From: mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Calling all Techers (especially lawyers)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:35:08 GMT

In article <1gpd9eINNbis@gap.caltech.edu> lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.232813.14912@midway.uchicago.edu>, mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer) writes:

>=@ 451.  Punishment for arson                                                   
>=
>=   A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and
>=maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids,
>=counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or
>=property.

>You're right.  It doesn't seem to support a charge of arson at all.  Looks to
>me like a charge of attempted arson, on the other hand, might be supported.

	"Hmm... unless there's a seperate definition of attempted
arson (which I haven't checked, and won't at least till after my
Bankruptcy final) I think they'd find it difficult to prove an attempt
to `willfully and maliciously' attempt to burn a structure, forest
land, or (someone else's) property.  They'd pretty much have to
establish that the person in question wanted to commit arson.  They
might be able to establish negligence, or even recklessness, but
willful and malicious is a pretty high level of intent to have to
show.  Even if they'd caused damage, I think they've only been found
negligent or reckless.  If you're burning leaves and your neighbor's
house catches fire, you're not guilty of arson, though you've
committed a civil tort against your neighbor and may be guilty of some
lesser crime relating to reckless damage to property-- plus fire code
violations, if any.  But arson seems definitely to require that the
culprit intended the damage he caused.  Or at least intended some sort
of damage-- I don't think "I burned the wrong building" is a defense
against arson charges any more than "I shot the wrong person" is a defense
against a murder one charge.  But the people here didn't intend any
damage to any property, and can testify that they took steps to
prevent it.  That indicates their intent pretty strongly, as does the
total lack of motive for arson.  Again, it wouldn't surprise me if
there was some violation of some law or ordinance in having a large
fire there, but it really doesn't sound like they have a chance of
making a felony charge stick.

	"Of course, free legal advice is worth, at best, what you pay
for it, and at worst is much worse than having none.  There may be
subtleties in California law that I'm missing-- maybe California has
redefined "malicious" to mean "knew something bad could have happened
in the worst case".  The law is what judges say it is, and judges can
sometimes be difficult, while a jury selected from among the residents
of the local area may want to teach those college kids a lesson
(though one might hope that your lawyer could weed out people with a
grudge against Cal Tech).  To me, though, this seems pretty
straightforward-- then again, this being the law, that may be _proof_
that I haven't looked hard enough.  :-)"

Michael

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu	    Virginia (1784)