Teen burns down school; forced to pay full cost of repair

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Snowbear:
Whew!! I shoulda donned my turnouts before clicking on this thread!! Much as I would love to jump into this one, I need to remind you all that heated political discussions are forbidden on Scubaboard. So please - play nice.
Click to expand...

When was that put into the TOS?

"While the debates may wax passionate, there is no need to revert to personal attacks."

Seems "heated" is ok, just not over the line, and I don't see anything about "political discussions" are forbidden. This is the non-diving related forum after all.
 
jonnythan:
No firemen were in any danger. They didn't have to rescue anyone. No fireman would have entered the building or endangered his life fighting this blaze.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but you're pretty off-base here. Talk to any fireman and they will tell you that *all* fires are dangerous and that any fire can turn deadly for those fighting it. That is why arson usually carries such stiff penalties.

This is very similar to laws in forested states that make the person responsible for any damage done by campfires. Think about it. You fully intend to have a simple campfire (not arson, by any stretch). But, the fire gets out of control and burns acres of forest, which cost money and endanger lives to fight. In most circumstances, you *can* be held liable for damages. I think this is most appropriate.

Who knew what was in that building? It could have had substances that were toxic or explosive. Was there a gas main near the buliding? That could have ignited prior to the fire dept response, etc.

I think it is appropriate that intentional acts carry a monetary punishment for damages done (think graffiti), on top of any criminal punishments...
 
Who held a gun to his head and forced him to get drunk and commit the crime? I do not allow being "drunk" which is a personal decision requiring action on his part to do, to be an excuse for poor or improper behavior. I keep hearing “you have to excuse “fill in the blank” because he was drunk. No I don’t, nor will I.

Who should pay the cost of the school repair, me the tax payer or the person who did the crime?

No, he played the game and danced to the tune, time to pay the piper in full. It is his life, his decision to break the law, his mess, let him deal with the consequences. If that takes the rest of his life, well he should have thought of that before he set the fire.

I will not waste one millisecond on pity for him or his future.
 
chrpai:
When was that put into the TOS?

"While the debates may wax passionate, there is no need to revert to personal attacks."

Seems "heated" is ok, just not over the line, and I don't see anything about "political discussions" are forbidden. This is the non-diving related forum after all.
Click to expand...

this might be the non-diving related forum. However, if people wish to discuss politics, religion and other issues that get very heated by nature there are newsgroups and other boards for those interests, IMHO. This is why I pulled a post that I made last night (within an hour of writing it). I didn't attack anyone or cross a line, but it may have lit some flames that didn't need to be lit.

Yes, I personally see that "heated discussions" are fine right up until they are non-productive and lead to oversensitive people defending themselves against attacks that haven't happened.

As far as this being the NDR forum, what is acceptable content in this case is and where that dynamic line exists is at the discretion of Pete and the moderators. I am cool with that and I believe that most of us are. If we weren't we wouldn't post here.
 
When I first read the post I thought Jonnythan was going off on the liberal bleeding heart again. Then I saw the "remind you that heated political debates are forbidden" and I couldn't help wonder "since when?" Sure there is a line to not cross, but how can you remind me of a rule that has never been posted? The TOS specifically states that "passions wax passionate"..... it doesn't say anywhere to avoid all topics that are left or right of center.

Personally I think Jonnythans opinion is wrong, but he has a right to express it. Or at least until someone claims its trolling and censors him.
 
For those who think firefighters don't risk injury at some fires, the 8 in this article were outside the building:
Backdraft
exerpt from the article:
The firefighters determined it was too hot and smokey to enter the church basement, so they opened the ground level windows and put in a third alarm, Riddle said.

The door to the basement felt cold but suddenly blew out when the backdraft occurred. A firefighter who had felt the door suffered burns to his hand because he had taken his glove off. Another firefighter was blown out of the cab of the engine, and another was blown across an alley.
Click to expand...
 
The guy was 18 years old. He is considered an adult in most states is he not? Let the punishment reflect the crime. I don't think as mentioned previously, death is in order, but a punishment is in order. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom