NationStates Jolt Archive

10 yr old boy causes one of the Calf Wildfires.

Linky (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kidfire1nov01,0,5622299.story?coll=la-home-center)

How would you react to the news that your home, everything you own, was destroyed by the careless actions of a 10 yr old boy who, it appears, won't be charged with anything.

On one hand, I can understand that accidents like this will happen.

However, even at 10, I knew not to play with matches.

and where were the parents while their son was playing 'firebug'?

Should the parents be held accountable and punished? should the boy? and how should he or they... or both be punished?

Isn't there some kind of negligence here? If the parents allow the kid to play with matches, and he starts a damaging fire, somebody somewhere should be punished.

Personally, I'd fine them. A lot.

The boy should have to apologize to each and every person whose life he destroyed and then be sentenced to 10 years of community service, then a year in jail thereafter.

The parents should be sued up to their eyeballs.

Harsh? Yeah, but I'm not a nice person.

I bet he was working for Al Qaeda.

I bet he was working for Al Qaeda.

Everybody knows JEWS DID WILDFIRES.

"He's a child, and I certainly believe that he had no malice and I absolutely believe it was accidental

That sums it up. Leave the kid alone.

"He's a child, and I certainly believe that he had no malice and I absolutely believe it was accidental

That sums it up. Leave the kid alone.

Your joking right?

Your joking right?

My joking right what?

The law is the law, it doesn't matter who breaks it or whether or not its by accident or not the law is enforced.

If an uneducated janitor working in a hospital unplugged a respirator so he can plug in a vaccum he'd be tried for and convicted for manslaughter.

The law is the law, it doesn't matter who breaks it or whether or not its by accident or not the law is enforced.

Which displays nothing but a complete ignorance of the law which deals heavily with intent, so it does indeed matter a lot whether or not crimes are accidental. Get a clue.

The law is the law, it doesn't matter who breaks it or whether or not its by accident or not the law is enforced.

What the fuck? Claiming it's "against the law" is worthless, unless you can point to WHAT law you're discussing.

If an uneducated janitor working in a hospital unplugged a respirator so he can plug in a vaccum he'd be tried for and convicted for manslaughter.

Possibly. But not for murder. I hope, but doubt, you understand the difference.

Which displays nothing but a complete ignorance of the law which deals heavily with intent, so it does indeed matter a lot whether or not crimes are accidental. Get a clue.

Alright then, but leaving the kid alone? He needs to make it up to society and all those who suffered.

Alright then, but leaving the kid alone? He needs to make it up to society and all those who suffered.

under what standard of law?

"He's a child, and I certainly believe that he had no malice and I absolutely believe it was accidental

That sums it up. Leave the kid alone.
Fine, then we hose the parents. Any child who doesn't know not to play with matches shouldn't be playing with god damn matches. Some one should be held criminally liable here and if it isn't the kid..

I'd suggest groin kicks, but he hasn't much of a groin yet.

Fine, then we hose the parents. Any child who doesn't know not to play with matches shouldn't be playing with god damn matches. Some one should be held criminally liable here and if it isn't the kid..

OK, then what is the parent liability laws in california?

Alright then, but leaving the kid alone? He needs to make it up to society and all those who suffered.

He's 10. What are they gonna do, take his valuable solid gold legos away? Punishing this kid further when he already has to deal with this traumatic experience for the rest of his life is nothing but petty douchebaggery.

What the fuck? Claiming it's "against the law" is worthless, unless you can point to WHAT law you're discussing.



Possibly. But not for murder. I hope, but doubt, you understand the difference.

1) Arsen. He shouldn't have been playing with fire in the first place, the fact that it caused a giant disaster that may go into the history books makes it all the more worse.

2)Manslaughter is accidental, murder is intentional.

Fine, then we hose the parents. Any child who doesn't know not to play with matches shouldn't be playing with god damn matches. Some one should be held criminally liable here and if it isn't the kid..

Why should someone be held criminally liable? Shit happens. Get over it. Extolling culpability just for meanness sake is stupid.

1) Arsen. He shouldn't have been playing with fire in the first place, the fact that it caused a giant disaster that may go into the history books makes it all the more worse.
It's 'Arson', not 'Arsen', and arson is a crime of intent. If I set light to my best friend's carpet causing £250's worth of damage because I dropped a cigarette end onto it by accident, then it's precisely that, an accident.

If I poured petrol on his carpet, set light to it with a match and ran away, all of this on purpose, then it's obviously arson.

As to what to do to him - leave the poor bugger alone. What the fuck were his parents supposed to do - do a full cavity search every time he leaves the house, and follow him around everywhere to make sure he doesn't do anything stupid by accident?

Don't be ridiculous.

Isn't there some kind of negligence here? If the parents allow the kid to play with matches, and he starts a damaging fire, somebody somewhere should be punished.

Personally, I'd fine them. A lot.
I doubt that you know enough of the actual details (I know I certainly don't) to know if there was any parental negligence or not. When I was 10 years old, I did a lot of stuff I had been told not to do and my parents didn't know I was doing. That made me mischievous. It did not make my parents negligent.

You need to go back to school and learn the English language, or use a dictionary every now and then to fine-tune what words actually mean.

The boy should have to apologize to each and every person whose life he destroyed and then be sentenced to 10 years of community service, then a year in jail thereafter.

The parents should be sued up to their eyeballs.

Harsh? Yeah, but I'm not a nice person.
Maraque, you're just an ass. You probably would have thrown the first stone and not realized what a jerk that made you....

The kid should at least be encouraged to ovoid doing any harm to society whatsoever as punishment. his guilt will do the rest of the punishing.

Alright then, but leaving the kid alone? He needs to make it up to society and all those who suffered.No. Why? He's a kid. Kids do unintended things. That's how life is. Get over it.

Isn't there some kind of negligence here? Oh please. Parents don't watch their kids 24 hours per day. And they don't have to.

It's 'Arson', not 'Arsen', and arson is a crime of intent. If I set light to my best friend's carpet causing £250's worth of damage because I dropped a cigarette end onto it by accident, then it's precisely that, an accident.

If I poured petrol on his carpet, set light to it with a match and ran away, all of this on purpose, then it's obviously arson.

As to what to do to him - leave the poor bugger alone. What the fuck were his parents supposed to do - do a full cavity search every time he leaves the house, and follow him around everywhere to make sure he doesn't do anything stupid by accident?

Don't be ridiculous.

I'd hate to see what you do to your enemies carpets :-/
And I agree, accidents are just that, accidents. If the little guy had a repeat offence, than i'd throw the book at him.

Leave the kid alone as long as we're sure he's not A.Q. - I'm sure a little water boarding would settle that question.

If a 10 year old can be legitimately punished as a criminal, then why couldn't they punish the bullies back in elementary school?

If a 10 year old can be legitimately punished as a criminal, then why couldn't they punish the bullies back in elementary school?


They do punish bullies and arrest them where I come from. It's actually illegal here to bully in Washington (not DC)

The kid should at least be encouraged to ovoid doing any harm to society whatsoever as punishment. his guilt will do the rest of the punishing.

Hear hear. All we need to do is guilt him to the point where he will be scarred for life. Then when he's older, we take him for all he's got because it was his fault.

I'd hate to see what you do to your enemies carpets :-/
You'd be both stunned and amused at the same time.

You'd be both stunned and amused at the same time.

Delightful. :)

I'm going with the "leave the kid alone" crowd. Not only is he only ten, but it was an accident. An Accident. You shouldn't punish people for the rest of their life because of an accident at the age of ten.
What if it had been some guy out grilling and he knocks the grill over? Would you still want blood?
As for those who say that the parents should have been watching him, no, no they shouldn't. I've snuck matches out of my house tons of times, my parents had no idea, nor should they.

Delightful. :)
Quite :)

No one ever went thought that "fire" phase as a child? I know I did.

The child didn't do anything illegal, just absolutely stupid.

Give him an indian burn. :p

Maraque, you're just an ass. You probably would have thrown the first stone and not realized what a jerk that made you....I'm an ass and a jerk?

Oh wait, no I'm not.

:D

Oh please. Parents don't watch their kids 24 hours per day. And they don't have to.

Uh, yeah they do. Parents are generally held responsible if their kids cause some kind of trouble.

You'd be both stunned and amused at the same time.

Stunned and amused. Well, you've certainly piqued my interest. Yes, my imagination is running wild!

Uh, yeah they do. Parents are generally held responsible if their kids cause some kind of trouble.
...

Yes, obviously this is The Truth.

"I'm off out with my friends"
"I'm coming too"
"Oh, I'd love you to, Parental Unit 1, here, come and supervise my playing with matches"
"Oh, goody, I'd really enjoy that, and don't have to do the washing up / general household maintainance / wash your clothes for next week"
Stunned and amused. Well, you've certainly piqued my interest. Yes, my imagination is running wild!
Excellent, that was what was intended!

1) Arsen.

It's "arson", and arson is an intent crime. You can't accidentally commit arson.

Uh, yeah they do. Parents are generally held responsible if their kids cause some kind of trouble.

as a matter of law, that's not always true, in fact in many, perhaps the majority of states there is no law that makes parents criminally or civily liable for their childrens' actions. It is not the default position.

Teach children that matches are dangerous and not toys. Keep matches away from them until they understand that, except when allowing them to light a candle or a heating fire.

If they're not taught responsible use of matches, they will see any use of matches as a way to be "naughty" and rebel against authority.

It comes down to good or bad parenting. A ten-year-old should be able to act responsibly with matches if they somehow get ahold of them when unsupervised. That's old enough to recognize the danger posed by fire, since it's a danger to their own person.

What crime should the boy be charged with? Trying to educate himself about fire?

His parents should be held partially responsible (at least his father) for not educating his son about fire. That doesn't mean "don't touch fire! call an adult!" It means showing what fire does and how to use it. My past pyroing helped me know how to use fire in chemistry while everyone else almost set the room on fire.

The government should be held responsible for doing quick fixes instead of thinking long term. By stopping regular natural fires from clearing brush (instead of Bush ;)), the brush built up and provided loads of fuel.

In the end, no one is really at fault. Children should be shown what fire does and how it works instead of being told to call an adult. A child that knows how to handle fire is better than one who runs for his mommy to put it out.

as a matter of law, that's not always true, in fact in many, perhaps the majority of states there is no law that makes parents criminally or civily liable for their childrens' actions. It is not the default position.

For something like this, I'd say it's likely they would have at least some liability.

What crime should the boy be charged with? Trying to educate himself about fire?

His parents should be held partially responsible (at least his father) for not educating his son about fire. That doesn't mean "don't touch fire! call an adult!" It means showing what fire does and how to use it. My past pyroing helped me know how to use fire in chemistry while everyone else almost set the room on fire.

Responsible pyromania. *nod*

Don't see any reason for the sexist standard there, but meh. You're mostly right.


In the end, no one is really at fault. Children should be shown what fire does and how it works instead of being told to call an adult. A child that knows how to handle fire is better than one who runs for his mommy to put it out.

I'd say the best approach is both. Even as a grown adult, I wouldn't hesitate to call for help if I'd accidentally lit a fire I couldn't put out in a few seconds.

No one person appears to be entirely responsible in this case, but it sure wasn't an "act of God" as the insurance industry calls it. There's a degree of responsibility that lies with the kid, more that lies with the parents, some in the management of the environment there ... and a little bit of plain bad luck.

So yeah, I mostly agree. Great!

For something like this, I'd say it's likely they would have at least some liability.

*sigh* as I said, the default law is that parents are not liable for the actions of their children unless the parents negligently put the child in that position which we have no facts to support such a claim. Because the outcome was "really really bad" doesn't suddenly magically make the parents liable.

Isn't there some kind of negligence here? If the parents allow the kid to play with matches, and he starts a damaging fire, somebody somewhere should be punished.

Personally, I'd fine them. A lot.

Only if they were negligent in supervising him could the parents be held liable.

"He's a child, and I certainly believe that he had no malice and I absolutely believe it was accidental

That sums it up. Leave the kid alone.

Clearly a part of the gay agenda, and therefore this opinion must be dismissed.

Alright then, but leaving the kid alone? He needs to make it up to society and all those who suffered.

How on earth could he possibly 'make it up'?

What if it had been some guy out grilling and he knocks the grill over? Would you still want blood?
Yes! And also, we should fine that guy's parents, and dig up his grandparents and hold them responsible as well!

The government should be held responsible for doing quick fixes instead of thinking long term. By stopping regular natural fires from clearing brush (instead of Bush ;)), the brush built up and provided loads of fuel.
You can blame the Sierra Club and the all the enviornmental whackos in California for that.

You can blame the Sierra Club and the all the enviornmental whackos in California for that.

"The Sierra Club is deeply concerned about the families who have been put in harm’s way by the recent fires in Southern California, and about the firefighters courageously working to protect homes and lives.

"In the wake of this tragedy, there have been some people willing to place blame on environmental groups. There is no need to sensationalize this tragedy for political gain. Americans deserve better. The Sierra Club has long supported responsible fuel reduction around communities and fully supports any wildfire policy that makes community protection its top priority.

"This week’s fires, which are taking place largely in brush and chaparral, underscore the need to focus our fire prevention efforts in the areas around communities, rather than deep in the backcountry forest.

"Not a single fuels reduction project has been appealed in these Southern California forests in a decade. In fact, the vast majority of Forest Service fuel reduction projects nationwide--97 percent, according to a 2003 GAO study--move forward without litigation.

"With dangerous conditions caused by global warming only increasing, we can unfortunately expect to see more and more of these types of catastrophic wildfires.

"Experts agree that focusing on the area immediately around homes should be the first priority of any wildfire policy, and the situation so many are facing in California today reinforces this need. We can all agree that removing brush and small trees immediately around homes and communities will help save homes and lives, and we must dedicate the resources needed to do this most important work first. Forest Service experts have shown that this can be accomplished.

"Now the Congress and the Bush Administration need the will to protect communities, not the timber industry."

---

http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-10-23a.asp

Emphasis added.

Please, keep the flaming down!

"He's a child, and I certainly believe that he had no malice and I absolutely believe it was accidental
That sums it up. Leave the kid alone.

and let the taxpayers or the victims alone to eat the repair and rebuilding cost? and what of any lives lost in the fire? should there be any accountablilty for the property and lives lost?

I'm going with the "leave the kid alone" crowd. Not only is he only ten, but it was an accident. An Accident. You shouldn't punish people for the rest of their life because of an accident at the age of ten. and that is an option...
What if it had been some guy out grilling and he knocks the grill over? Would you still want blood? if it were that, he would still be held liable for any and all damages. Especially since he's an Adult.
As for those who say that the parents should have been watching him, no, no they shouldn't. I've snuck matches out of my house tons of times, my parents had no idea, nor should they. ah, but since he is a minor, the parents are still responsible for his actions and liable for any damages he causes.

if you, while playing with your matches, hurt someone else, (and we will say it was an accident) your parents would be held liable.

It's "arson", and arson is an intent crime. You can't accidentally commit arson. and spelling mistake aside... :p ... wouldn't this fall under another catagory? property damage, or something?

What crime should the boy be charged with? Good question.

His parents should be held partially responsible (at least his father) for not educating his son about fire. That doesn't mean "don't touch fire! call an adult!" It means showing what fire does and how to use it. My past pyroing helped me know how to use fire in chemistry while everyone else almost set the room on fire. query... why "at least the father"?

The government should be held responsible for doing quick fixes instead of thinking long term. By stopping regular natural fires from clearing brush (instead of Bush ;)), the brush built up and provided loads of fuel. add to that the rampant use of water, causing the dry spells, and the clearing of wooded area, thus removing windbreakers leaving the area completely under the mercy of the Santa Anna winds...

yep... but which Government? the Feds or State Government?

In the end, no one is really at fault. Children should be shown what fire does and how it works instead of being told to call an adult. A child that knows how to handle fire is better than one who runs for his mommy to put it out. sorry, but I believe even the Firefighters urge children to tell an adult. I doubt there are any fire fighting experts who will advise a child to put out a fire by themselves (one that isn't physically on the child... STOP DROP AND ROLL is still being taught.)

and if the child told mommy and/or daddy, then the FD should've been called early and chances are the fire would've been put out... but that's an assuption and so not debated...

Yes! And also, we should fine that guy's parents, and dig up his grandparents and hold them responsible as well!

now that would raise a stink. and chances are, the Grandparents would fall to peices after being dug up...

Assuming they were laying low in the first place... :p

and let the taxpayers or the victims alone to eat the repair and rebuilding cost? and what of any lives lost in the fire? should there be any accountablilty for the property and lives lost? Get a grip. The kid is not going to have any liability insurance, and even if you could get a court to find the parents negligent, there is no way that THEIR liability insurance would cover even a fraction of the damage done. What you are essentially advocating is going after them just to make people feel better. Fine...but at least be clear about it.

now that would raise a stink. and chances are, the Grandparents would fall to peices after being dug up...

Assuming they were laying low in the first place... :p


I think they were cremated, anyway.

ah, but since he is a minor, the parents are still responsible for his actions and liable for any damages he causes. Using words like 'liable' cause me to believe you are approaching this in a legal sense, in which case...you are wrong. Parents are not automatically responsible for the actions of their children, and even in situations where they are found to have been negligent in their supervision, their negligence does not supercede or displant the culpability of the child his or herself. They are not in fact 'responsible' for those actions...they are responsible for their own.

1- Going after a kid would be senseless revenge.

2- Unless the kid managed to create ALL THAT FIRE as opposed to ONE FOCUS that the neglect of the Government allowed to become much bigger, there's plenty of blame to go around.

Get a grip. The kid is not going to have any liability insurance, and even if you could get a court to find the parents negligent, there is no way that THEIR liability insurance would cover even a fraction of the damage done. What you are essentially advocating is going after them just to make people feel better. Fine...but at least be clear about it.

I know that there is NO way the parents could pay even a small fraction of the cost. I also agree that it was an accident and not macliously set.

however this part of the article got my interest...

In 2005, of 1,467 arson arrests in California, 52% were of juveniles, according to the California Department of Justice.

Nationwide, an FBI report found that in 2003, 50.8% of those arrested on suspicion of arson were juveniles; a third of total arson arrests were of children under 15 and 3% were of those under 10.

Experts cautioned that the number of fires set by children may be far higher, because most are not classified as arson.

so do we just let it slide with no punishment?

or should some form of punishment be levied, even if it's used to 'scare' the parents into being more careful with their lighters/matches and how easily children can get to them.

Now when *I* say Punishment doesn't mean jailtime nor does it mean fines. it can be Community Service, perhaps a public and/or televised apology, or something other than a "meh, what can we do about it".

They do punish bullies and arrest them where I come from. It's actually illegal here to bully in Washington (not DC)
Ok fair enough, granted my bullying analogy might be a flawed one but I've heard much of the whole thing against punishing bullies be like "oh they're only kids they don't know better"; there's nothing even close to this unjudgemental approach for adults who abuse children yet children who abuse children are off the hook for that very reason, and I was more so referring to the hypocrisy of wanting to punish a child when they seem so immune from punishment for reasons only of them not knowing better.

I think there's probably some adults who might not know better either, but when it comes to the law the general approach is "ignorance is not an excuse"

I know that there is NO way the parents could pay even a small fraction of the cost. I also agree that it was an accident and not macliously set.

however this part of the article got my interest...

so do we just let it slide with no punishment?

or should some form of punishment be levied, even if it's used to 'scare' the parents into being more careful with their lighters/matches and how easily children can get to them.

Now when *I* say Punishment doesn't mean jailtime nor does it mean fines. it can be Community Service, perhaps a public and/or televised apology, or something other than a "meh, what can we do about it".
Think about that first. You are suggesting that the child responsible should be identified on television? You don't see that as a huge danger for both the child and the parents?

You have no idea where the kid got the lighter/matches...it could have been peers, etc. Parents can not be locking up every household item out of complete fear that they will be persecuted if their children do something wrong with those items. It is unlikely in the extreme that this would have any impact on these sorts of occurances.

I very much doubt the parents are just going 'awww, it's okay, wasn't your fault', and even if they were, I doubt it would be particularly effective in causing this child to feel absolutely no guilt. Yes, someone, perhaps a firefighter, could talk to this child about fire safety, or about the damage caused...I don't see that as punishment though.

I think there's probably some adults who might not know better either, but when it comes to the law the general approach is "ignorance is not an excuse"The law is definitely more lenient towards children than it is towards say, mentally challenged adults, seniors or the simply unintelligent. However, rather than lower the standard so that children are given less slack, I think we should be looking at how the legal system could better deal with the issue of adults who lack capacity.

Using words like 'liable' cause me to believe you are approaching this in a legal sense, in which case...you are wrong. Parents are not automatically responsible for the actions of their children, and even in situations where they are found to have been negligent in their supervision, their negligence does not supercede or displant the culpability of the child his or herself. They are not in fact 'responsible' for those actions...they are responsible for their own.

I'm approaching it legally, emotionally and logically. Legally, the parents can be held liable.
Though fire officials said it was unlikely that the boy would face criminal charges, they said that his parents could possibly be held civilly liable for the damage. But the blaze caused millions of dollars in losses, and it is unclear whether his family could afford to pay even a fraction of that.

Emotionally, it was an accident. possibly traumatising for the child. yet that accident caused alot of damage and possibly some loss of life.

Logically, as a child, it cannot be proven that he set the blaze intentionally, yet some accountability has to be placed on the child/family without breaking them financially or socially.

Hence my condrum. How much punishment should be levied on the family/child? A percentage of earnings until it's paid off... no matter how long it takes? or a public apology? or maybe even a PSA about the dangers of playing with matches? or as others have pointed out... nothing?

I'm approaching it legally, emotionally and logically. Legally, the parents can be held liable. You stated that parents are liable for the actions of their children. This is false. Your highlighted sentence in no way contradicts this. The parents could be held civilly liable for negligence in relation to their supervision of the children...or they could not. There is no automatic responsibility inherent in the parent/child relationship that transfers that responsibility from the child to the parent. Nor would the parents be held to have been responsible for the fire itself in place of the child...only for their own actions which allowed the child to cause the fire. It's an important difference.



Hence my condrum. How much punishment should be levied on the family/child? A percentage of earnings until it's paid off... no matter how long it takes? or a public apology? or maybe even a PSA about the dangers of playing with matches? or as others have pointed out... nothing?

Honestly...I don't see what could be done. No, I don't think the parents should be forced to perpetually pay for their mistake (if their failure to supervise was a contributory factor) nor do I think the child should have to live under that cloud forever. Nothing will fix this, and villifying them even more that what they will no doubt face in their everyday lives seems pointless.

Snip.

The child could appear in paid TV commercials about security and commercials to raise money for the families, etc - maybe with their back turned to the camera to avoid revenges. The money from those could be reverted to the families.

Maybe during Half-time of the Superbowl we can put the kid in a pillory and everyone who lost a house in the fire can smack him with a pie. *nod*

The child could appear in paid TV commercials about security and commercials to raise money for the families, etc - maybe with their back turned to the camera to avoid revenges. The money from those could be reverted to the families.

How many of the homeowners wouldn't have had fire insurance on their houses in any case?

Weep for the insurance companies. Weep I say!

How many of the homeowners wouldn't have had fire insurance on their houses in any case?

Weep for the insurance companies. Weep I say!

Well, still, doesn't my idea seem good?

Well, still, doesn't my idea seem good?

Sure, whaddevah.

How many of the homeowners wouldn't have had fire insurance on their houses in any case?

Weep for the insurance companies. Weep I say!

Insurance companies have insurance. Crazy but true. Here's how it works: There are a bunch of people who belong to a network called Lloyds of London. They insure the uninsurable. Things like The space shuttle, Greta Garbo's legs and insurance companies. They charge exorbitant amounts of money for these insurance policies. Then, when some major disaster or catastrophe strikes, the poor bankrupt bastard at Lloyds of London kills himself in a fit of despondency and life goes on. :)

Edit: I understand that they are always looking for new members. :p

Insurance companies have insurance. Crazy but true. Here's how it works: There are a bunch of people who belong to a network called Lloyds of London. They insure the uninsurable. Things like The space shuttle, Greta Garbo's legs and insurance companies. They charge exorbitant amounts of money for these insurance policies. Then, when some major disaster or catastrophe strikes, the poor bankrupt bastard at Lloyds of London kills himself in a fit of despondency and life goes on. :)

Edit: I understand that they are always looking for new members. :p

Hahahahhahaha.

It's true though...insurance companies do in fact have insurance, as crazy as it sounds...who insures the insurance companies that insure insurance companies I don't know...

I sit through 3 hours of insurance law a week. It's truly batshit insane...and yet oddly fascinating stuff.

You stated that parents are liable for the actions of their children. This is false. Your highlighted sentence in no way contradicts this. The parents could be held civilly liable for negligence in relation to their supervision of the children...or they could not. There is no automatic responsibility inherent in the parent/child relationship that transfers that responsibility from the child to the parent. Nor would the parents be held to have been responsible for the fire itself in place of the child...only for their own actions which allowed the child to cause the fire. It's an important difference. wha...

Parents are liable for their children's actions. show me one case where the CHILD is sued/taken to court without the parents being involved in anyway against their wishes or choice.

Honestly...I don't see what could be done. No, I don't think the parents should be forced to perpetually pay for their mistake (if their failure to supervise was a contributory factor) nor do I think the child should have to live under that cloud forever. Nothing will fix this, and villifying them even more that what they will no doubt face in their everyday lives seems pointless. so you say nothing should be done to the child/family. that's your stance and one that is also an option.

How many of the homeowners wouldn't have had fire insurance on their houses in any case?

Weep for the insurance companies. Weep I say!
I'll weep for those who has to deal with those insurance companies. I remember what the Insurance Companies did in Hawaii after Hurricane Iniki slamed into Kauai.

Hurricane and flood coverages skyrocketed or companies stopped Flood and Hurricane coverages and several companies stopped insuring homes on the Islands completely. Leaving hundreds scrambling for homeowners insurance.

it wasn't pretty...

wha...

Parents are liable for their children's actions. show me one case where the CHILD is sued/taken to court without the parents being involved in anyway against their wishes or choice.
Wft? The parents might drive them to court, or be there...but parents are NOT legally liable for the tortious or criminal actions of their children.

Here's (http://www.lilleylawfirm.com/article.jsp?practArea=20&articleIndex=0) a little background. There are exceptions, where parents can be held liable...but those are EXCEPTIONS to the RULE that they are not liable. So no...how about you go find a case where the parents WERE 'involved' in the sense of being held to be liable as well, and I'll show you what exception was used in that case.


I'll weep for those who has to deal with those insurance companies. I remember what the Insurance Companies did in Hawaii after Hurricane Iniki slamed into Kauai. Oh no doubt...insurance litigation is a pain in the arse, especially after a widespread loss like this.

Get a grip. The kid is not going to have any liability insurance, and even if you could get a court to find the parents negligent, there is no way that THEIR liability insurance would cover even a fraction of the damage done. What you are essentially advocating is going after them just to make people feel better. Fine...but at least be clear about it.

Well, there's the solution then. Children are dangerous, and parents should be required to insure against any damage they may do. :p

Why should someone be held criminally liable? Shit happens. Get over it. Extolling culpability just for meanness sake is stupid.

And you know this was accidental shit as opposed to deliberate shit how? The article doesn't say anything in regards to intent except for the parents, which cannot be trusted to begin with due to emotional links.

I think they were cremated, anyway.

they are now

The law is definitely more lenient towards children than it is towards say, mentally challenged adults, seniors or the simply unintelligent. However, rather than lower the standard so that children are given less slack, I think we should be looking at how the legal system could better deal with the issue of adults who lack capacity.
Well, we should look at the legal system to see where changes should be made, but it's nonetheless important to remember that lacking mental capacity doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.

Well, we should look at the legal system to see where changes should be made, but it's nonetheless important to remember that lacking mental capacity doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.

Children, mentally deficient adults, or both?

I think that family better move to another state, because there is probably some very upset people out there who might not accept the "accident" idea.

Children, mentally deficient adults, or both?
Both, but mentally deficient adults more so because children are theoretically under their parents' control.

No one ever went thought that "fire" phase as a child? I know I did.

I'll be 34 in December, and I'm STILL going through it. :eek: :D

Why should someone be held criminally liable?
Billions of dollars in damage, between a half dozen and dozen people dead.

Well, we should look at the legal system to see where changes should be made, but it's nonetheless important to remember that lacking mental capacity doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.

As President Bush has demonstrated. :p

What kind of simpleton plays with matches?

I used to use a magnifying glass, sunlight, and cedar bark for tinder.
It would take me near half an hour to get a fire going, if I was lucky.

And I always smelled like cedar/smoke afterwards.

As President Bush has demonstrated. :p

Nicely done!

Nicely done!

:cool:

Parents should take a course on how to keep stuff like matches, lighters, or other dangerous objects out of children's reach, and the child should have to take a trip through the damaged area (after the fire is put out) so he can see the extent of the damage, and then take a fire safety course, no cute cartoon characters though.

Parents should take a course on how to keep stuff like matches, lighters, or other dangerous objects out of children's reach, and the child should have to take a trip through the damaged area (after the fire is put out) so he can see the extent of the damage, and then take a fire safety course, no cute cartoon characters though.

How about a trip through the morgue?

Parents should take a course on how to keep stuff like matches, lighters, or other dangerous objects out of children's reach, and the child should have to take a trip through the damaged area (after the fire is put out) so he can see the extent of the damage, and then take a fire safety course, no cute cartoon characters though.

What?

Let me be try again ... what ... the ...

No. Again.

NO, no, no you fucking ...

No, that's not right either.

Forget re-education. The kid won't do it again.
Forget punishment, it won't stop other kids doing the same thing.
Definitely don't put the kid through some patronizing "responsibility education" course.

Get this: that kid knows more about responsibility, now, than you or I have learnt in all our lives.

How about a trip through the morgue?

How about the trip through the morgue, in third grade, for every kid?

"That is a dead person, kid."

"Why don't they move?"
"They're dead. They can't move any more, unless something else moves them."

"But in the movies, something else happens!"
"This isn't the movies. That's a dead person."

"What else is there here?"
"More dead people."

"Do they move, or something happen after I look at them?"
"No."

"I want to go now."

He should have to do something... maybe help hand out supplies to families whose homes have been destroyed or something so he learns about the consequences of his actions and learn that they have a negative impact on others. But that should be it. Maybe he could do something like visit other schools as part of a fire safety education programme or something? Let other kids know that playing with matches can have some serious repercussions, thus atoning for his own mistakes and teaching others to avoid them.

He should have to do something... maybe help hand out supplies to families whose homes have been destroyed or something so he learns about the consequences of his actions and learn that they have a negative impact on others.

Don't you think he might be aware of that, already?

But that should be it. Maybe he could do something like visit other schools as part of a fire safety education programme or something? Let other kids know that playing with matches can have some serious repercussions, thus atoning for his own mistakes and teaching others to avoid them.

Wouldn't it be great if he did that?
It seems like you're looking at what-could-be-done from the kids point of view. I applaud that.

I think that when someone has done something terrible it's vital to leave them some path to redemption. Particulary when the consequences so outweigh what their intentions could have been.

"Nothing you can do, nothing you can say, will ever make up for this terrible thing you did" is a stupid and vengeful approach. It throws a good life after the lost lives.

If what you're saying is "if I were him, I'd go do these good things to make up for what may have been my fault ..." then I utterly agree.

If what you're saying is "he should be made to do these good things, to make up for the harm he may have done" then I don't much agree.

Wouldn't it be great if he did that?
It seems like you're looking at what-could-be-done from the kids point of view. I applaud that.

I think that when someone has done something terrible it's vital to leave them some path to redemption. Particulary when the consequences so outweigh what their intentions could have been.

"Nothing you can do, nothing you can say, will ever make up for this terrible thing you did" is a stupid and vengeful approach. It throws a good life after the lost lives.

If what you're saying is "if I were him, I'd go do these good things to make up for what may have been my fault ..." then I utterly agree.

If what you're saying is "he should be made to do these good things, to make up for the harm he may have done" then I don't much agree.
I'm saying that he should probably be encouraged to do these things. The kid's got to feel like shit about himself right now and if he's presented with a way to make things better (for instance, by educating others and helping to prevent other such accidents in the future) then he might both be able to feel better about himself and, well, help make things better for everyone.

I'm saying that he should probably be encouraged to do these things. The kid's got to feel like shit about himself right now and if he's presented with a way to make things better (for instance, by educating others and helping to prevent other such accidents in the future) then he might both be able to feel better about himself and, well, help make things better for everyone.

:)

I've done things wrong then tried to make them up (probably everyone has.) Good intentions just aren't enough, you have to try double before people will even trust your intentions. It's very easy to just go "well, I tried, but you're all prejudiced, I'm doing a good thing here and you just want to keep blaming me."

And people do. Once you've blamed someone, you have a place to dump negative feelings about all sorts of unrelated stuff. "My wife wouldn't have left me, except that she met that guy when we had to rent, and that was because of that bastard who burnt our house down." That sort of thing.

Contrition is hard. Forgiveness is hard. No-one should be spared them, they're huge steps in life.

Wouldn't wish them on a ten-year-old. But if he's up for it, good for him.

There seems to be a lot of people here who get their kicks punishing little childeren. Peadophiles.

Fine, then we hose the parents. Any child who doesn't know not to play with matches shouldn't be playing with god damn matches. Some one should be held criminally liable here and if it isn't the kid..

Except the 10 year old is probably very dependent upon the parents for his survival and happiness, so punishing them will, by extension, punish him.

There seems to be a lot of people here who get their kicks punishing little childeren. Peadophiles.

You must have a very unique idea of what the word paedophile means.

Come on baby light my fire!

Aren't children always innocent?

And you know this was accidental shit as opposed to deliberate shit how?

I don't know about you, but I live in a country with the presumption of innocence.

and let the taxpayers or the victims alone to eat the repair and rebuilding cost?

Yup, because that's what accidents entail when done by children. And if they don't have insurance, then it's their own fault.

and what of any lives lost in the fire?

The article seems to mention none.

should there be any accountablilty for the property and lives lost?

Nope. As I said: extolling culpability not for the sake of justice but for making your child-hating self feel better is not something a society should indulge in.

Kids these days...

Clearly a part of the gay agenda, and therefore this opinion must be dismissed.

All my opinions are part of the agenda, so I don't see your point in stating it.

There seems to be a lot of people here who get their kicks punishing little childeren. Peadophiles.
Actually, the -philia suffix technically means something along the lines of "love of" or "friendship of" (Of course in common usage this often takes a sexual angle). So wanting to actually punish the kid is the opposite of paedophilia.

Anyway I think in this case, accidents happen. Kids naturally do stupid things, it just happened that this act of stupidity resulted in massive destruction and a few deaths. Obviously I can't say for sure, but I would imagine that this kid will be feeling bad enough about what happened. I think that's punishment enough. If the parents and kid want to try and make amends, I'm sure something could be worked out as others have suggested here. But to try and just take it out on the kid is just being spiteful.

Kids these days...

... don't have access to explosives.

Ah, memories. One hundred and twenty dollars worth of fireworks, in plastic bags under my mate's bed. They wouldn't even all fit under the bed ... there must have been over a kilo of black powder there. Most of them we ended up using as fireworks, after scaring the crap out of ourselves repacking the stuff as explosives. Amazing I've still got all the bits I was born with, really.