y'all ain't gunna' believe it.....

check out this url on the 'biggest' fire in colorado history, for an admission from the u.s. forest service- you're gunna' be shocked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60650-2002Jun16?language=printer

Saw a slightly different version awhile ago. As usual, it appears the government is using a howitzer to swat a fly. Yes, it appears the lady did start the fire, but not intentionally. She has been having marital difficulties and she burned a letter from her estranged husband. Unfortunately, although she thought the scraps were all out -- they weren't.

So they are charging her with arson. God save the queen, what a bunch of idiots. Arson is for when someone intentionally tries to burn something down. Burning a letter and failing to completely extinguish the embers is not arson, it's an accident. Yes, a very serious and costly accident, but an accident nonetheless. There are probably several lesser charges she could and should be charged with, but arson?

I love my country but I fear my government.

For some strange reason, I kind of feel sorry for the woman and I'm usually the first to castigate stupid behaviour.
Woodland Park is on a standby evacuation alert. They suggest all non essential traffic stay off of Highway 24.
Pretty smoky down here.
Fred

People are no damn good

I'm sure she had a 'troubled childhood' and didn't recieve enough hugs in the last year. :roll: A firm slap on the wrist will be sure to send the message that its okay to F-up as long as you don't mean to cause any harm. It's not like this was a toddler playing with matches afterall, if ever someone should have known better...

Besides, charging someone with the most severe counts gives political points, leaves room for negotiation, satisfies homeowners' bloodlust, and shifts the attention away from previous fire-control policy and the subururbanization of wilderness.

Saw last night on one of the Big 3 network news shows that the F.S. [i:ca77ee0537]MAY[/i:ca77ee0537] be leaning towards a new theory: that she set the fire purposely so that she could "discover" it, extinguish it and become a hero. If that's the case, then IMHO the punishment should fit the crime!

How does anybody know that this wasn't arson? If you are mad enough to deliberately break the law you are charged with enforcing, maybe you are also mad enough to start a fire to get back at the world. People walk into schools and work places with semi-automatic weapons and slaughter people without remorse. Are we to believe that nobody would set a forest fire on purpose? Especially a forest ranger trained in the danger? The charge should absolutely be arson if that is the law, and she can defend against it.

What really pisses me off is that people are giving this woman a break because she is claiming emotional distress caused by a man. If this was a man making up some BS about emotional distress people would chain him up by his balls and tar and feather him and call it good riddance, and they would say it was intentional. It may be easy to feel sorry for her from afar, but where I live you shouldn't go outside because it is the equivalent of sitting directly downwind of a campfire. This may be the story of our entire summer.

All of that aside, it was the conditions at the time that make this so suspect. It was unusual weather at this time of year to have the wind and heat circumstances we had when she set this fire. Any forest service agent would know the conditions (there were extreme fire danger warnings out from the National Weather Service plus the known bans on all fires), and lighting anything was the equivalent of setting off a massive bomb. The choice of locations was perfect for the fire to follow the South Platte River Basin all the way to Denver, right up a 100 mile long wind tunnel. 130 square miles in two days. That's pretty damn effective. How big of a bomb do you think that is? It is not an "accident" to light anything in 50 mph winds in a severe drought with 5% relative humidity and 90° temperatures on the edge of a forest at the head of a natural wind tunnel. That's like saying it is an accident if dynamite explodes when you light the fuse.

Nay

Maybe because I've been a firefighter most of my adult life makes me radically biased, but I have NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for idiots who start fires - "accidental" or otherwise.

Especially somebody in the business - they should know better about what their co-workers risk, every damn time the alarm siren goes off.

I understand what Eagle is talking about - too many times the bureaucracy has gone nuts - but in this case no amount of emotional distress can compensate for deliberately putting others - especially your own - in harm's way.

The fact that she was in the Forest Service should count doubly against her - it's bad enough that innocent residents lost property and had their lives disrupted, but this easily could have turned into another Storm King Mountain, or what happened just the other day in California.

No "civil" penaties either - jail time - HARD jail time is needed here. Don't care about the political maneuvering, public opinion, or bureaucracies gone amuck. This has to be used to send a message and help weed out other wackos in the Forest Service and/or Fire Service.

Mike in NJ

[quote:26dcc1e6f4="DonH"]Saw last night on one of the Big 3 network news shows that the F.S. [i:26dcc1e6f4]MAY[/i:26dcc1e6f4] be leaning towards a new theory: that she set the fire purposely so that she could "discover" it, extinguish it and become a hero. If that's the case, then IMHO the punishment should fit the crime![/quote:26dcc1e6f4]

If that's the case, I agree completely -- throw the book at her. At this point, though, we don't know the real story so I'll try to withold judgment. (Easy for me to say -- I live 2000 miles away from the fire.)

I wonder what happened to my sig -- let's try this again.

The charges against Ms. Barton claim that she set the fire intentionally, and the "letter" was just an excuse. The fire investigators have no comment on the letter, but say that the fire was intentional and designed to look like a campfire that got out of control. Boom.

Nay

I could say she should burn in hell but she might be right at home there. :twisted:

One more good reason to ban forest/park "service" employees from entering public land.