Did you hear that it was a 10 year old kid who started the fire? Ironically, the place where he lived wasn't damaged by the fire. Now everyone's jumping on the bandwagon saying the kid's a "nice boy" and shouldn't be punished nor charged. I wonder if these same people ever lost anything in life. I say, even if they can't charge the kid cause of his age, something has to be done, so that he'll learn that there are consequences in life to every action. His stupid mother took off with the kid and is hiding. If nothing's done, then it's like rewarding/giving free pass to "mini" criminals.
he admitted he was playing around with some matches and the fire started.
isaac you are right. the people that are saying let the kid off the hook cause he is too young are not the ones that lost their homes. i bet the people that lost everything is thinking hang the boy or something. i probably would be thinking that way if i lost everything.
"he admitted he was playing around with some matches and the fire started."
ohh i see. and i agree with what rob said, where the fvcck were the parents when this happened, i mean its not like he just threw a match down and then bam the whole state is on fire.
"the parents should be charged" first off u dont know where they were or what they were doing. what if the mother was at work and the boy is just an idiot. the mother is trying to make a living and supprt the kid and herself and her son does something stupid and you think they should punish her? crazy. i agree there should have been more supervision but you cant punish her for that
you cant punish her for that in this case i meant. if the son gets home from school at 3 30 and starts a fire in the woods next to his house and is inside by the time his mother comes home from work at 5 30 how can u punish the mother? neither of us know the situation well enough to talk but ur right theres some cases where the parents should be punished i agree
Well...it used to be like that but it's a weird law anyhow,I'm not sure if that was in a house-hold or just in general because I see younger kids roaming all around by themselves all over the place.I think it's a loosely enforced law,I'd have to look into my statutes book.
Had the stupid kid's parent called the cops or even try to report the fire, then sure, they shouldn't be held liable. But they didn't even bother! So even if the city has to sue that idiot kid and parents for $1 a day till he dies, it should be done. If it were really an accident, why didn't they come forward right away? Why did they wait till they were caught and then say it was an "accident"?
Parents shouldnt hav left a 10 yr old at home alone...and y the h3ll was he playin w/ matches??? on top of that surely they woulda noticed the fire soon enuf to contain it before it got as big as it did. Kid and parents both should be punished...
Should a 10 year old know the difference? You bet. Curiosity has got the best of all of us at one point or another though. I haven't read anything about it yet but you can be sure that boy will live with it for the rest of his life. Society won't ever let him forget it either. Imagine growing up being known as the great Cali fire starter.
Forget about a career in politics.
And should the result of any "crime" directly influence the punishment? If so why isn't the penalty for attempted murder as great as murder?? The only difference isn't intent but success.
I HIGHLY doubt this 10 year old was seeking to accomplish what he did. I think it's all about intent. Punish accordinly.
i can see the arguement for both sides....charge the kid or charge the parents....either way it wont bring everyones houses/memories back and wont bring back what it destroyed....can only hope everyone in cali who was/is affected by the fire, ends up OK in the long run
