10 Charged with Misdemeanors in Tea Fire Investigation

» Due Process on 02.17.09 @ 01:09 PM

Let the harassment and stalking begin!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» props on 02.17.09 @ 02:20 PM

Wow! I think Noozhawk was the first to post the news. Thanks Noozhawk

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» GF on 02.17.09 @ 03:43 PM

Noozhawk rocks! I don’t know any of these names though. Anyone else?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Anonymous on 02.17.09 @ 04:14 PM

Has it crossed any of your minds that these kids maybe aren’t the ones who did it ?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Mary Sanchez on 02.17.09 @ 06:00 PM

Since these 10 people have not come forward at all, it will be interesting to see how they plead. I’m sure curious to know more about them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» K8t on 02.17.09 @ 08:24 PM

TeaFire people with FB profiles: Fahad Al-Fadhel Casey Lamonte Joshua Decker-Trinidad (friends on FB) and Natalie Maese

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan M. on 02.18.09 @ 06:05 AM

“The blaze raged for days, destroying 230 homes, seriously injuring two people and scorching 2,000 acres in the Montecito foothills, upper Sycamore Canyon and Rattlesnake Canyon. The fire burned through the Westmont College campus and left the renowned Mount Calvary Retreat House & Monastery in ruins.” No matter who did it… I’m shocked they call this a “misdemeanors”! Really???

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Flint Westrock on 02.18.09 @ 07:55 AM

Accidents happen, often with tragic results, but they are accidents nonetheless.  I’m not sure when we started trying to attach criminal sanctions to every accident, but I think it’s a disturbing trend.  It probably started with the criminalization of drunken driving, which does seem to be an appropriate social response to a growing problem.  Arson has long been a crime, but accidental fires have not.  I think in the case of accidental fire damage, the move to criminalization has been driven by money, i.e., the desire to recover the cost of the fire fighting effort from someone, even though few of us have that kind of money.  I think that, even assuming the named individuals were responsible for the fire, absent some evidence of malicious intent we should be cautious about criminalizing basically normal, though decidedly stupid, behavior. 

At the same time, I am struck by the apparent difference in the treatment of these individuals and the two hispanic gentlemen whose lives were virtually destroyed over the accident which resulted in the Zaca Fire.  Other than the obvious difference in personal profiles (presumably affluent college students v. hispanic laborers), what strikes me most is the governmental response.  In the Zaca Fire case, after great expenditure of time and money by all concerned, a Judge found that the County, not the individuals, were responsible for the fire because the County apparently made the decision to treat it as a training exercise and it got away from them.  Why were our elected officials not able in that instance to see their own culpability and the break in the chain of causation between the starting of the fire and the conflagration it became?  Yet with the Tea Fire they purportedly are unable to draw a causal connection between a bonfire admittedly set in the exact area of the origin of the fire and the fire itself because they couldn’t rule out there might have been other fires set in the area?  Are we to believe that the science of fire investigation is really so undeveloped and imprecise?  Everything we’ve been lead to believe up to now indicates that they can determine the precise source, location and time of combustion with infallible accuracy.  Sounds like politics as usual to me.  Nonetheless, I do not think criminal charges should be brought against everyone who accidentally causes damage to someone else.  A case of the right result for the wrong reasons perhaps.  Or maybe they actually learned something from the Zaca Fire debacle.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» some Sb-er on 02.18.09 @ 09:59 AM

Someone should tell one of these kids that if you’re gonna be implicated in a fire, accidental or otherwise, it might be wise to take the half-dozen fire-blowing pics off your facebook profile for a bit.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Long TIme Resident on 02.18.09 @ 10:33 AM

All the comments, pro and con, have some merit. My main feeling is sadness, for the 200+ plus families whose normal, material lives were snuffed out that night.

What is best for them, to rebuild and recover? I know many of them, and in each case, the answer is different. Some (renters) were un-insured. Others, under-insured. Others had coverage, but not replacement values, so they’ll go deep, deep into savings just to rebuild. Others (on Conejo) the City of SB is trying to bar from ever rebuilding at all.

Proverbs says “Law is the handmaiden of justice.” What we should all strive
for is not anger and revenge, but a balance between the written laws, and society’s
moral norm for justice. Are we heading in the right direction yet? I truly don’t know.

That said, what kind of college kids go out in the middle of a school week, during a
well publicized red-flag fire alert, trespass into private property under cover of
darkness, build a bonfire, and engage in an all-night drinking party? Einstein?

This is a bit more than bad luck, or an accident. This is willful stupidity on the level
of criminal negligence. They do not deserve anonymity, whether the fire was a sad
mistake, or not.

Another writer referenced the Zaca Fire.

Sorry, but I feel the same way. What kind of idiot ranch manager sends out two hands untrained in fire suppression to do non-essential ranch work during a double red-flag fire alert on the morning of the 4th of July?

Yes, an idiot north county judge recently ruled that “no one was at fault,” as he sees the law. Since no one was at fault, it probably means that the fire didn’t happen, and that the state didn’t invest millions of bucks (it doesn’t have) to fight it. Would that judge have felt differently if ... his home had burned down in the Zaca inferno?

Maybe Noozhawk should interview him, so voters have a better angle on his judicial
tempermanet before he’s up for re-election next.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Jay Ballou on 02.18.09 @ 02:25 PM

“no one said the fire was a misdemeanor.  Come on, you cannot be that naive and stupid.”

Numerous comments on the stories that have been posted at Noozhawk, the Independent, and elsewhere show that many people can be and are.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Bob on 02.20.09 @ 05:34 AM

Mr. Westrock states “In the Zaca Fire case, after great expenditure of time and money by all concerned, a Judge found that the County, not the individuals, were responsible for the fire because the County apparently made the decision to treat it as a training exercise and it got away from them.” My son was Captain on one of the first County engines that responded to the Zaca Fire. I can assure you that they did not treat the fire as a training exercise. That is pure bull!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Jay Ballou on 02.22.09 @ 10:41 AM

@HALF TRUTHS

“As a Christian”

Not a very charitable one, it seems.

“Now we find out that one of the 10 was a ‘former’ Westmont student that attended Westmont until June 2008 and came from Florida.”

Why put “former” in quotes there? That seems dishonest, since the person referred to was IN FACT a former student.

“It seems obvious President Beebe knew that a student that attended Westmont last year was one of the 10—yet he elected to position his answer to make everyone think no one from Westmont was involved.”

Regardless of what he knew, IN FACT no one from Westmont was involved—to say otherwise would be misleading.

@LONG TIME RESIDENT

“what kind of college kids ... Einstein?

This is a bit more than bad luck, or an accident. This is willful stupidity on the level
of criminal negligence. They do not deserve anonymity, whether the fire was a sad
mistake, or not. “

What kind of person writes about “bad luck, or an accident” in response to an article announcing that people are being arraigned in Superior Court, or about “anonymity” in response to an article in which they are named? Einstein?

“Yes, an idiot north county judge recently ruled that “no one was at fault,” as he sees the law.”

That’s not a characterization of his ruling that Einstein would make.

“Since no one was at fault, it probably means that the fire didn’t happen”

That’s not an inference that Einstein would make.

“Would that judge have felt differently if ... his home had burned down in the Zaca inferno?

Maybe Noozhawk should interview him, so voters have a better angle on his judicial
tempermanet before he’s up for re-election next. “

Hey Einstein, you no more understand the concept than you can spell it. Someone with a judicial temperament doesn’t make decisions based on personal considerations, and would recuse him/her self if personally involved.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.