No Charges To Be Filed In Fire

[MJS]

Looks like no charges are going to be filed against the 10yo that set a fire in Ca., that led to 38,000 acres and 21 homes destroyed. Seems that it would be difficult to prove intent to cause harm.

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

Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21777579/

 

[Cruentus]

Looks like no charges are going to be filed against the 10yo that set a fire in Ca., that led to 38,000 acres and 21 homes destroyed. Seems that it would be difficult to prove intent to cause harm.

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

Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21777579/

I think that is great. That kid will have enough guilt to deal with for a very long time. I was worried for a minute that we were getting so unreasonable in this country that we would make a 10 year old kid pay for a 10 year old mistake for the rest of his life. Glad to see that we aren't that bad off.

And as for the homeowners. Yea, that sucks, but what kind of person would sue a 10 year old (or his parents) for making a childhood mistake? Playing with matches is a common mistake that kids of that age make; and never before has it resulted in a 38,000 acre fire and home destruction.

Hopefully no one will try to sue; that is what homeowners insurance is for.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Looks like no charges are going to be filed against the 10yo that set a fire in Ca., that led to 38,000 acres and 21 homes destroyed. Seems that it would be difficult to prove intent to cause harm.

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

Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21777579/

The kid was 10-years-old, playing with matches, no kidding you can't prove intent to harm. He's not even old enough for his acts to be considered reckless endangerment, let alone holding him civilly liable.

I feel really bad for the people whose homes were destroyed, but a 10-year-old doing something that many 10-year-olds do can't be held accountable for their losses.

 

[Jade Tigress]

I agree with Cryo and Random, the kid is 10-years-old, it was a common childhood mistake that, in this case, got out of control. I feel awful for the people who lost their homes, but as already stated, that's what homeowners insurance is for. Save the lawsuits for for people who deserve it and show some understanding for an immature mind who had no intent to cause harm.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I feel awful for everybody involved. Those losing their homes and of course the kid and his parent's. Hopefully cool heads prevail and their will be no civil suits.

 

[Makalakumu]

This is california we are talking about...the mordor of lawyers.

 

[MJS]

It'll be interesting to see if anyone does anything down the road. I'm sure right now, the main thing those poor people are concerned with, is the initial recovery of their life. I look at it like this...if someone is going to be careless and put a hot cup of coffee between their legs, and sue McDonalds, if people are careless in the winter, disregard the "Caution-Wet Floor!" signs, and slip, fall, and sue...due to their own actions...well, anything is possible in this case.

Then again, I'd think its the responsibility of parents to teach their kids right from wrong. I don't recall playing with matches when I was that age. If I did, I really don't remember.

 

[michaeledward]

There were an awful lot of fires in Souther California. And they probably did not all start with the young person playing with matches. And they probably did not all continue to burn because of the young person playing with matches.

I wonder who should be held accountable for building houses in a place where there is no water. I wonder who should be held accountable for surrounding houses with plants that burn hot and fast.

I've been to Southern California in late summer / early fall. It is a tinderbox waiting to burn.

A parallel is all those big wonderful houses built on the sea shore ... and the owners crying when the ocean starts erroding the soil under the houses.

Somebody did something stupid, but if we can blame someone else, even better.

 

[Grenadier]

The child should face neither criminal, nor civil charges. Such a blaze could easily happen again, and it's only one lightning storm away, or maybe some ninny lights a cigarette with a match, and tosses away the still-burning match. Who can the homeowners blame then?

Let the insurance companies handle this.

And yes, it is, as Michael pointed out, a tinderbox waiting to be lit. Blazes are going to happen again, as long as we keep disrupting the natural cycles of the area (vegetation burns down, new vegetation grows replacing the old).

Now, despite the fact that I stated the child should face neither criminal, nor civil charges, I would still advocate that the parents give him the leather belt for playing with matches!

 

[MJS]

Just a hypothetical question here. Lets assume a 16yo is at a friends house. Him and his friend are drinking. The 16yo leaves and is obviously drunk. On his way home, he crashes head on into another vehicle, killing the driver and passenger. Now, the 16 yo did not get into his car thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to look for the first car I see and crash into it!" He got into his car, and attempted to drive home. There is no intent to cause anyone harm.

Would or should he be charged with killing the driver and passenger of the other car?

 

[AceHBK]

If the child isnt responsible then the parents should be.

 

[Cruentus]

Just a hypothetical question here. Lets assume a 16yo is at a friends house. Him and his friend are drinking. The 16yo leaves and is obviously drunk. On his way home, he crashes head on into another vehicle, killing the driver and passenger. Now, the 16 yo did not get into his car thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to look for the first car I see and crash into it!" He got into his car, and attempted to drive home. There is no intent to cause anyone harm.

Would or should he be charged with killing the driver and passenger of the other car?

Sure. Perhaps involunatry manslaughter and not murder, but sure he should be charged.

Bad analogy though. THere is a huge difference between drunk driving and being 16 and playing with matches with a 10 year old. For one, accidental fires can be caused by grown adults. What would we be saying if this was a spark from a campfire or a cigarrete that caught on some brush? Accidental fires can occur without a whole lot of negligence involved; add a 10 year old into the mix and that further ups the probability. Drunk driving requires a lot of negligence of a deliberate nature.

If this kid was purposely trying to light someones house on fire, and it happened to have caught 38,000 acres, we would be talking about arson at least for this kid. But that is not the case.

So, intent and level of negligence makes all the difference here; the difference between a reasonable accident to be racked up in the '**** happens' category to an unreasonable accident caused by gross negligence, or even an intentional act.

 

[MJS]

If the child isnt responsible then the parents should be.

Yes, thank you. This is where I was going with this. Kids need to be taught right from wrong from the beginning. If they're not corrected, how are they going to know any better? They're not. Natural disasters are just that..part of nature. I can't control hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, rain or snow. This however, does not fall into the natural disaster category. This is a case of a child being careless.

 

[MJS]

Sure. Perhaps involunatry manslaughter and not murder, but sure he should be charged.

Bad analogy though. THere is a huge difference between drunk driving and being 16 and playing with matches with a 10 year old. For one, accidental fires can be caused by grown adults. What would we be saying if this was a spark from a campfire or a cigarrete that caught on some brush? Accidental fires can occur without a whole lot of negligence involved; add a 10 year old into the mix and that further ups the probability. Drunk driving requires a lot of negligence of a deliberate nature.

If this kid was purposely trying to light someones house on fire, and it happened to have caught 38,000 acres, we would be talking about arson at least for this kid. But that is not the case.

So, intent and level of negligence makes all the difference here; the difference between a reasonable accident to be racked up in the '**** happens' category to an unreasonable accident caused by gross negligence, or even an intentional act.

With all due respect, I have to disagree with the accident. I get the impression that you're saying its ok to play with matches. How many "accidents" are really caused by someone being careless? IMO, I'd say its more a case of people being careless. Not fully making sure that the campfire is out. Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that fire burns wood and leaves.

The kid playing with the matches is no different than the kid that drank too much. Neither one is intending for anything bad to happen right? I'll just have a few beers. I'll just light some sticks on fire. Again, the kid isn't intending on crashing into someone, no more than the other intending on being an arsonist. Someone throwing a lit cig. out their window on a hot day, when the fire danger is high, is being careless and stupid at that.

 

[Cruentus]

With all due respect, I have to disagree with the accident. I get the impression that you're saying its ok to play with matches. How many "accidents" are really caused by someone being careless? IMO, I'd say its more a case of people being careless. Not fully making sure that the campfire is out. Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that fire burns wood and leaves.

The kid playing with the matches is no different than the kid that drank too much. Neither one is intending for anything bad to happen right? I'll just have a few beers. I'll just light some sticks on fire. Again, the kid isn't intending on crashing into someone, no more than the other intending on being an arsonist. Someone throwing a lit cig. out their window on a hot day, when the fire danger is high, is being careless and stupid at that.

I guess we'll agree to disagree, because I've got to disagree with you still. The issue isn't intent, but degree of negligence. There is a much higher degree of negligence with a 16 year old choosing to drive drunk then with a 10 year old playing with matches. Sure, both are 'stupid,' but one demonstrates a much greater degree of negligence then the other. A 16 year old is almost an adult and mature enough to be given a dirvers license, and would have recieved many classes within the school system as well as in drivers training to have learned the consequences of drunk driving. A 16 year old driving drunk would have had full knowledge of the potential consequences of what he was doing, yet he would have chose to do it anyway. A 10 year old may have been told "don't play with matches." Not, "Don't play with matches, because you could accidentally light 38,000 acres and a bunch of houses on fire." No one would have thought this to be the consequence of playing around with matches.

So, I have to disagree with you. I think the degree of negligence makes a 16 yr old drunk driver greatly different then a 10 year olf playing with matches.

 

[Cryozombie]

The kid playing with the matches is no different than the kid that drank too much. Neither one is intending for anything bad to happen right? I'll just have a few beers. I'll just light some sticks on fire. Again, the kid isn't intending on crashing into someone, no more than the other intending on being an arsonist.

Yeah man... kids are responsible for their actions at that age because they should all have "Grown Up Judgement"

When I popped out of my mom, I knew right from wrong, didnt have to be taught, and more to the point, NEVER thought I knew better than what I was told or disobeyed behind their backs because I had to figure it out for myself... none of us did. This little BRAT is just EVIL. EVIL INCARNATE.

Next time my buddy brings his 6 month old baby over and it pukes on my rug, I'm sueing for Vandalism.

10 years old man. TEN. You think a 10 year old has that much sense? Go spend a day with a group of em, and see how much they listen and comprehend the consequences of their actions.

I gotta go melt some plastic army men with a blowtorch now.

 

[MJS]

I guess we'll agree to disagree, because I've got to disagree with you still. The issue isn't intent, but degree of negligence. There is a much higher degree of negligence with a 16 year old choosing to drive drunk then with a 10 year old playing with matches. Sure, both are 'stupid,' but one demonstrates a much greater degree of negligence then the other. A 16 year old is almost an adult and mature enough to be given a dirvers license, and would have recieved many classes within the school system as well as in drivers training to have learned the consequences of drunk driving. A 16 year old driving drunk would have had full knowledge of the potential consequences of what he was doing, yet he would have chose to do it anyway. A 10 year old may have been told "don't play with matches." Not, "Don't play with matches, because you could accidentally light 38,000 acres and a bunch of houses on fire." No one would have thought this to be the consequence of playing around with matches.

So, I have to disagree with you. I think the degree of negligence makes a 16 yr old drunk driver greatly different then a 10 year olf playing with matches.

To each his own Paul. Personally, when you are telling a child not to do something, don't you think it only makes sense to tell them why? "Don't play with matches because you can get burned!" "Don't play with matches because you can light the house on fire!"

The list goes on and on. It all comes down to common sense. Like I said..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a very good chance that when you're dealing with fire, something is going to get burned.

As far as the negligence goes...its the parents that are neglegent and responsible for their childs actions. Again, you can't expect a child, much less a 10yo, to know right from wrong unless they're told.

Of course, had this been your house that burned down, I wonder if you would feel the same.

 

[MJS]

Yeah man... kids are responsible for their actions at that age because they should all have "Grown Up Judgement"

When I popped out of my mom, I knew right from wrong, didnt have to be taught, and more to the point, NEVER thought I knew better than what I was told or disobeyed behind their backs because I had to figure it out for myself... none of us did. This little BRAT is just EVIL. EVIL INCARNATE.

Next time my buddy brings his 6 month old baby over and it pukes on my rug, I'm sueing for Vandalism.

10 years old man. TEN. You think a 10 year old has that much sense? Go spend a day with a group of em, and see how much they listen and comprehend the consequences of their actions.

I gotta go melt some plastic army men with a blowtorch now.

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.

 

[AceHBK]

I think that many of us don't give 10 year olds enough credit. I think children are a lot faster (especially in this day and age) a lot faster than kids say even 10 years ago. Today a 10 yr old kid can cuss you out better than a sailor and know how to get over people.

I think it greatly depends on where that child is. Meaning location...i.e. city such as N.Y.C or if they live in a small rural town in the Midwest.

I was born and raised in NY and at 10 I was a lot "faster mentally" than many kids my age who were raised "down south". I think every child is different and u have to treat each one different in terms of mindset.

Now I am not saying he should be charged but I do find him responsible and his parents should be held responsible just as if this 10 year old got a hold of a gun and shot another kid.

Im sorry but a 10 year old knows good and well they shouldn't be messing with matches/playing with fire. If they don't then there is some negligence when it comes to the child from the parents for not teaching their child.

 

[Cruentus]

To each his own Paul. Personally, when you are telling a child not to do something, don't you think it only makes sense to tell them why? "Don't play with matches because you can get burned!" "Don't play with matches because you can light the house on fire!"

The list goes on and on. It all comes down to common sense. Like I said..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a very good chance that when you're dealing with fire, something is going to get burned.

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.

As far as the negligence goes...its the parents that are neglegent and responsible for their childs actions. Again, you can't expect a child, much less a 10yo, to know right from wrong unless they're told.

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.

Of course, had this been your house that burned down, I wonder if you would feel the same.

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...