Arsonist filmed setting the fire!

This guy was on camera before he even set the blaze as a neighbor filmed him dousing the house with gas and setting it afire. Hey Bennie, watcha doing?


Why does that article say “attempted arson” and “attempted fire” repeatedly? Did he not succeed at starting the fire? The photo seems to show a fire has at least gotten started.

This was the fifth attempted arson at this house. It isn’t known who tried the first four arsons, but the clear implication is that this guy is up there on the suspect list. That must be one fire-resistant house? What’s it made of?

If a fire didn’t get started (or not much of a fire got started), why is the city going to tear the house down now?

I think you misread the article, Senegoid. It said aggravated, not attempted. The video shows a lot of damage to the house, with some rooms gutted. I don’t know how much of the damage was from this fire and how much from the earlier fires. A house in such bad shape would have to get demolished, I think, especially since it’s been vacant for seven months. .

Yes, he was charged with “aggravated”. But the article repeatedly described it as “attempted” despite, as you say, some serious ash there. Underlining added:

Here’s one from my neck of the woods. A lot of people had a problem with all the people around not doing anything, but, according to the news that followed, 911 had been notified. It still seems like someone could have yelled something at her. She may have stopped when she saw the crowed and people taking video. Of course, it didn’t seem like she was too concerned.

Having said, that, I’m hoping as more and more people get cameras on their house (Ring and otherwise) that some of this kind of thing will stop, or at least slow down. We’re getting close to pretty much always being taped by someone, somewhere if we’re out in public and if you get a remotely good look at their face their clothes or their car, someone can often ID them if the video ends up on the news.

I think the article could have been better written. My take is that the first use of “attempted”–

–means Stovall was unsuccessful in actually setting what remained of the house ablaze. Obviously, flames were licking the siding, but they apparently went out shortly after the video ended.

As for the second use of “attempt,” it might have been clearer if the article had said

Stovall has been charged for the most recent arson incident. The earlier incidents remain under investigation.