A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Absolutely Incredible
Posted by:
SJAvato (IP Logged)
Date: October 20, 2006 04:28PM
For the sake of argument; wouldn't any fire set under conditions which the person knows a fire shouldn't be ignited be considered incendiary? If I break into a property where I know I have no lawful authority to be, and I set something on fire (in order to keep warm or cook food or provide light for the commission of my crimes) isn't that an incendiary fire? If I drop that object or negligently leave it burning after I leave, isn't a resulting fire a foreseeable consequence and, therefore, the result of an act committed under conditions that I know I should not have committed, and incendiary? It's not the same as a man who lights his barbecue grill during a wind storm and it tips over and ignites his house (that's just stupid, not criminal.)
I know that the argument in the crime scenario will be that the fire is arson, but not incendiary, I understand the difference. Try getting a prosecution for an undetermined-cause arson fire (it can be done, but it isn't easy.) Try not to have that report skewered by counter-experts (or on this site for that matter.) This problem is what I have referred to as "Avato's conundrum" - the same fact set may result in different defensible cause determinations. My experience was in vacant houses - a vagrant goes into a house and is seen running from the scene moments before a fire is discovered. Exam of the scene seems to indicate that the vagrant set a "warming" fire, but clearly a fire shouldn't be set in the middle of a wood floor in a house that he has no legal authority to be in. The vagrant is unavailable for interview regarding intent. The fire was clearly set under conditions which the person knows a fire shouldn't be set (it's incendiary!!!) But, the vagrant didn't mean for the house to catch on fire, he just wanted to stay warm (it's an accident!!!) However, 921 says that I have to make it undetermined because I can't infer intent from this scene. One could make a good argument for any of these calls. A hardliner says it is incendiary and arson - lock him up!! An empathetic type may say that the poor guy was just trying to get along - it was an accident. The 921 purist says - only one clear call: Undetermined. [That guy doesn't have a boss who doesn't understand why there are so many undetermined calls - what are we paying you for and sending you to all this training if you can't make a call???) Is the call influenced by politics (The mayor says that crime will be decreased by 20% - make it an accident)? Workload (If I make it an accident or undetermined, I won't have to go searching for the phantom vagrant)?
I don't know the answer and think it needs to be looked at carefully. But I don't think you get a free pass if you commit a crime inside of a house and say "Well, I killed the whole family, but the fire wasn't to conceal the crime, I must have accidentally tipped over a candle in my haste to escape."