# No Charges To Be Filed In Fire



## MJS (Nov 13, 2007)

Looks like no charges are going to be filed against the 10yo that set a fire in Ca., that led to 38,000 acres and 21 homes destroyed.  Seems that it would be difficult to prove intent to cause harm.

Well, while that may be the case, I would think that some civil suits will or should be filed.  

Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21777579/


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 13, 2007)

MJS said:


> Looks like no charges are going to be filed against the 10yo that set a fire in Ca., that led to 38,000 acres and 21 homes destroyed.  Seems that it would be difficult to prove intent to cause harm.
> 
> Well, while that may be the case, I would think that some civil suits will or should be filed.
> 
> ...



I think that is great. That kid will have enough guilt to deal with for a very long time. I was worried for a minute that we were getting so unreasonable in this country that we would make a 10 year old kid pay for a 10 year old mistake for the rest of his life. Glad to see that we aren't that bad off.

And as for the homeowners. Yea, that sucks, but what kind of person would sue a 10 year old (or his parents) for making a childhood mistake? Playing with matches is a common mistake that kids of that age make; and never before has it resulted in a 38,000 acre fire and home destruction.

Hopefully no one will try to sue; that is what homeowners insurance is for.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 13, 2007)

MJS said:


> Looks like no charges are going to be filed against the 10yo that set a fire in Ca., that led to 38,000 acres and 21 homes destroyed. Seems that it would be difficult to prove intent to cause harm.
> 
> Well, while that may be the case, I would think that some civil suits will or should be filed.
> 
> ...


 
The kid was 10-years-old, playing with matches, no kidding you can't prove intent to harm.  He's not even old enough for his acts to be considered reckless endangerment, let alone holding him civilly liable. 

I feel really bad for the people whose homes were destroyed, but a 10-year-old doing something that many 10-year-olds do can't be held accountable for their losses.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 14, 2007)

I agree with Cryo and Random, the kid is 10-years-old, it was a common childhood mistake that, in this case, got out of control. I feel awful for the people who lost their homes, but as already stated, that's what homeowners insurance is for. Save the lawsuits for for people who deserve it and show some understanding for an immature mind who had no intent to cause harm.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 14, 2007)

I feel awful for everybody involved.  Those losing their homes and of course the kid and his parent's.  Hopefully cool heads prevail and their will be no civil suits.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 14, 2007)

This is california we are talking about...the mordor of lawyers.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

It'll be interesting to see if anyone does anything down the road.  I'm sure right now, the main thing those poor people are concerned with, is the initial recovery of their life.  I look at it like this...if someone is going to be careless and put a hot cup of coffee between their legs, and sue McDonalds, if people are careless in the winter, disregard the "Caution-Wet Floor!" signs, and slip, fall, and sue...due to their own actions...well, anything is possible in this case.

Then again, I'd think its the responsibility of parents to teach their kids right from wrong.  I don't recall playing with matches when I was that age.  If I did, I really don't remember.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2007)

There were an awful lot of fires in Souther California. And they probably did not all start with the young person playing with matches. And they probably did not all continue to burn because of the young person playing with matches. 

I wonder who should be held accountable for building houses in a place where there is no water. I wonder who should be held accountable for surrounding houses with plants that burn hot and fast. 

I've been to Southern California in late summer / early fall. It is a tinderbox waiting to burn. 

A parallel is all those big wonderful houses built on the sea shore ... and the owners crying when the ocean starts erroding the soil under the houses. 

Somebody did something stupid, but if we can blame someone else, even better.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 14, 2007)

The child should face neither criminal, nor civil charges.  Such a blaze could easily happen again, and it's only one lightning storm away, or maybe some ninny lights a cigarette with a match, and tosses away the still-burning match.  Who can the homeowners blame then?  

Let the insurance companies handle this.  

And yes, it is, as Michael pointed out, a tinderbox waiting to be lit.  Blazes are going to happen again, as long as we keep disrupting the natural cycles of the area (vegetation burns down, new vegetation grows replacing the old).  

Now, despite the fact that I stated the child should face neither criminal, nor civil charges, I would still advocate that the parents give him the leather belt for playing with matches!


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

Just a hypothetical question here.  Lets assume a 16yo is at a friends house.  Him and his friend are drinking.  The 16yo leaves and is obviously drunk.  On his way home, he crashes head on into another vehicle, killing the driver and passenger.  Now, the 16 yo did not get into his car thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to look for the first car I see and crash into it!"  He got into his car, and attempted to drive home.  There is no intent to cause anyone harm.

Would or should he be charged with killing the driver and passenger of the other car?


----------



## AceHBK (Nov 14, 2007)

If the child isnt responsible then the parents should be.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> Just a hypothetical question here. Lets assume a 16yo is at a friends house. Him and his friend are drinking. The 16yo leaves and is obviously drunk. On his way home, he crashes head on into another vehicle, killing the driver and passenger. Now, the 16 yo did not get into his car thinking, "Yeah, I'm going to look for the first car I see and crash into it!" He got into his car, and attempted to drive home. There is no intent to cause anyone harm.
> 
> Would or should he be charged with killing the driver and passenger of the other car?


 
Sure. Perhaps involunatry manslaughter and not murder, but sure he should be charged.

Bad analogy though. THere is a huge difference between drunk driving and being 16 and playing with matches with a 10 year old. For one, accidental fires can be caused by grown adults. What would we be saying if this was a spark from a campfire or a cigarrete that caught on some brush? Accidental fires can occur without a whole lot of negligence involved; add a 10 year old into the mix and that further ups the probability. Drunk driving requires a lot of negligence of a deliberate nature.

If this kid was purposely trying to light someones house on fire, and it happened to have caught 38,000 acres, we would be talking about arson at least for this kid. But that is not the case.

So, intent and level of negligence makes all the difference here; the difference between a reasonable accident to be racked up in the '**** happens' category to an unreasonable accident caused by gross negligence, or even an intentional act.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

AceHBK said:


> If the child isnt responsible then the parents should be.


 
Yes, thank you.  This is where I was going with this.  Kids need to be taught right from wrong from the beginning.  If they're not corrected, how are they going to know any better?  They're not.  Natural disasters are just that..part of nature.  I can't control hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, rain or snow.  This however, does not fall into the natural disaster category.  This is a case of a child being careless.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Sure. Perhaps involunatry manslaughter and not murder, but sure he should be charged.
> 
> Bad analogy though. THere is a huge difference between drunk driving and being 16 and playing with matches with a 10 year old. For one, accidental fires can be caused by grown adults. What would we be saying if this was a spark from a campfire or a cigarrete that caught on some brush? Accidental fires can occur without a whole lot of negligence involved; add a 10 year old into the mix and that further ups the probability. Drunk driving requires a lot of negligence of a deliberate nature.
> 
> ...


 
With all due respect, I have to disagree with the accident.  I get the impression that you're saying its ok to play with matches.  How many "accidents" are really caused by someone being careless?  IMO, I'd say its more a case of people being careless.  Not fully making sure that the campfire is out.  Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that fire burns wood and leaves.  

The kid playing with the matches is no different than the kid that drank too much.  Neither one is intending for anything bad to happen right?  I'll just have a few beers.  I'll just light some sticks on fire.  Again, the kid isn't intending on crashing into someone, no more than the other intending on being an arsonist.  Someone throwing a lit cig. out their window on a hot day, when the fire danger is high, is being careless and stupid at that.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> With all due respect, I have to disagree with the accident. I get the impression that you're saying its ok to play with matches. How many "accidents" are really caused by someone being careless? IMO, I'd say its more a case of people being careless. Not fully making sure that the campfire is out. Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that fire burns wood and leaves.
> 
> The kid playing with the matches is no different than the kid that drank too much. Neither one is intending for anything bad to happen right? I'll just have a few beers. I'll just light some sticks on fire. Again, the kid isn't intending on crashing into someone, no more than the other intending on being an arsonist. Someone throwing a lit cig. out their window on a hot day, when the fire danger is high, is being careless and stupid at that.


 
I guess we'll agree to disagree, because I've got to disagree with you still. The issue isn't intent, but degree of negligence. There is a much higher degree of negligence with a 16 year old choosing to drive drunk then with a 10 year old playing with matches. Sure, both are 'stupid,' but one demonstrates a much greater degree of negligence then the other. A 16 year old is almost an adult and mature enough to be given a dirvers license, and would have recieved many classes within the school system as well as in drivers training to have learned the consequences of drunk driving. A 16 year old driving drunk would have had full knowledge of the potential consequences of what he was doing, yet he would have chose to do it anyway. A 10 year old may have been told "don't play with matches." Not, "Don't play with matches, because you could accidentally light 38,000 acres and a bunch of houses on fire." No one would have thought this to be the consequence of playing around with matches.

So, I have to disagree with you. I think the degree of negligence makes a 16 yr old drunk driver greatly different then a 10 year olf playing with matches.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> The kid playing with the matches is no different than the kid that drank too much.  Neither one is intending for anything bad to happen right?  I'll just have a few beers.  I'll just light some sticks on fire.  Again, the kid isn't intending on crashing into someone, no more than the other intending on being an arsonist.



Yeah man... kids are responsible for their actions at that age because they should all have "Grown Up Judgement"

When I popped out of my mom, I knew right from wrong, didnt have to be taught, and more to the point, NEVER thought I knew better than what I was told or disobeyed behind their backs because I had to figure it out for myself... none of us did.  This little BRAT is just EVIL.  EVIL INCARNATE.

Next time my buddy brings his 6 month old baby over and it pukes on my rug, I'm sueing for Vandalism.

10 years old man.  TEN.  You think a 10 year old has that much sense?  Go spend a day with a group of em, and see how much they listen and comprehend the consequences of their actions.

I gotta go melt some plastic army men with a blowtorch now.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I guess we'll agree to disagree, because I've got to disagree with you still. The issue isn't intent, but degree of negligence. There is a much higher degree of negligence with a 16 year old choosing to drive drunk then with a 10 year old playing with matches. Sure, both are 'stupid,' but one demonstrates a much greater degree of negligence then the other. A 16 year old is almost an adult and mature enough to be given a dirvers license, and would have recieved many classes within the school system as well as in drivers training to have learned the consequences of drunk driving. A 16 year old driving drunk would have had full knowledge of the potential consequences of what he was doing, yet he would have chose to do it anyway. A 10 year old may have been told "don't play with matches." Not, "Don't play with matches, because you could accidentally light 38,000 acres and a bunch of houses on fire." No one would have thought this to be the consequence of playing around with matches.
> 
> So, I have to disagree with you. I think the degree of negligence makes a 16 yr old drunk driver greatly different then a 10 year olf playing with matches.


 
To each his own Paul.   Personally, when you are telling a child not to do something, don't you think it only makes sense to tell them why?  "Don't play with matches because you can get burned!"  "Don't play with matches because you can light the house on fire!"  

The list goes on and on.  It all comes down to common sense.  Like I said..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a very good chance that when you're dealing with fire, something is going to get burned.  

As far as the negligence goes...its the parents that are neglegent and responsible for their childs actions.  Again, you can't expect a child, much less a 10yo, to know right from wrong unless they're told.

Of course, had this been your house that burned down, I wonder if you would feel the same.


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Yeah man... kids are responsible for their actions at that age because they should all have "Grown Up Judgement"
> 
> When I popped out of my mom, I knew right from wrong, didnt have to be taught, and more to the point, NEVER thought I knew better than what I was told or disobeyed behind their backs because I had to figure it out for myself... none of us did. This little BRAT is just EVIL. EVIL INCARNATE.
> 
> ...


 
Nice to see that you resort to rude replies!  Maybe you should go back Cryo and reread before posting.  If you read before you spoke maybe you would have seen when I said that its the parents responsibility to teach their kids right from wrong.


----------



## AceHBK (Nov 14, 2007)

I think that many of us don't give 10 year olds enough credit.  I think children are a lot faster  (especially in this day and age) a lot faster than kids say even 10 years ago.  Today a 10 yr old kid can cuss you out better than a sailor and know how to get over people.

I think it greatly depends on where that child is.  Meaning location...i.e. city such as N.Y.C or if they live in a small rural town in the Midwest.

I was born and raised in NY and at 10 I was a lot "faster mentally" than many kids my age who were raised "down south".  I think every child is different and u have to treat each one different in terms of mindset.  

Now I am not saying he should be charged but I do find him responsible and his parents should be held responsible just as if this 10 year old got a hold of a gun and shot another kid.

Im sorry but a 10 year old knows good and well they shouldn't be messing with matches/playing with fire.  If they don't then there is some negligence when it comes to the child from the parents for not teaching their child.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> To each his own Paul.   Personally, when you are telling a child not to do something, don't you think it only makes sense to tell them why?  "Don't play with matches because you can get burned!"  "Don't play with matches because you can light the house on fire!"
> 
> The list goes on and on.  It all comes down to common sense.  Like I said..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is a very good chance that when you're dealing with fire, something is going to get burned.



Your assuming a 10 yr old has the cognitive development of an adult. Here, this link will get you started if your interested in reading some of the pioneers of childhood developmental stages (Erikson, Piaget, etc.):

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html

Point is, a child of 10 thinks differently and has a vastly different understanding of consequence then a 16 year old. A child of 10 doesn't have the same "common sense" as an adult.



> As far as the negligence goes...its the parents that are neglegent and responsible for their childs actions.  Again, you can't expect a child, much less a 10yo, to know right from wrong unless they're told.



Again, the child could have been told. But, kids do stupid ****, by adult standards. This isn't always anyone's fault (parents, schools, society, etc.); it goes back to developmental stages and understanding consequence as I previously mentioned. That doesn't mean that the kid should have his life ruined for a childhood mistake, or that the parents should receive the same punishment. None of that would bring the burnt homes back anyway.

There are a lot of good kids out there who have ****ed around with matches before, and without horrible results. Unfortunatily for this kid, his incident resulted in a tragedy.



> Of course, had this been your house that burned down, I wonder if you would feel the same.



O.K.; now here is where conversations usually go south. Right here, your attacking the integrity of my argument by implying that I am being insensitive to those who lost there homes, and that if it was my home that I would want to go after the kid.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Material possessions are not so important to me that I would go after a 10 year old.

Anyway, do some searches and read up on childhood developmental stages and see if that changes your mind. Otherwise, like I said, I am afraid we'll simply have to disagree...


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Your assuming a 10 yr old has the cognitive development of an adult. Here, this link will get you started if your interested in reading some of the pioneers of childhood developmental stages (Erikson, Piaget, etc.):
> 
> http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html
> 
> ...


 
You're right, we're going to agee to disagree.  I'm sorry Paul, but IMO, my point is being overlooked.  I'm not saying the kid should be thinking for himself at that age, what I'm saying is that the parents, from day 1, need to teach right from wrong.  How else does a kid learn if the parents are not telling them, "No Johnny, don't touch that hot pan.  You'll burn yourself!"  Should they let him touch it?  If you saw your kid playing with matches, what would you do?  Let him keep playing with them, or take them away from him?  



> O.K.; now here is where conversations usually go south. Right here, your attacking the integrity of my argument by implying that I am being insensitive to those who lost there homes, and that if it was my home that I would want to go after the kid.
> 
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Material possessions are not so important to me that I would go after a 10 year old.


 
Well, what would you do?  You never answered.  Would you chalk it up to a stupid childhood mistake?  Would you be upset with the parents?  Would you go after the parents for the loss of your house?  

Let me ask you this.  That dummy that put a hot cup of coffee between her legs and burned herself sued for millions.  Clearly her fault, but clearly she didn't want to live up to her mistake, so she sued Mcdonalds for coffee that was too hot.  Common sense should tell her that a styrofoam (sp) cup isn't the same as a regular coffee mug.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 14, 2007)

I do see your point, MJS, I just don't agree; we don't know that the parents didn't raise the kid well (or did, for that matter) and teach right from wrong, but the kid made a stupid mistake anyway that unfortunatily had a huge penalty.  But we do know that the prosecutors did not feel that the parents or the kid were negligent. So I have to go with that as being the answer. And I would bet that  kid will be paying a price of guilt for the rest of his life, so it is not like there is no penalty what-so-ever.

But to answer your question, if it were a situation where basically a kid made a stupid mistake that cost me my house, and no intent to harm was found from the kid, and no negligence was found on behalf of the parents, then I would have to chalk it up as a "**** happens" loss, and my homeowners insurance would cover the damages. I'd just hope that the kid would apologize, that is all, as it would make me feel better to know that he was sorry and that he didn't mean to burn my house down. But I wouldn't go after him or the parents.

But that is just the kind of person I am, I guess.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> Nice to see that you resort to rude replies!  Maybe you should go back Cryo and reread before posting.  If you read before you spoke maybe you would have seen when I said that its the parents responsibility to teach their kids right from wrong.



I did read... I read PAST the post where you said that, and to the one that said the 10 year old kid was just as responsible for accidently starting a fire because 



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that fire burns wood and leaves.



as a 16 year old who drinks and drives.  

So yes, you DID say parents need to teach kids right from wrong, you also stated that a 10 year old should be on the same cognative level as a 16 year old, as far as "responsibility" goes so I just expanded on that... silly... notion.
.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 14, 2007)

And furthermore... the notion a 10 year old should/could be held responsible (yes yes, I DID READ, and I know you changed your tune to "uh, we should make sure the parents are teaching right from wrong, halfway in) is a big part of the reason we see ******** like "johnny got kicked out of first grade for hugging betty, it was sexual harrassment" so If I come across as "rude" to people who I percieve as being part and parcel to the problem, tough.  I wont apologise for that.  If someone doesnt put their foot down and stand against the madness, the next thing you know we WILL be throwing 10 year olds in jail.​


----------



## MJS (Nov 14, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I did read... I read PAST the post where you said that, and to the one that said the 10 year old kid was just as responsible for accidently starting a fire because
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm..speaking of changing things, I notice that you changed your post from "Implied" to "stated".  I said that the 10 yo most likely did not set out with arson on his mind. He went out to play with matches, never dreaming what would happen. Just like the 16 yo never dreamed that he'd crash. Again, its up to the parents to educate their kids. Driving drunk...I'm sure that the dangers of that were covered in drivers ed. Don't you think that parents need to teach right from wrong when kids are little? I'm sure I reached for a pack of matches or lighter out of curiosity when I was a kid, I'm sure I started heading for the street without looking to see if cars were coming....but again, I never started a fire or got hit by a car. Why? Do I really have to tell you?






Cryozombie said:


> And furthermore... the notion a 10 year old should/could be held responsible​


 
Considering the 10yo has nothing to offer anyone who lost property, its very possible a civil suit can be filed against the parents. Come on man, I don't think I should have to tell you that people sue at the drop of a hat.​ 


> (yes yes, I DID READ, and I know you changed your tune to "uh, we should make sure the parents are teaching right from wrong, halfway in)


 
Changed my tune half way in? I spoke about the parents in post 2.​ 




> is a big part of the reason we see ******** like "johnny got kicked out of first grade for hugging betty, it was sexual harrassment" so If I come across as "rude" to people who I percieve as being part and parcel to the problem, tough. I wont apologise for that. If someone doesnt put their foot down and stand against the madness, the next thing you know we WILL be throwing 10 year olds in jail.


 
Tough? Come on now Cryo...you're going to tell me that you can't get your point across without being rude? Considering you used to be a mod here, I'm sure you're not totally in the dark about this are you?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2007)

I think it is the correct decision to leave civil and criminal charges off the table.

Part of the issue is, there were a number of circumstance that were quite beyond the control of anyone.

Yes, 10 year old children play with matches ... and shouldn't.

But, 10 year old children are not metiorologists. The Santa Ana Winds contributed to how far and how fast this fire spread. No child is going to be cognizant of that. On a different day, the same actions of the child could have yielded a very different result. 

There were insufficient fire crews available, and I understand fire-fighting aircraft were delayed in being deployed. There were several other fires going on at the same time ... some started by natural causes (downed power lines from the Santa Ana Winds). 

I believe there were too many mitigating circumstance to allow all blame to come back to one single incident. 

It is a sad event ... but many parts of California are BROWN in that time of year, just waiting to burn, burn, burn. Seems to be a silly place to build, to me.


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I think it is the correct decision to leave civil and criminal charges off the table.


 
Hey Mike,

Regarding the charges...my point was simply that in todays world, it seems like anyone can and will sue for anything.  Will people who lost a home think about that?  I don't know.  Whatever happens, happens I suppose.

Part of the issue is, there were a number of circumstance that were quite beyond the control of anyone.



> Yes, 10 year old children play with matches ... and shouldn't.


 
Agreed.



> But, 10 year old children are not metiorologists. The Santa Ana Winds contributed to how far and how fast this fire spread. No child is going to be cognizant of that. On a different day, the same actions of the child could have yielded a very different result.


 
Did the wind contribute?  I'm sure it did.  Would the damage have been less, had there been no wind?  No idea, and speaking for myself, I do not want to say yes it would or no it wouldn't, due to the fact that I really don't know.  




> It is a sad event ... but many parts of California are BROWN in that time of year, just waiting to burn, burn, burn. Seems to be a silly place to build, to me.


 
I know Vegas and AZ in the Summer is brutal.  Out of curiosity, do you have any idea about the danger of fire there?  You're right, CA has alot of fires, but considering the other 2 states are dry and hot, I'm just curious.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2007)

I don't really know about the differences in fire danger among California, Arizona, and Nevada. I'm sure they all get hot ... but the Saraha desert is hot, and it doesn't burn. 

One thing that I am pretty certain of, is that the Santa Ana winds are a pretty reliable event. And, those winds don't show up in the land-locked states. As I understand it, the reason for the winds is the temperature imbalance between the land and ocean. As the land-locked states don't have that cooler water mass adjacent, they don't get the winds that we see in California. 

Also, I'm not certain that Arizona and Nevada ever get as green as California does. Summer is the dry season in California. There is a good deal of rain during the winter months, which turns California into a beautiful place to be. Much of Arizona and Nevada appears to be a desert. Plant life is more sparse, and more harty.

Lastly, the terrain in Southern California may be a bit different than the other states. The coastal mountains are beautiful. But, they create canyons that act like funnels for wind. And as the flames and heat rise, they burn up the side of the hills and mountains. I don't know if the other states are flat ... but the news reports tell us the terrain in California makes it difficult to fight fires, and contribute to the spread and intensity.

So, it is the combination of the dry season in California, the atmospheric activity in California, and the landscape in California that create the problems with fires. 

And the continued population growth increases demand for non-existant water resources. It's a damned stupid place to build and live.


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I don't really know about the differences in fire danger among California, Arizona, and Nevada. I'm sure they all get hot ... but the Saraha desert is hot, and it doesn't burn.
> 
> One thing that I am pretty certain of, is that the Santa Ana winds are a pretty reliable event. And, those winds don't show up in the land-locked states. As I understand it, the reason for the winds is the temperature imbalance between the land and ocean. As the land-locked states don't have that cooler water mass adjacent, they don't get the winds that we see in California.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the reply Mike.  I suppose if we think about it, every state has something that sucks about the weather.  I mean, look at Florida.  I'm sure the winds, etc. did play a part.  Hopefully everyone effected by this will recover.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 15, 2007)

Certianly, different locations offer different challenges. But, we humans live for such a short time, we have difficulty reasoning in geologic time. 

Hurricanes regularly pummel Florida. And we build on the coast. 
The Mississippi River regularly floods Louisiana. And we build levees that kill the natural protections in the area. 
Southern California is a desert, with no water. So we steal the resources of the Colorado river. 

And we are surprised when Mother Nature strikes back. Hubris.

I am reminded of the wise writings of Anne McCaffery. Her Pernese travellers abandoned the Southern Continent of Pern, because of geologic instability. When it is Man versus Planet ... Planet wins, every time.

Hopefully, those people have insurance. 
Hopefully, those insurance companies will charge appropriate premiums for risky behaviors.

And I think Society should tax the **** out of people who build stick homes in fire tinder boxes, and destroy the amazing natural resources of the Colorado River watershed.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 15, 2007)

MJS said:


> Tough? Come on now Cryo...you're going to tell me that you can't get your point across without being rude? Considering you used to be a mod here, I'm sure you're not totally in the dark about this are you?



Well, one man's rude is another man's forceful.  Believe me, If I wanted to show you rude... it wouldnt be that tame.  Tell you what, I'll do like 90% of the other "rude" comments I see here and add a smiley so I can pretend it was all in jest right?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 15, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmmm..speaking of changing things, I notice that you changed your post from "Implied" to "stated".



Must be nice to be able to abu...err.. use those staff powers to determine that... 



MJS said:


> Changed my tune half way in? I spoke about the parents in post 2.​



And yet, you still went on to say that a 10 year old has the same responsibility as a 16 year old, and it wasnt until that notion was attacked the focus shifted back to the "The parents should teach him better"

Lemme ask you... how do YOU know what the parents taught him?  How do you know he simply wasnt disobeying out of curiosity?  The investigators dertermined they werent at fault, so (hold on lemme be extra polite) if you please, I would be greatly interested in your opinion as to why that should not be so, since I certainly cannot comprehend what sort of additional information you might have that would make this child as responsible as a 16 year old drunk driver.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 15, 2007)

Cryo,
 You have a complaint about the staff, you know full well how to bring it to my attention. Unless your intent is to provoke things in which case you'll rapidly wear out your welcome here.

So, and this goes for everyone, drop the personal shots and stick to factual debate on the topics. You want to insult each other, there's other boards that live for that crap. This isn't one of em.

Got an issue, hit the report button 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Need to vent, PM me.

/Friendly Warning.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 15, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Must be nice to be able to abu...err.. use those staff powers to determine that...


Admin. Note:

When a post is edited, all users can see a note at the bottom of the post indicating who edited it, the date and time - ALL USERS CAN SEE THIS INFORMATION.

If you suspect staff is abusing privileges, feel free to notify Bob Hubbard at webmaster@martialtalk.com or the admin team at adminteam@martialtalk.com

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, one man's rude is another man's forceful. Believe me, If I wanted to show you rude... it wouldnt be that tame. Tell you what, I'll do like 90% of the other "rude" comments I see here and add a smiley so I can pretend it was all in jest right?


 
And this has what to do with the thread???????????



Cryozombie said:


> Must be nice to be able to abu...err.. use those staff powers to determine that...


 
No abuse, but as its been noted, you are not clueless to the proper procedures to take.  I was viewing your post and noticed that you made the change as I was going to reply.  Abuse?  Not likely.





> And yet, you still went on to say that a 10 year old has the same responsibility as a 16 year old, and it wasnt until that notion was attacked the focus shifted back to the "The parents should teach him better"


 
Please show me the post you're talking about.



> Lemme ask you... how do YOU know what the parents taught him? How do you know he simply wasnt disobeying out of curiosity? The investigators dertermined they werent at fault, so (hold on lemme be extra polite) if you please, I would be greatly interested in your opinion as to why that should not be so, since I certainly cannot comprehend what sort of additional information you might have that would make this child as responsible as a 16 year old drunk driver.


 
Speculation, just like any discussion that takes place in the study.  Regardless of what the investigators find, it does not mean that a civil suit can't and won't be filed.  That is my point, however you seem to keep overlooking that.

On that note...I think I'm just about done with this thread.  I have no problem debating issues, but when people have to start resorting to personal attacks...well, that doesnt make anything enjoyable anymore.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 15, 2007)

MJS said:


> Speculation, just like any discussion that takes place in the study.  Regardless of what the investigators find, it does not mean that a civil suit can't and won't be filed.  That is my point, however you seem to keep overlooking that.



Of course people _can_ file a civil suit; people do it all the time no matter how frivolous.

But I thought your point was that they should file civil suit? That was the point I thought we disagree on, anyway, as I don't think that people should in this case.


----------



## MJS (Nov 15, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Of course people _can_ file a civil suit; people do it all the time no matter how frivolous.
> 
> But I thought your point was that they should file civil suit? That was the point I thought we disagree on, anyway, as I don't think that people should in this case.


 


> Well, while that may be the case, I would think that some civil suits will or should be filed.


 
The above was taken from post 1.  To clarify things Paul:

Will they be filed?  I dont know.  Maybe/maybe not.

Should they?  Sure

I have to say Paul, that given the nature of this thread, you've been pretty civil, despite our agreeing to disagree.  For that I say thank you.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 17, 2007)

MJS said:


> The above was taken from post 1.  To clarify things Paul:
> 
> Will they be filed?  I dont know.  Maybe/maybe not.
> 
> ...



Sorry for the late reply on this (I missed it somehow);

No, thank you man! :cheers:

I always try to keep it civil. I have to admit, I like a good spirited debate. This can be my downfall because sometimes I am so spirited and unwilling to compromise that I piss people off, which isn't my intent, because as spirited as I sometimes read over the net I am almost always not pissed off or trying to upset people.

The only times I tend to actually get pissed and lose my civility is when I perceive that people turn it into an attack on me rather then my argument. 
So, thank you for keeping it a good debate on the topic and not resorting to personal attacks, as it ends up being a good discussion that way in the end, even if all parties don't agree.

til Later...


C.


----------

