Death sentence for forest fire arsonist

I'm a little surprised by this sentence. Not that I don't think what this person did wasn't deserving of death. I guess here in California many courts may look leniently on you for first degree murder...But lord forbid you hurt any of our prescious trees. And yes, I do realize that 5 firefighters were killed as a result of this fire (God rest their brave souls). But I just don't see consistency in the sentencing...

It all depends on the jury and the judge.

I'm sure an appeal will be filed and commute it to life in prison.

Technically - the FIRE (or lack of proper caution) killed those servicemen and did property damage.

It's a shame he started the fire in the first place, true...but you can't hold an individual accountable for an elemental force.

Stiff sentance, maybe - but certainly not death.

Seems a little extreme.

[edit on 6/5/09 by GENERAL EYES]

If the fire started from like an improper campfire being haphazardly put out or a flicked cigarette butt or something like that death is waaaay to harsh.

If this guy set the fire because he wanted to see a big forest fire or because he's a nutty firebug type he may as well be put to death because he isnt going to get any "better" and he'll just do it again.

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Technically - the FIRE killed those servicemen and did property damage.

It's a shame he started the fire in the first place, true...but you can't hold an individual accountable for an elemental force.

Stiff sentance, maybe - but certainly not death.

Seems a little extreme.

Technically he started the fire that killed the servicemen. No fire, no deaths. So he was the cause of their deaths.

I can take my car and run over an individual. By your thinking my car is the cause of the death not me personally, even though I am the one that put the car into motion.

I can shoot a gun and kill someone, but by your thinking I didn't kill the person the bullet killed the person. I merely fired my weapon and after the trigger is pulled I have no control over the round.

In California, forest fires are a very scary prospect. Our house was almost lost in one when I was a child then my sister's house was almost lost 2 years ago in another one.
I can remember us looking out of our 2nd floor window with binoculars and watching the bulldozers making fire breaks in the hills and my dad spraying the roof with the hose.

It sounds to me like they are sending a message.

reply to post by GENERAL EYES



Well, he started the fire that resulted in the deaths of 5 innocent firemen, so I think that this sentence is well deserved. Hopefully it will cause some other firebug to think twice about lighting up a forest!

In most states, if you commit a crime and a person dies as a result of the criminal act, you can be charged with the death as well as the original crime. Nothing out of the ordinary here!

reply to post by jd140


Good point JD.

Fact is, it was pre-meditated (hence 1st degree) and 5 people lost their lives, and many families were destrcuted by losing their homes, etc.

This falls under category of 1st degree murder, imo.

Let him fry.


He serves no purpose in our world, except destruction.
That's karma for ya.

In my opinion, and probably that of most people who has been a hair's breadth from seeing their children burnt in a bushfire, an arsonist should be treated the same as the worst terrorist.

People committing arson of this nature are every bit as responsible for the deaths they cause as are people who set bombs off in crowded places.
Would you ever excuse a terrorist because he didn't kill the people, his bomb did? These are both deadly forces being loosed on innocent people.

Having lived through several large bushfires/wildfires, the only thing I would not like about this sentence is that it will inevitably be commuted - if only the guilty were ever found guilty.

Annoyingly, as I would like to see the bastard burning alive while hanging from a lamp-post, there is always a chance of an innocent person being found guilty, so life imprisonment with hard labour is a better option.

This guy wasn't trying to kill anyone. What he did is really no different from someone who chooses to drive drunk knowing there's a good chance he'll kill someone and then hits another car and kills 5 people. But killer DUIs serve a couple years and are free.

In most states, if you commit a crime and a person dies as a result of the criminal act, you can be charged with the death as well as the original crime. Nothing out of the ordinary here!

That's called felony murder. You commit a felony which accidentally leads to a death. Then you are guilty of murder. I don't think it's right since there was no intent to kill.

A good example of felony murder is if you rob a bank and a guard shoots at you and hits and kills a patron. Then YOU are guilty of murder!

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Technically - the FIRE (or lack of proper caution) killed those servicemen and did property damage.

It's a shame he started the fire in the first place, true...but you can't hold an individual accountable for an elemental force.

Stiff sentance, maybe - but certainly not death.

Seems a little extreme.

[edit on 6/5/09 by GENERAL EYES]

GE, I can't disagree with you more.

He committed murder, by starting a fire that killed people.

Had the fire been a natural one, say started from lighting, then and ONLY then is it a force of nature doing the killing.
(fire is a force of nature, but this one was set by a man, not accidently mind you, on purpose)

He committed murder, by starting a fire that killed people.

Had the fire been a natural one, say started from lighting, then and ONLY then is it a force of nature doing the killing.
(fire is a force of nature, but this one was set by a man, not accidently mind you, on purpose)

That doesn't make it murder. You need to look up crimes like manslaughter.

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45

He committed murder, by starting a fire that killed people.

Had the fire been a natural one, say started from lighting, then and ONLY then is it a force of nature doing the killing.
(fire is a force of nature, but this one was set by a man, not accidently mind you, on purpose)

That doesn't make it murder. You need to look up crimes like manslaughter.

Legally, you MAY be correct.

That said, if someone starts a fire and people die, they WERE murdered by that person.

If YOUR Husband/Wife/Kids were killed by arson, I KNOW you would be hopping up and down and saying that they were murdered.

Just saying...

[edit on 6/8/2009 by mrmonsoon]

Good. And, I would like to recommend: Death, by cremation!

The death of a few humons isn't really what upsets me (hell, I'll worry about humons when THEY make the endangered species list), but it's all the other life in those forests that were destroyed or displaced that I find upsetting! What a sicko, but that's a humon for ya!

He knew the fire could kill people but I am not a supporter of the death penalty so I disagree with the verdict. Maybe five life sentences to make sure he stays under observation. He should be made to wash Nomex clothing for life perhaps. I don't understand how the firefighters didn't have access to escape routes or even a deploy zone. Did they seek shelter in their vehicle? I don't know.

Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
This guy wasn't trying to kill anyone. What he did is really no different from someone who chooses to drive drunk knowing there's a good chance he'll kill someone and then hits another car and kills 5 people. But killer DUIs serve a couple years and are free.

I believe this guy was a serial arsonist wasn't he?

Everytime the fires start in California a bunch of lunatic copycats start setting fires too. Perhaps this is meant as a deterrant for others.

I don't have a problem with the death penalty and this guy KNEW what he was doing would at the very least destroy a lot of wild areas and kill a LOT of wildlife and probably destroy a lot of property. He just had the bad luck of killing some firefighters too and THAT is a big deal.

Good riddance.

Perhaps flogging or waterboarding would be in order? Oh I got it! Crusification! That will learn him!

I think the death penalty is used far too little in this country, perhaps we should expand it to include arson, rape, child molesting, spitting on the sidewalk, looking cross, breathing too deeply Etc.

Soooooo.....what ever happened to arsonist being a mental condition as much as kleptomania and narcolepsia......

If this guy was a nacroleptic and fell asleep while holding a lit match then he would also be punished with a death sentence (this is a strech even by my standards) but i believe you cannot put people to death who suffer from a mental condition....

Just saying....

Peace

Having said this, i have absolutly no background info on this guy or how it happened so i guess i'll refraim from comments and leave the discussion up to you guys....

[edit on 8/6/2009 by operation mindcrime]

[

That said, if someone starts a fire and people die, they WERE murdered by that person.

Most people don't look at it that way. Difference between killing and murder.