Lower North Fork Fire & Prescribed Fire Review

Beeks wrote: "A person acts with criminal negligence when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists."

In short, they weren't. Not the popular view for sure......

We agree.

Could you please explain to me as to what "charge" you feel they are criminally negligent.

Beeks wrote: "A person acts with criminal negligence when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists."

In short, they weren't. Not the popular view for sure......

Attorneys will probably argue that there was a gross deviation from the standard of care when they failed to show on Sunday after they learned there would be red flag warning on Monday. And based on the high winds expected, it was gross negligence to not have adequate personnel to deal with the situation. They obviously failed to perceive a substanstial and unjustifiable risk when they had notice. Stupidity is not a defense.

Reverse 911 failure to 278 people. Failure to check the system when it was needed in an emergency. And more. Stupidity is not a defense.

I am not an attorney but I did speak to one today and we hashed through the number of claims that affected homeowners have.

Insurance comp and IREA among those who have filed,as of today. More to come I'm sure.......

Becky wrote: Could you please explain to me as to what "charge" you feel they are criminally negligent.

Becky I am not understanding your question, so I don't know that I am addressing your question. The charge would be criminal negligence, probably more likely, gross negligence as it is my understanding after discussion this afternoon that is the way it is classified in CO.

Criminal negligence
Definition
: a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable.

''A person acts with 'criminal negligence' with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.''

I seem to be having some difficulty finding an exact statute in the CO Revised Statutes.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the statute so that we could read it ourselves.

Is the sherrif confused ??? - why the inconsistency with the Governor (is the Governor confused ??).......what......???? Voters will not forget for sure.

"The reports confirm previous assumptions that a prescribed burn conducted by the Colorado State Forest Service caused the fire. Based on the review of all available documents and witness interviews, it was determined that the CSFS followed or exceeded the parameters set by the Lower North Fork burn plan, and that no criminal violation of the Colorado Revised Statutes occurred," the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office said.

However, a report by the governor's office, released on Monday, showed that the state forest service violated its own burn plan by not patrolling the area of the controlled burn on Sunday -- the day before the controlled burn blew up into the Lower North Fork Fire.

Thanks for providing the video of the meeting last night.

So far I have watched only Chief McLaughlin's presentation. I think he made a number of good points, and I especially like the staged evacuation approach.

The suggestions regarding better communication among fire jurisdictions, especially among fire chiefs; evacuation planning; involving local community organizations; firewise; etc. are all good.

But, I have a feeling of deja vu here. Nearly 10 years ago the same subjects and approaches were discussed. Interest was fairly high for a short time, but rapidly decreased, and with some exceptions, little was actually accomplished.

How can we maintain interest in these important subjects, and ensure that something is actually done, and that the effort is maintained long term?

I believe that somehow we need to maintain citizen involvement on a long term basis. Just like mitigation of your own property requires a continuing year round effort, so does communication among fire chiefs, evacuation planning, involvement of local organizations, etc.

It is not something that can be done once and forgotten about.

How do we avoid having that happen again?

However, a report by the governor's office, released on Monday, showed that the state forest service violated its own burn plan by not patrolling the area of the controlled burn on Sunday -- the day before the controlled burn blew up into the Lower North Fork Fire.

What do you think the difference would have been if they had patrolled on Sunday?

Capturing "lessons learned" certainly is important - but with the apparent lack of central control and coordination - IMHO it will be wasted. Coordination by committee is usually a failure.

Other point: where is the JEFFCO DA in the public discussion of criminal issues- the law enforcement people seem to be doing a lot of talking when the DA should be addressing the subject - as should the State's AG and possibly if this confusion continued the DOJ.