What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
273 Comments
- EnTaroTassadar, on 06/06/2009, -6/+67I'm not very knowledgeable on the policy concerning the death penalty, but I thought they only sentenced you to death if you intended to murder and successfully did so (premeditated)? According to the article, he set one fire as a distraction to bust his dog out of the pound (wtf?) and then set the other fires in anger of losing custody of his children.
Now, I'm not saying what he did isn't wrong. The guy is obviously very ***** up and has some severe issues that need addressing, but isn't death a little severe for what appears to be manslaughter? - jewishmafio, on 06/06/2009, -7/+65Burn in hell?
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -9/+66Arsonists are scum... they destroy lives, property, and especially the fragile ecosystem here in southern California.
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -14/+65I've always found it funny how it's so much more of a tradgedy when a fire fighter or police officer dies, than when anyone else does. Legally, the worse offence the guy committed was manslaughter, but for some reason, because a fire fighter is involved, all of the sudden the guy's a mass murderer.
- Jforsyth89, on 06/06/2009, -4/+43California legal code:
"189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree."
The charge of first-degree murder is consistent with the law. - tjrecord, on 06/06/2009, -16/+51Am I the only one who thinks this is a little harsh? I mean yes, he took the lives of five innocent people, but did he deliberately set the fire in an attempt to murder anyone? Fundamtentally, I think this is just not murder. As far as I can tell, he did not set the fires knowing that the flames would kill someone. I think life in prison on five counts of manslaughter would be a more appropriate sentence... :/
- xGeneric, on 06/06/2009, -4/+35The way I see it is, they know Firefighters are going to get involved. When somethings on Fire, they risk their lives to put it out. Now, maybe they wouldn't have died if they did something differently, but they did die.
If I stood in the center of a busy neighborhood and started firing a gun in random directions, and I kill someone... that's murder. Sure my intent might not be to kill, and yeah, if the person I hit wasn't standing there they would have been fine, but it's still murder.
Doing something like lighting a massive fire with the intent to destroy is murder if someone dies, including the Firefighters who try to put it out. Sure if someone runs into a burning building and screams "I don't want to live anymore", well, that's different. But the Firefighters have a duty to put out the fire, and if it was set intentionally by someone, I can easily see them being charged with murder if a Firefighter dies. Personally I can also see the argument that it might not warrant the death penalty... but really... ***** em'. I hope he fries. - inactive, on 06/06/2009, -7/+381st degree murder implies premeditated intent to kill someone. It is arson but without intent to kill people. He certainly should be in prison for a long time but the death penalty for something like this is ridiculous considering the horrific gruesome murders that only get life.
- paloooz, on 06/06/2009, -8/+35The fire killed 5 people and it wasn't a wild fire, it was arson. I guess you missed that part.
- paulsabo, on 06/06/2009, -15/+41Having read the story, I have to agree with the sentence. Guy's a meth addict, lighting those fires out of anger at losing custody of his daughter... due to the meth.
He admitted to lighting 11 fires in total. If pulling this ***** caused five people to die, meaninglessly, he has no place in any modern society. - Memnochxx, on 06/06/2009, -4/+30i'd rather have them killed than escape from azkaban
- stroudma, on 06/06/2009, -0/+23yes. that's how shooting people works.
(i'm ok with the sentence but this is a bad analogy) - smindsrt, on 06/05/2009, -32/+53He deserves it!!!
- jugglingjon, on 06/06/2009, -1/+20California law states clearly that deaths from arson are considered murder.
- opticwind, on 06/06/2009, -3/+21I like that, here's another one:
"Simplifying complicated legal issues with short, Confucius-like quotes...ignores reality." - pintomp3, on 06/06/2009, -14/+32Technically the fire killed 5 people, not him. Did he intend to kill 5 people? Not sure. What if no one had died? Should the punishment be based on the action or on the outcome? I'm not saying this guy doesn't deserve to be punished, just playing devil's advocate.
- FreshPineSent, on 06/06/2009, -8/+25How was he supposed to anticipate the death of the people?
- furto, on 06/06/2009, -2/+19YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- bromac, on 06/06/2009, -0/+16California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
As used in this section, "destructive device" means any
destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and "explosive" means
any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety
Code.
As used in this section, "weapon of mass destruction" means any
item defined in Section 11417.
To prove the killing was "deliberate and premeditated," it shall
not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully
reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.
Sorry folks, I apologize for my above post. Looks like the California First Degree Murder section includes arson. So long buddy. - JayZee2, on 06/06/2009, -1/+16The arsonist has oddly shaped feet.
- nlke182, on 06/06/2009, -16/+31Finally some good news coming out of California.
- pronouncable, on 06/06/2009, -1/+14and an eye for five is?
- S7aind, on 06/06/2009, -8/+21^^^
It doesn't really matter if he anticipated them or not, the deaths were a direct results of his action (lighting a fire). - paloooz, on 06/06/2009, -10/+23Technically, the bullets killed people, not the gunman.
- Chompy, on 06/06/2009, -1/+13@ngresonance:
You have no idea what you're talking about. California used to have wildfires *EVERY* year, not every 100 years. We screw up the system by suppressing those fires, which means that more tinder builds up over time. When a fire finally does occur in a given area, it's much larger and more destructive because of this. - Velnich, on 06/06/2009, -23/+35Setting a fire is not the same as planning and murdering someone in cold blood. What else will we eventually be able to legally kill someone for?
*the sounds of the bury brigade amassing*
oh, I don't like guns either. - S7aind, on 06/06/2009, -1/+12That would have been perfect as a Caruso line.
- FreshPineSent, on 06/06/2009, -2/+13You can say "*****" on digg, you know. Also, the caps lock is not necessary.
- opticwind, on 06/06/2009, -4/+14This is what I hate about digg. Whenever the tech questions come up, or the sci-fi questions, or politics...I sit and read the comments and see how informed everyone is. But then, when we get to something I actually know quite a bit about (been studying law for 5 years and no end in sight -_-), I see that digg has a very idealistic/skewed view of our legal system.
- garlicdeath, on 06/06/2009, -0/+10@Goblin.
Yeah, that's balance. - ThaBBoyWannaB, on 06/06/2009, -2/+12I was yelling in real life. So yes. The caps lock was necessary.
- SpectreFire, on 06/06/2009, -3/+12He did set the fires knowing it could possibly people someone.
FTA:
Judge Morgan added, “He knew young men and young women would put their lives on the line to protect property and people.”
You don't set a fire and not expect firefighters to respond. - telepwn, on 06/06/2009, -1/+10I believe in California the law says that intentional arson which results in death is considered a premeditated murder, because you willfully committed an act of which any reasonable person would expect death to be a possible result. Whether or not you were targeting a specific person or intending to explicitly cause death is irrelevant to the law, because it's such a brazenly unlawful and careless act. It's similar to if you were raping a woman and in the course of holding her down you broke her neck or suffocated her.
- Apocalyptk, on 06/06/2009, -6/+15For this *****, death is help.
- TechnoRabbit, on 06/06/2009, -7/+16And -especially- the fragile ecosystem? Good to know where your priorities lie. I'd probably go: they destroy the ecosystem, property, and especially lives.
- Subduction, on 06/06/2009, -8/+17Yeah, if only there were someplace we could put him instead of killing him.
- Mercedes383, on 06/06/2009, -2/+11Actually this fragile ecosystem needs fire now and again for regeneration and diversification. It's the same situation in Australia amongst others.
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+9Umm, yes?
- Stormwern, on 06/06/2009, -3/+11If he had set fire to a building and blocked the exists we could have had an argument, this sounds more like manslaughter.
- ceredron, on 06/06/2009, -3/+11Wow, before you all digg down DannyLauren, don't pull out that "yeah, but look at all those bad egg cops". Seriously, cops and firefighters are important people who risk their asses to keep us safe. You know as well as I do, that the firefighter who goes out and puts out the fire deserves more respect than the guy sitting outside complaining about how the firefighters didn't get there fast enough.
Being on digg shows you the sensational, the interesting, and the unusual. Yes, sometimes bad people become the protectors of society, but for the most part, you should respect those who protect you. Jesus. How many cops and firefighters do you guys know? They're all pretty much good people, which is why the ones who don't fit in stick out so much. - EnTaroTassadar, on 06/06/2009, -0/+8That's irrelevant. There are plenty of serial killers who are spending life in prison right now who have killed more than five people, and *intended* to do so. They didn't just set a fire which HAPPENED to kill five people. They did it on purpose.
From this article, there's no evidence of intent for murder. It looks like the judge overreacted because of the status of those who died.
I think this guy deserves life in prison, not death. Honestly, prison time is worse than death, so if you REALLY want to punish the guy, let him rot in a cell with other psychopaths. - Subduction, on 06/06/2009, -0/+8Well I would definitely consider killing someone who said "on accident."
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -2/+10Wow, this guy must have had a crappy lawyer.
- Mike17102, on 06/06/2009, -2/+9Learn what felony murder is, and all your questions will be answered.
As for "how was he supposed to anticipate the death of people bla bla bla", how about because ITS A ***** FIRE. Fire kills people. He set one. Not a big ***** leap here even for diggiots. - jewishmafio, on 06/06/2009, -0/+7Nope. Just thought it would be punny.
- Cockslap, on 06/06/2009, -8/+15maybe he should have thought of the possible outcome before the fires were set. What, the possibility of someone dying in a fire never crossed his mind? ***** him. Execute his ass.
- opticwind, on 06/06/2009, -2/+9He's an arsonist meth-addict who got pissed over losing his daughter in custody.
- CocaCola88, on 06/06/2009, -0/+7one pissed off spider..
- HEAVYisSPY, on 06/06/2009, -1/+8What a horrible person.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 284 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is