Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Q: Didn't you see the signs posted all over everywhere?
A: Yes, but we didn't pay attention.
Establishes recklessness but not malice intent.
Q: What fireworks did you have?
A: They were leftover old smoke bombs from 4th of July.
Q: Why did you set them off in the park?
A: It was a holiday weekend and my friends and I were having some fun and I was tossing them into the water.
Establishes recklessness but not malice intent.
15 year old unsupervised logic is smoke bombs just let off smoke and don't make sparks and fire so perhaps they're less dangerous.
Sort of similar:
Cop pulls you over while speeding through Oregon.
Q: Do you know how fast you were going?
A: No.
Q: You were driving 25 mph over the speed limit. Why were you going so fast when the signs are clearly displayed?
A: Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. I'm coming from X trying to get to Y which is a long drive.
Rural cop gets angry and shouts at you telling you if you were driving 5 more miles an hour faster and going 30 miles over the speed limit they could arrest you for reckless driving. But he doesn't and he calms down and instead hands you a $350+ speeding ticket because you weren't out to kill people but you were being reckless.
I think if they had the kids on video or anywhere else saying, "Let's go burn down the Gorge today," then they would have publicly arrested them and released their names because they are a clear and immediate danger to society. Since they're still investigating across several platforms and they already have the video in their possession and have said they won't be pressing charges as they're leaving it up to the District Attorney in Hood River to pursue. Then it leaves me to conclude they don't have malice intent established at this time and these were likely kids horse playing with fireworks on a holiday weekend.
The video evidence will be very interesting and will probably close the book on whether it was reckless or malicious intent.
I also think trying to escape is probably not in their favor, legally.
Reckless will have devastating financial consequences for the families as has been established. Malicious will mean serious jail time.
I'd be satisfied with either as long as there is a conviction. If the prosecutors mess it up like they did the Malhuer case, or if they don't even press charges, I think I will lose it. Figuratively speaking of course. You can all expect a very angry post from me, probably in all caps, if either of those outcomes occur. Also, I'll write every public official in Hood River county a quite strongly worded letter.
Last edited by redguard57; 09-11-2017 at 07:58 PM..
According to the article, the OSP said they'll release the video evidence after the kids have been sentenced. Which means the public likely won't see it until it's all said and done. Though trials are open to the public including Juvy and they did say it could be obtained through the freedom of information act (FOIA), but they can release it when they want to and with redacted content. So we won't see it for several months to possibly years depending on how fast the court system is to process where ever it is that they take the case.
From the articles that do speak to local lawyers, they said the teenager who had the fire workers and the one filming will likely get five years probation with heavy community service that involves rehabilitation of the trails they destroyed and replanting the burned forest. They didn't address the other kids with them but the one girl driving might be charged for helping them try to get away knowing they started a fire instead of calling for help. They will also likely get a heavy fine for the cost of the fire, and the article goes into civil cases that may be brought by those directly affected in evacuation areas. Which I mentioned in a prior post.
Lots of people want to help replant the Gorge. They've started a call to action event on Facebook for it. The forest service is saying please be patient about recovery efforts due to the fire not being over yet, and we'll let you know about help with replanting. It may take until Spring for several trails to open again.
You don't bring sandwiches to a picnic with no intention of eating them. These kids brought incendiary material into the forested area. Why would they do that if they didn't intend to start a fire?
The woman who followed their car cared enough to pursue them so they couldn't escape. She alerted the cops. She is a hero in my mind. If not for her, they would very well have gotten away with it. Many people wouldn't have bothered.
Even though I no longer live in Oregon, I visited the gorge and the surrounding areas on numerous occasions when I did. If they don't agree on anything else, Oregonians agree on how much they love this area. To see it decimated like this is a crime in itself. It's small wonder the public is out for blood.
Yes that's very close to the Article in the paper which is where KOIN likely got the idea. TV isn't always as accurate as newspapers are. In the paper it said the most serious charge is felony arson which carries 7.5 years but they'd have to prove he wanted to set a fire with the fireworks. Instead of just wanting to set off fireworks in a sort of remote area with less people to tell them not to. Two witnesses prior gave an account to the "hero lady" that the teen first started lobbing them into the water at punch bowl prior to her encounter with them.
That doesn't sound like intent to go to the forest and set it on fire when you start by lobbing smoke bombs in the water. The witnesses knew it was dangerous but if they thought the kids intended to start fire with the fireworks then why didn't they say anything to them? If they did say something then why didn't they call authorities before anything serious happened, or go running down the trail looking for help, and alert officials that a group of teens were trying to knowingly start a forest fire?
By the "hero lady's" own testimony she had to point out to them they could start a fire and that there is one burning miles away already. Why would she feel the need to point it out if she thought they knew what they were doing and that they meant to do harm? And if she thought they meant to set a fire why would she walk away at first and only turn around when she came across the other hikers that said they saw the kids earlier up the trail doing the same dumb thing.
Only then did she double back and check where they tossed the smoke bomb in the ravine. Admittedly, it was for her own self regard because she was worried about getting stuck if she kept going and they had set a fire. Then she stated she had to yell at them as she was running by do you realize you started a forest fire thus further implying she believed it was unintentional.
Even her account of the kids reaction breaks down to their cluelessness when he responds asking what should I do about it. She seemed sincere in believing they were clueless at that time when she responds over her shoulder, "call the fire department" as she's jotting down hill away from them, the fire and warning everyone along the way about it till she accidentally finds help in the parking lot.
I think what she was not ok with was them almost getting away with it by trying to drive off. Leaving the scene of the crime and not getting help would be where it gets sticky, because it is not honorable. I also understand they're young kids. The don't understand a lot and they likely got scared and tried to run and hide from being punished.
More will go into this case. It's already playing out in the media. The forest service has been scrutinized for burn practices that cause a tinder box situation. Stories cite that natural causes could cause such a fire. That conditions such as drought ect play a factor. They also point out the rest of the west is on fire and this fire combined with another fire. One story talks about how Cascade Locks was created because of a firework and now a firework taketh away so they get into the grace of the history.
They'll look at the family dynamics. Is it a problem child or their first offense? Are they cooperating with official now? How much damage did the fire do? What were the dynamics of the peer group? Does anything on social media lead up to an intentional malicious act? Did anyone encourage them to do it or purposefully supply them and they'll look at the laws around that. Those laws are already being discussed in the papers too if you're following the story. It's about where they are banned in this region and who can and cannot set off fireworks and if that needs to be scrutinized and revisited.
That's about all that I've got. Until there is more presented to chew on and think about.
I guess it's easy to decide what someone else is thinking and feeling in this sort of situation.
I'm not going to pretend to know what she might have been thinking but...
Quote:
Why would she feel the need to point it out if she thought they knew what they were doing and that they meant to do harm?
Perhap to let them know that their actions were being observed. Also, whatever she said was in the heat of the moment; she may have been more concerned about the possibility of fire than in trying to figure out their intent. Seems a pretty normal thing to say under the circumstances and could have just as easily been an incredulous statement.
And I'm not sure that whether "hero lady's" perception of their intent or lack of it counts for -- much of anything here in a legal sense. The court might not even allow her to voice an opinion on "intent" if it gets that far (I expect it will be settled out of court somehow).
Quote:
Even though I no longer live in Oregon, I visited the gorge and the surrounding areas on numerous occasions when I did. If they don't agree on anything else, Oregonians agree on how much they love this area. To see it decimated like this is a crime in itself. It's small wonder the public is out for blood.
I doubt the kid will get hit with first degree arson (although I agree with you that it would be nice to see that happen), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if his family moves away at the first possible opportunity. Probably just as well; I think there are probably a lot of people out there who won't be passing this off as normal teenage "horseplay."
Last edited by Metlakatla; 09-11-2017 at 11:32 PM..
I think if they had the kids on video or anywhere else saying, "Let's go burn down the Gorge today," then they would have publicly arrested them and released their names because they are a clear and immediate danger to society. Since they're still investigating across several platforms and they already have the video in their possession and have said they won't be pressing charges as they're leaving it up to the District Attorney in Hood River to pursue. Then it leaves me to conclude they don't have malice intent established at this time and these were likely kids horse playing with fireworks on a holiday weekend.
It is obvious you have no experience with the criminal justice system, policing, how investigations are conducted, the chain of command, proper handling of the chain of evidence, and the delineated responsibilities of the policing function versus the prosecuting function. I do.
Everything you say here is incorrect. Your argument about timing is incorrect. Your argument about who is "pressing charges" is incorrect -- in fact, the police do not "press charges," ever, notwithstanding what most uninformed Americans think. And the conclusions you draw from these errors also are incorrect. You may not like my direct tone, but the truth is nothing in this post is accurate.
Just one indisputable fact for you to chew on:
Quote:
A prosecution for arson in any degree may be commenced within six years after the commission of the crime.
It is obvious you have no experience with the criminal justice system, policing, how investigations are conducted, the chain of command, proper handling of the chain of evidence, and the delineated responsibilities of the policing function versus the prosecuting function. I do.
Everything you say here is incorrect. Your argument about timing is incorrect. Your argument about who is "pressing charges" is incorrect -- in fact, the police do not "press charges," ever, notwithstanding what most uninformed Americans think. And the conclusions you draw from these errors also are incorrect. You may not like my direct tone, but the truth is nothing in this post is accurate.
I have legal training as a paralegal which included criminal law. As part of our education, we observed many court trials and how evidence chain of command etc is handled. I agree the poster to whom you are responding does not seem to be familiar with the criminal justice system and how it works.
There are three people here who have stated they saw all or part of the actions of these kids throwing incendiary material down the ravine. It is possible more did as well but are coming forward privately, police are asking for more witnesses. The Public won't know just how many witnesses there may be until the case goes to trial.
Three who have come forward are, Kevin Marnell, Kim Garrett and Liz FitzGerald.
I'm still confident in my position but I'm also speculating based on the current evidence at the time of those posts. It appears from the previous post more witnesses have come forward and there is more evidence being presented building the case.
Several times I've attributed to the newspapers for the information in my prior posts. Such as the 7.5 years for arson in this case. Which came from an attorney discussing what could happen with the case at that time based on the evidence available. These similar facts were echoed in a tv news package that another member posted a link to on here. Except they cited it's 7.6 years for arson which is close but not the same as the news paper's piece on it. SO, what should I say to the additional fact check posted on here that it's 6 years? Does that mean both the news organizations I and another poster on here cited are wrong too?
Of course, there's speculation on a public message board. This is the internet. Let's see how it all unfolds. I understand that the media is obligated to cover and reveal the identity of the teenager unless they have a policy not to identify minors. In this case, I think it would be too tempting for the media not to continue to cash in on the controversial story. Willamette Weekly already published the picture of the teens at the park that day showing their faces from a distance so there's that.
---------
Here's some additional irony in today's Oregon fire related news with two other cases. Well, one case really unless they can make a case on the second one too.
We have one man from Utah who allegedly intentionally started FOUR forest fires in Oregon this summer.
Then in Hood River, which is under the next level of evacuations for the Eagle Creek Fire, where we have another group of kids playing with fireworks and started another fire. This time it burned two acres but thankfully everybody was already set up there to put fires out. They didn't catch the kids for this one, but reports came in before the fire started in that area.
Last edited by Merrily Gather; 09-14-2017 at 12:23 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
