identity of hiker who started Chediski fire revealed

Arizona Republic ^ | 7-1-02 | Joseph Reaves

[spudsmaki]

Valinda Jo Elliot was beginning to panic.

The lush pine forests that first seemed so refreshing, now felt forbidding.

The 31-year-old hiker had been lost for three days. She was tired, dehydrated and desperate when she heard the rotors of a helicopter.

[spudsmaki]

Site requires full-bore Java/Javascript/autoload images, and one of the few worth the effort.

[basil]

Interesting article, with a lot of information--but does anyone know what happened to the lady? I assume she got out okay, but I would like to hear the details.

[spudsmaki]

As of 7-1, she was not charged, and there was an implication
that she would not be charged with anything.

Which goes against everything I've seen so far, accidental
fires almost always get some charge, with community service
and reimbursement the usual outcome. The operating rules seem to be "kid gloves."

[JackOfVA]

As of 7-1, she was not charged, and there was an implication that she would not be charged with anything.

Necessity defense would seem to prevent prosecution. Consider: You are lost in the woods in the winter and within minutes freezing to death. You break into a locked cabin and thus saved. You will not be prosecuted for the B&E. The law says, in essence, that it is permissible to commit a crime in order to avoid a worse outcome. This case seems to fit.

Jack

[dennisw]

With such dry conditions was she even allowed in the woods?

[1rudeboy]

Necessity defense would seem to prevent prosecution.

If she was prosecuted, she could claim the privilege of necessity. The jury would decide.

[hchutch]

Given her situation as reported here, "kid gloves" is appropriate.

The only way she could be open to charges is if she knew that a wildfire would be the LIKELY result of that signal fire. If that is the case, throw the book at her. Otherwise, it would be appropriate to let her off the hook for this one.

[Illbay]

The REAL culprit, though, is radical environmentalism which, although it decries "human activity" and its impact on the environment nevertheless has through political machinations forced the U.S. Forest Service to do everything it can to "prevent forest fires."

The result has been a build up of flammable materials in the entire American West that has made it a tinder-box.

The result is visible now.

[lepton]

The result has been a build up of flammable materials in the entire American West that has made it a tinder-box.

Dead on.

[JackOfVA]

If she was prosecuted, she could claim the privilege of necessity. The jury would decide.

Prosecutors are not supposed to bring charges where there is no reasonable expectation of a conviction. Hence, if there is a clear case of the necessity defense, no case should be brough, and no grand jury should indict.

There is a proportionality/reasonableness element in the necessity defense, of course. That element may be open here and could justify indictment and trial. Necessity doesn't work where the threat is "if you don't rob that bank for me, I'll hit you with this feather." Compare with "I've kidnapped your family and will kill them unless you rob this bank," coupled with clear evidence of ability to carry out the threat. Even in this later case, I don't believe the defense would work if, in the course of the bank robbery, you took the opportunity to shoot the teller. You might defend against the robbery charge, but not the attempted murder component.

I seem to recall a law school exam question many years ago where A holds a gun on B and tells B that he (A) will shoot and kill B unless B shoots C. Can B claim the necessity defense?

Jack