Arson is defined as follows (please keep in mind that various jurisdictions DO modify this definition):
The crime of maliciously, voluntarily, and willfully setting fire to the building, buildings, or other property of another person or of burning one's own property for an improper purpose, as to collect insurance.
Hope this is of some use to you, and FReegards! Whether or not the school district had to expend funds to put out the fire will not matter one whit as to whether charges of ''arson'' might or might not be filed. In any case, if some unlawful burning has occurred, the proper action at law would be for the property owner (the school district, aka the taxpayers? Who owned said flag?) to file a tort claim against the person(s) who destroyed their property, in which action they would be able to (attempt to) claim incidental damages also.
The owner was another student.
Hmm, makes sense then, and thanks for the heads up. Sadly I may have to agree with the charges then since it was not his flag. Can't disagree with the sentiment though, but the law is the law.
I don't see any improper purpose. But that's just my opinion.
BUT, since the flag owner commited treason, does this really matter?
" The crime of maliciously, voluntarily, and willfully setting fire to the building, buildings, or other property of another person or of burning one's own property for an improper purpose, as to collect insurance."
You are wrong when it comes to burning flags... It doesn't matter what state or local law says about burning/arson. Under federal law, the proper way to dispose of a flag is to burn it. Federal law trumps state law...
Be that as it may, the charge does not fit the offense The school is within his rights in suspending the student, but "arson?" Shouldn't try to to fit a political act under that rubic.
I want to contribute to the defense fund for the ROTC hero. Has one be set up yet?