I know she will probably go down for manslaughter, but can this be called 2nd degree murder?
Firefighter?
do you mean Fire starter?
Well, since the plane that crashed was fighting a completely unrelated fire in California, I would doubt it.
I thought the woman who started it was also a firefighter-type person, i.e., looking for fires, putting out small campfires she found, etc.
I wasn’t aware that it was a completely unrelated fire that took that plane out. Oops!
IANAL. Close call I would think. Starting the fire was apparently accidental. However, news reports say that she made false official statements which might be a felony. The question would be is any death connected with the fire; heart attack, asthma attack, etc., a result of the felony or the accident? Lawyers?
Aren’t non-malicious actions which result in death called ‘negligent homicide’?
I would contend that no fire in that area could be considered ‘accidental’, since they were on an alert prohibiting camp fires etc, and since one of her duties was to inform/enforce that w/campers, she’d be hard pressed to claim she didn’t know how serious it was.
Generally (disclaimers about jurisdictions, IANAL etc), any death that results from a criminal act can get brought under the umbrella of that criminal act, including, IIRC, some cases where a person dies of a heart attack that occurs while, say a robbery was taking place.
So, if fire fighters die while fighting a fire that she started, yeppers, it can get attached to her (there was a precedent in case in the East where a person accidentally started a fire in an abandoned building, and some fire fighters died).
and (to bring it to GD territory) is correct - you start a chain of events with a criminal act, you’re responsible for the results.
I’m not a lawyer, but I can google.
http://lawsmart.lawinfo.com/canada/criminal/homicide.html?Assoc=myrnalytle
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/293/293lect07.htm
Hypothetically, if the deaths were caused by the woman, it seems to me she would be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter (see 2nd link).
It’s not second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter because, though criminally negligent, she could not have known that her criminal negligence would result in deaths. Huge property damage, yes, but not death. However, it is interesting to note from the definition of “murder” in the first link:
If the prosecuters can make a case for arson rather than criminal negligence, they could bump the hypothetical charges up from Involuntary manslaughter to second degree murder.
here ya go in response to the current situation in CO, this press release had been issued, relevant portion here:
Er, if the woman was patrolling for the U.S. Forest Service, then I blithely assume that the fire began in a National Forest. Which would make it a federal offense, and Colorado statutes do not apply.
That is, if deaths had resulted from the Hayman fire, which they haven’t so far.
THe OP was wrong about which fire the deaths came from, but the question would still be there.
RE: fire started on federal land issue -
I believe that the feds could take the case, but that is not necessarily the same as saying that the state couldn’t (for example, kidnapping can be charged at both a state and federal level). Especially since presently the fire is raging outside of the Federal lands, I would think this would mean that the state certainly could press charges as well.
I would also think that where the deaths occur matters a fair bit… If they occur off Federal property, the state definately has a piece of her, no matter whose employee she was, or where the fire was started.
The prosecution in the case is pursuing the theory that she set the fire in order to put it out and claim credit: the “hero” theory.
Assuming that turns out to be the case, how does that affect the crimes with which she can be charged? Is criminally negligent homicide more serious than involuntary?
Criminally negligent homicide is the same thing as involuntary manslaughter. However, if the “hero theory” is correct than I think the prosecution could make a case for voluntary manslaughter (She was more than criminally negligent - she meant to start the fire) or even second degree murder (the deaths would be the result of arson). Both are more serious than involuntary manslaughter.
Is it true that if a crime takes place in National Forest Land then it becomes (can be prosecuted) as a federal crime? There was a murder recently in the NH White Mountain National Forest and it was dealt with completely by local law enforcement. It’s not clear that a “generic” murder would be a federal offense just because it took place on federal land.
FYI, Terry Barton is currently facing indictment by a federal grand jury. see
This is because (to answer Telemark’s question) federal laws enacted by Congress are operative in the District of Columbia and federally purchased lands within states (“for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings” Art. I, Sec. 8, par. 17). This would include National Forests. (Though I’m not clear which article of the Constitution gives Congress the power to designate such forests in the first place. Hmmm.)
Federal statutes are also in effect where post offices, ships at sea, Indian trust land, taxation, constitutional rights, interstate commerce, and “general welfare” are concerned.
However, it is still an open question what would happen if the fire was ignited on federal land, but deaths occur outside of the forest. Probably an easy one-two federal/state job.
Thank you for that information. But is murder a federal crime simply because it takes place on federal land? AFAIK, plain murder is a state crime, not a federal one. Killing a federal agent is probably a federal crime, but murder of another civilian on federal land, what crime would they be charged with?
Hrmm, I’ll have to check on the NH case and see if there were federal agents involved in the investigation. No one has yet been charged so that won’t help here. The four charges in the CO case are setting fire to timber in a national forest, damaging federal property, injuring a firefighter and using fire to commit a felony, which sound like they are actual statutes. Are there federal law that cover all possible offences covered by state and local laws?
Murder is a federal crime on federal land because the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction there. This is why Congress has to enact their own criminal statutes, even when they apply only to post offices & such.