But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
Bidwell Manson burnt in Chico by an arsonist. It is state property and yet Newsom has not stepped forward to rebuild it. Did he even have fire insurance on it?
Amen. The government isn't concerned with protecting people. Most of the time the police arrive after the crime. They're more concerned with poisoning people. But, your home is your castle, and your family is everything. Many people think the 2nd gives us the right to bear arms, when in fact, the 2nd denies the government the authority to infringe upon our Right to bear arms..small technicality. Every gun law in fact is illegal.
That is not a small technicality, that is the whole intent. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights were written to constrain the people, they were written to constrain government, and the BoR especially was written to put the government on notice that it could not interfere with our G_d-given/natural rights, and listed most of them - not in order of importance, as they are all important - and they should not be infringed in any way, for any excuse. Even felons should not lose the right to effective self-defense with a firearm. I say that as a former police officer.
But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
I’m glad you’re not affected by the new disease called Zoombiefied brain!
Seriously any awake person should know by now everything that’s happening is planned and by designed. Every system in the government is doing their scripted jobs. The plan to make the world population down to 500 million will continue. They will hit their goal by any means. The plan for digital and controlled world and ONE World Government is being activated.
Of course they have to annihilate billions of useless eaters and only left with people who can do the rest to maintain the planet for them but easy to control population.
No. Capture and charges are. STILL appropriate…until carrying gasoline, for example, is a capital offense, it’s not reasonable that we execute folks whose intentions may not always be known. What we NEED is for law enforcement to patrol fire prone areas… did you know that. los Angles TV weatherman predicted CATASTROPHIC fires due incoming weather conditions.
When was this predicted? Jan. 1. There was PLENTY of time to organize police, clear forest floor and brush, call on nearby states for help, and open the water from the North to briefly inconvenience the smelt fish, and basically make a GAME PLAN. The city got a clue on Jan. 2, but the Mayor went to Africa, anyway. No one did ANYTHING until fires were already out of control.
But shooting people who may appear suspicious looks a lot like citizen vigilantes tracking “thought crimes.” What if I just ran out of gas and am carrying a can to my car?
No. We don’t shoot people we don’t like the look of. Who thought up this response? I see people in the comments folks think this is a good idea. Who ARE you bloodthirsty people? What we NEED is proper staffing of law enforcement, and maybe special “deputies” in fire prone areas.
I'm not bloodthirty at all. If someone I see intentionally starting a fire near my house, I absolutely will defend myself, my family, and my property. An arsonist has no rights as far as I'm concerned. Especially in tropical force winds! As a Katrina and Ida survivor, "you loot, we shoot", is a way of life. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Each situation has to be measured as to…is it a capital offense? Setting a fire to burn your trash may be questionable ONLY in certain situations.
You’re on dangerous ground here. How do you know I don’t know a short cut to my car rather than walking a longer route on a highway just because it’s there?
You can hold them at gun point and you can tie them up if you like…until the police arrive. You can make a citizen’s arrest.
But going around killing folks at your own discretion is iffy at best. At present you may even be in trouble for shooting a home invader.
I assume, though, you’re speaking of a fire in progress and not someone you might shoot for throwing a lit cigarette on the ground. But you do understand that, depending how something is worded, a new law might cause unforeseen nuances and depend as much on the temperament of the shooter as the potential fire starter.
In the case of Clear and Present Danger the LA fires now are, the Sheriff won’t even charge someone carrying a blow torch in the woods because no fire was started.
IMHO, you’d have to watch them and see. What? Are you in a hurry to shoot them? Is your time too valuable to let it play out for the sake of being sure?
I’m not for gum control, but if people get the idea they can shoot at will, out in public, in circumstances that depend on discretion, IMHO, that’s asking for more trouble than you need.
Wrong. The issue is not intent to kill, it is the absolute lack of concern that someone COULD be killed. An arsonist setting the woods/forest/fields of grass on fire is not the same as a fire that escapes control through stupidity or lack of common sense. I burn my burnable trash in burn barrels with the use of rock screening (metal screen that is very thick, used for separating sizes of gravel or rock from sand or dirt) to keep embers from escaping - but NOT when it is windy, and I don't walk away from it and ignore it, plus I keep a hose handy. That is being responsible, and prepared to prevent a fire.
But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
“What if I just ran out of gas and am carrying a can to my car?” The you wouldn’t be out in the brush with incendiary devices. You’d be on a roadway. I’m undecided, but these are actions that can be predicted to cause death, not to mention destruction. Arsonists should all be detained for life. Like pedophilia, that propensity cannot be “educated away.”
And BTW, let us clear the d—- brush! 🤬 I’m sure the protected kangaroo rats would fare better without the fires! They’re rats! Don’t let the cuteness of the name fool you!
Nobody said shoot someone carrying gasoline. They would have to reasonably be in the act of arson or evading or confronting when interrupted in the act. Why would you jump to that conclusion?
Simple. If they ALREADY started the fire, why would you shoot them? How does that help anything but your own emotions? If you have a gun, capture them.
I am not making a legal recommendation here, but if they were shot they definitely couldn’t start another fire. And these fires are incidents of mass destruction.
Sure capture them, but shooting is a much bigger deterrent. It’s basically attempted mass murder, with mass property destruction and health impacts on top of that.
I guarantee you someone shooting an arsonist would have more to fear from California authorities than the actual arsonist, and that is backwards.
It stops them from doing it again, somewhere else, where more people - including women, children, and beloved pets could die. Think for a moment, Barbara. If you had any idea how many liberal judges allow killers to just walk free, or even out on bail, able to kill again (and so many have done just that), perhaps you would understand.
Simple: Take em out at the legs. They won't get far and/or will be easily identifiable when seeking medical attention. Then karma will do the rest of the job.
Unfortunately, if some woke judge/jury doesn't imprison you for years, you could lose still everything in a civil suit that would put you and your wife and children out on the street, homeless and hungry.
Actually the people need to take more interest in their communities. They could easily have taken care of their yards brush and more importantly gone to meetings with city or town officials. They could have seen the water being dumped into ocean- why because the reservoir had not cover! The cover on a reservoir is unnecessary.
As for shooting people - I am for protecting yourself, family, property, and others in need. Maybe you can’t tell an arsonist right away but you can perhaps ask the person with a gun in hand. Maybe the threat would stop them.
Proper staffing does help (as would not eliminating 1.8M from the FF budget!), but for Palisades at least, staffing would not have prevented a catastrophic fire. Limited perhaps, but not prevented. Dry brush in Santa Ana winds literally explode! Stop protecting the d—- kangaroo rats and let us clear the brush!
You could have had every speck of dry brush clear, 0 winds and a resrvoir full of water and these fires would have happened. Those fires were intentional. They are going to rebuild SmartLA28, in time for the 28 olympics (another demonic event, another time)
In Altadena (Pasadena) they've already said they won't be rebuilding single residence homes (15 min cities) go to c40.org and punch in 2030. Los angeles and you won't be ablr to consume meat or dairy and will be able to buy 3 clothing items per year. The level to which they intend to enslave people is beyond evil.
So hold them at gun point in a citizen’s arrest. That’s what was done RE: the guy with a torch. He’s in jail now for parole violation, I believe, right? So he’s been dealt with.
Let me get this straight. You’d shoot first with no questions asked because he “might” be a perp?
He didn’t start a fire. He hadn’t tried to start a fire.
Shooting people at YOUR discretion has profound, unknowns RE: a shooter’s leeway in deciding who lives and who dies, on the spur of the moment. Potentially, one could “get rid” of persons in questionable circumstances…kind of like “Fire rage” instead of “Road rage.”
And more creative folks might find ways to dispose of people they find a bother in their own lives…with no consequences. Do you realize how easy it would be to frame a guy you just shot dead …if you plant evidence in the middle of fire hysteria? Who’s to know? Dead men don’t testify.
There are so many reasons the law provides for citizen’s arrest… If you have a gun, you CAN use it to detain someone. Then if they try to run or overpower you, you could shoot them in nonfatal places. Just keep your distance so you can shoot again to stop them if necessary.
But the law has good reasons to forbid a discretionary “hang ‘em high” mob rule shooting.
Also, if many of these perps ARE migrants, who ARE organized to light fires at key ignition points, orchestrated by a central leadership, THOSE folks may begin to “carry,” too. Talk about escalation of harms!!
Some here have said there isn’t enough law enforcement in all 50 states to deal with ONE county in CA. Does that sound accurate to you?
Let me ask a simple question. Whatever happened to NEIGHBORHOOD WATCHES? We don’t need a nanny state which isn’t there for us. We need ORGANIZED CITIZENS. They could even be deputized in fire emergencies.
Deputizing citizens for fire safety is would also take a rework of law. Which do you want to do…kill people by changing the law…or catch them by deputized neighborhood watches …AND make it certain they WOULD BE CAUGHT, arrested, and incarcerated by changing the law. (I don’t think the law would even HAVE to be changed…just applied.)
You HAVE noticed that we’re on our own. How we handle taking responsibility for homes on OUR block, and block by block in all disaster communities…determines whether this country DOES become THE “Wild, Wild West,” where “shoot first and ask questions later” was recommended in this thread.
Shooting questionable folks, BEFORE questioning them would unravel into chaos, IMHO. They can shoot back! Are you looking for civil war?
Barbara, I understand you don't want to see indiscriminate shooting of people who could be innocent. But it is absolutely impossible to have law enforcement patrol wide open areas of wilderness or even just rural or wooded areas near towns and residences. The National Guard of all the states combined would not be enough. Having patrolled rural regions of San Diego County when I was in law enforcement, I can tell you it would never work, never be enough.
People who have set fires because they have personal/political issues they want to act upon have set many fires in California. Some have been proven to have set fires because they have been able to make thousands of dollars by having their personal trucks or other equipment rented by the US Forest Service or CDF (California Division of Forestry) to use when working big fires. I saw it in Northern California back in 1987 during fires in Siskiyou County and elsewhere.
If caught in the actual act of attempting to start a fire (other than a farmer or rancher using fire to clear weeds in his pastures - which he won't be doing during a dry windy period, that's a big give-away you're dealing with an arsonist) then the arsonist should be fair game. The threat to innocent lives, to pets and livestock, make it (IMO) moral to stop the arsonist. Finally, if you are in the country, there is always the old, traditional three "S's" (Shoot, Shovel, And Shut-up).
Obviously! It should be considered no different than any criminal pointing a gun with the intent to commit murder. How many people will be eventually found dead because of their actions?
Tides Foundation is a donor-directed philanthropy organization. They don't 'train' anybody. They make grants. Yes, one of the benefactors is a radical political activist-type and pulls al lot of weight in grant review meetings, but that does not condemn the entire organization. (I know first-hand of what I speak).
You don't know much, then I'm afraid. The Tides Foundation has funded and been responsible for many of the caravans assaulting our southern border even before the Biden/Obama administration opened our borders to all comers, and has even flown hundreds of thousands into our country. Many of those illegals have been criminals, including MS-13 and cartel members, many freed from their country's prisons to empty them out and send them to us.
In the greater Los Angeles area there are roughly 200,000 homeless people that, when nighttime temperatures drop into the 40s, will start fires to stay warm. This isn’t conjecture. The homeless man “caught” with the propane torch may have been carrying standard kit. Or not. As to the cause of the fires, public officials are exonerated by climate change, arson and Santa Anna winds. As to the response to the fires, they are at least partially exonerated by DEI, for the simple reason that DEI is something that 80-90% of Los Angelites bought into, voted for, and heartily approve of. Do they now no longer support it? Highly unlikely
All of that is cover for land grabs and burning people out. Check out c40. Punch in LA and tou will see their whole plan. Zero meat and dairynconsumed, 3 clothing items per year. Altadena has already said they won't be rebuilding single family residences. Smart cities, digitial cirrency, vax passports, slavery.
I'd say we certainly need to give shooting arsonists first ask questions later real consideration. After all, in the context of what is going on in LA setting a fire can amount to the equivalent of an act of war. And if you are a "burn it all down" radical you've already stated your war intentions
Considering that setting wild fires is tantamount to an act of war shooting an arsonist should not be out of the question. (I don't think we need to get in to "what is the legal definition of an act of war, pretty sure people know what I am getting at)
In places like the LA fires the arsonist is not only trying to destroy property, the politically motivated ones are trying to destroy a whole civilization and way of life. Political radicals have pretty much gone on record saying they'd like to "burn it all down". The motive seems clear to me. Are we to stand by and just watch them burn it down with nothing to fear but a no cash bail hearing and get out before the cop finishes writing up the complaint? If they are caught in the act they best know it may be their last act else what is the deterrence? And if the arsonists are hired Real Estate interests thugs same rule applies. It's an act of war so be fore warned your ass is on the line.
If we don't start getting hard core about this stuff it is almost a "get out of jail free" invitation to loons and terrorists across the world to just start burning it all down
It is true that terrorism must be fought. Wisely. Hopefully the new administration will begin to remove the actual terrorists, whether they are on the street or in Sacramento or LA City Hall.
It is a delicate balance between a well running safe high trust community and roving bands of Mad Max style looters. The safe well functioning high trust communities depend as much on the culture of the community as on the policing and public policy. Police can't do it all. Particularly in the context of overly onerous impediments to enforcement and public policies intentionally designed to "burn it all down". Before you know it that high trust cohesiveness is gone and soon as there is a crisis it can revert to Mad Max. So you need to choose carefully at what point it is time to bring down the hammer and at what point it is OK to be a bit more genteel.
Yes. Well stated. The need to build a functioning civil society has been overlooked. I've tried to plumb the workings of such efforts, having studied various approaches. I believe I've hit upon a protocol that can be effective that I call Divine Collaboration. (See the Substack of the same name.) For the most part, however, our peacemaking and civil society building efforts have been co-opted by those who have not a clue.
I'm less generous than you. I agree that there are many who don't have a clue but they are just the contemptible useful idiots that even the leadership of their movements look down at. They are happy to use them but will be just as happy AND ANXIOUS to discard them soon as they are of no use. Ultimately the lefty leadership want to live in the hoods currently occupied by the people they tell the useful idiots they hate while hating the idiots also
I feel that much of our societal leadership has been co-opted by people with way more than a clue. They not only have a clue, they have an ideology AND A PLAN as laid out by the likes of Marx & Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals and "never let a crisis go to waste". Many like Bill Ayers for example are upper crust wealthy intellectuals who got notches on their belt actually causing harm in the sixties but when it got too hot they were happy to let their "comrades" go to jail or get blown up trying to make bombs (you know because they are comrades and comrades are nothing if not treacherous and disloyal). So they were OK with their SDS and Weather Underground comrades going to jail and ignominy while doing a strategic retreat to academia to pollute our kids and live to fight another day. So they could (for example) help mentor Barack Obama like Bill Ayers and his consort Bernadine Dohrn (another woke upper-class white Jewish girl) did. Yes they are all so righteous. This stuff is as much religion as ideology because it is multi-generational and is passed down to the kiddies so they can become disaster "public servants" in places like San Francisco (can we say Chesa Boudin). The Ayers adopted Chesa after his parents were put away for murder while members of the Bill Ayers founded Weather Underground the Ayers adopted him and raised him to be a lefty just like biological and step mommy and daddy. So they are still out there infesting and infiltrating at every level. For example now that Papa Soros is aging out his son is hooking up with Huma Abedin proud daughter of a Muslim Brotherhood mom because, .. well, not because the sparks are flying. I bet the one thing they really have in common is hatred for the west. But in see no evil America it is always "nothing to see here" because seeing stuff as it is is judgmental
Many of these people who you see turning up in "leadership" are bust out ideologues often with multi-generation pedigrees and they've stated REPEATEDLY that they hate our society our culture and indeed probably themselves (because lots of them are white liberals who want to punish whitey). Exhibit A is the mayor of LA. Nice pedigree for a leader of one of the largest American cities. Something uniquely sick about the west is we knowingly elect and empower those we know hate us and want us gone. What is even more inscrutable are the number of white people who behave the same way. If they hate themselves so much and are so okay with creating a society that will put their daughters at risk of gang rape why don't they be honorable and just light THEMSELVES on fire? But nope. When it comes to themselves it's OK to spew the hatred because they are convinced that they are the good guys and will never see the blow back of the white Christian hatred they helped stir up. They think when the Mad Max chaos they help unleash is actually unleashed they will be safe because the Mad Max gangs will see them as "the white Christian good guys". Suspect they'll be in for a harsh lesson in reality
Yes. I agree with your analysis. I was pointing out the lack of those trained and prepared to handle that situation. Trained and prepared to create true and effective platforms for civil society. While our clergy should be a major force for positive change, they remain untrained and ineffective, even a roadblock. The system I have hammered out through experience addresses that problem.
No, 80% of the LA County fires are started by the homeless who have obvious mental and drug issues. The laws should be changed so that arrest and incarceration to get clean or put on medications until stable is the normal and mandatory response. If you can see a person trying to start a fire, there are other means to deter the process until Police arrive. Even changing the Law to allow deadly force would not protect the shooter from the bankruptcy induced progressive lawsuits that would follow. Sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't be a deterrent to the addicted or mentally ill.
A tricky question. Shooting someone involves taking a life. That should never be done with ease unless provoked to defend oneself, personally. We are all getting too happy to kill people. Whether through medical protocols and drugs designed to kill; through ongoing, pointless wars; or loosey goosey definitions for stopping a criminal. Fires destroy lives and livelihoods. They also sometimes kill people. Was the killing of those people intentional or a by-product of the action of setting the fire. It’s not a direct, personal threat to oneself or another although it can become a lethal action for some. If someone approaches me or a loved one in my field of view and influence with gun raised, I have the right and duty to shoot first and ask questions later. At least in some states. CA isn’t one of those states. It seems to protect criminals I the act of criminal behavior. This means that in CA, the shooter is going to jail while the arsonist will be lavished with sympathetic attention.
If caught, I would hope a jury finds such a monster guilty of many charges and makes sure they never see freedom again. But in a state where that most likely isn’t going to happen, while a shoot first defender of society is most likely to be the one imprisoned for life, I would think about this carefully. No good, black and white answers in my mind.
no better way to destroy humanity but through humanity hard wired to kill itself..i agree,we've all become to trigger happy in our fantasies of going back to a simpler time.
I mean, if you can literally see someone leaning over with a lit fire in their hand trying to light a building or a field on fire, then you have time to yell, stop the actions, or run to put out the fire. Time to subdue the arsonist. Time to call the cops or neighbors. Time to warn the people in the vicinity who are at risk.
I’ve seen drunks on the road, endangering others on the road. Should I be allowed to shoot them?
(No! And what I did do was call 911, and follow their instructions to tail the offender at a distance with my hazards on until the cops arrived on the highway to pull him over.)
Not to quibble, but if winds are high you will probably not "run to put out the fire". I say this based upon experience managing my 25 acre forest in northern california and having built and burned at least one thousand debris piles and one multi-acre controlled underburn. It is amazing how quick fire will move and get a bit or a lot out of control with dry and windy conditions. Very stressful! (But I agree, don't shoot the arsonists, even the homeless; first arrest and put in jail and get them un-strung out...)
Sounds like a very bad idea. Would only provide an excuse for the criminal class to pick off those still trying to survive in areas that have gone quite mad. Best way to protect yourself is to GET THE HELL OUT of areas that have gone berserk. One of the "rules of the road" of owning a firearm is that you do not put yourself in harm's way if you can avoid it. You do not put yourself in places or situations where you might have to use deadly force.
How about letting us clear the brush that is protected because it is kangaroo rat habitat! I’m sure the rats would be more likely to survive without the infernos!
Absolutely because multiple lives, human and non-human are endangered and the arsonist doesn't give a rat's ass about it. Does anyone think it's fair that they can kill, maim, hurt, and destroy other lives?
IT’s one thing if an intruder enters your property and threatens you or your family, but making it legal to shoot a firearm to stop an arsonist would open a Pandora’s box of actions that would likely have endless collateral damage. Even in today’s world where every cell phone gives us instant witness to just about everything, recording a legal kill could lead to a miss with an unintended consequence, perhaps actually end up starting a fire as a result. There are just too many things that could go wrong, even with the most noblest of intentions. Stop and detain the arsonist until the authorities arrive, that’s where your civic duty starts and ends. Even cops make mistakes, but they have internal investigations and will answer for their discretions within the system. Let’s use common sense and attempt to restore order to our society. We’ll all be better off in the long run.
We are entering an unprecedented age of individualism, one intrinsically linked to melancholy and creative inspiration. This shift, while potentially fertile ground for creativity, carries profound risks for those unaware of its psychological mechanics.
The increasing instability of modern society, further intensified now by synthetic technological interventions in human health, is creating a dangerous psychological landscape. Each successive generation emerges with greater internal instability, manifesting as a collective death wish - a desire to destroy that stems from deep personal despair.
This mindset manifests in the archetypal lone attacker who, consumed by despair, seeks to maximize destruction in their final act of defiance.
This destructive impulse was also powerfully depicted in 'Fight Club's' conclusion where individuals systematically demolish societal monuments, as a response to a profound inner toxicity and spite toward established orders.
Therefore, the severity of these emerging conditions demands equally severe responses.
shooting could actually cause a fire. Bringing back trained volunteer firefighting teams would be a different approach with less controversy. Fires can be controlled when they are small.
There’s no such thing as a “small fire” in that brush with Santa Ana winds. They literally explode! Lived it (barely)! Anyone in SoCal has utmost respect for those indescribably ferocious winds. All the firefighters in the world could not have stopped Palisades. IDK about the others.
If you have and/or carry a weapon you should be proficient enough to wound someone and not kill them. If that’s an arsonist, rack it and aim carefully.
Trying to just wound someone with a gun is something that works in the movies. In real life, it's a good way to miss your target. And even if you do hit someone with a bullet with intent to wound, it can still kill them. In real life, firing a weapon at anyone risks the death of that person.
yes. it is obvious that you should be able to protect yourself, your family and your property when the government can't.
Government can't.... or won't.
But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
We “should”Shoot anyone starting fires with the intent to destroy…. Anyone.
Bidwell Manson burnt in Chico by an arsonist. It is state property and yet Newsom has not stepped forward to rebuild it. Did he even have fire insurance on it?
Amen. The government isn't concerned with protecting people. Most of the time the police arrive after the crime. They're more concerned with poisoning people. But, your home is your castle, and your family is everything. Many people think the 2nd gives us the right to bear arms, when in fact, the 2nd denies the government the authority to infringe upon our Right to bear arms..small technicality. Every gun law in fact is illegal.
That is not a small technicality, that is the whole intent. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights were written to constrain the people, they were written to constrain government, and the BoR especially was written to put the government on notice that it could not interfere with our G_d-given/natural rights, and listed most of them - not in order of importance, as they are all important - and they should not be infringed in any way, for any excuse. Even felons should not lose the right to effective self-defense with a firearm. I say that as a former police officer.
I agree 100%
But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
It is the government. Incompetence? Manipulation? New world order? We don’t know for sure. But it was the citizens that elected these evil bozos.
But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
Even more appropriate.
I’m glad you’re not affected by the new disease called Zoombiefied brain!
Seriously any awake person should know by now everything that’s happening is planned and by designed. Every system in the government is doing their scripted jobs. The plan to make the world population down to 500 million will continue. They will hit their goal by any means. The plan for digital and controlled world and ONE World Government is being activated.
Of course they have to annihilate billions of useless eaters and only left with people who can do the rest to maintain the planet for them but easy to control population.
👍 way ahead of you. This plan was activated decades ago.
No. Capture and charges are. STILL appropriate…until carrying gasoline, for example, is a capital offense, it’s not reasonable that we execute folks whose intentions may not always be known. What we NEED is for law enforcement to patrol fire prone areas… did you know that. los Angles TV weatherman predicted CATASTROPHIC fires due incoming weather conditions.
When was this predicted? Jan. 1. There was PLENTY of time to organize police, clear forest floor and brush, call on nearby states for help, and open the water from the North to briefly inconvenience the smelt fish, and basically make a GAME PLAN. The city got a clue on Jan. 2, but the Mayor went to Africa, anyway. No one did ANYTHING until fires were already out of control.
But shooting people who may appear suspicious looks a lot like citizen vigilantes tracking “thought crimes.” What if I just ran out of gas and am carrying a can to my car?
No. We don’t shoot people we don’t like the look of. Who thought up this response? I see people in the comments folks think this is a good idea. Who ARE you bloodthirsty people? What we NEED is proper staffing of law enforcement, and maybe special “deputies” in fire prone areas.
I'm not bloodthirty at all. If someone I see intentionally starting a fire near my house, I absolutely will defend myself, my family, and my property. An arsonist has no rights as far as I'm concerned. Especially in tropical force winds! As a Katrina and Ida survivor, "you loot, we shoot", is a way of life. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Each situation has to be measured as to…is it a capital offense? Setting a fire to burn your trash may be questionable ONLY in certain situations.
You’re on dangerous ground here. How do you know I don’t know a short cut to my car rather than walking a longer route on a highway just because it’s there?
You can hold them at gun point and you can tie them up if you like…until the police arrive. You can make a citizen’s arrest.
But going around killing folks at your own discretion is iffy at best. At present you may even be in trouble for shooting a home invader.
I assume, though, you’re speaking of a fire in progress and not someone you might shoot for throwing a lit cigarette on the ground. But you do understand that, depending how something is worded, a new law might cause unforeseen nuances and depend as much on the temperament of the shooter as the potential fire starter.
In the case of Clear and Present Danger the LA fires now are, the Sheriff won’t even charge someone carrying a blow torch in the woods because no fire was started.
IMHO, you’d have to watch them and see. What? Are you in a hurry to shoot them? Is your time too valuable to let it play out for the sake of being sure?
I’m not for gum control, but if people get the idea they can shoot at will, out in public, in circumstances that depend on discretion, IMHO, that’s asking for more trouble than you need.
Just like the drones if they are close enough to my house I am going to try to shoot them down
Yes, it's possible you could die in the fire so it would be murder.
Murder suggests premeditation. Unless the arsonist could be reasonably sure people would be killed - you cannot execute a mentally ill person.
And, if they were being paid by somebody to carry out the act, it is them we need to prosecute.
Wrong. The issue is not intent to kill, it is the absolute lack of concern that someone COULD be killed. An arsonist setting the woods/forest/fields of grass on fire is not the same as a fire that escapes control through stupidity or lack of common sense. I burn my burnable trash in burn barrels with the use of rock screening (metal screen that is very thick, used for separating sizes of gravel or rock from sand or dirt) to keep embers from escaping - but NOT when it is windy, and I don't walk away from it and ignore it, plus I keep a hose handy. That is being responsible, and prepared to prevent a fire.
But what if it’s the government ?? Let’s not forget the government Global Smart Cities plan! They have to wipe out old towns to completely start a digitallized controlled town!! They have to bring in the New World Order!
Might be a bit of a detriment too.
“What if I just ran out of gas and am carrying a can to my car?” The you wouldn’t be out in the brush with incendiary devices. You’d be on a roadway. I’m undecided, but these are actions that can be predicted to cause death, not to mention destruction. Arsonists should all be detained for life. Like pedophilia, that propensity cannot be “educated away.”
And BTW, let us clear the d—- brush! 🤬 I’m sure the protected kangaroo rats would fare better without the fires! They’re rats! Don’t let the cuteness of the name fool you!
Nobody said shoot someone carrying gasoline. They would have to reasonably be in the act of arson or evading or confronting when interrupted in the act. Why would you jump to that conclusion?
Simple. If they ALREADY started the fire, why would you shoot them? How does that help anything but your own emotions? If you have a gun, capture them.
I am not making a legal recommendation here, but if they were shot they definitely couldn’t start another fire. And these fires are incidents of mass destruction.
Sure capture them, but shooting is a much bigger deterrent. It’s basically attempted mass murder, with mass property destruction and health impacts on top of that.
I guarantee you someone shooting an arsonist would have more to fear from California authorities than the actual arsonist, and that is backwards.
It stops them from doing it again, somewhere else, where more people - including women, children, and beloved pets could die. Think for a moment, Barbara. If you had any idea how many liberal judges allow killers to just walk free, or even out on bail, able to kill again (and so many have done just that), perhaps you would understand.
What if you catch them in the act of starting a fire?
Simple: Take em out at the legs. They won't get far and/or will be easily identifiable when seeking medical attention. Then karma will do the rest of the job.
Take a photo first while they are doing the act because you can get jailed by killing the perpetrator. They can just say he or she is mentally ill
Unfortunately, if some woke judge/jury doesn't imprison you for years, you could lose still everything in a civil suit that would put you and your wife and children out on the street, homeless and hungry.
Actually the people need to take more interest in their communities. They could easily have taken care of their yards brush and more importantly gone to meetings with city or town officials. They could have seen the water being dumped into ocean- why because the reservoir had not cover! The cover on a reservoir is unnecessary.
As for shooting people - I am for protecting yourself, family, property, and others in need. Maybe you can’t tell an arsonist right away but you can perhaps ask the person with a gun in hand. Maybe the threat would stop them.
Proper staffing does help (as would not eliminating 1.8M from the FF budget!), but for Palisades at least, staffing would not have prevented a catastrophic fire. Limited perhaps, but not prevented. Dry brush in Santa Ana winds literally explode! Stop protecting the d—- kangaroo rats and let us clear the brush!
You could have had every speck of dry brush clear, 0 winds and a resrvoir full of water and these fires would have happened. Those fires were intentional. They are going to rebuild SmartLA28, in time for the 28 olympics (another demonic event, another time)
In Altadena (Pasadena) they've already said they won't be rebuilding single residence homes (15 min cities) go to c40.org and punch in 2030. Los angeles and you won't be ablr to consume meat or dairy and will be able to buy 3 clothing items per year. The level to which they intend to enslave people is beyond evil.
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=943736&post_id=154397962&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1n82mw&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo5OTQ3NDAwOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTU0Mzk3OTYyLCJpYXQiOjE3MzYzNzI1NjgsImV4cCI6MTczODk2NDU2OCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTk0MzczNiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.1GOJVIAsJYNQ8CTnm0YiO5IDEa2JGPC_T0ifpG-DIbg
So hold them at gun point in a citizen’s arrest. That’s what was done RE: the guy with a torch. He’s in jail now for parole violation, I believe, right? So he’s been dealt with.
Let me get this straight. You’d shoot first with no questions asked because he “might” be a perp?
He didn’t start a fire. He hadn’t tried to start a fire.
Shooting people at YOUR discretion has profound, unknowns RE: a shooter’s leeway in deciding who lives and who dies, on the spur of the moment. Potentially, one could “get rid” of persons in questionable circumstances…kind of like “Fire rage” instead of “Road rage.”
And more creative folks might find ways to dispose of people they find a bother in their own lives…with no consequences. Do you realize how easy it would be to frame a guy you just shot dead …if you plant evidence in the middle of fire hysteria? Who’s to know? Dead men don’t testify.
There are so many reasons the law provides for citizen’s arrest… If you have a gun, you CAN use it to detain someone. Then if they try to run or overpower you, you could shoot them in nonfatal places. Just keep your distance so you can shoot again to stop them if necessary.
But the law has good reasons to forbid a discretionary “hang ‘em high” mob rule shooting.
Also, if many of these perps ARE migrants, who ARE organized to light fires at key ignition points, orchestrated by a central leadership, THOSE folks may begin to “carry,” too. Talk about escalation of harms!!
Some here have said there isn’t enough law enforcement in all 50 states to deal with ONE county in CA. Does that sound accurate to you?
Let me ask a simple question. Whatever happened to NEIGHBORHOOD WATCHES? We don’t need a nanny state which isn’t there for us. We need ORGANIZED CITIZENS. They could even be deputized in fire emergencies.
Deputizing citizens for fire safety is would also take a rework of law. Which do you want to do…kill people by changing the law…or catch them by deputized neighborhood watches …AND make it certain they WOULD BE CAUGHT, arrested, and incarcerated by changing the law. (I don’t think the law would even HAVE to be changed…just applied.)
You HAVE noticed that we’re on our own. How we handle taking responsibility for homes on OUR block, and block by block in all disaster communities…determines whether this country DOES become THE “Wild, Wild West,” where “shoot first and ask questions later” was recommended in this thread.
Shooting questionable folks, BEFORE questioning them would unravel into chaos, IMHO. They can shoot back! Are you looking for civil war?
When seconds count, the authorities are minutes or hours away, if they bother to come at all.
Reminder- police come AFTER a crime is committed.
Thank you for your insights. Sincerely appreciated. I’m reading them several times to gain perspective.
So! The Wild, Wild West! is your answer. Trouble with that is, history shows, it contributes to a more lawless political mindset.
At least in the movies Lynch Mobs were frowned upon.
Barbara, I understand you don't want to see indiscriminate shooting of people who could be innocent. But it is absolutely impossible to have law enforcement patrol wide open areas of wilderness or even just rural or wooded areas near towns and residences. The National Guard of all the states combined would not be enough. Having patrolled rural regions of San Diego County when I was in law enforcement, I can tell you it would never work, never be enough.
People who have set fires because they have personal/political issues they want to act upon have set many fires in California. Some have been proven to have set fires because they have been able to make thousands of dollars by having their personal trucks or other equipment rented by the US Forest Service or CDF (California Division of Forestry) to use when working big fires. I saw it in Northern California back in 1987 during fires in Siskiyou County and elsewhere.
If caught in the actual act of attempting to start a fire (other than a farmer or rancher using fire to clear weeds in his pastures - which he won't be doing during a dry windy period, that's a big give-away you're dealing with an arsonist) then the arsonist should be fair game. The threat to innocent lives, to pets and livestock, make it (IMO) moral to stop the arsonist. Finally, if you are in the country, there is always the old, traditional three "S's" (Shoot, Shovel, And Shut-up).
Obviously! It should be considered no different than any criminal pointing a gun with the intent to commit murder. How many people will be eventually found dead because of their actions?
It is alleged that the TIDES Foundation trains activists to create terror with fire.
Tides Foundation is a donor-directed philanthropy organization. They don't 'train' anybody. They make grants. Yes, one of the benefactors is a radical political activist-type and pulls al lot of weight in grant review meetings, but that does not condemn the entire organization. (I know first-hand of what I speak).
You don't know much, then I'm afraid. The Tides Foundation has funded and been responsible for many of the caravans assaulting our southern border even before the Biden/Obama administration opened our borders to all comers, and has even flown hundreds of thousands into our country. Many of those illegals have been criminals, including MS-13 and cartel members, many freed from their country's prisons to empty them out and send them to us.
Besides changing the subject twice, of course you have first-hand and/or irrefutable proof about money streams to back up your claims? Sure you do.
Why is it you fools always insist on proof when you show none yourselves. And actually I DO. Show me yours, I will show you mine.
In the greater Los Angeles area there are roughly 200,000 homeless people that, when nighttime temperatures drop into the 40s, will start fires to stay warm. This isn’t conjecture. The homeless man “caught” with the propane torch may have been carrying standard kit. Or not. As to the cause of the fires, public officials are exonerated by climate change, arson and Santa Anna winds. As to the response to the fires, they are at least partially exonerated by DEI, for the simple reason that DEI is something that 80-90% of Los Angelites bought into, voted for, and heartily approve of. Do they now no longer support it? Highly unlikely
All of that is cover for land grabs and burning people out. Check out c40. Punch in LA and tou will see their whole plan. Zero meat and dairynconsumed, 3 clothing items per year. Altadena has already said they won't be rebuilding single family residences. Smart cities, digitial cirrency, vax passports, slavery.
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=943736&post_id=154397962&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1n82mw&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo5OTQ3NDAwOCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTU0Mzk3OTYyLCJpYXQiOjE3MzYzNzI1NjgsImV4cCI6MTczODk2NDU2OCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTk0MzczNiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.1GOJVIAsJYNQ8CTnm0YiO5IDEa2JGPC_T0ifpG-DIbg
I'd say we certainly need to give shooting arsonists first ask questions later real consideration. After all, in the context of what is going on in LA setting a fire can amount to the equivalent of an act of war. And if you are a "burn it all down" radical you've already stated your war intentions
Considering that setting wild fires is tantamount to an act of war shooting an arsonist should not be out of the question. (I don't think we need to get in to "what is the legal definition of an act of war, pretty sure people know what I am getting at)
In places like the LA fires the arsonist is not only trying to destroy property, the politically motivated ones are trying to destroy a whole civilization and way of life. Political radicals have pretty much gone on record saying they'd like to "burn it all down". The motive seems clear to me. Are we to stand by and just watch them burn it down with nothing to fear but a no cash bail hearing and get out before the cop finishes writing up the complaint? If they are caught in the act they best know it may be their last act else what is the deterrence? And if the arsonists are hired Real Estate interests thugs same rule applies. It's an act of war so be fore warned your ass is on the line.
If we don't start getting hard core about this stuff it is almost a "get out of jail free" invitation to loons and terrorists across the world to just start burning it all down
It is true that terrorism must be fought. Wisely. Hopefully the new administration will begin to remove the actual terrorists, whether they are on the street or in Sacramento or LA City Hall.
It is a delicate balance between a well running safe high trust community and roving bands of Mad Max style looters. The safe well functioning high trust communities depend as much on the culture of the community as on the policing and public policy. Police can't do it all. Particularly in the context of overly onerous impediments to enforcement and public policies intentionally designed to "burn it all down". Before you know it that high trust cohesiveness is gone and soon as there is a crisis it can revert to Mad Max. So you need to choose carefully at what point it is time to bring down the hammer and at what point it is OK to be a bit more genteel.
Yes. Well stated. The need to build a functioning civil society has been overlooked. I've tried to plumb the workings of such efforts, having studied various approaches. I believe I've hit upon a protocol that can be effective that I call Divine Collaboration. (See the Substack of the same name.) For the most part, however, our peacemaking and civil society building efforts have been co-opted by those who have not a clue.
I'm less generous than you. I agree that there are many who don't have a clue but they are just the contemptible useful idiots that even the leadership of their movements look down at. They are happy to use them but will be just as happy AND ANXIOUS to discard them soon as they are of no use. Ultimately the lefty leadership want to live in the hoods currently occupied by the people they tell the useful idiots they hate while hating the idiots also
I feel that much of our societal leadership has been co-opted by people with way more than a clue. They not only have a clue, they have an ideology AND A PLAN as laid out by the likes of Marx & Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals and "never let a crisis go to waste". Many like Bill Ayers for example are upper crust wealthy intellectuals who got notches on their belt actually causing harm in the sixties but when it got too hot they were happy to let their "comrades" go to jail or get blown up trying to make bombs (you know because they are comrades and comrades are nothing if not treacherous and disloyal). So they were OK with their SDS and Weather Underground comrades going to jail and ignominy while doing a strategic retreat to academia to pollute our kids and live to fight another day. So they could (for example) help mentor Barack Obama like Bill Ayers and his consort Bernadine Dohrn (another woke upper-class white Jewish girl) did. Yes they are all so righteous. This stuff is as much religion as ideology because it is multi-generational and is passed down to the kiddies so they can become disaster "public servants" in places like San Francisco (can we say Chesa Boudin). The Ayers adopted Chesa after his parents were put away for murder while members of the Bill Ayers founded Weather Underground the Ayers adopted him and raised him to be a lefty just like biological and step mommy and daddy. So they are still out there infesting and infiltrating at every level. For example now that Papa Soros is aging out his son is hooking up with Huma Abedin proud daughter of a Muslim Brotherhood mom because, .. well, not because the sparks are flying. I bet the one thing they really have in common is hatred for the west. But in see no evil America it is always "nothing to see here" because seeing stuff as it is is judgmental
Many of these people who you see turning up in "leadership" are bust out ideologues often with multi-generation pedigrees and they've stated REPEATEDLY that they hate our society our culture and indeed probably themselves (because lots of them are white liberals who want to punish whitey). Exhibit A is the mayor of LA. Nice pedigree for a leader of one of the largest American cities. Something uniquely sick about the west is we knowingly elect and empower those we know hate us and want us gone. What is even more inscrutable are the number of white people who behave the same way. If they hate themselves so much and are so okay with creating a society that will put their daughters at risk of gang rape why don't they be honorable and just light THEMSELVES on fire? But nope. When it comes to themselves it's OK to spew the hatred because they are convinced that they are the good guys and will never see the blow back of the white Christian hatred they helped stir up. They think when the Mad Max chaos they help unleash is actually unleashed they will be safe because the Mad Max gangs will see them as "the white Christian good guys". Suspect they'll be in for a harsh lesson in reality
Yes. I agree with your analysis. I was pointing out the lack of those trained and prepared to handle that situation. Trained and prepared to create true and effective platforms for civil society. While our clergy should be a major force for positive change, they remain untrained and ineffective, even a roadblock. The system I have hammered out through experience addresses that problem.
'But in see no evil America it is always "nothing to see hear" because seeing stuff as it is is judgmental' yes..
No, 80% of the LA County fires are started by the homeless who have obvious mental and drug issues. The laws should be changed so that arrest and incarceration to get clean or put on medications until stable is the normal and mandatory response. If you can see a person trying to start a fire, there are other means to deter the process until Police arrive. Even changing the Law to allow deadly force would not protect the shooter from the bankruptcy induced progressive lawsuits that would follow. Sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't be a deterrent to the addicted or mentally ill.
Dick Minnis removingthecataract.substack.com
And incarceration for life for proven arsonists.
A tricky question. Shooting someone involves taking a life. That should never be done with ease unless provoked to defend oneself, personally. We are all getting too happy to kill people. Whether through medical protocols and drugs designed to kill; through ongoing, pointless wars; or loosey goosey definitions for stopping a criminal. Fires destroy lives and livelihoods. They also sometimes kill people. Was the killing of those people intentional or a by-product of the action of setting the fire. It’s not a direct, personal threat to oneself or another although it can become a lethal action for some. If someone approaches me or a loved one in my field of view and influence with gun raised, I have the right and duty to shoot first and ask questions later. At least in some states. CA isn’t one of those states. It seems to protect criminals I the act of criminal behavior. This means that in CA, the shooter is going to jail while the arsonist will be lavished with sympathetic attention.
If caught, I would hope a jury finds such a monster guilty of many charges and makes sure they never see freedom again. But in a state where that most likely isn’t going to happen, while a shoot first defender of society is most likely to be the one imprisoned for life, I would think about this carefully. No good, black and white answers in my mind.
no better way to destroy humanity but through humanity hard wired to kill itself..i agree,we've all become to trigger happy in our fantasies of going back to a simpler time.
Man, I think no.
I mean, if you can literally see someone leaning over with a lit fire in their hand trying to light a building or a field on fire, then you have time to yell, stop the actions, or run to put out the fire. Time to subdue the arsonist. Time to call the cops or neighbors. Time to warn the people in the vicinity who are at risk.
I’ve seen drunks on the road, endangering others on the road. Should I be allowed to shoot them?
(No! And what I did do was call 911, and follow their instructions to tail the offender at a distance with my hazards on until the cops arrived on the highway to pull him over.)
Not to quibble, but if winds are high you will probably not "run to put out the fire". I say this based upon experience managing my 25 acre forest in northern california and having built and burned at least one thousand debris piles and one multi-acre controlled underburn. It is amazing how quick fire will move and get a bit or a lot out of control with dry and windy conditions. Very stressful! (But I agree, don't shoot the arsonists, even the homeless; first arrest and put in jail and get them un-strung out...)
Good point, but I’m thinking of a “neighborhood fire” like is mostly burning in CA, not a wildfire in a field.
Sounds like a very bad idea. Would only provide an excuse for the criminal class to pick off those still trying to survive in areas that have gone quite mad. Best way to protect yourself is to GET THE HELL OUT of areas that have gone berserk. One of the "rules of the road" of owning a firearm is that you do not put yourself in harm's way if you can avoid it. You do not put yourself in places or situations where you might have to use deadly force.
How about letting us clear the brush that is protected because it is kangaroo rat habitat! I’m sure the rats would be more likely to survive without the infernos!
Absolutely because multiple lives, human and non-human are endangered and the arsonist doesn't give a rat's ass about it. Does anyone think it's fair that they can kill, maim, hurt, and destroy other lives?
IT’s one thing if an intruder enters your property and threatens you or your family, but making it legal to shoot a firearm to stop an arsonist would open a Pandora’s box of actions that would likely have endless collateral damage. Even in today’s world where every cell phone gives us instant witness to just about everything, recording a legal kill could lead to a miss with an unintended consequence, perhaps actually end up starting a fire as a result. There are just too many things that could go wrong, even with the most noblest of intentions. Stop and detain the arsonist until the authorities arrive, that’s where your civic duty starts and ends. Even cops make mistakes, but they have internal investigations and will answer for their discretions within the system. Let’s use common sense and attempt to restore order to our society. We’ll all be better off in the long run.
Absolutely.
We are entering an unprecedented age of individualism, one intrinsically linked to melancholy and creative inspiration. This shift, while potentially fertile ground for creativity, carries profound risks for those unaware of its psychological mechanics.
The increasing instability of modern society, further intensified now by synthetic technological interventions in human health, is creating a dangerous psychological landscape. Each successive generation emerges with greater internal instability, manifesting as a collective death wish - a desire to destroy that stems from deep personal despair.
This mindset manifests in the archetypal lone attacker who, consumed by despair, seeks to maximize destruction in their final act of defiance.
This destructive impulse was also powerfully depicted in 'Fight Club's' conclusion where individuals systematically demolish societal monuments, as a response to a profound inner toxicity and spite toward established orders.
Therefore, the severity of these emerging conditions demands equally severe responses.
The Omega Man 1971 SciFi movie scene looters shot on sight by US Army or National Guard in post apocalyptic crime spree looting scene.
Powerful imagery useful to enhance discussion.
Https://Ecosia.org Omega Man
shooting could actually cause a fire. Bringing back trained volunteer firefighting teams would be a different approach with less controversy. Fires can be controlled when they are small.
There’s no such thing as a “small fire” in that brush with Santa Ana winds. They literally explode! Lived it (barely)! Anyone in SoCal has utmost respect for those indescribably ferocious winds. All the firefighters in the world could not have stopped Palisades. IDK about the others.
If you have and/or carry a weapon you should be proficient enough to wound someone and not kill them. If that’s an arsonist, rack it and aim carefully.
Take em out at the legs. They won't get far and/or will be easily identifiable when seeking medical attention.
Trying to just wound someone with a gun is something that works in the movies. In real life, it's a good way to miss your target. And even if you do hit someone with a bullet with intent to wound, it can still kill them. In real life, firing a weapon at anyone risks the death of that person.