The Southern CA fires had several ignition points seemingly starting simultanously. Perfect location, perfect season, perfect timing. Authorities haven't said weither or not it was a coordinated or how many were involved. What do you think?
Should we try those resposible for the fires just for arson or under the Patriot Act for Domestic Terrorism? What should their punishment be?
I'm not meaning terrorism in the normal fashion. I'm not talking about Bin Laden but Domestic Terrorism.
What I'm trying to get out is weither or not we treat this crime as just arson or do we consider this a terroristic act done by someone against his own country.
2007-10-26 09:05:04 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The Orange County fires, the first ones, had an arson basis. The others appear to have had accidental causes such as the electric wires went down from the growing winds.
We had 100 mile per hours winds the first day.
The domestic laws will handle it. The slippery slope of freedom of using the Patriot Act would open the door to a be used in a man threatening his wife, that really is domestic terrorism, but if we extend (I am opposed to the Patriot Act anyway) it into normal life, we will have lost our freedom.
2007-10-26 09:14:59 · answer #1 · answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If terrorism is defined as an act of violence to make a political or idealogical point, then these arsons are probably not terrorism. Most arsonists are not making any point at all, they simply get sick enjoyment out of setting fires. In many cases, arsonists have been people denied employment as firefighters or who have some other grudge against the fire agencies.
If terrorism is more broadly defined as an act committed with the intent to instill terror and fear in the population, some of these arson crimes might turn out to fit that definition. But it is more likely that the terror and fear is an unintended byproduct of the arsonist's real goal--to watch the firefighters battle the flames and feel a twisted sense of power for causing such havoc.
2007-10-26 10:16:31 · answer #2 · answered by raichasays 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Arson
It would be way too hard to prove that every single fire was started by arson, by a group of people, who planned / premeditated the event, and then started the fires with the direct intent of not only destruction of property and possibly lives, but that they also specifically intended to attack the US economy and throw the government into termoil.
If you were a lawyer would you want to do that when you could just put them away for 20-life for arson resulting in destruction of property in the range of x million $?
2007-10-26 09:15:27 · answer #3 · answered by thekingbeav 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a feeling some of it was intentional because once one fire started somebody thought they could get away with it without being caught. Because of the huge devestation and destruction I consider it terrorism, but the person that did may have not been a US citizen so I don't know about domestic. It's a terrorist act, but I'm not positive it was done against "his own country" because they may have not been a citizen.
2007-10-26 18:09:32 · answer #4 · answered by andy c 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Southern California Fires........Arson or Domestic Terrorism?"
If these fires were purposely started, then I really don't see a distinction between arson and domestic terrorism. Personally, if these fires were purposely started and the dirt bags are caught, I'd want the charges to be consistent with whichever charges warrant the greatest punishment - and I really wouldn't rule out the death sentence, either.
2007-10-26 09:15:32 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Arson in this case. Stop listening to that stuff they keep saying on TV. It's a bad thing to happen and thy want to point a finger. It was probably some *--hole who flicked a lit cigarette out of a car window. That happens many times in one day and the weather being what it was doesn't take much to get things lit. Not saying it's right, just saying it's probably how it happened.
2007-10-26 09:15:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Personally I think it's terrorism/continuation of 9/11. I'm sorry, it's just my opinion. I bet you think otherwise, but...
Yes, it's arson. And I don't think it's Californians...
2007-10-26 10:09:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's a hard decision, if they find who started it and what their reasons for doing so, then listen to the facts and go with the stronger case that will put them away
2007-10-26 09:14:22 · answer #8 · answered by ♥STREAKER♥©℗† 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
arson
2007-10-26 09:11:18 · answer #9 · answered by mado1243 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋