Yates Road Fire Cause

dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3326
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by dle »

voice of reason wrote:
dle wrote:
soooo let me get this straight...hypothetically you take a bat and clock a guy over the head .....he is diagnosed with a life-altering brain injury as a direct result of that whack ....but you would claim the brain injury is not your fault because you didn't INTEND to cause him a life-altering brain injury, all you intended was hit him with the bat? He somehow accidentally got the brain injury? How am I doing so far? Anything else you'd like to school me on?


that is exactly the argument your lawyer would make in that situation


...so I'm wondering if a lawyer got his client acquitted using that defence would it all just miraculously go back to an even playing field and give the other fellow his life & brain back? Like no harm no foul? The one that "accidentally" somehow out of the blue was brain-altered from a bat that somehow accidentally hit him on the head by somebody accidentally swinging the bat directly at his head with every intention of hitting that head - just no intention of causing any damage by doing it? Hmmmmm.....
User avatar
goatboy
Guru
Posts: 6025
Joined: Feb 26th, 2008, 8:56 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by goatboy »

dle wrote:


soooo let me get this straight...hypothetically you take a bat and clock a guy over the head .....he is diagnosed with a life-altering brain injury as a direct result of that whack ....but you would claim the brain injury is not your fault because you didn't INTEND to cause him a life-altering brain injury, all you intended was hit him with the bat? He somehow accidentally got the brain injury? How am I doing so far? Anything else you'd like to school me on?


A better analogy was that you were at a baseball game and were up at bat. You swing the bat and the bat goes flying out of your hands and hits somebody walking down the street. You had a bat, you did swing it but an unintentional consequence of your actions was hitting somebody on the head with it.

From the little information we had, the kids DID light a fire, but given that they thought they had put it out obviously had no intention of causing a forest fire. If they had gone to the forest, lit and fire and then ran away without trying to put it out, that would be arson. Poor decision making but probably not intentional for it to turn into what it did.
vette4ever
Posts: 7
Joined: Aug 6th, 2009, 10:14 am

Re: Yates Road Fire Cause

Post by vette4ever »

While it is great that the kids confessed, whether it be on their own or K-9 unit catching them, this kind of behavior needs to be addressed. If a "kid" started a house fire would people say oh well they are kids. Kids have been kids since forever, but things have changed. We are in a highly volatile fire season, hundreds of homes could have been lost, not to mention manpower being pulled away from other fires. The parents are responsible for minor children. Is it different from skiing our of bounds, getting lost and needing to be rescued? I don't think so. Are the same people saying kids will be kids saying recklessness costing thousands of dollars in a rescue should be a cost to the province? While I doubt the kids will do that again, I hope they know speaking up was the only thing to do. I was evacuated in 2009 and was a human caused fire, had my house burned down and the culprit caught, I'm sure they would have been prosecuted and not taken as an oops.
User avatar
OKkayak
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13711
Joined: May 14th, 2018, 11:10 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by OKkayak »

alanjh595 wrote:What kind of community service should a 12 year old have to do? Maybe walk the beaches and pick up dirty needles?

Clean up trash. Collect bottles. Help seniors. Mow lawns. Paint fences. Organize clothing at the Salvation Army.
User avatar
TreeGuy
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3442
Joined: Oct 9th, 2005, 10:02 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by TreeGuy »

goatboy wrote:
A better analogy was that you were at a baseball game and were up at bat. You swing the bat and the bat goes flying out of your hands and hits somebody walking down the street. You had a bat, you did swing it but an unintentional consequence of your actions was hitting somebody on the head with it.

From the little information we had, the kids DID light a fire, but given that they thought they had put it out obviously had no intention of causing a forest fire.

Again we do not know this to be fact. This is the story they told.

If they had gone to the forest, lit and fire and then ran away without trying to put it out

This might be exactly what they did.

that would be arson. Poor decision making but probably not intentional for it to turn into what it did.
dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3326
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by dle »

goatboy wrote:
dle wrote:


soooo let me get this straight...hypothetically you take a bat and clock a guy over the head .....he is diagnosed with a life-altering brain injury as a direct result of that whack ....but you would claim the brain injury is not your fault because you didn't INTEND to cause him a life-altering brain injury, all you intended was hit him with the bat? He somehow accidentally got the brain injury? How am I doing so far? Anything else you'd like to school me on?


A better analogy was that you were at a baseball game and were up at bat. You swing the bat and the bat goes flying out of your hands and hits somebody walking down the street. You had a bat, you did swing it but an unintentional consequence of your actions was hitting somebody on the head with it.

From the little information we had, the kids DID light a fire, but given that they thought they had put it out obviously had no intention of causing a forest fire. If they had gone to the forest, lit and fire and then ran away without trying to put it out, that would be arson. Poor decision making but probably not intentional for it to turn into what it did.


I do see what you are saying but I still think there is a little difference - by the sounds of the reports the kids MEANT to start a fire, and DID start a fire...but they just wanted a teeny one that they wanted to put out but it didn't go as planned and so the wildfire part that their teeny fire turned into was the unintentional part, but the actual lighting of the teeny fire was intentional. As far as we can tell if the reports are correct, they didn't light the lighter, and then the lighter went flying out of the kids hands and the flame accidentally touched the tinder that started the fire. They actually meant to start a fire - they just didn't mean to start a wildfire - they only wanted a teeny one that they figured they stomped out.
User avatar
alanjh595
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18525
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Yates Road Fire Cause

Post by alanjh595 »

dle wrote:@alanjh595 said:

Adults do dumb things all the time, usually preceded by the statement, "Hold my beer and watch this"

:smt045

These kids were seen running away from the area but they might have been instinctively running for home to get an adult to help - pretty sure they would have been scared out of their wits by what was transpiring before their eyes and usually the first thought is oh-oh followed by get out of Dodge and run like hell to Dad or Mom to fix it. Not sure they would have been thinking clearly enough to be trying to formulate a whopper that would hold water, or even to stop at the nearest house for an adult to help - just going on pure adrenalin by that point and running like the wind for home and parental intervention...of course all I am doing is speculating as to what they were thinking - it just seems a plausible train of thought to me.


Another plausible thought..........Have you ever to walk SLOWLY down hill? Depending on the grade, it is physically, very difficult to go down hill slowly.
It is human nature to go to the only place of safety that they know and ask for help from Mom/Dad and called out for help. The same behaviors are easily recognized in bears to puppies and humans.

Bring back the LIKE button.
User avatar
goatboy
Guru
Posts: 6025
Joined: Feb 26th, 2008, 8:56 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by goatboy »

dle wrote:I do see what you are saying but I still think there is a little difference - by the sounds of the reports the kids MEANT to start a fire, and DID start a fire...but they just wanted a teeny one that they wanted to put out but it didn't go as planned and so the wildfire part that their teeny fire turned into was the unintentional part, but the actual lighting of the teeny fire was intentional. As far as we can tell if the reports are correct, they didn't light the lighter, and then the lighter went flying out of the kids hands and the flame accidentally touched the tinder that started the fire. They actually meant to start a fire - they just didn't mean to start a wildfire - they only wanted a teeny one that they figured they stomped out.


You're right, not a perfect analogy. Suppose the bottom line is, they were 9 and 11 so the LAW does not allow them to be held responsible for their actions. The law allows the parents to be held accountable up to $10,000 if someone sues them in small claims court. What will happen? Probably nothing other than a stern talking to and whatever parental action is taken against them, which, hopefully, will be meaningful.
User avatar
t76turbo
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 938
Joined: Nov 29th, 2007, 9:48 am

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by t76turbo »

voice of reason wrote:
dle wrote:
soooo let me get this straight...hypothetically you take a bat and clock a guy over the head .....he is diagnosed with a life-altering brain injury as a direct result of that whack ....but you would claim the brain injury is not your fault because you didn't INTEND to cause him a life-altering brain injury, all you intended was hit him with the bat? He somehow accidentally got the brain injury? How am I doing so far? Anything else you'd like to school me on?

that is exactly the argument your lawyer would make in that situation


Intentionally swinging a bat to hit someone is a criminal act. Whatever the outcome, you’re responsible and facing criminal and most likely civil charges.
Swinging a bat and striking someone with it while playing ball would be considered accidental, no criminality involved however you could still face civil litigation if you caused injury.


I’m one of those kids who used to play with matches. Nearly burned down my parents house. Still remember that day when I was about 7. I remember being folded over the bathtub becoming intimate with my fathers belt. I couldn’t sit for a while. Those were different times.

I too have property in North Glenmore, same hillside as fire, bout a km further north. Lots of motorized equipment, none insured for fire. Couple doors over family member has no fire insurance as he is waiting for roof replacement, was dropped by insurer due to age of roof. We both were worried some.

This, IMHO was not a criminal act nor was negligence involved. Yes it was stupid and dangerous, let this be a lesson to all parents.

Thankfully, no wind and one heck of a response by local and provincial services. Thanks to all for a fantastic job!
I really like your post, just can’t find the button.
User avatar
OKkayak
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13711
Joined: May 14th, 2018, 11:10 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by OKkayak »

t76turbo wrote:
Intentionally swinging a bat to hit someone is a criminal act. Whatever the outcome, you’re responsible and facing criminal and most likely civil charges.
Swinging a bat and striking someone with it while playing ball would be considered accidental, no criminality involved however you could still face civil litigation if you caused injury.

However, in this case, the kids weren't playing a ball game, they intentionally swung the bat right by someone's face. While the outcome may not have been intentional, the act was.
dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3326
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by dle »

goatboy wrote:
dle wrote:I do see what you are saying but I still think there is a little difference - by the sounds of the reports the kids MEANT to start a fire, and DID start a fire...but they just wanted a teeny one that they wanted to put out but it didn't go as planned and so the wildfire part that their teeny fire turned into was the unintentional part, but the actual lighting of the teeny fire was intentional. As far as we can tell if the reports are correct, they didn't light the lighter, and then the lighter went flying out of the kids hands and the flame accidentally touched the tinder that started the fire. They actually meant to start a fire - they just didn't mean to start a wildfire - they only wanted a teeny one that they figured they stomped out.


You're right, not a perfect analogy. Suppose the bottom line is, they were 9 and 11 so the LAW does not allow them to be held responsible for their actions. The law allows the parents to be held accountable up to $10,000 if someone sues them in small claims court. What will happen? Probably nothing other than a stern talking to and whatever parental action is taken against them, which, hopefully, will be meaningful.


right, they are very young and can't be charged and I'm glad of that - if they were 17 or 18 well different story.....I do hope though that there is a consequence for the kids in some way involving the fire department - if their parents can come up with some community service for them to do or something around the fire hall or the forestry dept. It will be interesting to see if the parents are held accountable - I agree with the poster who said what good will it really do - the kids need to "serve their own time" so to speak for the lesson to be meaningful to them. Maybe a donation from the parents of some amount they an afford to the Search & Rescue or another fund of the fire departments choosing?
User avatar
alanjh595
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18525
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by alanjh595 »

dle wrote:I do see what you are saying but I still think there is a little difference - by the sounds of the reports the kids MEANT to start a fire, and DID start a fire...but they just wanted a teeny one that they wanted to put out but it didn't go as planned and so the wildfire part that their teeny fire turned into was the unintentional part, but the actual lighting of the teeny fire was intentional. As far as we can tell if the reports are correct, they didn't light the lighter, and then the lighter went flying out of the kids hands and the flame accidentally touched the tinder that started the fire. They actually meant to start a fire - they just didn't mean to start a wildfire - they only wanted a teeny one that they figured they stomped out.


They may have intended to light a tiny fire, but they didn't intend for the fire to be big and out of control like it was.
These children had no idea the consequences/repercussions about what they were doing. That is an "amoral" act.

If you call someone immoral, you are saying that person knows better. If you call him amoral, you are saying that person does wrong but doesn't understand that it is wrong. It can be a fine line, other times it's clear: If a giant wave turns your boat over, that wave isn't being mean, it's amoral. If another boat rams into you and does the same thing, that is an immoral act, especially if the immoral captain laughs instead of helping you out of the water.


The same can be said about many that are mentally challenged or suffer from some sort of brain disorder that has increased over time, such as Alzheimer's, dementia, bipolar, Downs Syndrome and many other diseases of the mind.

The difference in this case is that the children can learn from their mistake and will not repeat it. On the other side of the spectrum, those that affected can not learn and their decease will continue to worsen over time.

These children, made an error in judgement, they will learn from it, just like all the rest of us have over our years of making mistakes. Some are small, some are big.

It takes a village to raise a child.
It takes a village to raise a child is a proverb which means that it takes an entire community of different people interacting with children in order for children to experience and grow in a safe environment. ... This does not mean an entire village is responsible for raising your children.
Bring back the LIKE button.
dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3326
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by dle »

OKkayak wrote:
t76turbo wrote:
Intentionally swinging a bat to hit someone is a criminal act. Whatever the outcome, you’re responsible and facing criminal and most likely civil charges.
Swinging a bat and striking someone with it while playing ball would be considered accidental, no criminality involved however you could still face civil litigation if you caused injury.

However, in this case, the kids weren't playing a ball game, they intentionally swung the bat right by someone's face. While the outcome may not have been intentional, the act was.


Yes! That's what I've been trying to get at and you said it short and sweet lol while I rambled on and on and on...
User avatar
alanjh595
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 18525
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by alanjh595 »

dle wrote:right, they are very young and can't be charged and I'm glad of that - if they were 17 or 18 well different story.....I do hope though that there is a consequence for the kids in some way involving the fire department - if their parents can come up with some community service for them to do or something around the fire hall or the forestry dept. It will be interesting to see if the parents are held accountable - I agree with the poster who said what good will it really do - the kids need to "serve their own time" so to speak for the lesson to be meaningful to them. Maybe a donation from the parents of some amount they an afford to the Search & Rescue or another fund of the fire departments choosing?


How could anyone make an 9 year old and an 11 year old serve community service time? Even if I was a fireman, all I would want to do is hug them and embrace them and show off the fire truck. Firemen and police men/women have chosen their profession to HELP others.
Put any 2 kids of that age in a police car/firetruck and they would be excited. Does anyone expect anything different from them? Does anyone expect police and fire personnel to treat them badly and traumatize these kids into compliance?

Any donation enforced upon the parents will just be deducted from the child's future educational growth. Just think about it for a minute, Mom and Dad sit the (now young person) down and tell him/her that even thought their grades are good enough and that they are eligible to enter a college, BUT mom and dad can't afford it because of the fines levied upon them when the child was 9 years old.
Bring back the LIKE button.
User avatar
Urban Cowboy
Guru
Posts: 7516
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 3:47 pm

Re: Yates Road - Grass Fire

Post by Urban Cowboy »

WheelWeaves wrote:While their behavior wasn't ill-spirited, that's hours and hours and hours of effort diverted from real fires that need to be dealt with, never mind the cost of fire retardant and air support, ground control, police efforts.... hope their parents have some money squirreled away.

As far as admitting to it, it is absolutely the right thing to do, but what kind of horrible lesson is it to teach that "oh, you started a fire costing 10s of thousands of dollars or more, put hundreds if not thousands of people through evac alerts, threatened their homes, but you admitted to it, so no harm no foul"...... it is admirable that these kids are cut from some respectable cloth, but that doesn't excuse anything in my eyes.


If the poll is any indication it seems many would be happy to see the parents in financial ruin, for what is essentially a case of kids being stupid, and hence kids.

At least they owned up to what they did.

This in stark contrast to the billions spent on fighting fires, and rebuilding afterward, that has often been caused by adults, blatantly ignoring rules, regulations, and common sense, as they continue to toss burning butts onto roadways.

It's that group that sorely needs to be targeted, to find a deserving example whose financial ruin would be a product of their own making, thus deserving of zero sympathy.
“We isolate now so when we gather again, no one is missing" - Unknown

Return to “Fire Watch 2018”