I agree. And about six months ago I did a hell of a lot of research for one of my clients. The short version is that “malicious” in these statutes is a carryover from the common law definition of arson, which if you remember from our arduous bar exams, is the malicious burning of the dwelling house of another.
That’s a simple enough concept to understand. If I accidentally burn your house down, then I’m not guilty of arson, and likewise, if you give me permission or I burn your house down for a good reason (controlled demolition burn) I am not guilty.
The problem arises now that states and the feds have added to the arson definition by including other buildings, one’s own dwelling house, other personal property, and even real property. But throughout the centuries that “malicious” word still stands in the statute books.
And that is my whole problem with these types of crimes. How can a person maliciously burn down undergrowth in a forest? Ever? He may negligently do it, perhaps even recklessly do it. But how can it ever be malicious?
If my neighbor sets fire to my backyard to cover up the fact that he killed my dog, all without my permission, would you not consider that to be malicious?
Yes. However, the exact same penalty should not apply if the neighbor burned your house down to cover up the killing of a family member. That’s what this federal statute does: it makes no distinction between the burning of a leaf or a mansion.
I have no idea what all that blather was about after the word “yes”, since your “whole problem” was that you couldn’t conceive of how burning undergrowth could be malicious, ever.
k9b’s awesome helpful example showed you, and you agreed, that it was a case of malicious burning of undergrowth, which was your “whole problem”.
I’m glad you saw the errors in your reasoning and were able to admit them so we can move on from this minor point.
If someone were killed, or extensive property damage resulted, then they can get stiffer sentences.
Did you see the part where some of the fires that they set threatened firefighters? Fire fighters that they knew the location of, and that they had had an argument with earlier?
They got off light, IMHO, for only getting the minimum sentence, and getting it only once, though they had set more than one fire.
A forest on BLM land is my backyard.
When people accidentally start a massive forest fire because they were not diligent about policing their campfire (especially during a fire ban), do you feel that they too should escape any repercussion? They didn’t mean to burn hundreds of acres and threaten homes and lives, they were just cooking hot-dogs and roasting marshmallows.
Every fire threatens firefighters. That’s the nature of the job.
I’m not condoning the activity. Not at all. Please read my prior posts. There is the excluded middle here between “any repercussion” and five years in federal prison. I, like the District Court, believe that a five year mandatory minimum for “arson” in this context no matter what, shocks the conscience.
The breadth is my problem with the statute. I torch your business destroying your beautiful office building. The judge must give me five years. I torch a leaf in the yard of your beautiful business. The judge must give me the same five years. The baseline is not equal.
At least. At least five years. Not “must give five years.” Must give at least five years. That’s the baseline.
And both your beautiful examples are businesses, not beautiful public land, with both evidence of your other crimes and innocent people who are now risked by you torching things.
It only shocks your conscience. If you lived in the middle of a forest like me, 5 years for the irresponsible setting of any fire is a very serious matter and I have no problem with 5 years as a mandatory minimum.
No one can know how much damage a fire may cause when they light it. Using your rationale, people who rob others should receive their sentences on a sliding scale based solely on how much loot they get away with: “Your Honor, my client only stole $7.31 after kneecapping the victim and stealing her purse. Can’t you go easy on him?”
They knew that the firefighters were there, and that the fires that they set could threaten them. Is that really the nature of the job, to have people actively trying to harm you as you try to protect them?
If there were firefighters fighting a fire in your house, and someone came in and set another fire behind them while they were trying to put out the first, is the person who set the fire without any consequence, after all, being threatened by fire is the nature of the job?
You are certainly downplaying the risks and damage that setting uncontrolled fires for the purposes of covering illegal activity or threatening firefighters as being no different than setting fire to a leaf.
Notwithstanding your conflation of public and private property, it is not that you would get the same sentence for setting fire to a leaf. It is that there is a mandatory sentence for setting fire to a leaf in a way that has a high chance of catching other leaves on fire, and continuing to spread until it does threaten my office building. There is also the fact that you would not get the same, even in that case, as, once again I must remind you, the 5 years is a minimum, so actually intentionally setting a structure fire could very well have more severe consequences.
You do realize that there is actually a particular definition for the setting of brush fires, and that “torching a leaf” does not fall under it, right? (Now, torching a leaf and tossing it into a pile of dry tinder, that just may be.)
At least yes. As far as the covering up of evidence and threatening firefighters, are those not separate crimes? If convicted of those, then the Bundys should have faced additional time.
My only objection is that the law sets a baseline punishment for bad acts which, at least to me, bear no resemblance to each other. It should not be the same crime if I burn your azalea bush versus your tire swing versus your car versus your house.
And yes, setting fires is bad and Very Dangerous. I am not arguing that at all. I am simply saying that acts of petty vandalism should not be prosecuted the same as torching your home.
And we keep repeating that they are not, though I think you just equated setting wildfires with petty vandalism, which may be part of the problem.
These are minimums, to discourage people from partaking in a very damaging and dangerous activity. The minimum is what you get when no other collateral damage comes of it. It’s like drinking and driving, you don’t get off because you didn’t get in an accident or hurt anyone, you participated in an activity that you know could lead to substantial injury and property damage.
So yeah, set a wild fire on BLM land, and you get the minimum. Hurt someone or damage structures, and you get more.
Yeah, they should be charged with poaching and for threatening firefighters as well, but prosecutorial discretion, along with the minimum sentence that comes with a conviction of a charge that the prosecutors were fairly confident of getting means that they chose not to.
Would it have made you accept the mandatory sentences for the fires that they set if they had also been charged with their other crimes as well? Is it that that makes you upset, that they got away with those crimes?
I think they should have gotten - and been forced to serve - MORE time. Given the details, this was not a case of setting my azaleas on fire at all. So, the judge can and should look at the minimums and guidelines and then send them away for longer - IAW the law. And then the “other separate” crimes should have added even MORE time on top of that. They got away far far too easily even before Trump decided to pardon them.
Further, I think Trump doesn’t give a fuck about them, the Bundys or the others. This is his way of interfering with his own investigation - sending a message to potential witnesses and targets of that investigation (“dont’ worry guys I will take care of you”). It also plays well with his base. Reactionaries, rednecks, sovereigns, fascists, dominionists, and nazis. The Deplorables. They are loving this shit. What they are ignoring is, he doesn’t give a fuck about them either. He’s playing them too.
I’m confused why **UltraVires **thinks that arson on public land isn’t a more serious crime than arson of a private building. He keeps talking about burning “a leaf.” Well, that’s not what happened here. Even if the fire started on private land, the court determined that there was a malicious intent to let it spread into public land.
We have burn bans in my part of the country. You do not burn when it is too dry. Is that not a thing where **UltraVires **comes from?
A couple of decades ago I was on a trip to Bryce Canyon (Under-The-Rim), when we got to our out at Rainbow Point we all took turns using the restroom and watching our gear. At some point there were two of us so I walked from the car to the overlook, where I saw a family from the UK also looking out at things. To my horror, the teenage girl threw her lit cigarette down the steep, brush covered hillside! I hollered and jumped over the railing, leaping down the hill to where I thought it had landed. I found it, stomped it out and brought it back up with me, absolutely livid. The family had moved back towards their car so I got a few breaths and hollered at them again about not being stupid with my national forests, please. And the girl got snippy. I laid into her, pointing out the EXTREME FIRE DANGER signs all around and emphasizing that this was NOT a trivial thing. And so Dad tried to come to her rescue.
The fact that there were now 5 of us in the parking lot travel lane, with 2 more of my friends coming from our distant car, made us very noticeable to the ranger as he turned into the parking lot.
When I explained what happened, and handed him the half-a-cigarette butt she had thrown and showed him where it was, he promptly wrote them a $500 ticket and told them if they expected to enjoy any more of America, they’d best not argue and leave the park now.
My friends bought me dinner that night.
But anyway, the point is that, yeah, often people who aren’t from here in the US West simply have no appreciation for what exactly a forest fire can be and sometimes is. It’s no fault of their own they have no experience or first-hand reference, perhaps, but I’ve seen it many times over with people hiking, camping, rafting and kayaking out here.
No, it’s their fault. Avalanche signs and High Fire Hazard signs and Do Not Stop On The Highway To Gawk At Bears And Feed Them Cheetos signs are prominent, and we put them up for a reason.
QFT. We just had a 300 acre fire that threatened houses (evacuation orders were issued). The investigators believe it was caused by a backfiring pickup on the road. We had the Santa Rosa fire last year that destroyed entire neighborhoods and FAST. Fire in the West is scary and serious. I suspect that most people out here support the “at least 5 years” sentencing rule.
