Arsonist Released

[my5cents]

Interesting contributors are blaming police, city officials, "should have held him until charges were laid", etc etc.

The police, may or may not have addressed my solution, we don't know. The city ? nothing at all to do with releasing this persons.

Lets' look at the entire picture...

A man is arrested after citizens claim to see someone walking through a treed area with a flaming object.

The RCMP "continue to investigate" and the man is released with a series of conditions. Ah, yes the good old catch all, "continue to investigate". If this was a financial crime, and documents had to be obtained via production orders during business hours, if this was a case of locating a suspect a month after a crime, now having to rounding up witnesses, we could expect that some aspects of the investigation would be out of the control of the RCMP and they'd have to "continue the investigation". No this was a bunch of citizens who witnessed a serious incident, on view, they and the suspect are here now !

There is the serious concern, and for good reason, that during a time when wild fires are a VERY prevalent but the police don't move heaven and earth to conclude the investigation but "are investigating" ie, "don't call us, we'll call you".

Opens up the question, "What ? did the RCMP treat this serious incident like every other 'investigation continues' " and the constable who was assigned the case goes on four day off ?????

(phones the RCMP) "I've found the guy who robbed my store yesterday, he's standing at the corner of .... and ..... 'well sir the Constable who is assigned that robbery will be back in three days do you want his voice mail ?' "

I think the easy solution would be looking in another direction to keep this suspected pyromaniac and his Bic away from anything flammable. There's more than one way to skin a cat. (no offense to cat lovers, of which I'm one)

We're told that at the time the male was apprehended he was serving 18 months probation for three unrelated convictions. Any probation order I've ever read, or heard of, had the basic condition of obeying the law and be of good behavior.

So the obvious main question why wasn't the guy, in the least, arrested and detained for breach of probation ???

I'm not excusing the RCMP for apparently dropping the ball on conducting a expeditious, continuous investigation on the arson, but in addition to that concern there were other avenues to keep this person away from trees in the mean time.

Another, among so many, questionable actions (or lack thereof) by the RCMP.

[blueliner]

Interesting contributors are blaming police, city officials, "should have held him until charges were laid", etc etc.

The police, may or may not have addressed my solution, we don't know. The city ? nothing at all to do with releasing this persons.

Lets' look at the entire picture...

A man is arrested after citizens claim to see someone walking through a treed area with a flaming object.

The RCMP "continue to investigate" and the man is released with a series of conditions. Ah, yes the good old catch all, "continue to investigate". If this was a financial crime, and documents had to be obtained via production orders during business hours, if this was a case of locating a suspect a month after a crime, now having to rounding up witnesses, we could expect that some aspects of the investigation would be out of the control of the RCMP and they'd have to "continue the investigation". No this was a bunch of citizens who witnessed a serious incident, on view, they and the suspect are here now !

There is the serious concern, and for good reason, that during a time when wild fires are a VERY prevalent but the police don't move heaven and earth to conclude the investigation but "are investigating" ie, "don't call us, we'll call you".

Opens up the question, "What ? did the RCMP treat this serious incident like every other 'investigation continues' " and the constable who was assigned the case goes on four day off ?????

(phones the RCMP) "I've found the guy who robbed my store yesterday, he's standing at the corner of .... and ..... 'well sir the Constable who is assigned that robbery will be back in three days do you want his voice mail ?' "

I think the easy solution would be looking in another direct to keep this suspected pyromaniac and his Bic away from anything flammable. There's more than one way to skin a cat. (no offense to cat lovers, of which I'm one)

We're told that at the time the male was apprehended he was serving 18 months probation for three unrelated convictions. Any probation order I've ever read, or heard of, had the basic condition of obeying the law and be of good behavior.

So the obvious main question why wasn't the guy, in the lease, arrested and detained for breach of probation ???

I'm not excusing the RCMP for apparently dropping the ball on conducting a expeditious, continuous investigation on the arson, but in addition to that concern there were other avenues to keep this person away from trees in the mean time.

Another, among so many, questionable actions (or lack thereof) by the RCMP.

Please don't place any blame on the RCMP . They have done there job by arresting him . All blame should be placed on our total soft on crime Justice system + Probation board .
Its not up to the RCMP to be held accountable for the actions of them !!!!!

[my5cents]

Please don't place any blame on the RCMP . They have done there job by arresting him . All blame should be placed on our total soft on crime Justice system + Probation board .
Its not up to the RCMP to be held accountable for the actions of them !!!!!

As I said they may or may not have done all they could.

There's no such thing as the "Probation Board". If someone breaches their probation they are generally brought before the judge who gave the subject probation.

The police have the right to hold the subject without charge for 24 hours. For an offense this serious a suspect can be held longer - See below:

Release from custody by officer in charge

498. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if a person who has been arrested without warrant by a peace officer is taken into custody, or if a person who has been arrested without warrant and delivered to a peace officer under subsection 494(3) or placed in the custody of a peace officer under subsection 163.5(3) of the Customs Act is detained in custody under subsection 503(1) for an offence described in paragraph 496(a), (b) or (c), or any other offence that is punishable by imprisonment for five years or less, and has not been taken before a justice or released from custody under any other provision of this Part, the officer in charge or another peace officer shall, as soon as practicable,

(a) release the person with the intention of compelling their appearance by way of summons;
(b) release the person on their giving a promise to appear;
(c) release the person on the person’s entering into a recognizance before the officer in charge or another peace officer without sureties in an amount not exceeding $500 that the officer directs, but without deposit of money or other valuable security; or
(d) if the person is not ordinarily resident in the province in which the person is in custody or does not ordinarily reside within 200 kilometres of the place in which the person is in custody, release the person on the person’s entering into a recognizance before the officer in charge or another peace officer without sureties in an amount not exceeding $500 that the officer directs and, if the officer so directs, on depositing with the officer a sum of money or other valuable security not exceeding in amount or value $500, that the officer directs.

Exception
(1.1) The officer in charge or the peace officer shall not release a person under subsection (1) if the officer in charge or peace officer believes, on reasonable grounds,

(a) that it is necessary in the public interest that the person be detained in custody or that the matter of their release from custody be dealt with under another provision of this Part, having regard to all the circumstances including the need to
(i) establish the identity of the person,
(ii) secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence,
(iii) prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of another offence, or
(iv) ensure the safety and security of any victim of or witness to the offence; or
(b) that, if the person is released from custody, the person will fail to attend court in order to be dealt with according to law.

Forgetting the breach of probation for a moment, the argument could be made that the subject was breaching probation by committing another offense, so has demonstrated a propensity for committing further offense while under the supervision of the courts.

[gardengirl]

I will bet with all the political correctness, do gooder bs that is prevalent, that this goof will get off with a slap on the wrists.
Instead of doing 10-20, he will be treated as a "victim". He is a drug addict. He has a sickness. He was having a drug induced psychotic break and he could not have formed the intent to cause harm or destruction.

Will he get put into a mental institution? Nope. (Maybe some mickey mouse hospital stay like the psycho who beheaded the guy on the Greyhound bus, he is already out.)
Forced rehab? Nope. Can't do that, he has rights. Some 6 week voluntary program? If that.

I am so sick of there being no consequences to actions. All these criminals getting off because they have a substance abuse problem.

This has been growing for decades. Locally, there was Burt Stone who stabbed his wife over 40 times, but got off on a psych defense.

What's next? Alcoholics get a free pass on drunk driving because they have an addiction?
Oh, they killed someone, but they didn't mean to. They were too drunk to know what they were doing.

[the truth]

100% correct.........

[JagXKR]

And now we get another arsonist, this time in Summerland.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... Summerland

RCMP located a 55-year-old man, walking along Prairie Valley Road, where he was subsequently arrested.

Officers are continuing their investigation, with the man facing a number of charges related to arson.

What are the betting odds that they will release this criminal?

[Glacier]

And now we get another arsonist, this time in Summerland.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton ... Summerland

RCMP located a 55-year-old man, walking along Prairie Valley Road, where he was subsequently arrested.

Officers are continuing their investigation, with the man facing a number of charges related to arson.

What are the betting odds that they will release this criminal?

What a idiot!!!

[liisgo]

I will bet with all the political correctness, do gooder bs that is prevalent, that this goof will get off with a slap on the wrists.
Instead of doing 10-20, he will be treated as a "victim". He is a drug addict. He has a sickness. He was having a drug induced psychotic break and he could not have formed the intent to cause harm or destruction.

Will he get put into a mental institution? Nope. (Maybe some mickey mouse hospital stay like the psycho who beheaded the guy on the Greyhound bus, he is already out.)
Forced rehab? Nope. Can't do that, he has rights. Some 6 week voluntary program? If that.

I am so sick of there being no consequences to actions. All these criminals getting off because they have a substance abuse problem.

This has been growing for decades. Locally, there was Burt Stone who stabbed his wife over 40 times, but got off on a psych defense.

What's next? Alcoholics get a free pass on drunk driving because they have an addiction?
Oh, they killed someone, but they didn't mean to. They were too drunk to know what they were doing.

Totally agree. This new society and its governance is now about every one doing any thing wrong or some thing with a negative outcome to themselves is a victim. Some one else caused these people to make these decision's.
Most of us can easily see the realization of how screwed up our society is today, but there are a lot of people who actually believe in it.

[GordonH]

It would be very curious if this individual tried again and was successful i.e Mt. Law wildfire. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

[the truth]

It would be very curious if this individual tried again and was successful i.e Mt. Law wildfire. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

agree 100%

[tsayta]

It would be very curious if this individual tried again and was successful i.e Mt. Law wildfire. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

agree 100%

2nd that

[GordonH]

It would be very curious if this individual tried again and was successful i.e Mt. Law wildfire. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

My bad, apparently he has been in custody since July 22.
https://www.castanet.net/news/West-Kelo ... t-arrested

So Mt. Law fire couldn’t have been started by this fire bug.

[the truth]

another low life untouchable criminal thanks to city of kelowna walks free https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... ody#343397

[Fancy]

another low life untouchable criminal thanks to city of kelowna walks free https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... ody#343397

What does the City have to do with releasing criminals?

Judge Monica McParland released him from custody with no financial obligation, but a number of court-imposed conditions

I don't understand why those with impulses to start fires aren't staying in custody.

[Graphite]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... om-custody

So, how is the general public being protected in this case? This man, whose name is published and made public by the court system, has been released yet again, despite other ongoing charges in other matters. Clearly this individual demonstrates a lack of respect for the law system that the much of society adheres to. He tried to set a fire in a residential neighborhood in the midst of fire season. This is the second person caught doing so and released afterwards with conditions. Will this person adhere to the conditions? Will the conditions prevent him from going out and doing the same thing? How do you stop an arsonist from doing it again? Isn't it a compulsion for some people?