Arson Or "Playing With Fire?"

LA Times photo: Lawrence K. Ho

Our local fire still burns and the person who set it isn't caught. Fifty miles or so to the north, the Buckwheat fire in Agua Dulce fire is out, 21 homes are burned, and the person who set it has confessed. And that's just the start of the problem.

Prosecutors grappled on Wednesday with what charges, if any, to file against the 10-year-old boy who admitted he set a fire last week that charred more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes in northern Los Angeles County.

On the ranch northeast of Santa Clarita where the boy's parents helped care for horses, people who knew him said he had no history of problems and was distraught about the destruction.

"He's a child, and I certainly believe that he had no malice and I absolutely believe it was accidental," said Denise Tomey, executive director of Carousel Ranch, which offers equestrian therapy for physically and mentally disabled children.

The boy had no connection to the program but had lived in a trailer on the property in the Agua Dulce area for about a year with his parents, one of whom is a ranch caretaker.

Tomey called the boy's family "peaceful." (LA Times)

The boy admits to "playing with matches" while the winds howled around him. I remember playing with matches -- heck, even playing with blowtorches we created with my mom's hairspray and a lighter -- and as I recall, not one of my friends ever dropped out of this foolishness, saying, "Momma said ...." So I'm sympathetic, to a point.

It's the howling winds that get me. You have got to really want to start a fire to try it when the winds are gusting to 80 or 100 miles an hour, so I wonder at this boy's innocence.

Juvenile Hall is too much for a 10 year old, and would probably set arson into his genes. I'd rather see a process that intimidates: Statements, standing before a judge, fearing deeply ... then receiving mercy.

And then ten years or so of Reaganesque "trust but verify."

According to the LAT, the local record is mixed on youngsters who start fires:

Earlier this year, Los Angeles County prosecutors refused to file charges against two teenagers who touched off a blaze that charred 160 acres in the Hollywood Hills. The boys, who were visiting Los Angeles from Linden, Ill., were playing with a lighter in the back of the Oakwood apartments when they accidentally set twigs on fire. The flames spread up the hillside through deep vegetation. The boys, who turned themselves in to authorities, were not prosecuted.

But in Orange County, a 12-year-old girl was arrested Oct. 22 for allegedly setting a seven-acre fire in Anaheim. She remains in the custody of the Orange County Probation Department.

So the prosecutors will grapple, trying to look into the head of a 10 year old -- and we all know, for all their innocence, that 10 year olds are accomplished liars.

The other problem to grapple with is the civil liability that's now on this kid's parents' shoulders. By law, the couple, who live in a trailer on the ranch and serve as its caretakers, are liable for all the expenses of fighting the fire and replacing the losses of those whose homes burned.

This law's harsh application -- the kid did it; you're liable -- has always unsettled me. What if the parents knew something was twisted in the kid and had already spent thousands of dollars seeking treatment? Shouldn't that differentiate them from parents who just blew off their kid?

And what if the kid was innocent of malice? Why then are the parents guilty of a higher crime?

So here's a family that because of one moment's indiscretion by someone to young to have discretion has their lives hanging in the balance. Will normalcy ever return, or are they at the trailhead of a long, hellish trail?

Judges Gone Wild

Here's the sad, sad conclusion of DC Administrative Law Judge Roy (as in "destroy") Peterson's failed foray into consumer protection:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have closed and sold the shop involved in the dispute, their attorney said Wednesday.

The South Korean immigrants are citing a loss of revenue and the emotional strain of defending the lawsuit. They will focus their energy on another dry-cleaning shop they still own, said their attorney, Chris Manning.

"This is a truly tragic example of how devastating frivolous litigation can be to the American people and to small businesses," Manning said in a statement.

As Mark Steyn comments the the Corner:

The only way this is going to end is if John Edwards is elected President and one of the two Americas launches a class action suit against him for losing the Coatless Girl's coat.

Can There Be Justice For These Murders?

Vahik Farhadian was murdered Thursday night in LA, along with Manyam Masihi. Farhadian was the uncle of Incredible Daughter #1's recently ex-boyfriend.

He managed an apartment building in Burbank. He was an Armenian, a Christian, a man who came to America to become a part of the country, even as he lived within the warm familiarity of Burbank's large Armenian community.

Another resident of the building, Manyam Masihi, was also killed, and Farhadian's son Oshin was shot in the shoulder and is still hospitalized. Read the news report here.

I bring up this tragedy, that looms huge in the lives of three families, but will pass by unnoticed by America, because the murderer, an Armenian man named Rafael Shirinian, killed himself as police arrived, leaving me with a very big question I'd like your thoughts on: Was justice served?

The murders were, even by murder's low standard, extremely unnecessary. Shirinian went on his bloddy rampage (shooting Farhadian 11 times, although you wouldn't know that from the coverage) because Farhadian didn't have a parking space available for Shirinian at the apartment building.

(It was poor urban planning that killed these folks, but that's another story....)

Shirinian had been arguing and fighting about it for some time over the matter and seemed unable to take no for an answer. Finally, he snapped, shooting Vahik as he arrived back at the building from the grocery. Oshin took off into Masihi's appartment and escaped out the window with Masihi's two children. Shirinian killed Masihi after she warned off another person who was about to walk onto the scene. He shot at but missed that person, who fled.

All over a parking space!

And in the end, as police closed in, Shirinian pointed the gun at his chest and pulled the trigger. Police attempted to revive him, but he died.

The Farhadian family will now have no chance to see Shirinian stand trial and face charges for the murders he committed. They will not be able to face him, or tell the court the pain he caused. They will not see him hauled off in chains to prison, as he presumably would be, given the evidence. And they won't see him executed by the state.

Shirinian got off easy, although ID#1 points out that he did suffer more pain for longer with the gunshot to the chest than he would have experienced with a gunshot to the head. But is a few minutes of pain enough to provide justice?

Is the family actually better off, having avoiding defense attorney theatrics and the risk that the jury will not provide justice?

Are the courts an elemental and necessary component of justice? If they're not, would justice have been served if someone other than Shirinian had killed him? Finally, if justice was not served, is there any way the Farhadian family can find it? If not, what will the impact on them be?