LA fire started by boy with matches

AP via Yahoo News ^

[Santa Fe_Conservative]

SANTA CLARITA, Calif. - A boy playing with matches started a fire in north Los Angeles County that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week, authorities said Tuesday. Sheriff's Sgt. Diane Hecht said she did not know the boy's exact age, but she believed he was younger than a teenager.

The boy, whose name and age were not released, was interviewed a day after the Buckweed Fire was sparked Oct. 21, said sheriff's Sgt. Diane Hecht.

"He admitted to playing with matches and accidentally starting the fire," said Hecht said in a statement.

The boy was released to his parents, and the case will be be presented to the district attorney's office, Hecht said.

The 60-square-mile fire began in an area near Agua Dulce and quickly spread by fierce desert winds. It was among more than a dozen major wildfires that killed 14 people and blackened 809 square miles from Los Angeles to the Mexican border.

Authorities arrested five people for arson during that period, but none have been linked to any of the major blazes.

[DoughtyOne]

"Do you honestly see any judgement expressed in that post at all?"

Since you asked, yes, I did.

This is that post:  It's is green, and my explanation of it will be in dark red.

Nobody said it was easy. I just said it’s important. If you have to lock items in a cupboard and keep that key on you at all times, then that’s what you have to do.

This is judgmental?  No it IS NOT!  Is anyone targeted here?  Whose name appears in it?  What group is named in it?

It simply suggests that it is important to keep temptation away from young children.

One fire can destroy your future and the future of everyone in your family. Whether anyone dies or not, the loss of your home would set you back years if not decades. And if someone does die, the kid will carry it with them for the rest of their life.

Who is targeted here?  See any names?  See any groups mentioned?  Is anyone damned for anything?  I merely mentioned the impact of not taking safety precautions.  And I'm surprised you don't understand that this would keep the child from serious negative physical and mental injury.

I’m just raising the issue. It’s not my intent to offend anyone.

This must have been the part that sealed the deal for you, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt I was preaching down to everyone else.

Despite your statements of idealism, you weren't/aren't a perfect parent. Your own story isn't over yet. You have no idea what your own child may or may not due in the future.

This is reaching the level of being moronic.  I suggested it would be a good idea to place matches where they couldn't be easily accessed by young children.  From this you extrapolate that I am trying to dictate to people how they should raise their children.  You also extrapolate that I have claimed to be the perfect parent and that nobody else here is.

Just DUH!  Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Another thing I know is that children are children, that a ten year old is still very much a child, and that no matter how wonderful his/her parents, *every* child will do something sometime that a parent trained them not to do.

That's a rather startling admission from a person who has taken it as their goal to damn someone for trying to keep matches out of the reach of young children.  Yes bud, that's exactly right.  Children will do things they shouldn't.  And gee, let me see, hmmm, I wonder why someone might suggest keeping matches out of the reach of young children?  Hmmm....  I wonder why?

Any ideas?

If you can prove somehow that these parents knowingly allowed their child to play with matches, then that's a whole different ballgame.

I don't really care what the parents in question did.  I do care about parents who are traversing through the child rearing years that could be helped to avoid a serious situation.  I can't change the past.  I can suggest a way for people that I like to help avoid a serious lifetime impacting situation.  That infers no perfection on my part and damns no one person.  If someone sees the suggestion and thinks it's a good idea, great.  If someone sees the suggestion and decides not to take the extra measure, I don't really care.

Otherwise your statements are based on a whole lot of assumptions.

My suggestion was based on the fact that a young child gained access to matches and burned down a number of homes.  It was a suggestion to place matches out of the reach of young children.

What assumption would I have to take to make this observation and make the resulting suggestion.

"With the merciful [God] wilt shew [Himself] merciful." (Psalm 18:25)

I would look up the verse addressing, "Judge not lest ye be judged", but I don't invoke God to address common everyday issues with fellow forum participants.  I consider it shameful, disrespectful and bordering on blasphemous to do so.

[TruthSetsUFree]

Wow. You’re right about this topic pushing buttons.

Have a nice Sunday afternoon. :)

[DoughtyOne]

You too.

[TruthSetsUFree]

"But the current fad is to treat children as way more responsible then they really are. I remember a serious debate not too many years ago about putting 12 year olds to death. I think it was after those school shootings in Arkansas."

I agree with your insight. The fad is part of a whole spectrum of seeing children as miniature adults - it goes right along with giving children sex ed complete with condoms, and with allowing children to dress like miniature adults, especially young girls. Look in clothing catalogs for children and if we haven't yet had our senses dulled we should be shocked at the sexual poses not to mention the suggestive clothing. It's part of why some people think young girls should be able to take birth control and have abortions without their parents knowledge.

Then there's the 3 year olds with cell phones, and the kids with their house keys around their necks who get themselves up in the morning, find their own breakfast and lock the door behind them as they leave for school and then fend for themselves after school until their parents get home from work. All because we think they're capable of having the same privileges and responsibilities as an adult.

So it's just a small step from there to holding them responsible for things that we would an adult.

The whole spectrum is wrong and unfair to the child. They need to be allowed to be children, in every sense of the term.

[conservative blonde]

“Get over it.” Seems to be the mantra of those who believe indulgence for children is the best way to bring them up. I am sick of “getting over it” that’s the reason we have so much hurtfulness and destruction going on in our society today. That young boy should be sent to a penal school where he will learn discipline from authorities who want to mold him into a responsible person, something evidently his parents are not capable of doing.

[conservative blonde]

I agree with you. Our public school system can take blame for a lot of the bad stuff going on with our kids today.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

The whole spectrum is wrong and unfair to the child. They need to be allowed to be children, in every sense of the term.

Absolutely. Mainstream marketing seems to be able to sexualize anything and target it at children. An for no better reason than to make a buck.

The other part that disturbs me is the violence. There are still some limits on sexual content but violent content, especially in video games, seems to be virtually unrestricted. An article that discusses this. Here's a quote:

Lt. Col. Scott Sutton, director of the technology division at Quantico Marine Base, where the mock-up M16s are used, says soldiers in this generation "probably feel less inhibited, down in their primal level, pointing their weapons at somebody." That, in effect, "provides a better foundation for us to work with," he adds.

When kids are playing the same games the military teaches soldiers to kill with we have a problem.

I don't have any doubt that these two are related either. Think about the line the extremists feed their sons. They cover all the women up and then take naturally horny young bucks and tell them they can have 72 of what's behind curtain number 1 if they just blow themselves up. What's going on in our society is nowhere near as extreme but not completely different either. Our corporate machines glorify violence and portray sexual rewards for seriously anti-social behavior.

I'm not really on the same page on sex ed though. Sexual urges are one of the strongest drives God gave to mankind. I think kids need to understand them. Especially while they are experiencing the strongest of them. They should be taught that creating children before it's time brings a lot of misery. I remember having an appalling lack of information as a teen and engaging in very risky behavior. And I grew up in the Church and wasn't a latch key kid. There was no shortage of talk of abstinence either. Like all kids we "knew" what was best for us and that our "love" would conquer all.

Abstinence is a great target but not everybody reaches it. We shouldn't demonize the kids who don't. I guess it's part of my children are gifts of God and shouldn't be thrown away line. They aren't perfect. With some guidance even the non-abstinent ones grow up to be productive members of society we can be proud of.

There are lots of ways to address the problem of teen pregnancy. Getting the garbage out of the media would go a long way. Providing strong role models helps. Teaching them the value of waiting is part. But helping those that don't wait keep from producing children they don't have the emotional or physical resources to provide for is important as well.

I know some see it as a theological point and I respect that. I just don't agree with them on that point.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

That young boy should be sent to a penal school where he will learn discipline from authorities who want to mold him into a responsible person, something evidently his parents are not capable of doing.

Definitions of penal on the Web:

* of or relating to punishment; "penal reform"; "penal code"

* serving as or designed to impose punishment; "penal servitude"; "a penal colony"

* subject to punishment by law; "a penal offense"

Sounds like a win to me. /sarc

[conservative blonde]

Would you rather I said “reform school” or “rehibilitation center?” This kid needs help that he will not get at home.

[cricket]

This this boy may have been in trouble before this fire was ignited.

[cricket]

Meantime, were their other perps here or was all speculation on this, just that.

[Wiseghy]

Gee, when I was a kid, we used to make pipe-bombs with match-heads. A firecracker made a swell “blasting cap”, as I recall. Did you know that blowing up PVC creates styrofoam?

Ahh... those were the daze.... ;->

[warbride2008]

>>What a remarable thing it would be if his name happened to be ‘’Hispanic’’, eh?

Didn’t the Mexica-Movement (http://mexica-movement.org/) claim responsibility for the LA fires?

[ErnBatavia]

Welcome back to FR.....but your statement is the first I’d heard of that theory.

[RBranha]

Twenty years ago when I was an 18 year old volunteer firefighter in our small town, we were dispatched to a home fire in which a small girl was trapped. When we arrived the entire house was engulfed and the roof had caved in, and there was nothing we could do to save the child. My father—a sort of gruff, 300 pound guy—was the fire chief and had to investigate the fire only to find out that the 5 year-old brother had started the fire by playing with matches. I’ve never before or since seen my father cry like he did that day.

[Mamzelle]

re: Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong.)))

Yep. I find it a stretch to think this fire was started so effectively that a state full of firefighters couldn't put it out for days. This isn't exactly Chicago in the nineteenth century we're talking about.

And if the conditions were right--with the winds and the tinder--

The fault lies in the refusal to deal with removal of underbrush. What's the difference between a kid and matches or a thrown cigarette or a lightning strike?