So a guy was growing pot. Technically, it's illegal. I won't debate the rights or wrongs of that right now. What hapened was, said pot grower's electric devices caused a fire, and two responding firemen died. It's a tragedy, and it sucks, but what it isn't is murder. Yup, he's being charged with murder for the death of the firemen because, in the words of the Philly DA, he's "reckless," "foolish" and "greedy."
Wow. Okay, point by point. Reckless? The firemen said the wiring of the lamps or fans failed and started the blaze. So, if anyone else had gone to Home Depot and beat that guy to whatever faulty appliance he had purchased, would they be less reckelss because they were after "legal" ventilation or illumination? Foolish: Lamps, fans, this guy knew what he was doing...how foolish could he be? Okay, that's lame sarcasm, but again, if internal wiring in a fan/lamp did this, you'd have to assume the malfunction and resulting fire would have happened under any circumstance, so the specifics of their usage should be ignored. Greedy: the article says nothing about the quantity of pot being grown. You need substantial lighting, ventilation, and irrigation for one plant or a thousand. If he were growing for himself, then greed doesn't factor, and you know the press would be quick to broadcast a major growing facility was busted, so I have to assume there weren't many plants. If I wanted to really get into it, I would argue that if growing for yourself (as this guy seems to have been doing) were legal, as it should be, then he wouldn't have been forced to hide his plants amongst, according to fire officials, the "dried out the wood in the closet" that caused the fire to spread so quickly. Then maybe no one would have died. But, I'm not here to rally for legalization, I want to focus on this ridiculous charge.
This really bugs me. To me, this is a jurisdiction acting tough on drugs by turning a tragedy into a farce. Stinks. Weed has never hurt anyone directly, and the amounts of indirect harm (traffic accidents, health issues, etc.) pale in comparison to the figures associated with alcohol and tobacco use. Certainly, it didn't kill those firemen.
Posted by Chris at August 23, 2004 02:11 AMI'm gonna agree with you on this one. Not so much on your backing up weed case, because I could care less about that, but charging him for murder is a bit extreme. I mean since it technically is illegal, and some fireman did lose their lives, they could throw the book at him regarding the pot charges, perhaps reckless endagerment?....but that would be a stretch I think. Hell even manslaughter might have a case, but for murder don't you have to have some sort of intent?
I need to watch law&order to find the answers. McCoy knows all!
Posted by: Nate at August 23, 2004 07:33 AMI think it's stupid as well. I feel for the fireman, and it's a shame that they had to die like this, but I don't think this should be murder because there was no express, or even implied, malice. From a legal sense, I believe they can get away with murder (sorry), because of the legal definition of 'constructive malice', which was apparantly made up for cases of negligence such as this:
Taken from this very informative blurb I had read last month, because it had to do with some guy who killed a pedestrian while watching a DVD in his car:
So [the courts] invented what they called 'constructive malice,' which is a legal fiction to enable them to say that there is malice even when there isn't. Constructive malice amounts to conduct so dangerous that it might as well be deliberate murder.
Posted by: Rick at August 23, 2004 09:38 AMI guess an interesting parallel might be if someone were making moonshine, distilling liquor, whatever, there was a fire, & a firemen died. Or someone started a fire by using illegal fireworks or started a fire by using an illegal container to get gas from a gas station where there were casualties. I dunno.
Posted by: John at August 23, 2004 11:49 AMJohn - in those paralelles, the "bad guy" causes death with the illegal device: the homemade still or the fireworks. This guy is being charged because lamps or fans failed. Had he been using them in the exact same manner in a home photo studio, for example, there wouldn't be a single criminal charge. I can't believe the presence of pot is grounds for a murder charge.
Posted by: Chris at August 23, 2004 12:40 PMYou can use a stove, a pressure cooker, all manner of things to make moonshine, any of which could fail and cause a fire with or without the presence of alcohol. I think the argument is that the accident ocurred while doing something illegal. For the record, I disagree with the murder charge. Anyway, I disagree with your "bad guy" assesment and will leave it at that.
Posted by: John at August 23, 2004 01:01 PM