Pot grower faces murder charges for firefighter

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/08/21...ters.killed.ap/

 

Pot grower faces murder charges for firefighter deaths

 

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A house blaze that killed two firefighters started in a tangle of wires and lamps that were installed to grow marijuana in a basement closet, authorities said.

 

The man who police say was responsible for the drug operation was charged with third-degree murder.

 

Fire Capt. John Taylor, 53, and firefighter Rey Rubio, 42, died Friday when they were trapped by quick-moving flames while trying to find the source of the fire.

 

Fire officials said the fire started in the wiring set up to run the lamps and fans used to nurture the plants, and spread more quickly because the hot lights had dried out the wood in the closet.

 

In addition to murder, Daniel Brough, 35, faces charges of marijuana possession, involuntary manslaughter and causing a catastrophe.

 

Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham called Brough "reckless," "foolish" and "greedy."

 

Taylor, a 32-year veteran of the department, and Rubio, who had been fighting fires for 12 years, appeared to have died of smoke inhalation, officials said.

 

Thoughts?

 

Well they better start charging people who drop cigarettes on their carpets when they fall asleep and then a firefighter dies when putting out the flames with murder also. I dont think the fact that he was growing pot in his closet makes him a murderer.

 

The fire was allegedly caused by tangled wiring (and probably overloaded outlets). Lots of people have overloaded outlets in their homes that cause fires every year. I never heard of any of them being charged with a crime.

[sfaJack 0]

Don't you have to establish "intent to kill" to charge someone with murder?

[Guest thebigjig]

I'd rack him up for manslaughter, but not murder

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Why would you 'rack him up for manslaughter'? Firefighters fight fire, as is their job, firefighters accidentally die. Unless it's arson, it makes no sense to hold the resident of a home culpable; you may as well let your house burn down rather than possibly incur 8 years in prison. A fire from leaving the oven on too long is negligence too; this'd only get play because of the drugs.

[Gert T 0]

As long as the judge isn't trying to make an example or has a strong vendetta against drug use, there is no way he could get convicted of third degree murder.

 

Any guy who has a good enough lawyer shouldn't have to worry about a conviction in a case like this.

[Vyce 0]

Why would you 'rack him up for manslaughter'? Firefighters fight fire, as is their job, firefighters accidentally die. Unless it's arson, it makes no sense to hold the resident of a home culpable; you may as well let your house burn down rather than possibly incur 8 years in prison. A fire from leaving the oven on too long is negligence too; this'd only get play because of the drugs.

The underlying act was criminal; that's likely why they're bringing criminal charges.

 

The murder charge & involuntary manslaughter charges are redundant - they're the same thing. Third degree murder is murder without a specific intent to kill, usually occurring after an act of criminal negligence or some other act resulting in a person's death. That's what we have here - this individual was CRIMINALLY negligent, which resulted in the death of these firefighters.

[2GOLD 0]

Why would you 'rack him up for manslaughter'?  Firefighters fight fire, as is their job, firefighters accidentally die.  Unless it's arson, it makes no sense to hold the resident of a home culpable; you may as well let your house burn down rather than possibly incur 8 years in prison.  A fire from leaving the oven on too long is negligence too; this'd only get play because of the drugs.

The underlying act was criminal; that's likely why they're bringing criminal charges.

 

The murder charge & involuntary manslaughter charges are redundant - they're the same thing. Third degree murder is murder without a specific intent to kill, usually occurring after an act of criminal negligence or some other act resulting in a person's death. That's what we have here - this individual was CRIMINALLY negligent, which resulted in the death of these firefighters.

 

Agree.

 

While I don't agree with it being illegal, it is so I can understand the reason for bringing the charges.

[Highland 0]

The underlying act was criminal; that's likely why they're bringing criminal charges.

 

The murder charge & involuntary manslaughter charges are redundant - they're the same thing. Third degree murder is murder without a specific intent to kill, usually occurring after an act of criminal negligence or some other act resulting in a person's death. That's what we have here - this individual was CRIMINALLY negligent, which resulted in the death of these firefighters.

If it's criminal negligence from an illegal act then there should be manslaughter charges, but I wonder how rare something like this case is, and if it sets a precedent will it be strictly limited already illegal activities (pot growing) or something that is not legal, but is still negligent (overloading power recepticles)?

[EricMM 0]

I just find that "causing a catastrophe" being illegal is hilarious.

 

Any number of people have done THAT...

 

Anyone want to make any smoke inhalation jokes? Anyone? Bueller?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Ridiculous.

 

I guess if anyone dies fighting a kitchen fire gone out of control, whoever was in the kitchen should serve time, too.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The underlying act was criminal; that's likely why they're bringing criminal charges.

 

That's it. It is the same way in Canada too. If a death results from a pre-meditated criminal act, then the person who committed the act is guilty of murder (not manslaughter), even if the actual death itself was only an unexpected side effect.

 

Stupidity (such as smoking in bed) isn't illegal, so they wouldn't be charged with murder. They may get a negligence charge against them, but that's it.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

So...because the guy is an idiot and fucked up trying to grow pot, that somehow makes him more responsible for the death of firefighters then someone who just fucked up by being stupid?

 

That seems very silly to me.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

So...because the guy is an idiot and fucked up trying to grow pot, that somehow makes him more responsible for the death of firefighters then someone who just fucked up by being stupid?

Yep, at least in the eyes of the law.

[The Mandarin 0]

It is the same way in Canada too. If a death results from a pre-meditated criminal act, then the person who committed the act is guilty of murder (not manslaughter), even if the actual death itself was only an unexpected side effect.

So like, if I abuse my trained helper monkey and it goes nuts and guns down six people in a postal office, I'm also held responsible?

 

..duuuude.

[Guest CronoT]

Why would you 'rack him up for manslaughter'?  Firefighters fight fire, as is their job, firefighters accidentally die.  Unless it's arson, it makes no sense to hold the resident of a home culpable; you may as well let your house burn down rather than possibly incur 8 years in prison.  A fire from leaving the oven on too long is negligence too; this'd only get play because of the drugs.

The underlying act was criminal; that's likely why they're bringing criminal charges.

 

The murder charge & involuntary manslaughter charges are redundant - they're the same thing. Third degree murder is murder without a specific intent to kill, usually occurring after an act of criminal negligence or some other act resulting in a person's death. That's what we have here - this individual was CRIMINALLY negligent, which resulted in the death of these firefighters.

Pardon me for saying this, but that's complete bullshit. They know the guy was doing something illegal, growing the marijuana. But since all their proof literally "went up in smoke," pun intended, their trying to bullshit a charge against him.

[NoCalMike 0]

maybe the pot going up in smoke got the firefighter high, so then he couldn't perform his services correctly which resulted in his unfortunate death......

[Jobber of the Week 0]

maybe the pot going up in smoke got the firefighter high, so then he couldn't perform his services correctly which resulted in his unfortunate death......

That ties into the question I'm wondering.

 

 

BUT DID ANYTHING HAPPEN TO THE POT!? IS IT OKAY!?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yawn. Third-degree murder will result in a 20-minute time out or something.

 

Oh, and from reading the thread title/sub-title my first thought was "Damn, that must have been some good shit..."

[Guest thebigjig]

How the fuck can anyone compare overloaded sockets and food catching on fire (both of which are not ILLEGAL) to the production of a drug in turn causing the fire to break out?

 

Trying the guy for MURDER is silly, but the fact of the matter is... he was growing an illegal substance, which in turn caused a fire that killed two human beings. Growing an illegal substance does NOT equate to cooking a fucking hamburger.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Look, firefighters have a job. Sometimes, as a consequence of this job, they die. It's sad, it's unfortunate, it's a reality.

 

Now, if this guy was using some shitty custom wiring or some kind of faulty illegal wiring (which is typically how wiring causes a fire) then yes he has a of responsibility for fixing that and ignored it, thus can be claimed responsible for making the house light up on fire.

 

Whatever the lights and fans happened to be pointing at, as long as it wasn't some sort of flammable liquid such as oil or gasoline (which it wasn't), is completely inconsequential to the cause of the fire. If you want to bust the guy for posession or something, then go ahead, but you'd have to try very hard to make a case that the guy died because of the plants themselves.

[nl5xsk1 0]

maybe the pot going up in smoke got the firefighter high, so then he couldn't perform his services correctly which resulted in his unfortunate death......

He'd have made it out of the burning house but stopped in the kitchen for some Doritos & Oreos.

 

/ blame the munchies, not the guy growing the pot

[Guest MikeSC]

Look, firefighters have a job. Sometimes, as a consequence of this job, they die. It's sad, it's unfortunate, it's a reality.

 

Now, if this guy was using some shitty custom wiring or some kind of faulty illegal wiring (which is typically how wiring causes a fire) then yes he has a of responsibility for fixing that and ignored it, thus can be claimed responsible for making the house light up on fire.

 

Whatever the lights and fans happened to be pointing at, as long as it wasn't some sort of flammable liquid such as oil or gasoline (which it wasn't), is completely inconsequential to the cause of the fire. If you want to bust the guy for posession or something, then go ahead, but you'd have to try very hard to make a case that the guy died because of the plants themselves.

The argument is that if he was not actively violating the law, the fire would not have occurred.

-=Mike

[Guest SP-1]

The fire wouldn't have started were he not trying to grow an illegal substance under a poorly concieved lighting system. Were he not breaking the law in the first place, there'd have been no fire. The problem is squarely on the fact that he was doing something he shouldn't have been doing in the first place. And it resulted in two people dying. A ciggarette is legal. Cooking something is legal. Those fall under accidents. Intentionally growing pot under a bad lighting rig is not legal. Those firefighters face death every time, yes, but this is one time where it could have been avoided if the guy wasn't being stupid. THAT is the case here.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The fire wouldn't have started were he not trying to grow an illegal substance under a poorly concieved lighting system.

Well they should investigate the wiring and if there is a cause that his poor electrical setup started the fire, then he should be charged for it.

 

Were he not breaking the law in the first place, there'd have been no fire.

 

If all those lights and fans were pointing at anything else, the fire would have started anyway.

 

 

You guys don't seem to understand that this is violating the intent of law. He should be charged on posession and if faulty electrical wiring is determined in causing the fire, then he should be responsible for that and manslaughter isn't out of the question. If the electrical wiring isn't faulty, he should still be charged with posession. If everything was up to state code and it appears to be just an accident, you can't blame this guy any more than you can blame someone who accidentally starts a kitchen fire for the men's death.

 

 

These people are just trying to give this guy trouble for having pot plants in his basement, and it's destroying the integrity of the legal system as they do so. Having marijuana plants down there didn't hurt or kill anyone, although it is a crime of it's own. But the quality of the wiring of his electrical system may have been responsible for killing someone.

 

This does not sound like justice to me. It sounds to me like they're trying to nail him on murder on account of doing something that didn't kill anyone, because they aren't sure they can fault negligence in the wiring.

 

 

Basically:

Marijuana plants don't kill people.

Electrical incompetence does.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

From the Criminal Code of Canada.

 

PART VIII  OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION

 

Section 222

.

.

.

(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.

 

(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

 

(a) by means of an unlawful act;

 

(b) by criminal negligence;

.

.

.

 

I was wrong when I said he was guilty of murder. He is actually guilty of manslaughter because the cultivation of narcotics does not fall under the list of criminal acts that do constitute murder if a death is caused intentionally or not during them (ex. robbery, breaking and entering, etc.) If it was a cop and not a fireman, he would automatically be guilty of First Degree Murder.

 

The US probably has similar laws, but since they do have 3rd Degree Murder (Canada doesn't) he may very well be guilty of that instead. I don't know.

 

If all those lights and fans were pointing at anything else, the fire would have started anyway.

 

Yes, but then it would just be negligence, not criminal negligence and thus he wouldn't be held responsible for the death, although he would still probably get a minor charge. It is the cannibas that makes it criminal. You may disagree that the law should work that way, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. If you are against it that badly, petition to get it changed.

[Guest MikeSC]

The fire wouldn't have started were he not trying to grow an illegal substance under a poorly concieved lighting system.

Well they should investigate the wiring and if there is a cause that his poor electrical setup started the fire, then he should be charged for it.

If he was not breaking the law, he would not have even had the lighting set-up. Thus, he would not have had the fire.

Were he not breaking the law in the first place, there'd have been no fire.

If all those lights and fans were pointing at anything else, the fire would have started anyway.

Which, quite honestly, is irrelevant to the case at hand. If I were to point a gun and shoot at a cancer patient, killing them --- would I be less culpable because cancer would've killed them anyway?

You guys don't seem to understand that this is violating the intent of law. He should be charged on posession and if faulty electrical wiring is determined in causing the fire, then he should be responsible for that and manslaughter isn't out of the question. If the electrical wiring isn't faulty, he should still be charged with posession. If everything was up to state code and it appears to be just an accident, you can't blame this guy any more than you can blame someone who accidentally starts a kitchen fire for the men's death.

You can make lethal gases by mixing perfectly safe and legal household chemicals. Would you not be liable for damages caused by doing so?

These people are just trying to give this guy trouble for having pot plants in his basement, and it's destroying the integrity of the legal system as they do so. Having marijuana plants down there didn't hurt or kill anyone, although it is a crime of it's own. But the quality of the wiring of his electrical system may have been responsible for killing someone.

Without committing the violation of growing marijuana, there would not have been any lighting set-up to cause the fire.

 

This is not exactly an unheard of case.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If he was not breaking the law, he would not have even had the lighting set-up. Thus, he would not have had the fire.

Law doesn't (or, assuming you can prove otherwise, shouldn't) work like that Mike. I can have a collection of lights and fans in my house for whatever reason, as long as the electrical issues are sound. What purpose those lights and fans are serving is irrelevant. It's the plants that are illegal, not the appliances, and yet it's the appliances that started the fire. Those are two seperate issues, and should be charged as such.

 

Which, quite honestly, is irrelevant to the case at hand. If I were to point a gun and shoot at a cancer patient, killing them --- would I be less culpable because cancer would've killed them anyway?

That's not the same because you still shot someone in the head, which is a crime. A more appropriate comparison would be to say that you were shooting a gun in a firing range at the time that someone died from food poisoning that you gave them. You're responsible for their death because of the food poisoning, but the court tries to convict you on having shot the person to death.

 

 

Without committing the violation of growing marijuana, there would not have been any lighting set-up to cause the fire.

Doesn't/shouldn't matter if the fire was started by faulty wiring.

 

Look, I think this guy should face manslaughter for faulty wiring. I think if they investigated it they could find evidence of it and he'd face the proper punishment for it. However, at the same time, if they can't bring up evidence of faulty or illegal wiring, they have no case against him, and as unfortunate as that may be, can't blame him for starting the fire. And I certainly don't think there's an intent to kill, which is what the court is accusing him of with murder.

 

The pot is an entirely seperate issue only most loosely tied to fire, and is a charge of it's own.

[Guest MikeSC]

If he was not breaking the law, he would not have even had the lighting set-up. Thus, he would not have had the fire.

Law doesn't (or, assuming you can prove otherwise, shouldn't) work like that Mike. I can have a collection of lights and fans in my house for whatever reason, as long as the electrical issues are sound. What purpose those lights and fans are serving is irrelevant. It's the plants that are illegal, not the appliances, and yet it's the appliances that started the fire. Those are two seperate issues, and should be charged as such.

Actually, if your electrical output is higher than normal, you WILL get checked for marijuana growing. Your lighting set-up et al does constitute just cause for a search.

 

Again, the lights were set up to violate the law, whether we like it or not.

 

I don't care if pot is illegal --- I don't think it should be, honestly --- but IF it is, those are the breaks. If something bad happens DUE to a violation of law, there is a problem for you.

Which, quite honestly, is irrelevant to the case at hand. If I were to point a gun and shoot at a cancer patient, killing them --- would I be less culpable because cancer would've killed them anyway?

That's not the same because you still shot someone in the head, which is a crime. A more appropriate comparison would be to say that you were shooting a gun in a firing range at the time that someone died from food poisoning that you gave them. You're responsible for their death because of the food poisoning, but the court tries to convict you on having shot the person to death.

ACTUALLY, the best analogy is:

 

Let's say I'm hunting (no, I don't hunt).

 

Let's say while hunting, I miss a shot and accidentally set fire to some dry foliage on the ground. This becomes a forest fire that burns down peoples' houses and kills a few.

 

Am I not responsible for those deaths? Even though, THEORETICALLY, a forest fire could have occurred at any point?

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

However, at the same time, if they can't bring up evidence of faulty or illegal wiring, they have no case against him, and as unfortunate as that may be, can't blame him for starting the fire.

 

Of course. We are all just saying what he should be charged with. If they can't sufficiently prove it, then he will get off and no harm done.

 

And I certainly don't think there's an intent to kill, which is what the court is accusing him of with murder.

 

There are exceptions to 'intent to kill' definition. For example, if you break into a guy's house and he dies from a heart attack as a result, by definition you are guilty of murder (Part VIII, Section 230). Or if you are guilty of culpable homicide against a police officer, it is an automatic first degree murder charge, even if he was a normal citizen it would only be manslaughter (Part VIII, Section 231.4a).

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Am I not responsible for those deaths?

 

No. The act of hunting isn't illegal. If you were trying to shoot at some guy and missed and caused a fatal fire, then you would be responsible.