bros”

This happened up the road from me

Teen pleads guilty in death of woman killed by log in Hocking Hills

Victoria Schafer was killed when a log pushed off a cliff at Old Man’s Cave in Hocking Hills State Park struck her on Sept. 2, 2019.

www.cincinnati.com

 

[98589]

If someone is throwing rocks at me or potentially starting and avalanche on me, i’d for sure thro some lead at em.

Gotta chose who’s safety comes first.

Unless you happened to be in the canoe with 10-15 lb rocks landing next to the canoe with your wife in it- then that's the prudent thing to do

Shooting at someone, who by your words one infers is 'throwing rocks up ahead', is at a decent distance that you could meander to a protective spot, but you proceed closer and closer yet? Sure, I wasn't there, but first action wouldn't be to shoot a 44 their way, while continuing into the path, making (based on what you wrote) no effort to do anything evasive.

You shoot at oncoming cars while crossing the street too?

Guess Montana teaches their wardens shoot first ask later..nice MO.

y'all are complaining about a guy pushing a rock, harmlessly, yet condoning, accepting, launching lead down range.

Id hate to be hiking above y'all at any point.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Shooting at someone, who by your words one infers is 'throwing rocks up ahead', is at a decent distance that you could meander to a protective spot, but you proceed closer and closer yet? Sure, I wasn't there, but first action wouldn't be to shoot a 44 their way, while continuing into the path, making (based on what you wrote) no effort to do anything evasive.

You shoot at oncoming cars while crossing the street too?

Guess Montana teaches their wardens shoot first ask later..nice MO.

y'all are complaining about a guy pushing a rock, harmlessly, yet condoning, accepting, launching lead down range.

Id hate to be hiking above y'all at any point.

Pushing a rock down a mountain or cliff is not "harmless". That's quite the mentality to have. You don't know the conditions below. People are all over the place these days, act like it. Especially when they saw the person in the canoe and kept on with their act.

Your position assumes these people pushing rocks aren't doing it maliciously.

Shooting at cars to cross the street is not an analogy to this scenario at all.

Hike away, just don't kick projectiles that can kill me downslope.

 

[Pony Soldier]

I'm sorry doesn't make up for being chronically stupid and asking for forgiveness when someone is injured or dies. A couple of shots can pre-empt a disaster. I'm with the warden.

 

[98589]

Pushing a rock down a mountain or cliff is not "harmless". That's quite the mentality to have. You don't know the conditions below. People are all over the place these days, act like it. Especially when they saw the person in the canoe and kept on with their act.

Your position assumes these people pushing rocks aren't doing it maliciously.

Does your position assume they saw the canoe and assume they chucked rocks with malicious intent?

A law enforcement officer shot at someone who he saw push rocks off a bridge, at a distance and closing, and rather than any other choice, literally any choice, the decision was to continue the path and ultimately return fire in their direction.

Remember, there's no "man, the splash 3' to our left we thought was a beaver tail, but then 5' to our right another, that's when we knew...", there's only:

saw a large splash up ahead, thought it was a beaver slapping his tail. Then another. Look up, way up- couple of guys tossing large rocks into the river right where we were headed (yurns out it was rest area off of the interstate).

After the third large rock hit, this time closer yet (because either they changed trajectory, and he continued his path into danger) and knowing they saw us (how is this known?) in the canoe- I raised up my .44 and sent a round that way.
>Read those underlines statements. Nothing infers extremely close proximity or timeliness, except possibly the last rock, though I have my doubts ('closer yet'). Then, the decision was fire a shot into the horizon, in their direction ('look up-way up' & 'i raised up my .44 and sent a round that way').

Imagine telling a cop "well, you see, I didn't want to hit them, however, I decided to shoot the clouds in the sky around them as a warning"

How long you reckon you can reload a single shot, interstate rest area rock-15? How long you reckon between splash 1 to splash 2 to splash 3?

I'm expecting either 0, insults, or new emerging details and a harrowing story.

I'm sorry doesn't make up for being chronically stupid and asking for forgiveness when someone is injured or dies. A couple of shots can pre-empt a disaster. I'm with the warden.

His choice was shooting, into the horizon TOWARDS offenders, after proceeding into a knowingly dangerous situation.

Pre-empt disaster does not equal first action is shots fired towards people on a bridge rest area.

Clue in on 1 piece. He was below and away from rock chockers. Do you reckon the noise from the shot or the bullet itself ceased their actions.

He chose to shoot their direction, not into any embankment or safe area. So then you must agree the bullet and not the noise, but the combination of bullet and direction towards them ceased their actions. Because if you feel it was noise alone, which was omnidirectional, ceased their actions, then his actions of pointing their direction was malicious intent.

Chances mtwarden reported the interaction, retired or not, are probably slim to none for a reason. A reason id wager he knows the outcome of.

 

[mtwarden]

Now I'm starting to think maybe @98589 was there throwing rocks


There was no where to pull into that we still wouldn't be in harms way of them tossing rocks- it was happening fast- first big (big) splash- thinking beaver. Second big splash closer, look up and see it's dickheads throwing rocks (big rocks) at us. Third one was very close, too close. One boom from the .44 and they ceased/scattered.

Maybe you don't have a family, some people don't. My young wife was pregnant with our second child, not going to jeopardize their lives for some jackasses that could have easily killed us.

Maybe where you're from you just turn your cheek and let fate takes it's course on whether the next rock kills someone- sorry that doesn't happen in Montana and guessing almost anywhere.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Does your position assume they saw the canoe and assume they chucked rocks with malicious intent?

A law enforcement officer shot at someone who he saw push rocks off a bridge, at a distance and closing, and rather than any other choice, literally any choice, the decision was to continue the path and ultimately return fire in their direction.

Remember, there's no "man, the splash 3' to our left we thought was a beaver tail, but then 5' to our right another, that's when we knew...", there's only:

saw a large splash up ahead, thought it was a beaver slapping his tail. Then another. Look up, way up- couple of guys tossing large rocks into the river right where we were headed (yurns out it was rest area off of the interstate).

After the third large rock hit, this time closer yet (because either they changed trajectory, and he continued his path into danger) and knowing they saw us (how is this known?) in the canoe- I raised up my .44 and sent a round that way.
>Read those underlines statements. Nothing infers extremely close proximity or timeliness, except possibly the last rock, though I have my doubts ('closer yet'). Then, the decision was fire a shot into the horizon, in their direction ('look up-way up' & 'i raised up my .44 and sent a round that way').

Imagine telling a cop "well, you see, I didn't want to hit them, however, I decided to shoot the clouds in the sky around them as a warning"

How long you reckon you can reload a single shot, interstate rest area rock-15? How long you reckon between splash 1 to splash 2 to splash 3?

I'm expecting either 0, insults, or new emerging details and a harrowing story.

His choice was shooting, into the horizon TOWARDS offenders, after proceeding into a knowingly dangerous situation.

Pre-empt disaster does not equal first action is shots fired towards people on a bridge rest area.

Clue in on 1 piece. He was below and away from rock chockers. Do you reckon the noise from the shot or the bullet itself ceased their actions.

He chose to shoot their direction, not into any embankment or safe area. So then you must agree the bullet and not the noise, but the combination of bullet and direction towards them ceased their actions. Because if you feel it was noise alone, which was omnidirectional, ceased their actions, then his actions of pointing their direction was malicious intent.

Chances mtwarden reported the interaction, retired or not, are probably slim to none for a reason. A reason id wager he knows the outcome of.

If they threw an acorn instead, should he have mag dumped?