No Charges To Be Filed In Fire

[MJS]

Your assuming a 10 yr old has the cognitive development of an adult. Here, this link will get you started if your interested in reading some of the pioneers of childhood developmental stages (Erikson, Piaget, etc.):

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html

Point is, a child of 10 thinks differently and has a vastly different understanding of consequence then a 16 year old. A child of 10 doesn't have the same "common sense" as an adult.



Again, the child could have been told. But, kids do stupid ****, by adult standards. This isn't always anyone's fault (parents, schools, society, etc.); it goes back to developmental stages and understanding consequence as I previously mentioned. That doesn't mean that the kid should have his life ruined for a childhood mistake, or that the parents should receive the same punishment. None of that would bring the burnt homes back anyway.

There are a lot of good kids out there who have ****ed around with matches before, and without horrible results. Unfortunatily for this kid, his incident resulted in a tragedy.



O.K.; now here is where conversations usually go south. Right here, your attacking the integrity of my argument by implying that I am being insensitive to those who lost there homes, and that if it was my home that I would want to go after the kid.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Material possessions are not so important to me that I would go after a 10 year old.

Anyway, do some searches and read up on childhood developmental stages and see if that changes your mind. Otherwise, like I said, I am afraid we'll simply have to disagree...

You're right, we're going to agee to disagree. I'm sorry Paul, but IMO, my point is being overlooked. I'm not saying the kid should be thinking for himself at that age, what I'm saying is that the parents, from day 1, need to teach right from wrong. How else does a kid learn if the parents are not telling them, "No Johnny, don't touch that hot pan. You'll burn yourself!" Should they let him touch it? If you saw your kid playing with matches, what would you do? Let him keep playing with them, or take them away from him?

O.K.; now here is where conversations usually go south. Right here, your attacking the integrity of my argument by implying that I am being insensitive to those who lost there homes, and that if it was my home that I would want to go after the kid.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Material possessions are not so important to me that I would go after a 10 year old.

Well, what would you do? You never answered. Would you chalk it up to a stupid childhood mistake? Would you be upset with the parents? Would you go after the parents for the loss of your house?

Let me ask you this. That dummy that put a hot cup of coffee between her legs and burned herself sued for millions. Clearly her fault, but clearly she didn't want to live up to her mistake, so she sued Mcdonalds for coffee that was too hot. Common sense should tell her that a styrofoam (sp) cup isn't the same as a regular coffee mug.

 

[Cruentus]

I do see your point, MJS, I just don't agree; we don't know that the parents didn't raise the kid well (or did, for that matter) and teach right from wrong, but the kid made a stupid mistake anyway that unfortunatily had a huge penalty. But we do know that the prosecutors did not feel that the parents or the kid were negligent. So I have to go with that as being the answer. And I would bet that kid will be paying a price of guilt for the rest of his life, so it is not like there is no penalty what-so-ever.

But to answer your question, if it were a situation where basically a kid made a stupid mistake that cost me my house, and no intent to harm was found from the kid, and no negligence was found on behalf of the parents, then I would have to chalk it up as a "**** happens" loss, and my homeowners insurance would cover the damages. I'd just hope that the kid would apologize, that is all, as it would make me feel better to know that he was sorry and that he didn't mean to burn my house down. But I wouldn't go after him or the parents.

But that is just the kind of person I am, I guess.

 

[Cryozombie]

Nice to see that you resort to rude replies! Maybe you should go back Cryo and reread before posting. If you read before you spoke maybe you would have seen when I said that its the parents responsibility to teach their kids right from wrong.

I did read... I read PAST the post where you said that, and to the one that said the 10 year old kid was just as responsible for accidently starting a fire because

Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that fire burns wood and leaves.

as a 16 year old who drinks and drives.

So yes, you DID say parents need to teach kids right from wrong, you also stated that a 10 year old should be on the same cognative level as a 16 year old, as far as "responsibility" goes so I just expanded on that... silly... notion.
.

 

[Cryozombie]

And furthermore... the notion a 10 year old should/could be held responsible (yes yes, I DID READ, and I know you changed your tune to "uh, we should make sure the parents are teaching right from wrong, halfway in) is a big part of the reason we see ******** like "johnny got kicked out of first grade for hugging betty, it was sexual harrassment" so If I come across as "rude" to people who I percieve as being part and parcel to the problem, tough. I wont apologise for that. If someone doesnt put their foot down and stand against the madness, the next thing you know we WILL be throwing 10 year olds in jail.
​

 

[MJS]

I did read... I read PAST the post where you said that, and to the one that said the 10 year old kid was just as responsible for accidently starting a fire because



as a 16 year old who drinks and drives.

So yes, you DID say parents need to teach kids right from wrong, you also stated that a 10 year old should be on the same cognative level as a 16 year old, as far as "responsibility" goes so I just expanded on that... silly... notion.
.

Hmmm..speaking of changing things, I notice that you changed your post from "Implied" to "stated". I said that the 10 yo most likely did not set out with arson on his mind. He went out to play with matches, never dreaming what would happen. Just like the 16 yo never dreamed that he'd crash. Again, its up to the parents to educate their kids. Driving drunk...I'm sure that the dangers of that were covered in drivers ed. Don't you think that parents need to teach right from wrong when kids are little? I'm sure I reached for a pack of matches or lighter out of curiosity when I was a kid, I'm sure I started heading for the street without looking to see if cars were coming....but again, I never started a fire or got hit by a car. Why? Do I really have to tell you?

And furthermore... the notion a 10 year old should/could be held responsible​

Considering the 10yo has nothing to offer anyone who lost property, its very possible a civil suit can be filed against the parents. Come on man, I don't think I should have to tell you that people sue at the drop of a hat.​

(yes yes, I DID READ, and I know you changed your tune to "uh, we should make sure the parents are teaching right from wrong, halfway in)

Changed my tune half way in? I spoke about the parents in post 2.​

is a big part of the reason we see ******** like "johnny got kicked out of first grade for hugging betty, it was sexual harrassment" so If I come across as "rude" to people who I percieve as being part and parcel to the problem, tough. I wont apologise for that. If someone doesnt put their foot down and stand against the madness, the next thing you know we WILL be throwing 10 year olds in jail.

Tough? Come on now Cryo...you're going to tell me that you can't get your point across without being rude? Considering you used to be a mod here, I'm sure you're not totally in the dark about this are you?

 

[michaeledward]

I think it is the correct decision to leave civil and criminal charges off the table.

Part of the issue is, there were a number of circumstance that were quite beyond the control of anyone.

Yes, 10 year old children play with matches ... and shouldn't.

But, 10 year old children are not metiorologists. The Santa Ana Winds contributed to how far and how fast this fire spread. No child is going to be cognizant of that. On a different day, the same actions of the child could have yielded a very different result.

There were insufficient fire crews available, and I understand fire-fighting aircraft were delayed in being deployed. There were several other fires going on at the same time ... some started by natural causes (downed power lines from the Santa Ana Winds).

I believe there were too many mitigating circumstance to allow all blame to come back to one single incident.

It is a sad event ... but many parts of California are BROWN in that time of year, just waiting to burn, burn, burn. Seems to be a silly place to build, to me.

 

[MJS]

I think it is the correct decision to leave civil and criminal charges off the table.

Hey Mike,

Regarding the charges...my point was simply that in todays world, it seems like anyone can and will sue for anything. Will people who lost a home think about that? I don't know. Whatever happens, happens I suppose.

Part of the issue is, there were a number of circumstance that were quite beyond the control of anyone.

Yes, 10 year old children play with matches ... and shouldn't.

Agreed.

But, 10 year old children are not metiorologists. The Santa Ana Winds contributed to how far and how fast this fire spread. No child is going to be cognizant of that. On a different day, the same actions of the child could have yielded a very different result.

Did the wind contribute? I'm sure it did. Would the damage have been less, had there been no wind? No idea, and speaking for myself, I do not want to say yes it would or no it wouldn't, due to the fact that I really don't know.

It is a sad event ... but many parts of California are BROWN in that time of year, just waiting to burn, burn, burn. Seems to be a silly place to build, to me.

I know Vegas and AZ in the Summer is brutal. Out of curiosity, do you have any idea about the danger of fire there? You're right, CA has alot of fires, but considering the other 2 states are dry and hot, I'm just curious.

 

[michaeledward]

I don't really know about the differences in fire danger among California, Arizona, and Nevada. I'm sure they all get hot ... but the Saraha desert is hot, and it doesn't burn.

One thing that I am pretty certain of, is that the Santa Ana winds are a pretty reliable event. And, those winds don't show up in the land-locked states. As I understand it, the reason for the winds is the temperature imbalance between the land and ocean. As the land-locked states don't have that cooler water mass adjacent, they don't get the winds that we see in California.

Also, I'm not certain that Arizona and Nevada ever get as green as California does. Summer is the dry season in California. There is a good deal of rain during the winter months, which turns California into a beautiful place to be. Much of Arizona and Nevada appears to be a desert. Plant life is more sparse, and more harty.

Lastly, the terrain in Southern California may be a bit different than the other states. The coastal mountains are beautiful. But, they create canyons that act like funnels for wind. And as the flames and heat rise, they burn up the side of the hills and mountains. I don't know if the other states are flat ... but the news reports tell us the terrain in California makes it difficult to fight fires, and contribute to the spread and intensity.

So, it is the combination of the dry season in California, the atmospheric activity in California, and the landscape in California that create the problems with fires.

And the continued population growth increases demand for non-existant water resources. It's a damned stupid place to build and live.

 

[MJS]

I don't really know about the differences in fire danger among California, Arizona, and Nevada. I'm sure they all get hot ... but the Saraha desert is hot, and it doesn't burn.

One thing that I am pretty certain of, is that the Santa Ana winds are a pretty reliable event. And, those winds don't show up in the land-locked states. As I understand it, the reason for the winds is the temperature imbalance between the land and ocean. As the land-locked states don't have that cooler water mass adjacent, they don't get the winds that we see in California.

Also, I'm not certain that Arizona and Nevada ever get as green as California does. Summer is the dry season in California. There is a good deal of rain during the winter months, which turns California into a beautiful place to be. Much of Arizona and Nevada appears to be a desert. Plant life is more sparse, and more harty.

Lastly, the terrain in Southern California may be a bit different than the other states. The coastal mountains are beautiful. But, they create canyons that act like funnels for wind. And as the flames and heat rise, they burn up the side of the hills and mountains. I don't know if the other states are flat ... but the news reports tell us the terrain in California makes it difficult to fight fires, and contribute to the spread and intensity.

So, it is the combination of the dry season in California, the atmospheric activity in California, and the landscape in California that create the problems with fires.

And the continued population growth increases demand for non-existant water resources. It's a damned stupid place to build and live.

Thanks for the reply Mike. I suppose if we think about it, every state has something that sucks about the weather. I mean, look at Florida. I'm sure the winds, etc. did play a part. Hopefully everyone effected by this will recover.

 

[michaeledward]

Certianly, different locations offer different challenges. But, we humans live for such a short time, we have difficulty reasoning in geologic time.

Hurricanes regularly pummel Florida. And we build on the coast.
The Mississippi River regularly floods Louisiana. And we build levees that kill the natural protections in the area.
Southern California is a desert, with no water. So we steal the resources of the Colorado river.

And we are surprised when Mother Nature strikes back. Hubris.

I am reminded of the wise writings of Anne McCaffery. Her Pernese travellers abandoned the Southern Continent of Pern, because of geologic instability. When it is Man versus Planet ... Planet wins, every time.

Hopefully, those people have insurance.
Hopefully, those insurance companies will charge appropriate premiums for risky behaviors.

And I think Society should tax the **** out of people who build stick homes in fire tinder boxes, and destroy the amazing natural resources of the Colorado River watershed.

 

[Cryozombie]

Tough? Come on now Cryo...you're going to tell me that you can't get your point across without being rude? Considering you used to be a mod here, I'm sure you're not totally in the dark about this are you?

Well, one man's rude is another man's forceful. Believe me, If I wanted to show you rude... it wouldnt be that tame. Tell you what, I'll do like 90% of the other "rude" comments I see here and add a smiley so I can pretend it was all in jest right?

 

[Cryozombie]

Hmmm..speaking of changing things, I notice that you changed your post from "Implied" to "stated".

Must be nice to be able to abu...err.. use those staff powers to determine that...

Changed my tune half way in? I spoke about the parents in post 2.​

And yet, you still went on to say that a 10 year old has the same responsibility as a 16 year old, and it wasnt until that notion was attacked the focus shifted back to the "The parents should teach him better"

Lemme ask you... how do YOU know what the parents taught him? How do you know he simply wasnt disobeying out of curiosity? The investigators dertermined they werent at fault, so (hold on lemme be extra polite) if you please, I would be greatly interested in your opinion as to why that should not be so, since I certainly cannot comprehend what sort of additional information you might have that would make this child as responsible as a 16 year old drunk driver.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Cryo,
You have a complaint about the staff, you know full well how to bring it to my attention. Unless your intent is to provoke things in which case you'll rapidly wear out your welcome here.

So, and this goes for everyone, drop the personal shots and stick to factual debate on the topics. You want to insult each other, there's other boards that live for that crap. This isn't one of em.

Got an issue, hit the report button

Need to vent, PM me.

/Friendly Warning.

 

[shesulsa]

Must be nice to be able to abu...err.. use those staff powers to determine that...

Admin. Note:

When a post is edited, all users can see a note at the bottom of the post indicating who edited it, the date and time - ALL USERS CAN SEE THIS INFORMATION.

If you suspect staff is abusing privileges, feel free to notify Bob Hubbard at [email protected] or the admin team at [email protected]

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator

 

[MJS]

Well, one man's rude is another man's forceful. Believe me, If I wanted to show you rude... it wouldnt be that tame. Tell you what, I'll do like 90% of the other "rude" comments I see here and add a smiley so I can pretend it was all in jest right?

And this has what to do with the thread???????????

Must be nice to be able to abu...err.. use those staff powers to determine that...

No abuse, but as its been noted, you are not clueless to the proper procedures to take. I was viewing your post and noticed that you made the change as I was going to reply. Abuse? Not likely.

And yet, you still went on to say that a 10 year old has the same responsibility as a 16 year old, and it wasnt until that notion was attacked the focus shifted back to the "The parents should teach him better"

Please show me the post you're talking about.

Lemme ask you... how do YOU know what the parents taught him? How do you know he simply wasnt disobeying out of curiosity? The investigators dertermined they werent at fault, so (hold on lemme be extra polite) if you please, I would be greatly interested in your opinion as to why that should not be so, since I certainly cannot comprehend what sort of additional information you might have that would make this child as responsible as a 16 year old drunk driver.

Speculation, just like any discussion that takes place in the study. Regardless of what the investigators find, it does not mean that a civil suit can't and won't be filed. That is my point, however you seem to keep overlooking that.

On that note...I think I'm just about done with this thread. I have no problem debating issues, but when people have to start resorting to personal attacks...well, that doesnt make anything enjoyable anymore.

 

[Cruentus]

Speculation, just like any discussion that takes place in the study. Regardless of what the investigators find, it does not mean that a civil suit can't and won't be filed. That is my point, however you seem to keep overlooking that.

Of course people can file a civil suit; people do it all the time no matter how frivolous.

But I thought your point was that they should file civil suit? That was the point I thought we disagree on, anyway, as I don't think that people should in this case.

 

[MJS]

Of course people can file a civil suit; people do it all the time no matter how frivolous.

But I thought your point was that they should file civil suit? That was the point I thought we disagree on, anyway, as I don't think that people should in this case.

Well, while that may be the case, I would think that some civil suits will or should be filed.

The above was taken from post 1. To clarify things Paul:

Will they be filed? I dont know. Maybe/maybe not.

Should they? Sure

I have to say Paul, that given the nature of this thread, you've been pretty civil, despite our agreeing to disagree. For that I say thank you.

 

[Cruentus]

The above was taken from post 1. To clarify things Paul:

Will they be filed? I dont know. Maybe/maybe not.

Should they? Sure

I have to say Paul, that given the nature of this thread, you've been pretty civil, despite our agreeing to disagree. For that I say thank you.

Sorry for the late reply on this (I missed it somehow);

No, thank you man! :cheers:

I always try to keep it civil. I have to admit, I like a good spirited debate. This can be my downfall because sometimes I am so spirited and unwilling to compromise that I piss people off, which isn't my intent, because as spirited as I sometimes read over the net I am almost always not pissed off or trying to upset people.

The only times I tend to actually get pissed and lose my civility is when I perceive that people turn it into an attack on me rather then my argument.
So, thank you for keeping it a good debate on the topic and not resorting to personal attacks, as it ends up being a good discussion that way in the end, even if all parties don't agree.

til Later...


C.