[dawatchusay]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but it’s my understanding he didn’t start the fire that burned much of the Palisades; he started a fire that was put out (or at least was claimed to be so) which rekindled later and the rest is history.

[pie_flavor]

He started a continuous combustion reaction, and Malibu was destroyed by the continuance of that combustion reaction. Whether at some point the orange light it was giving off dimmed a bit is not very interesting. He committed the crime; then emergency services tried to mitigate the damage but failed. These are two fully separate things.

[jjk166]

> He started a continuous combustion reaction, and Malibu was destroyed by the continuance of that combustion reaction. Whether at some point the orange light it was giving off dimmed a bit is not very interesting.

So they can prove that this was one continuous combustion reaction? They can show beyond reasonable doubt that, despite the observations of the fire going out that convinced a team of firefighting professionals that it had stopped, it in fact continued and nothing else ignited a new fire in this location where fires naturally occur?

[nashashmi]

  Were not the LA fire occurring in three different locations at the same time?  It could not have been started by the same smoldering ash.

[etiennebausson]

The fire would not have rekindled had it not been started in the first place.

Liability would still be on him.

[irl_zebra]

This reasoning would lead to such absurd results in real life, and I am thankful no courts of any country or jurisdiction follow this logic.

For those reading: this is the difference between proximate cause and actual cause. Yes it's true that but for the fire being started in the first place, the fire would not have rekindled. But once professional firefighters arrive to put out the fire, it's not foreseeable by a normal person that the fire could be rekindled, so that person wouldn't be liable. The harm is too remote. The firefighters may even be grossly negligent because they are professionals, intervened, and the fire rekindled. A person negligently failing to fully extinguish their own fire would lead to liability, though.

[pie_flavor]

Extremely incorrect. He set the fire and the fire burned down Malibu. The presence of emergency services does not affect whether he set the fire that burned down Malibu. Whether they succeed or fail in their job of limiting the impact of your crime does not affect whether you committed the crime.

[chris_va]

(I am not a lawyer)

You may find the "Thin skull rule" interesting for criminal liability

[parineum]

Did he start the fire knowing it could kill people? Did his actions lead to the death of people?

That seems clear cut first degree murder to me, as I understand it (I'm not sure if it requires a specific person to be murdered but a pre-meditated act that kills people seems like it'd qualify to me).

[mschuster91]

> Did he start the fire knowing it could kill people?

Leaving aside the fact that we don't know yet if he actually started the fire: anyone who starts any fire without appropriate control measures (like extinguishers or containing the fire in something made to contain it) can theoretically be charged under the law for negligence - and practically will, if things go south.

And in a time where there's ample fuel for fires on the ground and the weather conditions are favorable to large fires (e.g. hot, low humidity, clear skies and strong winds) any kind of fire (even smoking - cigarette butts thrown out of car windows are a particularly bad fire source in Croatia) can quickly escalate into a full blown forest fire. Even things that one would not even perceive to be dangerous can cause fires... an all too common occurrence is a diesel car with a freshly regenerated DPF that's being parked on a parking lot that used to be overgrown with weed that's now dried out. The heat from the DPF is massive enough (> 500 °C) to lead to ignition of dried-out weeds (~ 300 °C).

So, it's not a stretch to assume that anyone starting an open fire should know it might escalate into a deadly disaster. And even the reckless cases that I mentioned (smokers, car drivers) can be charged as manslaughter here in Europe.

[bilekas]

> Did he start the fire knowing it could kill people? Did his actions lead to the death of people?

I think those things are to be decided in court. As for the charges and times, it's mentioned only the ranges for arson but there's nothing to stop them bringing charges of manslaughter for example. They'll build evidence and charge as such. It's the process.

[542354234235]

It is possible and has precedent. Raymond Lee Oyler was convicted of first-degree murder for starting the Esperanza Fire. Five firefighters died fighting the fire.

>Raymond Lee Oyler, 54, of Beaumont, was sentenced to death for starting the Esparanza Fire in October 2006. He was convicted of five counts of first-degree murder, 19 counts of arson and 16 counts of possessing incendiary devices. https://kesq.com/news/2025/05/05/ca-supreme-court-upholds-de...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Fire

[philwelch]

It’s certainly felony murder.