What do you think about this? Should arsonists be charged with murder if a fireman dies in a fire? I can see the murder charge if, say, a civilian died in a fire while asleep. But a professional, who knows all the risks, consciously going into a burning building (or forest in this case) which results in their death? I don’t see murder. On the other hand, if someone can prove that arsonists were aiming to kill firefighters, then I’ll listen. So I guess my argument is that second-degree murder and manslaughter should never be considered when a firefighter dies on the job. First-degree only.
I think emotions run high and people just want to punish somebody and they think the legal system is their best shot, but why our courts even entertain this, I don’t understand. There was a fire in my hometown of Worcester, MA in 1999, I think, where six firefighters died due to an accidental fire, but the person responsible (my first cousin, strangely enough and who’s slightly retarded – has around a 80 IQ, I think) was going to be charged with murder until the DA threw it out. I thought it was pretty ridiculous then and I do now.
I disagree. Anyone of normal mental competence who sets a fire knows that he is creating a substantial risk that he will kill someone, including a firefighter who is obligated to put out the fire. If the firefighter didn’t try to stop the fire, someone else would probably die, so I don’t think the fact that the firefighter is assuming the risk really matters (even if such a thing were relevant to criminal law).
Unless you think people shouldn’t be liable for murder for knowingly creating a substantial risk that people would die (and someone does die), then I think I don’t see how you oppose a murder charge in the case of arson.
IANAL, but I don’t see how it could be murder unless you know people are in the building when you set the fire. Wouldn’t the appropriate charge would be manslaughter?
It depends on the state. It would be felony murder in some states, and some states put felony murder in with first degree murder. It would also be straight up second degree murder in some states as well, even absent felony murder.
If you commit arson, it’s basically a lead-pipe cinch that the firefighters are going to show up and wind up risking their lives to prevent the fire from spreading somewhere else, killing people, and so on. (I don’t know if the firefighters in California are professionals, but many firefighters are volunteers.) So they show up as a knowable consequence of the arson. If you set a fire deliberately, you jeopardizing the lives of firefighters. To me that sounds pretty reasonable as a basis for a charge of manslaughter or second degree murder.
That does sound ridiculous due to your cousin’s diminished capacity and the fact that the fire was an accident.
I believe that in California (as many other states) manslaughter resulting from the commission of a felony upgrades the charges to murder.
I don’t have a problem with an arsonist being charged in murder in a case such as the wild fires. They deliberately put the firefighters and other people’s lives at unncessary risk. In the case of DudleyGarret’s cousin, I would agree that a mentally retarded person who accidentally set a fire should not be charged with murder.
So there’s no such concept of murdering a cop? (I’m sure you don’t believe that but it seems like the obvious and appropriate analogy.)
I don’t think one can ever assume that a fire will be contained to one area/structure. If you set my neighbor’s house on fire, surely it’s not an accident if in spreads to mine. If I put a blindfold on and start twirling around with a machine gun, I don’t think I can say “well, I didn’t know anyone would get hurt!”
You may know more than the press did, since you’re related to one of them, but according to the news stories here, they were originally charged with involuntary manslaughter, not murder, the charges were dismissed, then reinstated, then they plea bargained to 5 years probation. According to that, they knocked over a lit candle, tried to extinguish the fire, then escaped, but didn’t report the fire. By the time the fire department got there, the building was fully involved. If they had stayed and reported the fire (not judging, just observing), the firefighters may have gotten there before it got so large, and they would have possibly been able to tell the firefighters that there wasn’t anyone else in the building. I don’t find the final result ridiculous.
Deliberate arson should be eligible for the death penalty even if no-one is killed. Arsonists are scum, and should be dealt with as such. Life without possibility of parole is too good for them.
Arson is a felony, and if firefighters die fighting an arson fire, it’s death as a direct result of the commission of a felony. That makes it legally murder, open and shut.
If the fire in question was intentionally set, then by all means, I’m in favor of at least 2nd degree murder charges for any deaths that occur. And if no deaths or injuries occur, I’m in favor of attempted murder charges.
In the case of DudleyGarrett’s cousin, where there was no intent, but the fire went unreported, involuntary manslaughter is an entirely fair charge to start with, and then the judge or prosecutor can consider mitigating factors, as it appears happened.
It is murder if you knowingly set fire to something and someone dies. As for your first cousin I don’t think 80 IQ is unintelligent enough not to recognize right and wrong. He shouldn’t have been charged with first-degree murder but he should have been given some sort of punishment.