Posted on 04/11/2026 10:29:37 AM PDT by Morgana
An alleged California arsonist who filmed himself setting a warehouse full of people on fire compared himself to Luigi Mangione after starting the blaze, according to court documents.
Chamel Abdulkarim, 29, allegedly posted a first-person video on Instagram on April 7 igniting multiple pallets at the Kimberly-Clark warehouse in Ontario, per a criminal complaint filed Thursday in the US District Court for the Central District of California viewed by the Daily Mail.
'If you're not going to pay us enough to ******* live or afford to live, at least pay us enough not to do this ****,' Abdulkarim said, according to the complaint.
The footage then allegedly showed his hand holding a lighter as he added, 'Should have paid us enough to ******* live.'
'You know, we may not get paid enough to ******* live,' Abdulkarim said, per the legal filing. 'But these ******* dirt cheap.'
He also said that the '1% is a ******* joke' and claimed that he 'didn't see the share holders picking up a shift,' the complaint added.
During a call with an unidentified witness, Abdulkarim allegedly said his motivation for starting the fire was ******* eight hours, six days … stuck paying rent on a bulls*** *** apartment that I can't afford to ******* live.'
He added that 'a lot of people are going to understand' and compared his actions to when 'Luigi popped that muther****** [sic],' referring to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“ It’s far more damning to have a building go up that quickly and completely in 2026 than in 1911.”
Any system devised by man can be defeated by man.
Jerk.
L
Yeah, my point is that it's one thing to have a system defeated by a professional arsonist using accelerants and other means, versus a guy with a cigarette lighter.
This wasn't just an arson job, there's also the negligence or deception, where the contents of that building were more flammable than the sprinkler system could handle.
And we're all supposed to just point at the guy with the lighter, ignoring the regression of building fire safety to prior to 115 years ago, and the indifference to human life not just by the arsonist but by the owners or operators of the building who made it a tinderbox.
If calling that out makes me a "jerk" in your opinion, well, that's your opinion.
“ versus a guy with a cigarette lighter..”
Do you know for a fact that’s how the fire was started? What evidence do you have for that assertion?
Answers:
No
None.
Jerk.
L
Wut???
The man filmed himself starting the fire, and put it online.
Again, no accelerants and no fuel other than the paper products.
Paper burns pretty quick. And the sprinkler system came on as designed. Apparently the building was up to code.
So you’re just pulling crap out of your backside in a pathetic attempt to shift blame from the perp.
Jerk.
L
Yes, and failed to knock down the fire.
Apparently the building was up to code.
General warehouse use maybe - definitely not for mass storage of combustibles.
...in pathetic attempt to shift blame from the perp.
The perp and some pallets should have gotten soaked and the rest of the $5M warehouse spared.
He would be in prison for minor arson and multiple accounts of attempted murder. Instead, it's major arson, everyone was at risk, and the insurance rates just went up for everyone around in similar type of commercial setups.
All because an individual, or several individuals, chose to fill a building with more flammable materials than the sprinkler system could handle. Again - no separate fuels, and no accelerants.
Either we have sane, sober, moral, and prudent people making decisions and enforcing standards, or we're pointing and spluttering at a third world arsonist to avoid the truth of pointing and spluttering at ourselves as well.
“General warehouse use maybe - definitely not for mass storage of combustibles.”
What’s your expertise in this area? Any certifications or something like that?
L
Post 28
Certifications are for design, engineering, and installation. Spec'ing out requirements requires knowing what materials will be in the building, what's considered working materials and what's considered storage, and being truthful in what's where.
It includes random surprise inspections to ensure technicians aren't hiding solvents in the trunks of their cars during inspections in order to save money on facilities and time for their tasks (yes, that happened A LOT "back in the day").
We had hundreds of thousands of dollars of sprinkler equipment installed because our war reserve materials exceeded the capacity of what the hangars systems could handle.
I had to spec out multi-use facilities, and even vacate some storage rooms due to changes in codes. What had been up to code was no longer, due to fires in other buildings. They constricted the tolerances to where reducing our stock footprint made the storage areas non-viable.
I've had to do inspections for hazardous materials, where items had to be kept at certain minimal distances from each other, often to avoid one igniting the other. Some were behind controlled doors and some were in locked cages to prevent them from being stored too close to each other. Separately, the sprinklers could handle either burning. Combined would have been a real issue.
I've overseen storage in outdoor shipping containers instead of indoors because the cost of a sprinkler system capable of extinguishing the contents would never be recouped. We could continue with a blistered storage container and wouldn't have to risk the buildings.
But forget all that. What matters here is that in 2026 some third-world arsonist burned down a $5M building with just a cigarette lighter, as if the last century of fire safety standards and equipment never happened. But let's not question the building owner or operator. No, it's the mutant with the lighter and we're no smarter than him.
So what do we do with that mutant? Let him go after thanking him for exposing the poor design of the building?
L
It's not either/or.
Charge him with arson for the entire building as he set the fire with no limit in place. (It's not like he had a fire hose on standby or lit something up in a secured area). Charge him with multiple counts of reckless endangerment at a minimum, possibly attempted murder if he knew of any egress limitations, including anyone with physical limitations that would slow their exit.
Deny the insurance claim of the building owner and/or operator, depending on who knew what and when.
Charge the building owner and/or operator with criminal negligence, depending on who knew what and when.
Investigate the building inspectors, fire inspectors, and insurance inspectors for any negligence or criminality. That building wasn't filled with paper products in a couple of days.
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.