Posted on 10/23/2009 2:13:35 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Retired accountant James McDermith's mad dash to retrieve a camper and pack it with belongings as a wildfire chewed closer to his home six years ago may have cost him his life. But it wasn't the flames or smoke that got him.
The 70-year-old church deacon was one of five men to have a heart attack during the 2003 blaze that surged through the San Bernardino Mountain foothills.
With evidence that stress from the wildfire led to the deaths, prosecutors took the unusual step this week of charging a suspected arsonist with five counts of first-degree murder that could signal a tough new standard for arson cases in a region held hostage by fire.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Guess next they’ll start charging the cook at McDonalds with your death when you keel over from clogged arteries 10 years from now...
Say “hi” to Tookie for me!
I say “Works for me!”
You start an arson wildfire...
You’re responsible.
They should also prosecute every drug dealing basted for murder as well.
Difference. The drug user has a choice, and gains some sort of “value” for the effort. The arson victim has no choice, and doesn’t even get the benefit of a good buzz before he dies.
I would think first degree murder will be a stretch to prove and get a conviction in a lib state. They might
get a conviction for carrying matches though.
Ridiculous...But 5 opportunistic attorneys will file wrongful death suits!!!
If you intentionally commit a crime, you are held responsible for all the consequences that reasonably and logically flow from your act. Death is a reasonable and logical consequence of arson.
And the malefactor has always taken his victim as he finds him. If a person living in the fire area has weak lungs or asthma and dies from smoke inhalation although a person with healthy lungs would not have, too bad for the malefactor. He takes his victim as he finds him. Not too long a stretch to a heart attack brought on by frantic exertions to escape the blaze.
The classic example is the armed robbery victim who keels over and dies from a heart attack during the robbery. Too bad for the malefactor, he knew his actions might result in death -- it just didn't happen quite the way he might have expected.
Reporters always sound so surprised in these stories -- they don't know anything about the law, and they don't bother to ask for an explanation.
Surprise! It's the same one I gave, in fact they even use the same old saw of 'taking the victim as you find him'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.