First of all western wildfires are a NATURAL and necessary part of the ecosystem. Think of it like a house cleaning of the chaparall or forest. It get rid of forest litter, diseases and bad insects while actually helping seeds to germinate for renewal of the ecosystem. This fire was bound to happen sooner or later. Should we be putting more of the blame on the agencies that suppressed the fire for so long that it built up a dangerous explosive fuel? Shouldnt we blame them for not doing controlled burns to get rid of the fuel? So can they charge the arsonist with murder when it a lot of the blame should be on the suppression of the fire for so long? Or maybe for the houses that were built out there where it is so susceptible to these fires. ?
2006-10-27 19:25:03 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The U.S. is the ONLY heavily forested nation that regularly loses firefighter lives to wildfire. Our emphasis on property protection puts people at risk unnecessarily. They weren't trying to save lives, they were trying to save a house built of flammable materials built in a fire zone and lacking defensive space. So unnecessary.
Also, we've seen many fires set by firefighters in the last 5-6 years. For work or jollies. Tragic.
2006-10-27 19:36:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, doing controlled burns regularly to get rid of the fuel would have probably helped to control this fire, but things other than fuel amount contribute to the severity of fire. natural things that we can't control may have also played into the severity of the fire, things like arid conditions and low humidity on that particular day, high wind, etc.
2006-10-28 02:28:56 · answer #2 · answered by mighty_power7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I understand your point, but the legal distinction is intent. The fire was caused with the intent to incur the damage, not with the intent to promote natural burn-off of overgrown forests.
2006-10-28 02:27:49 · answer #3 · answered by BoardingJD 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of those things matter. The guy who started the pebble rolling down the hill that turned into an avalanche and buried the city is 100% responsible for the damage and death toll.
2006-10-28 02:34:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the fire had occurred naturally, then there could be no charge of murder.
The fire did not occur naturally, nor could you say for sure that this particular one would have. It was deliberately set, people died, the arsonists are murderers.
2006-10-28 02:27:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that if it is arson, that person should be held responsible for the deaths.I understand the theory that it was a fire waiting to happen.But maybe it wouldn't have started at all.
2006-10-28 02:30:01 · answer #6 · answered by kelliekareen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes lets blame your mom for giving you a bicycle helmet and or strapping you into a car seat. So much for natural selection.
2006-10-28 02:34:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This fire is not natural. Firefighters were killed trying to protect persons and property. Lives have been changed forever, and not for the good.............Murder it is.
2006-10-28 02:46:47 · answer #8 · answered by summersailing 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be a correct statement were it true that it was natural but it was on purpose and indirectly murder .
2006-10-28 02:31:39 · answer #9 · answered by kame 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LOL - its the governments fault. Typical.
2006-10-28 10:10:50 · answer #10 · answered by NCAF33 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋