r/JusticeServed 7 7d ago

Gender reveal party couple face up to 20 years in prison over deadly California wildfire Legal Justice

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57898993
33k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator 7d ago

Please remember to abide by the rules.

In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't.

If you purchase the OP or a comment a ban award, remember to message the mods so we can activate the reward


Submission By: /u/-Xoz- Black 7

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

→ More replies

6

u/misfitx B 2d ago

But the company that doesn't maintain their equipment isn't in trouble.

5

u/Wild-Celebration-820 0 10h ago

Dude you mean the company that had to declare bankruptcy and admit fault for the deaths of like 30 ppl and is still in court ? “Not in trouble”

9

u/deneadanim 0 3d ago

Good they deserved it

-12

u/pedestrianstripes 6 4d ago

They don't deserve 20 years for starting a fire and the damage and death it caused. They should be heavily fined and given a long probation. Maybe 10 years of probation. I think if they were rich and / or white they wouldn't be looking at 20 years. They would instead be looking at 200 hours of community service and a written apology to the dead man's family.

3

u/NobodyGotTimeFuhDat 0 1d ago

They deserve at least 20 years.

Don’t defend bad behavior of this magnitude with light sentencing.

-4

u/Lostman_55 1 2d ago

You ain't lie

18

u/WowOwlO 5 4d ago

Is it sad that at this point I see 'fire caused by gender reveal party' and the first thought through my mind is "which one?"

1

u/mEHple_bEHcon 7 1d ago

And saying "Oh, that gender reveal in California", doesn't even help.

-7

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 4d ago edited 4d ago

This is the US justice system at its worst. Yes gender reveal parties are stupid, yes these people were especially stupid and careless and need some sort of judicial punishment. But what they did was start a fire. What they didn't do is kill people. That's a sad consequence of a variety of factors and these people bear responsibility for only one of them.

The fact that this entire thread is either "gender reveal parties are stupid anyway" or "good they deserve it" is depressing. You people are broken human beings.

California consistently refuses to properly invest in wildfire spread prevention measures. It's in the news every fucking year and the last decade it's even worse. These people do not deserve their entire lives ruined because they were stupid with an open flame. This sort of thing shouldn't be possible and wouldn't be possible if the state did what they're supposed to do. What is a gender reveal party today is a lightning strike tomorrow. Having literally a quarter of a state on fire is preventable people.

1

u/CosmoVibe 4 12h ago

It is a fact that in the criminal justice system, not only is endangering lives a crime in and of itself (so this is precisely a crime), accidentally killing people (which also happened) is a crime too.

You're focused so much on whether or not creating a fire is specifically a crime that you completely ignored the fact that the crime has little to do with specifically a fire, but everything to do with a reckless and dangerous decision with grave consequences.

The consequences of your weird logic gets very messy. If you limit promixity cause of a crime to that degree, I could shoot someone and then argue that I didn't kill the person, I merely fired a gun. Yes, that sounds absurd, but that is kind of the point: proximity cause must necessarily be considered and evaluated.

The criminal justice system also punishes based on not only proximity cause, but also the consequence of actions as well as depravity. I'm not sure about the level of depravity in this case specifically, but there is most certainly a horrifying and tragic consequence. Yes, that means if two people make the same reckless decision and only one of them accidentally hurts someone, they would be punished differently. That's just a reality of our criminal justice system.

You can try to make a philosophical argument about whether or not that makes sense and is fair (I would say it is), but that would be abstracting away from the original point, which is that this is almost certainly a valid conviction, and regardless of whether or not these people deserve this punishment, I think the majority of people agree that precedent needs to be set if we don't want more fires like this in the near future. If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. If you live in a flammable state, maybe don't play with fire. If you live in a society where it is known that a reckless decision is potentially catastrophic, maybe just don't do that thing entirely. It may be sad that these people have had their lives ruined, but they also ruined the lives of lots of other innocent people too.

1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 11h ago

You're doing the same strawman tactic others used but with more words. Nobody is saying they should not be punished, that is taking my opinion to an extreme I never took it.

The argument being made is that the punishment of accidentally starting a fire due to sheer stupidity that down the line cost the lives of innocent people should not be equal to or be higher than punishments where someone actively engages in ending a person's life (e.g. manslaughter).

Putting two parents in jail for 20 years because of tragic consequences of ill conceived actions is fucking idiotic and I can say with some certainty most people in other parts of western civilization are on the same page.

You seem like a smart person and it continues to boggle my mind how most people in the US are completely fine with the judicial system having this weird vindictive streak ("they should be punished for what they've done!") that few other cultures share. You do realize the net result of these two people spending their adult lives in jail doesn't rectify any part of the tragedy and orphans an innocent child. All this for what, teaching them a lesson? You don't think their lives are effectively ruined as-is? To teach others a lesson? Because idiots are famously known for picking up on those life lessons?

No amount of mental gymnastics is going to make it ethically reasonable. It just won't. If you want to hide the ethical aspects behind "well it would get a conviction" you're missing the entire point being made. If you feel this would only set a precedent if their lives are ruined you're basically assuming a future conversation will go like this : "Should I use an open flame here? Well last time people died. Ah okay but did they get convicted for anything? No. Ah, all good then"

In any case, I'm going to hop out of this thread. We'll agree to disagree.

1

u/CosmoVibe 4 10h ago

If it makes you feel any better, I am absolutely not a fan of our country's criminal justice system. I do understand how you feel and I'm not trying to straw man your position, I just think that you chose a very particular emotional outrage to express in a slightly misplaced outlet that comes off quite strong.

This subreddit is specifically a place for people to artificially satisfy their retribution boners, so you shouldn't be surprised when people here respond strongly to what could be mistaken for emotional excusing of lax punishments for serious outcomes (not that everyone else here is perfect either).

I would love to live in a society where people are kind to each other, have support structures, are free to learn from mistakes, in order to maximize moral and economic outcomes, but until we can radically fix these systems, I'm looking for potential solutions in the short run. I'm not sure if this will be a high profile case or not, but if deterrence is any way a relevant and significant reason for criminal punishment, then I'm all for it. I'd rather the punishment be harsh and then seek a redemption story arc if it is of functional use to society. (I'm not convinced it is or it isn't, but I'm open to this imperfect conciliatory idea.)

The main goals of criminal punishment (deterrence, removal rehabilitation, retribution) I would absolutely say the least logical and least economic of these reasons is retribution. Retribution is almost entirely emotional. But high emotions are also important and relevant in a society that is as reactionary and divisive as it is today. This is absolutely negative in my opinion, and is a source of a lot of my own personal grievances and anxiety (not that I'm not to some degree a hypocrite at times as well), but it is a reality I have to face.

This is precisely why I chose to write long-winded responses absent of any personal attacks, because I sympathize. I'm not saying that you don't have valid points, but we are comparing short term crises with abstract long term systemic overhauls in a forum of people who are here precisely for the former. I'm not here for intellectual debates about our future, I'm here for my emotional health.

2

u/Downsyndromedar 6 13h ago

I shot in the air without thinking about where the bullets would land, how is it my fault that someone died?????? The government should have invested in bulletproof wests for everyone. What my air shooting is today is a school shooting tomorrow!!!1!!11!

1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 11h ago

You should change your username. I don't think you live up to the implied intellectual standard.

1

u/mEHple_bEHcon 7 1d ago

First off if you actually read the fucking article the fire they started killed a fireman and others were hurt. So no, you are wrong, it did kill someone. But aside from that.

Just because a state doesn't completely fireproof their entire territory doesn't mean starting a huge forest fire because of their kids genitals shouldn't be punishable. Whether or not it killed someone or not.

I don't know how old you are but there's a thing in society that's called being responsible for your own actions. You'll learn that the hard way when you hit 18 and forward on if that's the mindset you have.

-1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 17h ago edited 11h ago

Aww. You're a cutey.

You should not engage here. Within three full sentences you managed to strawman an argument once (you may have to Google what that means) and imply ignorance on my part due to me being a child. You've disqualified yourself from partaking in adult conversation buddy.

And on merit :

  • Did read the article and the two things you stated have literally been mentioned in the comment chain we're in twice.
  • "But aside from that" isn't a full sentence.
  • Never said people shouldn't be punished but you seemingly managed to fail to read the article, read our replies or do not have the intellectual faculty to understand either.

Please...just...don't. This is like playing chess with a pigeon. No idea of the rules, land on the board, knock over all pieces and proclaim victory.

3

u/mEHple_bEHcon 7 17h ago

I cant imagine what it must be like to be around you in person. I was going to just give you the ole' "you must be fun at parties" line that redditors tend to give to obnoxious people but you seem like the type of person that people just in general wouldn't want to spend time or engage with.

1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 11h ago

Moments earlier : Gets accused of becoming personal rather than stick to the discussion
Only response : "You're a meanie and I bet all the other people think so too!"

7

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 2d ago

Yes, because in the real world calling people names lends weight to your argument. A firefighter died because there was a fire and no adequate wildfire protection which is the main reason it was dangerous in the first place. Are you planning to sue people that cause climate change, that causes draughts, that cause wildfires as well? Because that'd actually be a stronger legal argument than the one you're failing to defend.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

0

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 2d ago

"I am factually wrong but rather than discuss it I'm going to claim I'm right, be rude and feel like I won an argument on the internet with a complete stranger. I will also claim ignorance on your part because that makes me warm and fuzzy on the inside even though I have no idea if it's true.". Fuck me you're all that's wrong with US politics captured in a single fundamentally flawed human being.

What "propaganda" are you referring to here exactly? A cursory Google effort would teach you that forest stewardship for most of the effected areas actually are in actual fact directly or indirectly under federal supervision, that the state is actually allowing people and companies to build homes in high risk areas despite warnings, that the state is actually underinvesting in wildfire mitigation despite signals from various fire departments and that according to research published by this tiny academic institution called Berkeley, that it has actually known for well over 20 years that preventing small fires, a federal policy, is actually increasing the risk of large scale wildfires due to build up of fuel, and...well...shall I go on?

And hey, in the wildly unlikely event of you finding yourself in a debate where you actually do know what you're talking about I hope you can appreciate that intellectual high of not actually being fucking wrong for a change.

-3

u/WowOwlO 5 4d ago

Honestly, I feel like a part of the reason they're getting 20 years has more to do with their names than what they did.

I feel like 20 years is a lot, but at the same time if you know you're living in a match box then you need to be responsible. I know California has made the mistake of letting environmentalist who create laws based on their emotions as opposed to science be in charge.

At the same time this situation isn't going to get better. People who start fires unnecessarily are going to have to be held accountable one way or another because the entire state will burn otherwise.

-2

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 2d ago

I agree with the sentiment but 20 years is very close to taking away their entire lives. Not to mention effectively orphan their unborn child. People that start fires should be judged on them starting a fire. The penalty can be higher if they could have known (like in this case) there was an increased risk. They should not get a bigger punishment because people died.

3

u/AutoModerator 4d ago

Stay hydrated.
Rest. Your body needs to heal.
Sip warm liquids.
Add moisture to the air.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

4

u/RanRagged 5 4d ago

We’d love to use fire prevention methods but we’re too busy worrying about killing a frog or an endangered lizard. We have millions of dead pine trees due to the pine bark beetle yet Environmentalists won’t allow these areas to be logged. It’s a tinder box of fuel and litters our mountainsides. Log it or watch it burn, it’s burning.

-1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 2d ago

I agree. Based on a cursory Google that's not the main reason nothing is being done but it's part of it and I do think there's a limit to environmental conservationism. In this case all the wildlife that they tried to protect is now carbon so there is a balance to be struck here.

5

u/Mindtaker A 4d ago

The fire did kill one person, but I very much agree with the we are woefully unprepared for fires, I live in Canada but BC is on fire and people are being evacuated and we are just getting our asses kicked by it, so I hope we all figure out a way to put these things out more efficiently.

13

u/RebekhaG 3 4d ago

Anyone that starts a fire deserves to be charged with manslaughter if the fire kills people. I hate people that start fires and the fire ends up killing at least one person.

-6

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 4d ago

Pretty vindictive take but okay.

3

u/WigglyWeener 4 4d ago

Cool, so you believe consequences, and not actions, should be punished. Hope you never get called for jury duty.

Justice is having consequences for actions, not consequences for consequences. These people called the fire department the moment the fire started, making every effort within their power to reverse an accident. That kind of thing does not, and should not, be punished by a just legal system. If you want to talk about punishment, let's talk about the chain of gross negligence required for a fire department that presides over a literal tinderbox of a region to be incapable of squashing a brush fire moments after it begins. Let's talk about the actions of an entire race of people required to cause the level of catastrophic climate change that bring about massive droughts. Let's talk about the lack of response plan of an entire state that is ready to burn to the ground if someone so much as knocks over a Weber grill. But no, you don't want to talk about that, because it's so much easier to assign blame to the individual that inevitably set off a chain reaction that was primed by so many before him. Why have a conversation about how to prevent this type of disaster, when we can dole out punitive justice where it's least deserved, and pretend it atones for the atrocities of the masses? Seems reasonable.

2

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 4d ago

Have an upvote. Your opinion is going to get destroyed by American "punitive over corrective" crowd but in most civilized parts of the world your opinion is exactly how it is. It should be there too.

2

u/WigglyWeener 4 4d ago

Thanks. I am fine with my comments being downvoted - I don't come to reddit to say popular things for upvotes, I come to debate ideas and present arguments that I believe in, regardless of popularity, in hopes of helping people see another perspective. I'm becoming a minority around here, given the nature of the platform is to reward hive-mindedness and suppress unpopularity. But I'm glad there are people like you around.

2

u/RebekhaG 3 2d ago

Well you did make a good argument there I won't argue with that.

1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 2d ago

I know right. Reason will prevail though. Eventually. Hopefully.

0

u/Turbulent_Link1738 8 4d ago

So to you, shooting someone in the stomach who recovers fully should carry the same sentence as shooting someone in the stomach who dies? Because the consequence is irrelevant?

5

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 4d ago edited 4d ago

I know you meant your comment to be sarcastic but there's a long list of strong arguments to judge based on action and intended consequences rather than actual ones. So in your example, yes, an attempted murder should definitely be judged as harshly as a successful one. Don't you think it's a bit stupid if someone tries to stab you with the intent of killing you should get a lighter sentence simply because they were shit at it and didn't manage to kill you?

1

u/WigglyWeener 4 4d ago

Do I believe a fair justice system should look at actions and remove the emotional analysis of "what happened after those actions"? Honestly, yeah, probably.

What you are asking is if I think attempted murder should carry a lesser sentence than murder. I could easily argue that they should carry the exact same sentence. What you are arguing is that murder should be treated more severely, whereas what you think I am saying is that attempted murder should be treated more lightly. I would easily argue that attempted murder is every bit as bad, since the action and intent are equal to that of an actual murder. Give them both the same sentence. The point of jailing someone is to remove dangerous people from society, or rehabilitate them if it's deemed possible. How is an attempted murderer any less dangerous than a murderer? If anything, the attempted murderer is going to try again, so maybe they need more jail time to rehabilitate properly.

It's actually quite easy for me to stand by my argument that consequences are irrelevant in almost any case I can think of.

1

u/RebekhaG 3 2d ago

I agree with you on that on attempted murder the person could end up trying to murder again.

1

u/WigglyWeener 4 2d ago

Right? I believe intent is very important when discussing sentencing of misdeeds. I like to think the justice system will be fair and impartial all of the time, but, understandably, it's hard to remove emotion from such polarizing cases as this one.

2

u/RebekhaG 3 4d ago

They started a fire that was preventable. They did the gender reveal during fire season. They were dumb. Dumb people deserve to be punished.

1

u/WigglyWeener 4 4d ago edited 2d ago

So in conclusion, "dumb people deserve to be punished." Let's just get out ahead of it and throw everyone with an IQ under 100 in prison. Problem solved. Criminal intent be damned, let's start prosecuting stupidity and clumsiness. RebekhaG 2024

edit: Perhaps I was too harsh here. You seem like a reasonable person. This entire comment section has me a bit worked up.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

0

u/WigglyWeener 4 2d ago

What that person is saying is dumb, and wrong. Bad drivers cause car accidents every single day that destroy property and cost lives. When was the last time you saw someone who was just dumb or bad at driving get thrown in jail? The answer is never, because that's an insane proposition. Drunk, texting? Maybe. But just plain dumb? Doesn't happen.

1

u/RebekhaG 3 2d ago

Drunk drivers do get punished they do go to jail for causing property damage if they end up causing it.

1

u/WigglyWeener 4 2d ago

Right, that's why I said drunk or texting might result in jail time. It's different than plain stupidity. Some people are just bad at driving, with no additional impairment necessary. It's an unfortunate reality, but they don't get criminally prosecuted typically.

-2

u/UWU_Cummies 5 4d ago

That is exactly what a dumb person would say.

2

u/SoFastMuchFurious 7 5d ago

"people can be born the wrong gender, but also gender isn't real so we shouldn't have reveals"

12

u/Jinxed0ne 6 6d ago

This should be the punishment for ALL gender reveal parties.

1

u/Jinxed0ne 6 5d ago

All of them. Gender reveal parties are the dumbest trend ever.

3

u/Emighettispaghett 3 5d ago

What do you mean by all? The ones that cause chaos and destruction? Sure by all means. Even the ones that litter should be punished severely. But let’s not forget that gender reveal parties include people cutting a cake open or something small and simple like that.

1

u/WowOwlO 5 4d ago

Personally miss the days of pink or blue chewing gum cigars.

6

u/JustinDigitalis 6 6d ago

This sub has some pre-ejaculation problems....

32

u/Alton666 5 6d ago

Gender reveal parties are the single most fucking stupid thing on this planet

20

u/OnlyPersonality4094 0 6d ago

Can we just stop with the gender reveal parties already?

0

u/v-specfan1999 8 5d ago

Like cmon

If i was to be a dad i'd rather wait for the kid to come out first

4

u/Emighettispaghett 3 5d ago

I understand the sentiment, but harmless cake reveals are no issue and I think it’s just something for the couple to have some fun with. I disagree with major catastrophic reveals like this one, or really any that cause damage, destruction, or litter but as a whole I don’t disagree with gender reveals. It’s always a good time to have some cake and loved ones around. Source: I’m a dad and have had a gender reveal party, we had cake and threw some pies in each other’s faces but cleaned up after ourselves

2

u/v-specfan1999 8 4d ago

Ive got nothing against gender reveals that are done responsibly and with consideration

But having stuff like fireworks and flares is a big nah for me

31

u/trashdotbash 6 6d ago

Just want to make a comment because of all the people using this as a defense: this is not an example of the butterfly effect. That theory exists as an example of how chaos can result in nigh unknowable results. It's based on a butterfly flapping its wings and a tornado occuring on the other side of the world because of it. Two seemingly unconnected incidents that can theoretically be correlated to each other through a chain of innumerable actions and reactions.

This is as direct as it comes. Family accidentally starts fire, fire spreads uncontrollably. A small action resulting in a big actions is escalation, not the butterfly effect. And it wasn't even an accidental escalation. The fire was an accident, but not letting authorities know was purposeful, so it isn't ignorance, it's negligence.

3

u/RebekhaG 3 4d ago

Starting a fire in dry conditions isn't an accident it's stupidity.

2

u/Jinxed0ne 6 6d ago

The butterfly effect is about escalation though. It’s basically saying that one small action can inadvertently cause much bigger things to happen.

I agree 100% with the second paragraph though.

2

u/trashdotbash 6 6d ago

I should have worded it a bit better.

The butterfly effect is escalation, but not all escalation is the butterfly effect. I mainly meant to say that the situation is a direct escalation compared to the abstract/complex escalation that people are comparing it to.

-9

u/landspeed 8 6d ago

Look.. Im all for some sort of punishment, but come on.

5

u/bcpsgal 5 6d ago

You do realize the magnitude of what they started right?

0

u/landspeed 8 6d ago

Was it on purpose?

4

u/KJClangeddin 8 6d ago

Using flammables for no good reason during a dry season in an area where people die yearly from horrible wild fires?

My parents always used to ask me when I fucked up as a kid, "Are you not trying to? Or are you trying not to?"

The distinction is important.

5

u/bcpsgal 5 6d ago

Do drunk drivers kill on purpose?

1

u/trymeitryurmom 8 6d ago

Even if you accidentally kill someone you still get charged with manslaughter

0

u/landspeed 8 6d ago

Correct, which is a lot more lenient than 20 years.

1

u/madrobski 6 6d ago

Why do you think this is harsh?

3

u/KookOfTheDecade 5 6d ago

This was a man made disaster caused by an inherently dangerous and intentional act by useless idiots. Accountability is warranted.

0

u/landspeed 8 6d ago

Correct, I too said there should be punishment. Very good.

3

u/rdwtoker 7 6d ago

What would you say is a more just punishment for involuntary manslaughter, injuring multiple people, destruction of multiple homes, and igniting 22,000 acres? A slap on the wrist so that future idiots won’t think twice about repeating this life taking offense?

2

u/landspeed 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

Something fair. At the end of the day, it was a careless mistake. Nobody was like "yeah! Wooohhh lets burn this shit down!" I dont think they should see anymore than 5 years in prison and even that is a stretch as, ya know, this started with them celebrating the birth of a child which - again - really hammers home the point of this being an accident. Nobody starts a devastating fire on purpose for to celebrate their unborn child.

Intent is a huge factor in sentencing and it should be no different here.

A 5 year prison term is just as much of a deterrent as 20 years in prison. Both fucking suck.

If I am at a gas pump and accidentally throw my car into reverse and kill the person behind me - does that also warrant 10+ years in prison? Do you understand how much of a prison sentence it already is for most people who kill someone to just live with the fact that they killed someone? Or in the OP's case, burned miles upon miles of nature, destroyed multiple homes and killed/injured multiple people? Do you think these people are just navigating life as normal and are in no way suffering? Of course they are. Because there is ZERO evidence that these are sadistic sociopaths.

Again, intent means a lot. Being stupid isnt a crime.

0

u/BambooBanani 5 5d ago

What they got was fair. Now they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. And false equivalency- throwing a car into reverse and killing someone is nowhere close to what they did.

0

u/Dwayneisgae 0 5d ago

nah, 20 years is good for me. Time to start removing the dumbasses from society. Not my problem, nor the problem of anyone who was displaced by this, that people do whatever the fuck they want without any forethought of consequence. Hopefully they get out in time for their kid's high school graduation as a walking example of how not to end up.

2

u/landspeed 8 5d ago

Yeah, idk, maybe its because I have a child now but it seems way more harmful to give these people 20 years and have their child grow up without a parent than it is to give them a few years each.

Both are just as effective. If you give these guys 2-3 years each in prison, theyll learn their lesson just as easily as they would with 20. 20 will make them bitter.

1

u/split_persona_bitch 1 5d ago

Well starting a fire was accident. Not reporting it to the concerned authorities and let it burn was not.

1

u/landspeed 8 5d ago

Thats why I think 5 years is a good prison sentence. Theyll likely get 2-3 years each and alternate so that the child will always have a parent.

3

u/rdwtoker 7 6d ago

Involuntary manslaughter alone is a 10 year prison sentence. And then on top of that you got millions and millions of dollars worth of damage in the form of bodily harm and environmental/property destruction.

Intent is not a “huge part of sentencing” here (key word: involuntary). In these instances sentencing is based on reckless conduct.

Living in Southern California you know any form of pyrotechnics are a huge no no. They completely disregarded the fire danger level, which I’m sure was extremely high, to celebrate in a careless manner. They conducted no research on how the device could have been dangerous. That’s the definition of reckless conduct.

The reason why sentencing has to be harsh for involuntary crimes is because fear of a long sentence is a powerful deterrence. Yes they have to live with the guilt, but fear of guilt is not enough to make potential culprits immediately think twice about being reckless. Most people can’t even imagine that level of guilt and are numb/ignorant to the potential for disaster.

A lengthy sentence is devastating sure, especially for new parents. Sadly an example must be made to show this level of carelessness carries a huge price. If not the carelessness will simply continue.

18

u/Ketashrooms4life 4 6d ago

They'll be out just soon enough for their kid's 21st birthday! I bet it will be one hell of a party

7

u/justynrr 6 6d ago

Can you imagine being that kid??

"A fire was started, tens of thousands of acres burnt, peoples homes, someone died - all so a bunch of adults could drink and talk about a child's (my) genitals."

The premises is a bit fuct in the first place... really, it's a bunch of "grown-ass" adults talking about children and their genitalia.

Just get together and drink. Why all of the excuses and parties to justify getting smashed?

15

u/potatomaestro 5 6d ago

Hope finding out what their little one has downstairs was worth it... Stupidity needs to be punished heavily if it hurts others and could have been prevented. People need to be discouraged from stuff like this by setting examples. I doubt they'll serve the whole time but hopefully they are ordered to do community service instead for many years.

Is it really so awful to read off a piece of paper in your living room what your baby will be to your loved ones? The people who died don't get another 20 years because two adults failed to think outside of their selfish need to be noticed by social media. Do not treat these mistakes lightly, because others will do them too if the punishment isn't harsh enough.

2

u/starkistuna 7 6d ago

Did anybody die , I tried looking up fatalities couldnt find any that the 39 year old firefighter and some injuries. 20 years is about right for involuntary manslaughter. They should just put 20 years to anyone that causes a fire like that again , its a yearly thing now to a lot of people.

5

u/Euly 5 6d ago

A lot of people (especially on Reddit) disagree with you and view the possible 20 years as excessive. I think that in itself is disturbing because the disagreement alludes to dismissing the devastation on the premise that "nobody was killed" or "only a firefighter died and that's their job" or "It was going to burn anyway."

This could just be my skepticism thinking that responsibility is espoused to assets, but I wonder how many people who think - 20 years to too much - have ever been evacuated (mandatory) in the middle of the nigh, with hardly any time to grab any of their possessions, and then been displaced for months on end. The bills don't stop, and you don't even know if your house is still standing. Do you even own that house? If you're not renting, you know that home-owners insurance is only going to pay the bare minimum for a rebuild, not the appraisal or market value of the house and not for valuables in the house, unless you insured those too (but also bare minimum on those as well).

Sorry for the rant. It makes me wonder how many people have been in a situation like this. It's crazy how so many people have never experienced anything like that, yet they have no empathy. Maybe it's just age, life experience, equity. I don't know.

1

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 4d ago edited 4d ago

In literally no country in the west other than the US would any of your problems even exist. Here's how a normal society deals with natural distasters (which this fucking is, btw) :

  • Have proper tax system so government can pay for things
  • Start emergency fund
  • State covers at minimum 80% of uninsured incurred damages and costs
  • People don't have to spend their lives in jail for an error in judgment

Also, there is absolutely no reason one third of a state should ever be on fire. Wildfire prevention is a thing, is cheap and is effective. CA politicians are just not doing it.

Maybe start voting for smarter people and stop wanting people to pay for things they only have a marginal hand in. Nobody would be spending any time in jail if the exact same fire was started by a lightning strike and still every single one of your problems would still exist.

I fucking swear this thread is a tank of toxicity.

0

u/Euly 5 4d ago edited 3d ago

I respect your ideology. That’s not how the world works, though. We’re left with a country ran by people who believe only the last part of your post - that the country is like this thread, toxic, so they treat their constituents as that.

0

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 2d ago

I'm aware. But there's limits to how random people can affect the real world other than voicing their views on digital forums such as these ;)

0

u/BambooBanani 5 5d ago

And there are literally black men in jail for life with no parole for stealing $10 (actually, there’s a guy in jail for life for a $9 robbery) and using marijuana. But people are mad these chucklefucks get 20 years?

0

u/well_i_guess_i_can 7 4d ago

It's both fucking stupid. You live in a country with constitutionalized slavery (forced prison labor), a country that ruins lives for minor offenses or errors in judgments and you've normalized punitive rather than corrective judicial systems. The fact that it is called "correctional facility" is at this point a pure irony.

Nobody should spend 20 years in a jail for accidentally starting a fire, no matter the consequences. Fires wouldn't spread the way they did if CA did their job and did adequate wildfire mitigation.

2

u/starkistuna 7 5d ago

Thing is the baby ceremony involving explosives , fireworks or some dumb shit , has been getting people,killed, houses burned, forest burned, planes crashed for a stupid thing that should be a priveate thing on a house. Clearly they arre making astand and they WILL be dropping the book at any future incidents since this is trending and getting out of control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_injured_or_killed_at_gender_reveal_parties

1

u/TrayusV 9 6d ago

1 person died, a firefighter fighting that fire. And many others were seriously injured.

9

u/AfrikanSloth 6 6d ago

Meanwhile in the same state, a jail sentence for a DUI that leads to death can only hit a max of 10 years, while it could also result in a sentence as short as 16 months:

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/dui/what-is-the-average-jail-sentence-for-dui-manslaughter-in-california/

Same level of stupidity, way LESS of a butterfly effect.

Who is more of a risk to society or likely to be a repeat offender of the same crime?

1

u/Euly 5 6d ago edited 6d ago

Maybe, but in a way, that's like comparing arsonists to alcoholics and measuring the effects of their actions.

*edit, I was going to say - Which is worse, fire bugs or the Bush family? But then re-reading it, I realized I spelled Busch wrong and thought - Do I mean Anheuser-Busch or George W? Holy shit I'm going to get downvoted.

-4

u/cruelfeline 4 6d ago

I keep seeing people defending this with "they ruined lives, destroyed homes, someone died," so on and so forth. And while this is true, the question that comes to my mind is "is this going to fix that?"

Is sticking them in jail for twenty years going to fix homes and heal injuries? Is it going to bring the firefighter back from the dead?

No, it won't. Now, it'll likely ruin these people's lives, which i guess people count as "justice" be ause they ruined lives, but in the end, you're just increasing the number of lives ruined for the sake of feeling like "justice" was done. Plus ruining an innocent child's life in the process.

Punishment, if it must be done, should serve a functional purpose. Altering a behavior without causing additional harm. It's hard to alter this sort of behavior because it's not one taken voluntarily. It's born of stupidity, which is unfortunate, but also not voluntary. People don't choose to be unintelligent. Punishing them for it seems less-than-ethical.

If people want to pretend like they care about prison reform and rehabilitation and whatnot, then perhaps salivating over what is essentially vengeance porn isn't the way to go.

However, if people would just admit that they like to see people they don't like suffer, then go for it. Long as you're honest!

2

u/M0mmaSaysImSpecial 4 5d ago

You’re absolutely right, but good luck preaching to the hive mind. This was a mistake. The way people are reacting here, it sounds like they want, and have always wanted, anyone that’s ever had a gender reveal party to be put behind bars for a quarter of their lives. While we’re at it, might as well lock up all the attendees for being accomplices, right?

What they did was stupid, sure. And if they need to made an example of, whatever. But Reddit and social media need to chill the fuck out with the “I’m perfect and always have been” attitudes. So ridiculous.

2

u/Dwayneisgae 0 5d ago

hot take: You commit a crime, you face consequences. I know a lot of people do things without considering the consequences, but it is still a thing.

They literally failed to report a fire. The functional purpose of locking them up is to keep them away from the rest of us. There is no one to blame for any of this other than the two fuckwads that will rightfully be locked up.

1

u/Euly 5 6d ago

I don't necessarily disagree with your idea, but can you provide some ideas of alternatives to follow through in place of severe punishment? The problem I have is the couple did not call 911 and they plead not guilty, so my animosity is over their rejection of responsibility for a fire they did not have to start.

Playing devil's advocate to my own thoughts, I would probably talk about the couple probably claiming the fire was unintentional, but intent and motive are not measurable.

2

u/TrayusV 9 6d ago

Your logic is a bit weird. Sure, locking them up ruins more lives, but you could apply that logic to all crimes. It's the logic judges use to justify not sentencing rapists to prison time.

Commiting a crime requires a punishment. This couple killed someone, and injured many more, along with destroying a massive amount of land and all the homes in that land. That needs to be punished.

You say this wasn't action taken voluntary, but it was. Setting off explosives in summer is illegal because it can easily cause a wildfire. I live in Canada and next to all fire stations, along with scattered about the roads are signs that tell you the current risk of wildfires and when the open fire ban is in place.

In addition I read that they also didn't call 911 about it, allowing it to burn out of control before emergency services were informed.

1

u/theGUNdoctor 6 5d ago

but you could apply that logic to all crimes. It's the logic judges use to justify not sentencing rapists to prison time.

In this example, the logic makes very little sense. Locking rapists away is ruining more lives, sure... but it's also locking rapists away. The logic of "it's only ruining more lives" only really applies to crimes the offender(s) are not going to repeat. I would bet good money this couple would not repeat this monumental fuck-up.

That said, I agree but with a caveat. Crime requires punishment, but it needs to fit the crime and the criminal, 20 years is too much.

0

u/fffuckno 3 5d ago

It sends a message though. If they get locked up for 20 years, it might make someone else who read about it think before being careless with fire

1

u/TrayusV 9 5d ago

You make good points. Tho I also think this is a deterrent. Every year, far too many wildfires occur. I live in BC, Canada, and recently we lifted our covid state of emergency only to declare another state of emergency due to the ridiculous amount of wildfires. Like half our province is on fire right now.

Dumb people are lighting too many fires and destroying massive amounts of land. Homes are being destroyed and acres upon acres of forest are gone. An entire town in BC was completely wiped out due to a wildfire recently, I think there wasn't a building left standing.

We gotta punish people severely for causing wildfires so eventually all the other dumb people stop lighting fires.

1

u/theGUNdoctor 6 5d ago

I would argue that if the prospect of potentially causing a wildfire disaster isn't enough to curb irresponsible fires, the threat of harsh jailtime isn't going to do much more. That's just my feeling, could easily be wrong.

1

u/TrayusV 9 5d ago

The threat of death wasn't enough to encourage Americans to fight the pandemic. Jail time usually works as a threat tho.

3

u/starkistuna 7 6d ago

The morgage on those houses that were burned take approximately 30 years to pay off , so they got a bargain they are only paying for 1 house and one life.

4

u/oh-shazbot 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

alright judge judy, since you think you're such a pro on ethics, crime, and punishment then what would you recommend as 'proper' punishment? or do you think that we should all just let everyone go for all crimes because "tHinK oF wHo YoURe HuRtInG". your virtue signaling is cringey, exhausting, and out-of-touch with reality. you should be honest with yourself too because you definitely aren't fooling anyone here lol

-2

u/JustinDigitalis 6 6d ago

Hefty fines, community service, probation there are several ways to seek some sort of justice but 20 years isn't going to magically make people better or stop people from thinking that something stupid is a good idea.

People believed the war on drugs was working fine imprisoning people over simple Marijuana possession charges and this sort of comment would probably existed if someone had over an ounce believing 20 years was acceptable for repeat offenders under the 3 strike policy and minimum mandatory sentencing.

3

u/oh-shazbot 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

lol you are smoking crack. aside from the fact that the fire these people started killed people, there is no humanely way they would be able to afford the 'hefty fines' you think they can pay. the court system looks at precedent, and you know what case preceded this one? the camp fire in 2018 started by PG&E company. let's look at that shall we?

The fire caused at least 85 civilian fatalities, with one person still missing as of August 2, 2019,[8] and injured 12 civilians and five firefighters. It covered an area of 153,336 acres (620.5 km2; 239.6 sq mi), and destroyed more than 18,000 structures, with most of the destruction occurring within the first four hours.[6] The towns of Paradise and Concow were almost completely destroyed, each losing about 95% of their structures. The towns of Magalia and Butte Creek Canyon were also largely destroyed.[22] By January 2019, the total damage was estimated at $16.5 billion; one-quarter of the damage, $4 billion, was not insured.[a][3][23] The Camp Fire also cost over $150 million in fire suppression costs,[5] bringing the total cost of the fire to $16.65 billion.

that was literally the year before the fire these people started. PG&E went bankrupt because of it and they're a power utility company. you think this couple can afford what a utility company couldn't?

your argument is a straw man argument because you're trying to make false comparisons between two wholly different things. you're right, 20 years for marijuana possession is unfair. but killing people and numerous wildlife, causing billions of dollars worth of damage, destroying property and displacing people? that isn't even in the same realm of discussion dude. and since it seems you don't really even understand basic facts about how courts work then there's really no point to discuss this with you further lol

and the stats for this (el dorado fire):

22,744 acres (9,204 ha) and destroyed 10 structures, including 4 residences, and damaged 6 others. In July 2021, Refugio Manuel Jimenez Jr. and Angela Renee Jimenez, the couple that hosted the party, were charged in San Bernardino County with involuntary manslaughter for the death that resulted from the fire.[

yup, let's just give them a slap on the wrist for manslaughter lol cheeky little buggers! /s

1

u/JustinDigitalis 6 6d ago

I guess it will come down to how good their representation is and how much political clout they can muster and you won't get your 20 years or even a day. But I'm guessing they will go out an involuntary manslaughter again without spending 20 years learning their lesson...lol.

6

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

I mean when you or someone you love gets burnt to death in a fire that didn't need to happen you may feel differently. It's one of the most horrific ways to.die and I cannot imagine thinking of my loved ones suffering that way. Not to mention the nesting animals who burnt alive, the loss of the environment, homes and property damage....

It's easy to moralize when you aren't affected.

0

u/M0mmaSaysImSpecial 4 5d ago

You say that as if they intentionally did this. They went into that day happy thinking they were doing something in celebration of their unborn child. It wasn’t some ritual that others attended thinking there would be mass sacrifice. Should we lock up the attendees as well? I’m not condoning what they did. But no one was calling for even 30 day jail sentences for people doing gender reveal parties before this. That would have seemed ridiculous. And corporations were making products for these parties before this. I mean come on…

1

u/beckarooster3000 8 5d ago edited 5d ago

You feel sorry for them but I feel sorry for the fire chief who burnt alive trying to help.

It says alot about you that you think his life is worth a gender reveal party.

0

u/M0mmaSaysImSpecial 4 5d ago

Way to twist my words. Gotta love the internet!

It’s incredibly unfortunate, obviously. They didn’t plan on that happening at all in a million years.

1

u/beckarooster3000 8 5d ago

Neither do drunk drivers. And I didn't need to twist anything.

-7

u/Deftlet 8 6d ago

That doesn't justify pointless vengeance. The fires were bound to happen eventually. Had they conducted their party here on the east coast nothing would have come from it and they would have gone on their merry way because we actually have healthy forests here.

Are they personally responsible for the climate change that made the drought conditions which allowed a spark to burn down the state? If I fill a room with methane are you responsible for the explosion if you accidentally spark a lighter?

5

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

They didn't accidentally strike a lighter. They knowingly set off a flame in a forest during fire season. They live in the area so they knew it was fire season and had to be aware of the risks.

Please explain to me why all the dead people and animals and all the catastrophic damage caused is ok with you? Do you want to explain it the family of the fire chief who burned to death that you feel his death is ok any punishment would be "worthless vengeance"? Please explain how letting these people go free with no legal repercussions will deter others form doing the same thing?

3

u/Zigsbe 1 6d ago

Yah I agree with you

-8

u/Deftlet 8 6d ago

No one said to let them go free, but perpetuating suffering is not doing anyone any good. 20 years is far too excessive. There needs to be consistency to your justice. If they get 20 years then why does the party before them walk free? Or the ones after? Because these guys caused the wildfires? Let me put it this way: they did not cause the wildfires. We did. We can't just heap metric tons of highly flammable tinder together and then come for vengeance at the first people unfortunate enough to light it. It was a bomb waiting to go off.

As much as it sounds heartless to say, you can't plead for the (unintended) victims to decide the sentencing for a crime because then everyone would get the death sentence. There needs to be consistency in our justice and this is plainly not it. This kind of barbaric retribution is frankly disgusting.

4

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

Lol I get it, you think you are morally superior to those that actually understand the law.

Barbaric retribution would be to light them on fire so they can feel what they inflicted. Instead they are getting room and board 3 squares a day. They should be removed from society bc they have demonstrated quite clearly their reckless disregard for it.

It's not about perpetuating suffering, it's about ensuring this won't happen, again. 20 years for the devastation they caused, in a low security prison is nothing in comparison to what they inflicted onto others.

-4

u/Deftlet 8 6d ago

I'm not commenting on the law because I'm not a lawyer. I haven't looked to see if they were sentenced or of that's the maximum sentence nor do I know the crime they were charged and it's usual sentencing. I'm not commenting on the legalities of it, I'm talking about the morality. If this comes off as moral highgrounding then I'm sorry for that, but my point here isn't to virtue signal but just to point out what I see as moral inconsistencies here. What I pointed out as barbaric wasn't the 20 years but the furious vitriol I'm seeing in these comments towards the people.

I'd also point out that adherence to law does not make something moral. Slavery was legal, so I don't think that point needs more justification.

As for your main point about 20 years ensuring that this does not happen again, nothing of that sort was ensured. This absolutely WILL happen again until the desert climate areas of California have no more forests to burn. A criminal sentencing doesn't change the climate and a criminal sentencing doesn't prevent accidents. If it's not a gender reveal party it will be a campfire or a smoker or a gas range or someone's car or fireworks or literally anything that can cause a spark.

4

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

Lol it was northern California, in the forest. The desert part is only in the southeastern part of the state. The northern part of the state is forests, like the rest of the PNW. Every forest has a dry time when fire is high risk.

It's almost like you're spouting off about stuff you admittedly know nothing about.

1

u/Deftlet 8 6d ago

My bad I don't know much about the Californian geography. I've been advised not to refer to it as drought stricken because that makes it sound like a temporary issue whereas it's a more permanent climate change occurring. I was doubting whether to call it a desert climate because there wouldn't be forests in a desert in the first place, but regardless I don't think that invalidates the rest of my argument.

8

u/Seannus 1 6d ago

Or maybe that person who was planning a gender reveal party in two months time won’t accidentally start the next devastating fire when they realise the potential consequences of their actions. The punishment is steep maybe to be punitive? But probably more so to deter others from doing the same. As you said it’s borne of stupidity, and stupid people don’t want to go to jail for 20 years. It still might be a very harsh penalty, but then you decide what the right length of punishment would be to adequately deter the next person from doing the same (and someone else will disagree with that too). Seeing this solely as some form of vengeful justice made to ruin lives and not also as a deterrent for future accidental arsonists is a bit off though

8

u/skilt 3 6d ago

Is sticking them in jail for twenty years going to fix homes and heal injuries? Is it going to bring the firefighter back from the dead?

By that token, no one should ever go to jail for anything, then, since jail literally cannot turn back time.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

1

u/skilt 3 6d ago

Is a rehabilitative system "going to fix homes and heal injuries? Is it going to bring the firefighter back from the dead"?

Congratulations, you're on the cusp of figuring out that the original poster's comment is useless drivel.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

1

u/skilt 3 6d ago

Is prison going to do those things?

Exactly. So "will x turn back time?" is a really poor guideline for what to do and the original poster is full of it. Glad we agree.

3

u/Zigsbe 1 6d ago edited 6d ago

Yah I agree with you for the most part. I understand it’s just a cycle of horrible things caused by these people. But being stupid shouldn’t exempt people from the court system and punishment . I’m actually one of the people affected and I lost my dog,and priceless family heirlooms. I believe 20 years is the least they could do. Although it’s unlikely they will repeat this crime it sets an example for future offenders.

-9

u/czareena 2 6d ago

This is terrible. Things got out of hand but they don’t deserve 20 years in prison. Who could have foreseen the outcome of a fucking gender reveal party? Come on. This is injustice.

4

u/starkistuna 7 6d ago

yeah because dry forest and matches never hurt anyone.

9

u/oh-shazbot 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

bro, if you live in CA ,wildfires are almost in your DNA. there is a absolute 0% chance these people did not know the dangers of pyrotechnics living in wildfire areas. on top of that, there are many outright bans on fireworks and pyrotechnics for that reason.we literally have devastating wildfires every year.

27

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

Who could have foreseen the outcome of a fucking gender reveal party?

Literally anyone with an education and any knowledge of the area's climate would know this is what would have happened. If they are this fucking stupid they are only going to kill more people. Yes, I said kill, bc that's what their precious gender reveal party did.

-11

u/h4ruspecks 5 6d ago

So now we're blaming people with a poor education on themselves, and not the state/federal government? Interesting choice.

20 years is insanely steep. 5 years is steep. Intention matters, both morally and legally. IMO, they won't serve more thana year and probation.

11

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

They are lethally stupid and it's cost 33 lives now.

20 years for every life they took? That's not even 4 years per person they killed. That would be 132 years. They are getting a break, they cannot go unpunished.

-5

u/h4ruspecks 5 6d ago

Their not charged with 33 counts, they are charged with one.

2

u/rebelli0usrebel 5 6d ago

That's kind of a shame, isn't it?

5

u/evilhasheroes 4 6d ago

In this context they deserve it, because they chose to use fire in their gender reveal party when they were under a strict burn ban. They weren't ignorant of it being wrong, but they are stupid.

-8

u/Turbulent_Ease 8 6d ago

How is this justice served? Butterfly effect, people, come on!

6

u/Uzanym 0 6d ago

It's not Butterfly effect at all, this as nothing to do with chaos. Another comment on this post explain the difference.

13

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

Yeah butterfly effect...I start a wildfire, thousands of acres destroyed and and 33 people died. (Not to mention the nesting animals) Little scamps!

-5

u/Turbulent_Ease 8 6d ago

Exactly. 2-3 years for being reckless, sure.

9

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

No they killed 33 people. horrifically.

-6

u/Turbulent_Ease 8 6d ago

The fire they started by accident as a result of recklessness killed people. That's why I'm saying we should charge them for the recklessness, not the result

10

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

That's not how the law works. And the family's of the people who died horrific deaths deserve justice. A slap on the wrist for the catastrophic damage they caused is a joke.

-1

u/Turbulent_Ease 8 6d ago

They had no malicious intent.

7

u/Seannus 1 6d ago

Negligence exists and is a thing punishable by law. This is not the first fire accidentally started by a gender reveal, nor will it be the last. If people understand it’s their own responsibility to ensure they don’t accidentally start devastating fires, they might think twice about doing stupid shit like this. Is it going to be “butterfly effect” every single time someone starts a fire at a gender reveal party?

9

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

That's why they are being charged with involuntary manslaughter. Ignorance is not a defense.

6

u/kennyguy4 5 6d ago

Yo I've seen you reply to way too many dummies, so here's an award for doing what I don't have the energy to do.

3

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

Thanks! Yeah I need more coffee

1

u/AutoModerator 6d ago

Please remember that different people have different definitions of justice. While the definition of justice is concrete, the interpretation of it varies widely between individuals, cultures, and nations.
Remember, this is a community of nearly six million users. More often than not, the majority of users generally agree with the content that reaches the first few pages.
That being said: If you have read this and concluded that the post still does not show justice, please use the link below to message the moderators.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

-10

u/Raceg35 7 6d ago

Punishing people because of the butterfly effect isnt just.

Punish them exactly as you would for the crime that was committed. If its only a $300 fine for lighting smoke balls when theyre not supposed to, so be it.

If someone litters a banana peel, and a school bus runs it over, goes careening off the road into a gas station causing an explosion, next to a power substation, which then takes out the power and 80 elderly people suffocate because their oxygen pumps stop working that sucks. But its not justice to punish the litterbug as if theyre a terrorist.

(Its probably not even illegal to light smoke balls in the first place)

10

u/JaxTeric 0 6d ago

In the middle of the dry season, in one of the hottest states, one known for wild fires. The fire they caused killed multiple people. Nah fk em they deserve 5-10 years. Hopefully now future people wont do the same stupid thing.

14

u/trashdotbash 6 6d ago

There's a difference between the butterfly effect and these situations.

If someone DIRECTLY causes a wildfire, it's not like they are only punished for what they MEANT to light on fire. If the fire got out of hand due to their fire/explosives, like this one did, the one who started the fire is responsible for any transpirations.

The logic employed in your comment would make arson practically unpunished under the guise of 'they lit a firework and it hit the house which caused the fire, the only thing they should be charged with is lighting the firework. $300 fine.'

The butterfly effect idea should only be imposed when there are multiple non-evident actions that all lead back to a single unrelated action (ie. the original concept of a butterfly flapping its wings and causing a tornado across the world). But fireworks and explosives near a forest? The risk was always there.

17

u/Lieblingssohn 0 6d ago

This thread shows again how thin the layer between society and complete barbarism is.

A lot of people just want to see blood, not giving a single fuck about the people behind it.

Justice served for what? For being stupid?

Those people made a mistake which had terrible consequences. That it's even possible to serve up to 20 years for that is ridicilous. Some people wondered how a person like Trump could ever be president. If you read through the bloodthirst of reddit, you wonder how it's possible that not every term a guy like Trump is elected.

1

u/RebekhaG 3 4d ago

It's not a mistake to set a fire in the middle of fire season.

8

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago edited 5d ago

For being so stupid they inflicted a horrific death onto those they killed? Yeah, they need to see jail time. Being a moron isn't a defense, nor does it mitigate the suffering they caused. Next time don't kill people by setting off a fire in the middle of fire season.

0

u/strike_one 9 5d ago

I don't think he had an issue with them getting jail time. If you look closely, he specifically referenced 20 years being ridiculous.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[deleted]

0

u/strike_one 9 5d ago

Becka, the person you responded to said one thing, you argued as if they made a different point. And no, I wouldn't feel differently if a black teenager did it, WTF.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago edited 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/strike_one 9 5d ago

Becka, no. I understand the American justice system just fine, having worked for an attorney and living here my entire life. You clearly argued a different point. And fucking no, I would not be fine if a couple of black teens got 20 years for this. Of course what happened was horrific, as indicated by your all caps.

No-one should be allowed to cause that much damage and face no consequences.

Edit: You did it again! LOL. Nobody is saying they should face no consequences. FFS.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/strike_one 9 5d ago

Actually, no. The comment you responded to was this:

This thread shows again how thin the layer between society and complete barbarism is.

A lot of people just want to see blood, not giving a single fuck about the people behind it.

Justice served for what? For being stupid?

Those people made a mistake which had terrible consequences. That it's even possible to serve up to 20 years for that is ridicilous. Some people wondered how a person like Trump could ever be president. If you read through the bloodthirst of reddit, you wonder how it's possible that not every term a guy like Trump is elected.

Help me with my reading comprehension, because the OP didn't say anything about them being punished enough. If they said something 4 or 5 comments back, I didn't read it. But I responded to your comment in response to the above comment, which only says that 20 years is ridiculous, which I agree with.

That's interesting, then why would you assume that the potential for 20 years actually means they will get 20 years or even be convicted by a jury?

Did I say that? Did anyone say that, or did you make it up? I think you did. Let me repost what OP said to help you:

That it's even possible to serve up to 20 years for that is ridicilous.

That it is even possible. That's the point Becca. I know it isn't your name. I just don't care.

So how much punishment do you think someone who caused a good man to burn death trying to fix their mistake should should get?

You mean Second-Degree Manslaughter? 5-10 years.

If you look closely you can see what kind of law I practice. Go read again.

1

u/strike_one 9 5d ago

LOL, I'm one with you.

-3

u/No-Listen6706 0 6d ago

Savage lol I agree

-2

u/Da6stringpimp 6 6d ago

I'm 100% with you ..are they stupid? Yes.

Who suffers to greatest consequence of them serving 20 years? The kid.

I saw something a while back they were being sued for damages. Again who suffers the consequences being raised by universally hated parents who are 90m in debt. The child.

Do these people deserve a free pass, idk. But them serving 20 years is NOT justice.

1

u/starkistuna 7 6d ago

god forbid sending wealthy Californians to jail for burning their neighbors houses for 2 months.

9

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

Tell that to the family members of those they killed. Their kid has a hard life bc of their choices but he still is alive. The victims will never see their loved ones again. Your sympathy is misplaced. They absolutely deserve manslaughter charges.

-1

u/Da6stringpimp 6 6d ago

I never said they didn't deserve charges my question is to the bane of what is adequate justice. Is justice simply an eye for an eye? Let's just shoot them instead because that's what I seem to see most are after.

Please don't assume my sympathies. If your looking to engender a reasonable discussion you can't begin with assumptions or the whole conversation is predicated upon just that, assumptions.

1

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

Oh back tracking now. Cute. Have a good day, I've more than proved my point.

0

u/Da6stringpimp 6 6d ago

I didn't back track on anything. 20 years is not justice for anyone. I abide that statement still.

You seem focused on winning an argument rather than having a discussion.

0

u/rebelli0usrebel 5 6d ago

Yeah, it really isn't. Their action directly resulted in many deaths. 20 years seems pretty light.

1

u/h4ruspecks 5 6d ago

Involuntary manslaughter in California is punishable by up to 4 years in jail. 20 is absurdly high. I mean, the judge will not give them anywhere near that, to be fair.

2

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago edited 6d ago

20 is only a fraction of the time it will take for the environment to recover. They shouldn't get to walk free. 4 years for every life their stupid ass actions took would actually be 132. Makes sense.

0

u/h4ruspecks 5 6d ago

That's a moronic standard for justice. Holy shit, you are stupid. They aren't walking for free. 20 years might as well be a death sentence, because your life is over when you take 20 years out of a career and away from your family.

2

u/beckarooster3000 8 6d ago

4 years per life they took (under the law of California for involuntary manslaughter) would be 132 years.

Yet you're over here thinking they're getting araw deal. Pretty sure the people who were burned to death got the raw deal.

-1

u/Petersonxc825 1 6d ago

There was only 1 death from this fire. Not saying they don’t deserve severe punishment, but keep the facts straight

1

u/h4ruspecks 5 6d ago

Their not charged with 33 counts, they are charged with one.

2

u/rebelli0usrebel 5 6d ago

Yeah. That's the real injustice here.

6

u/CreepyGuyHole 0 6d ago

There is no way they would get 20 years, its just a cap number. Most likely they will get like 2 years probation and whole bunch of community service.

1

u/Da6stringpimp 6 6d ago

Your probably right, my point was the fact everyone saying 20.is not enough. I honestly don't know what the standard for justice should be in this case but I know what people are asking for makes little sense to me. There are no winners here.

3

u/Secret_Agent_Crush 4 6d ago

Plus the whole, everybody who lost their house, property, and loved ones are gonna sue them into oblivion

3

u/doomngloom69 2 6d ago

Meh. Can't do the time don't do the crime 🤷‍♂️

33

u/peekaylal 0 6d ago

Causing a fire? 20 years. Insurrection? 8 months.

3

u/justynrr 6 6d ago

Their kids growing up without parents: priceless

17

u/Various_Wishbone168 0 6d ago

Hotel? Trivago.

9

u/TigreDemon 8 6d ago

That's one way to not raise the children throughout its puberty