Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by paul vance on November 23, 2008 at 11:29am

we lost a fire fighter in a lodd due to arson and the case is still active but it is hard to prove arson. all the indicators are there and you believe the proof is solid such as little to no furniture in the house no personal effects in the house they are suppose to be living in. but the due process of law does not care about that, it wants hard solid facts. This is why when you pull up on a working house or structure fire it is very important to look around and see if there is anything that may make you believe this is arson and report it to a superior at once so evidence preservation can begin even if it is not an arson at least it helps if it is. People through TV have gotten better at getting away with this, so called experts write books and give them the knowledge and then we face potential death due to a selfish and greedy person/persons. paul

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony P on November 24, 2008 at 12:29am

The simple answer to your question is why do people think they can commit any crime and get away with it?

How many people drink and then drive because "it won't happen to me". How many people commit roberies? How many produce and sell drugs? How many simply drive faster than the speed limit 'because the limit is stupid', or 'because I'm in a hurry', or because 'I won't get caught'.

There are many crimes, arson is just one of them. Maybe closer to home than many crimes, because it can affect us so much more, but still just one crime among many.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jenny Holderby on November 24, 2008 at 1:25am

Don't they? How many arson cases are actually solved? Very few people who set fires are ever prosecuted. Even with a chain of evidence you have to be careful to document how the evidence was collected and secured. IF you find the arsonist, someone has to have wittnessed the act or at least heard the accused threaten to commit it. Pictures rarely hold up anymore because they are so easily tampered with, so is video although some courts will see it as evidence but not proof.

Arson cases take a long time to investigate. The fire can be investigated & found "suspicious" but how many times do they actually find the person who committed the crime?
Prosecutors don't like to take them to court because it is hard to get a conviction. Prosecutors are politically connected. They usually want to climb the ladder & lost cases don't reflect well on their record.

A person can learn how to make a simple bomb using simple ingredients and be LONG gone before the fire starts.

Now and then there will be a sloppy arsonist who just does a terrible job of either starting the fire or covering his tracks & someone will get lucky & prosecute the "easy" cases.

Occassionally someone will be convicted but how stiff is the penalties?

There is usually a motive for arson such as covering another crime, getting the insurance OR an arsonist is a pyromaniac and sets them to watch the flames or to watch the chaos it causes. Either way catching & convicting an arsonist is not an easy task. Investigators are rarely able to stay with one case until it is finished. By the time they go back to the case the evidence has gone stale.

WE are our own worst enemies when it comes to preserving evidence in an arson fire. We blow the evidence away or trample over it in putting out the fire. We make it more difficult for the investigators to do their job by putting the fire out.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion