HikeArizona.COM

The Arizona Republic
by JJ Hensley - Aug. 24, 2011 11:52 AM
Two men face federal charges of leaving an unattended campfire that sparked the massive Wallow Fire this summer, charring more than 538,000 acres in northeastern Arizona, according to an indictment unsealed Wednesday.

Cousins Caleb Joshua Malboeuf and David Wayne Malboeuf built a campfire in late May and left it unattended, which helped spark the blaze, authorities said.

Investigators determined that on May 29, the men were camping near the Bear Wallow Trailhead, about 2 miles from where the fire began.

An investigator issued an alert for personnel to be on the lookout for a 2001 Toyota registered to David Malboeuf, and the cousins were arrested the following morning by an Apache County Sheriff's deputy.

The Malboeufs face five counts related to the unattended campfire in the Apache National Forest.

The Wallow Fire was the largest wildfire in Arizona history.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... z1VyYImfI2

...I hadn't considered that possibility...

Sentencing hearing postponed.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/18817 ... dfire-case

Defense attorneys say they need more time to prepare arguments in support of probation with substantial community service.

The Malboeufs each face up to a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. The new sentencing date is Aug. 22.

Jeff - do these SBR M4's actually scare people? http://www.customminifig.co.uk/tiny-tactical-sbr-m4/They don't look like they weigh very much.

Nice!

Lo que la calabaza?

Its starting to look like a slap on the hands. Now, you boys, don't you go lighting any more fires. Tisk. Tisk.

I share your frustration, Rick!!

It was bad for more than simply carelessness or their stupidity. We can't do anything about a dry winter, and it's been over 100 years of what amounts to poor forest management from an ecological or fire perspective. Expecting executions or life in prison is just outside of the scope of what is not cruel or unusual.

That fire was going to happen. Doesn't matter what started it. The possibility of just such a fire had been the topic of discussion amongst fire managers for years.

It was inevitably, as was the Schultz, and is a future fire of similar intensity in the Dry Lake Hills, and the unburned western slopes of the Peaks, and any of the areas along the Rim with overly dense conditions, and so many other locations.

I agree, as much as we deplore the careless or foolish behavior that starts these, the reality is that an entirely natural lightning strike would yield the same results.

Shawn i only partially agree with that thesis. if lightning strikes a human and kills her, nobody to serve justice. if same person is killed by a stab wound, we seek retribution.
light a fire in the forest, pay with jail time.

Being irresponsible with a campfite is probably at most a misdemeanor (caveat: I'm not a lawyer). So it seems unlikely there would be any jail time involved. The point here is that these guys are going to get the same treatment as someone else with an irresponsible campfire that burned 100 square feet. The fact that these guys kicked off a 200,000? acre crown fire rather than a 100 acre grass fire is due to poor forest management practices.

Edit: as quoted above, it appears that the maximum sentence for their crimes does include a year of jail time as a possible verdict, if the above poster's source is correct.

I think it will boil down to restitution. The crime is the same, whether it's 10 acres or 200,000 acres. However, if the State and Federal Governments ask for considerable restitution at the trial and sentencing, that's where the difference in the penalty will be huge. Those guys might be getting a chunk taken out of their paychecks for the rest of their lives...We'll just have to wait and see....

538049 acres.

If the law prescribes for a range of penalties, there are likely guidelines the judge will consider:

1) Was there intent: probably not, I don't think these guys planned to set a chunk of the state on fire.
2) Was this done with knowledge of its prohibition: no, campfires weren't banned on the date they had theirs

Without those 2, these guys are only guilty of a crime of negligence/stupidity. A maximum sentence seems to be an unlikely outcome, unless some politician gets involved and asked the DA to prosecute them like that. The highest penalties would be reserved for somebody today who went out, and intentionally set fire to the wilderness even though fires are currently banned.

Keep in mind, that "Penalties" are not the same as "Restitution". Penalties are part of the sentence and may be issued based on the severity of the crime and "intent" of the crime. Restitution is for damages. If you are found guilty of the crime, and your crime caused damage, you pay for it, regardless of intent, or anything else.

I doubt they'd have to pay monetary restitution, maybe community service. If you're a lawyer, you're well ahead of me though in understanding this stuff.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent plenty of time at misdeanor trials in court. Community service is part of the penalty for the crime committed. Restitution is entirely different. If there are victims that have suffered damages that required the output of funds, due to the crime, they are entitled to show up to the sentencing and ask for recompensation. I think the system is set up this way to alleviate victims from having to clog up the courts just to seek recompensation. They can't ask for any kind of "pain and suffering" compensation, but if they put money out, for bills directly related to the damage or loss, than they can ask for that money back and the judge can order that the defendant has to pay it.

I'm pretty sure that the State and Federal Government can ask for Restitution in this matter as well. The judge will not always award the full amount asked for, depends on what the "victim", in this case AZ and the U.S., spent and what they spent it on. Also, the judge may take into consideration the defendant's current financial and employment situation. The Governments may ask for 2 million, but the judge may find that too overwhelming for someone making 25,000 dollars a year and order them to pay 100,000 instead. It's possible, due to the defendant's income, that it would be just impossible to render an order of monetary compensation. Then, he might order "Community Service" instead, but that is rare in restitution cases involving citizen victims. Might do it for the "victim" if it's a government entity though, simply because the Governments will not be in financial jeopardy if they don't get recompensated monetarily. But I would like to think and hope that in the end, they will end up owing the Governments some money for this, besides the normal fines that are rendered strictly as part of the sentencing for the crime committed.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see how this all comes out....

I think a real lawyer would argue the forest represented an attractive nuisance, and it was too temping for the defendants and needed to be burned. Any forester would understand.

Ah, the inimitable Jim strikes again!