California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.

"Srgnt Billko" wrote in message
...
California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started
a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the
authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.

Poor guy. If someone had been killed, I suppose he would have been charged
with manslaughter.

Can't help but wonder if there's more to the story.

Brigitte

Srgnt Billko wrote:
California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.


He is being charged for allegedly disregarding the risk of wildfire as he
mowed dry grass when temperatures neared 40 C. The fire destroyed 86 homes.

"mow" wrote in message
...
Srgnt Billko wrote:
California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower
started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the
authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.


He is being charged for allegedly disregarding the risk of wildfire as he
mowed dry grass when temperatures neared 40 C. The fire destroyed 86
homes.

Just exactly at what point does that "risk" begin " Is 40* the magic mark
? - or at 38* would it still be a crime also ? How about 36* ? Let me
check my latest mower owners manual to see if there is a warning in there..
Are people not allowed to start their autos with leaves on the ground also ?

"Srgnt Billko" wrote in message
...

"mow" wrote in message
...
Srgnt Billko wrote:
California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower
started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the
authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.


He is being charged for allegedly disregarding the risk of wildfire as
he
mowed dry grass when temperatures neared 40 C. The fire destroyed 86
homes.

Just exactly at what point does that "risk" begin " Is 40* the magic
mark
? - or at 38* would it still be a crime also ? How about 36* ? Let me
check my latest mower owners manual to see if there is a warning in
there..
Are people not allowed to start their autos with leaves on the ground also
?

I'm thinking that's a stretch also. I can see it if there was a mowing ban,
or he removed the spark arrestor, some other direct negligence. Yes it's
terrable that a fire burned some much property. But just because he mowed
when it was hot outside- give me a break!

(¯`·._.· £ãrrÿ ·._.·´¯)

Srgnt Billko wrote:

"mow" wrote in message
...
Srgnt Billko wrote:
California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower
started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the
authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.


He is being charged for allegedly disregarding the risk of wildfire as he
mowed dry grass when temperatures neared 40 C. The fire destroyed 86
homes.

Just exactly at what point does that "risk" begin " Is 40* the magic mark
? - or at 38* would it still be a crime also ? How about 36* ? Let me

The risk begins when common sense is tossed out the window.

check my latest mower owners manual to see if there is a warning in there..

There may just be a warning in your manual if anyone takes the time to read it,
being the manufactures install spark arrestors in the mufflers.

Are people not allowed to start their autos with leaves on the ground also ?

People are allowed to do what ever they want, but shouldn't people accept
responsibility if they are stupid about what they do. Do we blame someone
else for not telling grown men that it is stupid to mow dry grass in 104
degree temps in parts of the country known for wild fires?

" People are allowed to do what ever they want, but shouldn't people
accept
responsibility if they are stupid about what they do. Do we blame
someone
else for not telling grown men that it is stupid to mow dry grass in 104
degree temps in parts of the country known for wild fires?


Ok what if it had been a Lawn care co. Would you still say he was stupid?

op4_camper wrote:

" People are allowed to do what ever they want, but shouldn't people
accept
responsibility if they are stupid about what they do. Do we blame
someone
else for not telling grown men that it is stupid to mow dry grass in 104
degree temps in parts of the country known for wild fires?


Ok what if it had been a Lawn care co. Would you still say he was stupid?


No I wouldn't say it was stupidity, I would say it is greed for mowing a
lawn with dry grass and charging the customer.

Srgnt Billko wrote:
"mow" wrote in message
...

Srgnt Billko wrote:

California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's
mower started a fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see
it, is that the authorities are even thinking about placing a
serious charge on this poor sob.

God forbid they should make anyone take responsibility for their actions.

He is being charged for allegedly disregarding the risk of wildfire
as he mowed dry grass when temperatures neared 40 C. The fire
destroyed 86 homes.

Just exactly at what point does that "risk" begin " Is 40* the
magic mark ? - or at 38* would it still be a crime also ? How
about 36* ? Let me check my latest mower owners manual to see if
there is a warning in there.. Are people not allowed to start their
autos with leaves on the ground also ?

I dunno. Maybe the magic mark is when your actions destroy 86 homes.
Maybe then you kinda wish you'd been a little more careful, no matter
what the temperature.

I think it's likely he'll be convicted, because in California, fires are
serious business. I don't think he's going to get 6 years -- maybe if
someone were killed, but not just for property damage and for an
otherwise law-abiding person. Jail time will be suspended, likely a
hefty fine.

Johnny Law is interested, here, in making an impression on other folks.
Yes, an example. Anyway, often when they come down swift and hard,
they're actually expecting the other person to come downtown for a deal,
rather than the lengthy expense and ordeal of a jury trial. The case may
depend somewhat on what specific statewide and local fire warnings were
in place.

Yeah, he was just dumb. Yeah, it could have been you or me, maybe.

But think of the 86 families with no homes. The criminal case is nothing
next to the civil suits.

Dan Hartung wrote:
The criminal case is nothing
next to the civil suits.

They won't get anymore than whatever his liability insurance
coverage provides.

Steveo wrote:
Dan Hartung wrote:
The criminal case is nothing next to the civil suits.

They won't get anymore than whatever his liability insurance coverage
provides.

Nah. IF his insurer gets everyone to settle, yes, but no jury is
required to stay within the limits of somebody's insurance, sheesh! The
award would be for actual damages (e.g. medical costs, or in this case,
replacement value of homes and possessions) and may include punitive
damages as well.

IF he carried excess/umbrella liability, he MIGHT be covered up to the
$1M-$5M range. Beyond that, he's on his own, and may be facing bankruptcy.

And some murderers get the same years of incarceration---and many get less.
Geeezzz.

"Srgnt Billko" wrote in message
...
California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started
a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the
authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:47:52 GMT, "Srgnt Billko"
wrote:

California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.



In other countries they have come to the conclusion, no fire is
accidental unless created by lightening. Therefore, anyone doing
anything that could result in a fire needs to be responsible enough to
prevent the creation and spread of a fire. If a fire starts and you
do nothing, you are a criminal, you start a fire and it damages
anything, you are liable.

These countries have few 'accidental' fires. Just points out, if you
hold people responsible for negligence or ignorance, they tend to do
things properly.

wierd,

tom



************* Got a Site? ****************
http://www.LinkSkyRise.com
Add your site to our Site for Free

wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:47:52 GMT, "Srgnt Billko"
wrote:

California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.



In other countries they have come to the conclusion, no fire is
accidental unless created by lightening. Therefore, anyone doing
anything that could result in a fire needs to be responsible enough to
prevent the creation and spread of a fire. If a fire starts and you
do nothing, you are a criminal, you start a fire and it damages
anything, you are liable.

These countries have few 'accidental' fires. Just points out, if you
hold people responsible for negligence or ignorance, they tend to do
things properly.

wierd,

tom


Amen

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:47:52 GMT, "Srgnt Billko"
wrote:

California - they are trying to pin 6 years on the guy who's mower started a
fire that got out of hand. The crime, as I see it, is that the authorities
are even thinking about placing a serious charge on this poor sob.

That is a Liberal State for ya. They spend way too much time playing
with thier peters and not focusing on task at hand!