|
|
Post by officergroyman on Nov 14, 2007 5:41:16 GMT -1
Prosecutor: No evidence of intent; blaze destroyed 21 homes last monthupdated 6:13 p.m. PT, Tues., Nov. 13, 2007LOS ANGELES - A 10-year-old boy who admitted starting a 38,000-acre fire last month that destroyed 21 homes in northern Los Angeles County will not be charged, prosecutors said Tuesday. There was no evidence of intent by the boy, who accidentally ignited brush outside his home by playing with matches, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office said in a statement. Authorities are referring the case to the Department of Children and Family Services to determine if further steps are necessary. No other information about the investigation was released because the case involves a minor. The blaze was among more than a dozen major wildfires that blackened more than 800 square miles from Los Angeles to the Mexican border. In all, 10 people were killed directly by the wildfires. About a week after the fires were ignited, sheriff’s department officials announced that they had interviewed the boy, who lived with his family in a trailer home on a ranch in Santa Clarita, and that he acknowledged starting the blaze. Officials presented the case to the district attorney’s office, but law experts had said prosecutors would have trouble getting a conviction against the boy because it would be difficult to prove intent to cause harm. --------------------------------------------------------- Holy Crap where have we gone with personal accountability these days  "Oh I'm sure he didn't mean to burn down 21 homes, lets give the kid a break"  Come on PEOPLE!!! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Nov 14, 2007 8:11:02 GMT -1
On the one hand, as they say, I think you can't really prove that he intended to do any major damage like that.
On the other hand, 10 people were killed directly by the fires - say what you like, that's gotta carry a criminal charge, as has the massed destruction the fires caused. Try explaining that to the boy though?
People often say they want to see more 'common sense' applied to the law, and I think that was the case here. At the end of the day, what benefit would putting a 10 year-old boy on trial for a genuine accident bring anyone? It'd cost the state a fortune to bring a full trial, it'd cause the boy and his family immense suffering, and would it really help bring any closure to anyone who's lost property or loved ones during all this?
Sometimes, you've just gotta be sensible about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by officergroyman on Nov 14, 2007 15:45:38 GMT -1
On the one hand, as they say, I think you can't really prove that he intended to do any major damage like that. On the other hand, 10 people were killed directly by the fires - say what you like, that's gotta carry a criminal charge, as has the massed destruction the fires caused. Try explaining that to the boy though? People often say they want to see more 'common sense' applied to the law, and I think that was the case here. At the end of the day, what benefit would putting a 10 year-old boy on trial for a genuine accident bring anyone? It'd cost the state a fortune to bring a full trial, it'd cause the boy and his family immense suffering, and would it really help bring any closure to anyone who's lost property or loved ones during all this? Sometimes, you've just gotta be sensible about it. Agreed Sensibility is a good thing - I'd just like to see young people who do stupid things like this having to do some sort of community work, rather than just getting off scott-free (if you catch my drift). |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Nov 14, 2007 15:50:06 GMT -1
On the one hand, as they say, I think you can't really prove that he intended to do any major damage like that. On the other hand, 10 people were killed directly by the fires - say what you like, that's gotta carry a criminal charge, as has the massed destruction the fires caused. Try explaining that to the boy though? People often say they want to see more 'common sense' applied to the law, and I think that was the case here. At the end of the day, what benefit would putting a 10 year-old boy on trial for a genuine accident bring anyone? It'd cost the state a fortune to bring a full trial, it'd cause the boy and his family immense suffering, and would it really help bring any closure to anyone who's lost property or loved ones during all this? Sometimes, you've just gotta be sensible about it. Agreed Sensibility is a good thing - I'd just like to see young people who do stupid things like this having to do some sort of community work, rather than just getting off scott-free (if you catch my drift). Oh yeah, that'd be brilliant - I'm just saying a full criminal court case wouldn't be a good thing. I think the best solution would be for the parents to make him go lend a hand (under their supervision) to the people whose houses had been damaged, as long as the people weren't gonna flip out at him - y'know, help with cleaning, for instance. How much could a ten year-old actually help, though, and would H&S laws allow it? My guess is not a lot and no! |
|
|
|
Post by officergroyman on Nov 14, 2007 15:56:09 GMT -1
Agreed Sensibility is a good thing - I'd just like to see young people who do stupid things like this having to do some sort of community work, rather than just getting off scott-free (if you catch my drift). Oh yeah, that'd be brilliant - I'm just saying a full criminal court case wouldn't be a good thing. I think the best solution would be for the parents to make him go lend a hand (under their supervision) to the people whose houses had been damaged, as long as the people weren't gonna flip out at him - y'know, help with cleaning, for instance. How much could a ten year-old actually help, though, and would H&S laws allow it? My guess is not a lot and no! Yeah a criminal case would gain nothing for sure, I wouldn't ever advocate that and your probably right about the laws not allowing a kid of 10 to be out there doing community service and he probably would be no help at all. Perhaps they could let him do some sort of Public Service Advert on the Radio warning kids about the danger of playing around with matches!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Nov 14, 2007 16:00:06 GMT -1
I was considering that as well, but only if it's voluntary - forcing him to do it would probably be a bit much, especially if they make him go into detail about how much damage was caused and how many people, "he" killed. I'm sure that's something that's gonna haunt him for a long time to come!
|
|
|
|
Post by CHOPPER READ on Nov 14, 2007 16:38:43 GMT -1
Sure the kid will have quite a few breaks if the homeowners get him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr LuKas on Nov 14, 2007 17:14:02 GMT -1
Boys will be boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by GresleyRam©®™ on Nov 14, 2007 17:27:38 GMT -1
Trailer park trash by the sounds of it!  |
|
|
|
Post by officergroyman on Nov 14, 2007 18:48:30 GMT -1
Trailer park trash by the sounds of it! A nice doublewide with shag carpeting a pellet stove, a PS3 and a 56"plasma with a fridge full of beer sounds pretty nice abotu now!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Roaster©®™ on Nov 14, 2007 22:02:04 GMT -1
Trailer park trash by the sounds of it! A nice doublewide with shag carpeting a pellet stove, a PS3 and a 56"plasma with a fridge full of beer sounds pretty nice abotu now!!! And all run off a 'stolen' car battery! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ArgyleChick on Nov 15, 2007 8:45:27 GMT -1
Oh this boy is what I have just written 3,000 words about for my degree, however usually the curiosity fire-setters are about 8 years younger than he is, when they sit there playing with matches, a 10 year old should know that if they sit there playing with matches things are going to catch alight!!!
It must have a been a heck of a brush that he was sitting next to, to spread and cause all that damage. Just goes to show that these sort of kids need to be helped early on in their fire-setting lives to prevent all this damage later on, he may have had a curiosity before and no-one picked up on it until its not too late - just a thought!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Teesside White on Nov 15, 2007 10:46:21 GMT -1
accident or not, that boys stupidity destroyed 21 homes and killed 10 people.....he can't just get away with it, he needs to be punished! community service, house arrest until he's 16
but i suppose the 1 punishment he will get isthe fact he has to live with this for the rest of his life....but thats not enough in my eyes
|
|
|
|
Post by mortontheblade on Nov 15, 2007 10:47:10 GMT -1
i blame the parents...
|
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Nov 15, 2007 10:49:55 GMT -1
|
|
|
|
Post by mortontheblade on Nov 16, 2007 10:23:11 GMT -1
yer! them too! dodgey greek bastards! |
|
