Comments by Snoofel
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on November 22 at 5:21 a.m.
@ashaw
I see your point that we as a community must collectively enforce our hills from fire danger. Our attitudes and opinions about what is or is not acceptable behavior must be a unified voice on the side of action consistent with fire prevention and caution. Social norms are important in teaching children how to behave. Strong penalties for carelessness with fir are also important. All schools must help in educating about fire danger.
However to claim that the kids deserve no blame is completely without merit. They should be charged with criminal negligence for their stupidity and the lack of forseight that any reasonable person of this community would have had. Incarecration, restitution, and community service are warranted to help deter others from crimes like this in the future. I am sure that certain youths share a greater amount of culpability than others but all who attended that bonfire share some degree of negligence and the punishments should vary according to degree ofnegligence. Comparable negligence.
1 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 21 at 5:21 p.m.
Carebear
Noticed ya had a beef with Snoofel.
So please revisit the posts so you can know that I have said nothing hateful toward Westmont.
The main point to be garnered by this horrendous tragedy is that we NEED to educate ALL students about the fact that having a bonfire in SB is illegal- and never a good idea. One would think that this is common knowledge - but given the current circumstances it is not. Many of us have reflected on lack of good judgement that youth can have. We need to educate ALL students.
Also as for partial culpability - if the institution failed to educate new community members (often from out of town not familiar with this level of fire danger) about never trespassing as well as the extreme fire danger that exists in those hills that immediately surround the campus that are unique to that
area then that could feasibly and logically be an issue to
address.
So no hate toward Westmont just discussing concepts and fire education suggestions.
0 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 4:45 p.m.
I do believe that jail time ( less than a year ), restitution ( garnished wages ), probation and community service are important facets of appropriate punishment.
Children and young adults frequently think in terms of themselves rather than their affects on others. If a group of kids contemplating a fire in the foothills have the fear of all of the above penalties in mind they are likely not to have the fire. The fear of possible guilty feelings has little deterrance.
In the parallel of manslaughter and drunk driving I do believe that the threat of incarceration and the loss of ones drivers license has an effect. Social coersion due to increased awareness of the problem of drunk driving also has had a positive effect.
I firmly believe that a large portion of society needs the threat of personal repercusions to conform to expected community norms.
Laws have legislated penalties for good reason. The fear of harming others is in many cases insufficent to encorage compliance with the law.
The young adults intentionally tresspassed, and intentionally lit an illegal bonfire in a high fire hazard area. They most definately deserve forgiveness but they also deserve to do the time for their criminal negligence.
1 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 1:39 p.m.
@ SkyView
Most of the comments you listed were directed at the people responsible for starting the fire. The adjectives you listed are accurate and rightly deserved by the accused. ( Taliban and rich kids notwithstanding) Your name calling was directed at people expressing their opinions, not people having bonfires amongst the chaparral.
I believe that you may not understand what criminal negligence is.
Merely because something was an "accident" does not mean it is not criminal. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE is not dependent on intent. Criminal negligence is a failure to foresee avoidable dangers by ones actions that a REASONABLE person would have seen.
The accused did not forsee the horrible consequences of their actions. By their lack of foresight they endangered the entire community. Death, serious injuries and about half a billion dollars in property loss are directly due to their criminal negligence.
I have never once stated that there was intent. There is NEGLIGENCE, big difference. One is criminal negligence the other is arson. They intended to have a bonfire but due to not foreseeing the dangers of their actions ,as a reasonable person would have, they are criminally negligent.
As for your statement:
"By your definition, all Boy Scouts and anyone who uses a barbeque (when an indoor oven is available) are Pyros."
That is false. I defined Pyro as "an obsessive desire to light and watch fires." I do not see how that applies to your examples.
In any event, a boy scout would have enough sense not to hop a fence, trespass onto private property and light a bonfire in an area known for extreme fire danger.
The people that started the bonfire in direct contradiction to the common sense of a reasonable person. They are culpable.
I am NOT looking for revenge or retribution. It is not about hurting those that were negligent. I am looking for substantial punishment in order to DETER other future "young adults" from making the same stupid mistakes.
Thinking that the guilt of the accused is punishment enough sends the signal to other children that there are no consequences for illegal bonfires in the foothills.
The lack of punishment would be akin to letting drunk drivers off of manslaughter charges because they felt bad. It is paramount to have increased penalties for crimes that involve carelessness with fire. Cigarettes out the window, campfires, fireworks etc.
The HUGE problem is that there are people that do not understand that ANY CAMPFIRE in the foothills is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
A major educational campaign must be launched to help educate our community.
I was born and raised in the SB foothills, educated at UCSB and currently a professional in the community. I am quite reasonable and certainly not "ignorant", an "imbecile", a "bigot" and certainly do not deserve your pity.
0 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 9:05 a.m.
@ SkyView
The posters who have speculated about what college the students are from is and should be taken as SPECULATION. Now that the Sheriff has confirmed that it was not Westmont students their involvement should obviously no longer be speculated upon.
Your name calling is quite out of line.
Your name calling such as "ignorant" "imbeciles" "bigots" and "pity" for other posters is cause for a moment for self reflection for you.
Below is your post about some of my thoughts:
------------------------------------------------
"Compassion without a stiff penalty would breed more pyros in the future."
Pyros? Has anyone involved in the investigation said anything indicating the fire was sent intentionally? IT WAS AN ACCIDENT!
My heart goes out to the people responsible for the fire because IT WAS AN ACCIDENT! Do you honestly believe that any threat of legal action or jail would impact them more than their consciences are already making them suffer?
---------------------------------------------------------
A pyro is not an arsonist. A pyro is someone who has an obsessive desire to start and watch fires. This term would apply to someone who had a bonfire in the foothills - their desire overran common sense.
Punishment for crimes does provide deterrence. The main point of deterrence is not only to prevent recidivism but to prevent OTHERS from committing the same crime in the future. Parents of the community will always be able to tell their children what happened to the people who started the tea fire. Children and "young adults" may have less desire for a bonfire when they know that their life can be seriously impacted rather than relying on a child's ability to empathize with the loss of others.
The MAJOR PROBLEM that we need to communicate to people is that was NOT just an accident. Having a bonfire in the foothills is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE.
The lesson is DO NOT HAVE A BONFIRE in an area of extreme fire danger. The point is not that they failed in putting out the bonfire properly.
I feel as if SkyView does not understand this concept.
I believe in this case, the ignorance is the assertion that this is just "an accident" and deserves no punishment other than the fire starters own guilt.
0 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 20 at 7:09 a.m.
"IT WAS AN ACCIDENT".
Wow. The tea fire was an unintended consequence of INTENTIONALLY starting a bonfire in an area known for extreme fire danger.
This is criminal negligence. Akin to manslaughter for drunk driving. Stupidity without excuse.
Punishment for crimes comitted is a cornerstone of our legal system. If children understand that there are stiff consequences for their illegal actions this helps to deter future crimes.
The sheriff did a disservice by providing vague info that led to speculation about Westmont. The speculation should be understandable given the schools proximity to the fires origin. If IV burned down due to a couch burning that got out of controll I think most of us would speculate that it was a student from UCSB that was responsible.
I believe a fire education film should be funded by the community to be shown at all schools every year. Something along the lines of "red asphalt" that explained the dangers of driving that many of us watched when we learned to drive.
2 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 6:17 p.m.
Another point that conservatives may want to reflect on is the devastation caused by gay people who engage in herero relationships "fooling" their unknowing partner in hopes that they are "straight."
Often children are created, eventual infidelity rears its ugly head and the news flash is revealed to family and friends.
Some family members are dumbfounded and shocked while others share that "knowing" look (no surprise ..always had a feeling about so and so)
So bottom line is - Conservatives, save your own families to prevent them from being touched by people who are actually gay and doing their best to lie to themselves so that they can be accepted. Let gay people have the acceptance and human rights that all humans (God's children as well as much to your surprise also inevitably your own children) deserve.
They are not pretending to be gay or choosing any more than you are to be heterosexual. Also I think that scientists have discovered that even in nature this behavior does happen - so it is not exactly unnatural.
Last point - even on isolated Fijian and other south Pacific islands feminine behavior by males can be commonly seen. So these people are not exposed to media or other people on remote islands and this gay way of behaving occurs.
4 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 3:31 p.m.
I was a kid born and raised in the SB foothills. I was raised with the fear of fire in the hills. Never in 35 years have I ever attended a campfire or bonfire in the foothills. I have been to the tea gardens and hung out at the tea bowls on several occasions. Yes, I have trespassed. But I certainly would never stand idly by watching someone start a bonfire in the hills.
It is not "just a stupid mistake" that some "young adults" made.
It is CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE to have a bonfire or campfire in the foothills any day of the year.
It is not kids being kids, it is kids being criminals.
Even though the kids did not intend to cause harm they still did through criminal negligence.
Compassion is important but so is driving home the importance of not starting any fire whatsoever in the foothills.
I believe that jail time, restitution and community service are very important components in deterring future pyros. A stiff penalty (if found guilty) will help re-enforce and educate the younger generations.
Compassion without a stiff penalty would breed more pyros in the future.
All local colleges should educate their students on community issues that are specific to the area.
If Westmont does not educate incoming students about the fire danger in their immediate backyard then this too is negligence. These kids are there for an education so why not educate them about how to live in our community without destroying it?
If Westmont (or any other college for that matter) did educate their incoming students on the high fire hazards of our community then they should be absolved of all culpability. Simple. New members of the community must be brought up to speed by the institutions that bring them here. I would encourage all local schools to include fire hazard and prevention education in student orientation. ESPECIALLY Westmont given that their students are new to town AND located in an extremely dangerous area for fire.
The fear of fire and property loss is hard for a student to understand. They have no home or family members to loose in a fire while they are away at college. The fear of incarceration, restitution, and community service is what has to reinforce common sense.
4 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 19 at 7:41 a.m.
I am all for enabling two adult people to have the benefits of marriage. It is troubling to me that conservatives have a problem with two people caring enough about each other to solidify their bond with the ideal of insuring emotional, financial and family security for their lives.
Gay people (1 out of 10 people according to many sources) should be able to build their estate together insuring that their partner is able to benefit as any other married surviver would (marital trust, etc.) A couple is also family in the event of a health issue or child guardianship. Insurances seem like another area where marriage is important although there are domestic partnership arrangements that may be used to navigate that sometimes but I'm not sure how effective or encompassing that is.
So, are there other benefits than those that I touched on (other than the social event and contract) that are also part of "marriage?"
What if in an effort to more effectively and quickly institute these important benefits, gay people lobbied for an institution or contract that uses a different word and gave them these important rights?
Let the conservatives and others have their word - marriage - and pass it under a different word. Immediately and without disrespect "garriage" comes to my mind as a viable word.
What is paramount is that gay people get what they want. How could a rattional arguement be made by the other side if gay people create their own ceremony and legal contract that is not called the same thing as their "holy sacrament.". Then it would have nothing to do with them and only be a denial of equal rights...
Anyone see my point?
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on November 29 at 8:05 a.m.
What a huge disappointment that well behaved, adorable dogs who are considered family members can not sit lovingly at their owners feet.
Dining on the outdoor patio with our well behaved small dog is one of the real joys in our life.
There has never been a time when fewer than half a dozen fellow diners have not smiled and fawned over our dog. It creates a real feel of connectedness and community that adds to everyones day.
As for health concerns, it seems so unlikely that dogs that see a vet regularly, are licensed and clean would endanger public health.
I hope that as a community we can find a way to allow our dogs co exist with us in an outdoor dining environment.
On Can I Have a Side of Kibble with My Soup?