Deliberately Starting Fires

OK,

It's very hot in Europe at the moment, everywhere is tinderbox-dry.

In the last couple of weeks there have been serious forest fires in the south of france, a most beautiful part of the world, resulting in at least 4 deaths. Many of these fires were thought to be started deliberately.

This week there is a similar story in Portugal, at least 9 people have died, and thousands of acres of land destroyed. Again, the majority of these fires are thought to have been deliberately started.

Alot of the devastating fires around Sydney, Australia last year were deliberately started too. I just don't understand the psyche of the people who do this, all I know is as far as I am concerned they should face the severest punishments allowable.

What happened this week is tantamount to murder, but even if no deaths occurred, starting fires in those conditions is such a heinous act of vandalism and wanton destruction, I don't think a description has even been coined for the scale of the crime and the damage to the global environment.

What does everyone think?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by barbarossa@5 August 2003 - 11:24
OK,

It's very hot in Europe at the moment, everywhere is tinderbox-dry.

In the last couple of weeks there have been serious forest fires in the south of france, a most beautiful part of the world, resulting in at least 4 deaths. Many of these fires were thought to be started deliberately.

This week there is a similar story in Portugal, at least 9 people have died, and thousands of acres of land destroyed. Again, the majority of these fires are thought to have been deliberately started.

Alot of the devastating fires around Sydney, Australia last year were deliberately started too. I just don't understand the psyche of the people who do this, all I know is as far as I am concerned they should face the severest punishments allowable.

What happened this week is tantamount to murder, but even if no deaths occurred, starting fires in those conditions is such a heinous act of vandalism and wanton destruction, I don't think a description has even been coined for the scale of the crime and the damage to the global environment.

What does everyone think?

---

capital punishment

You missed out the fires in Canada, where 1000's have been evacuated.

If there are deaths, then they should be charged with murder.

If their arent, they should be charged with the distruction of the $xxx worth of public property, animal cruelty, charged with the cost of putting the fires out..etc etc etc etc

Throw the book at them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@5 August 2003 - 17:59
You missed out the fires in Canada, where 1000's have been evacuated.

If there are deaths, then they should be charged with murder.

If their arent, they should be charged with the distruction of the $xxx worth of public property, animal cruelty, charged with the cost of putting the fires out..etc etc etc etc

Throw the book at them.

---

dude, it's 10,000 not 1000

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?...00-218411EE8460

Quote:

---

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+5 August 2003 - 21:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 5 August 2003 - 21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@5 August 2003 - 17:59
You missed out the fires in Canada, where 1000&#39;s have been evacuated.

If there are deaths, then they should be charged with murder.

If their arent, they should be charged with the distruction of the &#036;xxx worth of public property, animal cruelty, charged with the cost of putting the fires out..etc etc etc etc

Throw the book at them.

---

dude, it&#39;s 10,000 not 1000

http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?...00-218411EE8460 [/b][/quote]
I said 1000&#39;s as i didnt know the number.

Note the "s"...indicates multiples of.

Yes, a good portion of British Columbia is ablaze.

I don&#39;t think charging people with murder is a very good idea, considering how vague the term "deliberately set" is. I&#39;ve seen reports of fires being deliberate when, in fact, they are accidental. There&#39;s the improper snuffing of campfires and of cigarette butts, there&#39;s also the brake spark danger for places near highways. I&#39;ve only heard of one forest fire being deliberately set, and that was by the retarded son of a fireman. Plus, it wasn&#39;t deliberately set to become a huge wildfire. ;)

:ninja:

Well, some of the notorious 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires in South Australia were started by a member of the CFS (Country Fire Service) who also happened to be a pyromaniac.

He set the fires with a homemade match gun while out on a solo firewatch patrol or something... I don&#39;t remember all the details, but he is at least partially responsible for the deaths of around 20 people. Some of those people were also firefighters who got trapped by the fire when the wind changed direction.

You cant get more proof of premeditated intention of deliberately setting a fire than getting caught with a match gun in your possession.

The CFS is the main reason that a great deal of Australia doesn&#39;t go up in smoke every summer, and it&#39;s mostly made up of volunteers. That guy not only ruined a lot of lives, he also smeared the good name of a respected aussie institution.

Thankfully, he was caught and locked up, but no jail sentence will ever bring back the loss of life, livestock and property.

I think he should hang for what he did.. it would save the taxpayers a bundle of money instead of paying for him to serve a life sentence in prison, for one thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by barbarossa@5 August 2003 - 04:24
In the last couple of weeks there have been serious forest fires in the south of france, a most beautiful part of the world, resulting in at least 4 deaths. Many of these fires were thought to be started deliberately.

---

Right after the Tour de France, too. Some ultra-nationalistic person mad that the TdF wasn't won by a Frenchman? :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@5 August 2003 - 12:19
capital punishment

---

Your kidding right?


Capital Punishment for deliberately starting fires?

Also, it&#39;s important to know that forest fires need to burn in order to clear the dead branches and overgrowth in forests. If regular burns happen, they are likely to be small burns. If regular burns don&#39;t happen, big huge fires are the result because all that overgrowth/dead trees burn up all at once.

Or, you know, 45 days with no rain, but with high winds, lightning, and temps in the 30-40 C (80-100 F) range. ;)

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by barbarossa@5 August 2003 - 06:24
OK,

It's very hot in Europe at the moment, everywhere is tinderbox-dry.

In the last couple of weeks there have been serious forest fires in the south of france, a most beautiful part of the world, resulting in at least 4 deaths. Many of these fires were thought to be started deliberately.

This week there is a similar story in Portugal, at least 9 people have died, and thousands of acres of land destroyed. Again, the majority of these fires are thought to have been deliberately started.

Alot of the devastating fires around Sydney, Australia last year were deliberately started too. I just don't understand the psyche of the people who do this, all I know is as far as I am concerned they should face the severest punishments allowable.

What happened this week is tantamount to murder, but even if no deaths occurred, starting fires in those conditions is such a heinous act of vandalism and wanton destruction, I don't think a description has even been coined for the scale of the crime and the damage to the global environment.

What does everyone think?

---

America has tons of forest fires every year and we lose tons and tons of trees.....Dont u complain!

As I said earlier, this all points to Osama bin Laundry. He&#39;s obviously hiding in Cuba building missiles with parts scrounged from old Russian warehouses and Saddam&#39;s hidden store of Sidewinders. Obviously the next step is to further their experiments with mind control and lead the drones who&#39;ve been commanded through subliminal messages embedded inside the Rosie oh&#39; Donald show into a massive rebellion against the powers that be.

tide them up to a F/A 18 Hornet and fly to the sound barrier a few times

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Archwolf-@6 August 2003 - 16:33
tide them up to a F/A 18 Hornet and fly to the sound barrier a few times

---

I hope your boyfriend never has an argument with you&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Blunt+6 August 2003 - 17:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr. Blunt @ 6 August 2003 - 17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-james_bond_rulez@5 August 2003 - 12:19
capital punishment

---

Your kidding right?


Capital Punishment for deliberately starting fires? [/b][/quote]
you can now be fined &#036;10000 for throwing a lit cigarette butt out of a car in NSW [australia] and jailed for five years if it starts a fire [more if it causes fatalities]

if you can get fried in the states for killing someone with a gun or a knife why should it be different if you cause death through arson? [even if the size of the fire was unintended it should at least be as great a penalty as manslaughter if it kills & attempted murder or reckless endangerment if it doesn&#39;t]

having lived in the most fire prone environment all my life i agree that people who let fires occur here in summer deserve to get the harshest penalties that the law can exact
as i don&#39;t support capital punishment i would only suggest that people in US states with wild fire issues and capital penalties might find it suitable

i would seriously f#ck-up anyone i found lighting fires here, it&#39;s just too dangerous, way more dangerous than say terrorism is in this country

Such arsonists should not be executed.

They should be split into kindling and, well, kindled.

But only with plenty of water or a fire extinguisher handy; we don&#39;t need anymore accidents.

Seriously.

Forest fires are natural. If the excess "fuel" from the forest(dead trees, leaves) ar enot allowed to burn then instead of having smaller fires you got one huge uncontainable. They are supposed to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arm@11 August 2003 - 19:44
Forest fires are natural. If the excess "fuel" from the forest(dead trees, leaves) ar enot allowed to burn then instead of having smaller fires you got one huge uncontainable. They are supposed to happen.

---

Yes, I expect we would have some difficulty prosecuting Mother Nature for her arsonist tendencies, but I think here we are concerned with the less amorphous and eminently punishable human animal, yes? ;)

about fires and cigaretes this also happened quite recently im sure, someone threw a cigarette out the window and set someones car on fire, i think cigaretes should be banned in the car if mobile phones are banned, just as dangerous

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Livy@12 August 2003 - 08:41
about fires and cigaretes this also happened quite recently im sure, someone threw a cigarette out the window and set someones car on fire, i think cigaretes should be banned in the car if mobile phones are banned, just as dangerous

---

There you go-

Distracting cigarettes; combustible cell phones.....where will this lust for accessorizing the automotive experience end?

In disaster, surely? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arm@12 August 2003 - 01:44
Forest fires are natural. If the excess "fuel" from the forest(dead trees, leaves) ar enot allowed to burn then instead of having smaller fires you got one huge uncontainable. They are supposed to happen.

---

Though a little off topic, I have to agree with this point.

We spend millions (billions?) preventing even the smallest of forest fires, although these fires are well known to be beneficial to the forest in some ways. As Arm says, they are natural, and in consequence some plants and animals have evolved to take advantage of them.

However, there will always come a time when the forest can no longer support the overburden, and our efforts to prevent small fires will be insufficient. The resulting fires are of tremendous proportions and the damage done far in excess of what would have been caused by smaller conflagrations. And because fires on this scale are not natural, evolution has not prepared the plant and animal life to respond favorably.

I believe it was the practice of native Australians to deliberately start smaller fires. This was possibly in order to prevent these massive burn-outs, though I have no direct evidence of this. This has been outlawed, and subsequently Australia has seen some of the worst bush fires ever. Perhaps not so far off topic after all.

Whilst I can not condone the actions of the arsonists, who almost certainly are not setting these fires with any valid reason, perhaps those who prevent the smaller fires should also be held responsible for the scale of the destruction.

Which would work until a) one of those smaller fires destroys property, or b ) until one of those smaller fires destroys enough timber to cause enough economical damage. There are places in the world that depend on their lumber; a fire of any size can be, and often is, devastating.

:ninja:

You have missed the point.
Yes, small fires will do damage, but if the forest does not have an excess of overburden these fires are relatively easy to control, the damage will be minor.

Let&#39;s assume that in a given area there might be a dozen of these fires every year. Over a period of 20 years, that would be around 240 fires. The damage caused by these large fires is thousands of times that caused by a single small fire, so by preventing the small fires from removing the excess overburden the actual damage done is far in excess of what happens without intervention.

Although those who set fires deliberately should be hung by the neck, as it has been said here, what are called "controlled burns" are beneficial; the sticking points on this method are obvious, though:

Any fire can get out of control.

Environmentalists would have a field day.

Citizens would protest.

Lightening is a fickle tool for starting fires.

Oddly enough, it has been calculated (by whoever calculates these things) that there are more and bigger trees now-due to good management strategies (i.e. reforestation) than there were in the 19th century, when such fires burned until they went out on their own.

Fire isn&#39;t controllable. Around here, there have been managed burns that have gotten out of hand. It doesn&#39;t take much, just a shift in the wind. I&#39;ve had my backyard burnt from a "controlled" burn. ;) Sections of it are still black, and this is..oh..three, four years later.

No, I haven&#39;t missed the point. However, I likely have more experience with forest fires (wild and managed) than you do, and especially if the weather stays in this pattern, controlled burns will have little to no effect. When everything&#39;s tinderbox dry, and there&#39;s 25-40 mph winds, it doesn&#39;t really matter if you&#39;ve got some dead branches and fallen logs. The whole mountainside&#39;ll go up anyway.

:ninja: