Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Firebugs relighting Victorian fires
BLUIE006    2/7/2009 9:02:37 PM
The Country Fire Authority says it is unsure of how many arsonists there are, or their identities, but has confirmed that some of the fires raging across tens of thousands of hectares are being deliberately relit. Steve Warrington, the deputy chief of CFA operations at the emergency centre, says a blaze burning in Churchill in the Gippsland region is spreading faster than expected due to suspected arson. "We had predictions yesterday that we thought there would be spotting of about seven or eight kilometres," he told Local Radio. "We know we do have someone who is lighting fires in this community. While we often think it's spotting, we also know that there are people lighting fires deliberately." But he says even without arson, the fires have burned more intensely than anyone anticipated. "A lot of these fires actually went over expectations," he said. "This was one of them. It actually exceeded expectations and went towards the coast." At least 35 people have been killed and more than hundreds of homes have been destroyed in what Victorian Premier John Brumby has described as the worst weekend in Victoria's history.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
WarNerd       2/10/2009 5:54:34 AM

Could efforts have been undertaken to reduce the risk e.g. preventative fires?

You are dealing with eucalyptus fires, so outside of clear cutting and poisoning the stumps there is not much you can do.
 
Eucalyptus are natures fire bombs, it is how the tree competes with other species. 
 
The bark on the tree is very fire resistant, however; when the bark peels off and falls to the forest floor it dries out and becomes extremely flammable tinder several inches deep in a mature eucalyptus forest.  When a fire starts in this tinder the rising heat causes the leaves to exude eucalyptus oil, which vaporizes and forms a fuel air cloud which when ignited produces a fast spreading crown fire that ignites all the leaves, which detach and fall to the ground so that the branches will not be damaged and ignite more of the fallen bark.  The burning bark destroys most plants outright and will girdle most trees other than eucalyptus.  The heat also triggers the seed pods to open and drop the seeds on the freshly cleared ground under the temporarily leafless, but rapidly budding, trees.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/10/2009 3:41:59 PM
Eucalyptus are natures fire bombs, it is how the tree competes with other species. 

 
gums and the other eucalypts are natures oil bombs - and that's a significant issue because when they go up, they are dramatic.  it's why the fires in portugal were so devestating. (an odd fact is that the portuguese now have more blue gums growing than we do in australia)

one of our major problems is that its politically incorrect to engage in backburning in state forests - and we're paying a price  for  some of that huggy advice.

whether the green movement likes it or not, they actually do need to listen to people who live on the land and have a functioning rather than purely academic and/or ermotional  interest 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       2/13/2009 7:07:12 AM
If the arsonists were to be prosecuted like terrorists in Australia, the charges would end up being dismissed and large amounts of "costs" would end up being awarded to them...
 
Perhaps they could just be prosecuted like any other criminal?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       2/13/2009 7:39:53 AM

The PM has said they are mass murders and the AG has said that attempted murder/murder will become the automatic charge......rightly so too
Technically they will be felony murders, if it can be proved that a particular person directly lit a or any fires which actually resulted in people dying. The problem you have attempting to prosecute someone for this, is a) generally no forensic evidence, (the CSI idea of catching a bad guy near at hand, with the presence of accelerants on his hands and no reasonable excuse for it would be nice but never happens), few to no witnesses (BECAUSE bushfires tend to be out in the bush) and C) generally no way to prove any sort of intent, beyond an intent to light a fire. 
 
The problem works out like this (he used as a generic term for male and female persons, though the overwhelming majority of arsonists are male).
 
1. Person A is seen by someone lighting a fire or acting suspiciously in a bushland area.
 
2. A bushfire occurs in that area and people die. Police and Fire investigators conduct forensic examinations at the "seat" of the fire and perhaps, if lucky, identify an accelerant used. Of course the presence of accelerants tend to indicate an intent, but is certainly not conclusive, nor does it provide much evidentiary value as to WHO may have lit the fire. Lots of accelerants are detected in home and building fires. Petrol, kerosene, paint, methylated spirits and other chemicals are commonly used accelerants. They are also commonly used household items. Identifying the reason why such a chemical is present at a particular point, can be rather tricky...
 
3. Person A is subsequently identified (or not in the majority of cases) and interviewed. If he is stupid, he admits lighting a fire. If he is really stupid he admits to using an accelerant and perhaps some equipment. If he is unbelievably stupid he shows Detectives exactly where he lit said fire and conducts a video-taped "re-enactment" of the events. During this process he will also tell Detectives what clothing he was wearing, vehicle he was driving, persons he was with, before and after, places he went to before and after and what happened to the equipment/accelerants used. He will more than likely admit his reasons to why he lit the fire, if he admits anything at all. If this person is stupid to an almost unbelievable level, he might admit to intending to kill people by lighting the fire. (Though in reality even the most heinous of arsonists rarely ever admit to intending to kill someone. I have worked on 2 arsons, where someone died as a result. Neither offender ever admitted to doing it, let alone intending to kill people).
 
4. Detectives end up trying to compile a brief of evidence based on circumstantial evidence because generally an arsonist who admits to lighting a fire, will deny any intent to kill anyone. Therefore a felony murder situation exists. A felony murder, is a murder that occurs as a result of a linked criminal act, such as arson. Murder usually requires a specific intent to kill, however it doesn't if there is a felony involved as well. 
 
Attempted murder is probably the most difficult criminal charge to prove, dealing as it does with a specific intent to kill, but for some reason (it must be an outside influence beyond your ability to effect) you fail to kill someone you are trying to kill. Simply lighting a fire doesn't show an intent to kill, otherwise we'd all be in gaol... Attempted murder sounds good for a sound bite, but I'll bet beer that not one single AM charge is proven against any offender for the Victorian fires...
 
Felony murders, perhaps. Murder with intent, unlikely but possible, depending on the stupidity of the individual offenders involved. Attempted to murder, almost impossible. A person might be charged with it, but a conviction is MOST unlikely...
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

bigfella       2/13/2009 8:40:53 AM
AD,
 
I believe there is a specific offence of 'murder by arson' that was designed for cases like this. It carries the same penalty as other murder charges.
 
As you pointed out, however, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt will be tough.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    There is a way around this.   2/13/2009 9:01:34 AM



The PM has said they are mass murders and the AG has said that attempted murder/murder will become the automatic charge......rightly so too



Technically they will be felony murders, if it can be proved that a particular person directly lit a or any fires which actually resulted in people dying. The problem you have attempting to prosecute someone for this, is a) generally no forensic evidence, (the CSI idea of catching a bad guy near at hand, with the presence of accelerants on his hands and no reasonable excuse for it would be nice but never happens), few to no witnesses (BECAUSE bushfires tend to be out in the bush) and C) generally no way to prove any sort of intent, beyond an intent to light a fire. 

 

The problem works out like this (he used as a generic term for male and female persons, though the overwhelming majority of arsonists are male).

 

1. Person A is seen by someone lighting a fire or acting suspiciously in a bushland area.

 

2. A bushfire occurs in that area and people die. Police and Fire investigators conduct forensic examinations at the "seat" of the fire and perhaps, if lucky, identify an accelerant used. Of course the presence of accelerants tend to indicate an intent, but is certainly not conclusive, nor does it provide much evidentiary value as to WHO may have lit the fire. Lots of accelerants are detected in home and building fires. Petrol, kerosene, paint, methylated spirits and other chemicals are commonly used accelerants. They are also commonly used household items. Identifying the reason why such a chemical is present at a particular point, can be rather tricky...


 

3. Person A is subsequently identified (or not in the majority of cases) and interviewed. If he is stupid, he admits lighting a fire. If he is really stupid he admits to using an accelerant and perhaps some equipment. If he is unbelievably stupid he shows Detectives exactly where he lit said fire and conducts a video-taped "re-enactment" of the events. During this process he will also tell Detectives what clothing he was wearing, vehicle he was driving, persons he was with, before and after, places he went to before and after and what happened to the equipment/accelerants used. He will more than likely admit his reasons to why he lit the fire, if he admits anything at all. If this person is stupid to an almost unbelievable level, he might admit to intending to kill people by lighting the fire. (Though in reality even the most heinous of arsonists rarely ever admit to intending to kill someone. I have worked on 2 arsons, where someone died as a result. Neither offender ever admitted to doing it, let alone intending to kill people).

 

4. Detectives end up trying to compile a brief of evidence based on circumstantial evidence because generally an arsonist who admits to lighting a fire, will deny any intent to kill anyone. Therefore a felony murder situation exists. A felony murder, is a murder that occurs as a result of a linked criminal act, such as arson. Murder usually requires a specific intent to kill, however it doesn't if there is a felony involved as well. 


 

Attempted murder is probably the most difficult criminal charge to prove, dealing as it does with a specific intent to kill, but for some reason (it must be an outside influence beyond your ability to effect) you fail to kill someone you are trying to kill. Simply lighting a fire doesn't show an intent to kill, otherwise we'd all be in gaol... Attempted murder sounds good for a sound bite, but I'll bet beer that not one single AM charge is proven against any offender for the Victorian fires...


 

Felony murders, perhaps. Murder with intent, unlikely but possible, depending on the stupidity of the individual offenders involved. Attempted to murder, almost impossible. A person might be charged with it, but a conviction is MOST unlikely...

 

 




 

 
Its a very unfair way, but when you have a situation such as to declare a public danger, its possible to try something like promulgate an announcement (water rationing where I live) that prohibits the lighting of fires without a permit during the dry .season or during a drought condition  

Make it a felony.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       2/13/2009 11:33:15 PM







The PM has said they are mass murders and the AG has said that attempted murder/murder will become the automatic charge......rightly so too






 


Its a very unfair way, but when you have a situation such as to declare a public danger, its possible to try something like promulgate an announcement (water rationing where I live) that prohibits the lighting of fires without a permit during the dry .season or during a drought condition  





Make it a felony. No license or signed permit by your equivalent of a fire marshal or a warden . The authorities trace a fire to you and its ten years in prison-automatic.


 

Intent then becomes a non-issue.

 

In my case we have police looking for watering violations on the odds/evens on the calendar. Not during the daytime and not more than an hour per 1000 sq meters lawn during restricted use, and not at all during drought conditions.

 

No open or outdoor fires diri8ng restricted or drought conditions either: PERIOD..


   


The fines are rather stiff on the water violations. The fire violations can land you in jail depending on how hard the fire marshall forces the issue. 


 

Herald



It is unlawful in Australia to light fires in drought declared areas or in other areas of total fire bans, however our politicians, as much as they pretend to care, simply will not make this sort of offence punishable by mandatory imprisonment upon conviction.
 
The term felony is rarely used in Australia (felony murder is the only instance I am aware of) the term we use is an indictable offence.
 
 
Even these do not incur mandatory custodial sentences because apparently the "independence and freedom" of the Judiciary is more important than seriously deterring offenders.
 
Besides as we all know, simply locking up crooks doesn't stop crime...
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       2/14/2009 12:00:06 AM

AD,

 

I believe there is a specific offence of 'murder by arson' that was designed for cases like this. It carries the same penalty as other murder charges.

 

As you pointed out, however, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt will be tough.


The offence under the Victorian Crimes Act is Arson causing death (S197A) and doesn't apply in this instance because a specific intent to cause damage to property is required to be proven. (The offence seems aimed at burning down buildings, structures, houses or cars and thereby causing death).

Again, Detectives need to be able to prove that an offender had a specific intent to cause arson to some specific property.
 
There is no need to prove an intent to kill someone, so the offence is somewhat easier to prove, however a specific intent to damage property must exist in the mind of the offender at the time of lighting the fire. Without knowing or reading the Case law in relation to this particular offence,  an act of simply lighting a bushfire, seems to be unlikely to satisfy this requirement. We therefore revert back to the situation with our offender, his state of mind and what he is prepared to admit. Either to police, witnesses, or perhaps friends or relatives who come forward after a person makes such an admission.
    
Once again, our marvelous politicians (an awful lot of whom are ex-defence lawyers) have thrown in that specific intent requirement just to make it that bit tougher...
 
As always, the difficulties in bushfire cases (apart from prohibitions on lighting fires) comes down to establishing a nexus between the act of lighting a bushfire and the resultant deaths of people. If it can be established, then manslaughter is relatively easily proved, because intent is not a requirement, merely an act that directly or indirectly led to someone's death (in the case of negligence, to such a standard as to be a criminal act).
 
How do you prove WHICH fire killed people in a case (such as Victoria now) where there are multiple bushfires burning? Murder requires that the prosecution establish causation, ie: identifying the act that directly led to the death of the person. In this case, the fire directly led to peoples death, but which fire killed these people and how can it be proven that a fire lit by a particular person was the fire that caused these people to die?
 
It's bloody hard... What annoys me so much, apart obviously from the death and destruction, is that bleeding heart politicians who use terms like "mass murder" and state phrases like, "he will be charged with murder or attempt to murder" are the ones who MAKE these offences so difficult to prove in the first place and ALSO have the power to create legislation to try and prevent these things from happening.
 
These fires have shown that lighting fires in areas where people inhabit these remotish bushland locations is extremely dangerous. These politicians COULD have made the offence of Arson causing death applicable, but chose specifically not to and as always it takes a tragedy before anyone does anything serious about trying to prevent these things.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 


 
 
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       2/14/2009 6:45:33 PM
Multiple counts of Manslaughter would suffice.
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       2/14/2009 6:45:41 PM
Multiple counts of Manslaughter would suffice.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics