Death penalty recommended for Calif. arsonist

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Ok, guy sets a wild fire, several of them actually.

Some firefighters get caught up in the flames and die.

Guy gets convicted of murder and the jury suggests the death penalty.

Seems harsh to me. Unless there is proof that they guy wanted to kill people via his fires. More likely the guy was just a typical arsonist who liked to watch things burn.

What do you guys think?
link
A jury recommended the death penalty Wednesday for a man convicted of murdering five federal firefighters who were overrun by one of several wildfires he ignited in Southern California in 2006. Jurors took less than a day to decide that Raymond Lee Oyler deserved to die. Prosecutors cited the horrific pain the fire crew suffered and the terror the auto mechanic's fires caused in rural areas of Riverside County.
Outside court, Maria Loutzenhiser, the wife of slain fire Capt. Mark Loutzenhiser, thanked jurors and prosecutors "for putting an end to everybody's misery and giving everybody peace of mind."
"I'm grateful they put Oyler in jail and that he's there and he can't do this anymore," she said.
Oyler's daughter echoed his lawyers' claim that he never intended to kill anyone.
"That was not in his mind. My dad is not this monster they paint him to be," 21-year-old Heather Oyler said outside the courtroom.
Oyler, 38, was convicted of five counts of first-degree murder, 20 counts of arson and 17 counts of using an incendiary device. At sentencing, set for June 5, the judge still could give him the punishment the defense had urged jurors to choose: life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The jury foreman, who declined to give his name, said the two-month trial was an emotional ordeal but the evidence showed Oyler's guilt and helped persuade the panel he should get the death penalty.
"There were more tears today than any other day," he said. "It's not an easy decision to make."
The foreman choked back tears as he recalled some of the testimony from family members. He hugged several of them outside court.
Prosecutor Michael Hestrin told jurors in closing arguments of the trial's penalty phase that Oyler was not a casual arsonist but instead sought the power to end people's lives.
Oyler was convicted of setting numerous fires in rural areas of Riverside County in 2006. The fatal blaze, known as the Esperanza Fire, roared to life that October as fierce Santa Ana winds swept through valleys and mountains about 90 miles east of Los Angeles.
Jurors began penalty phase deliberations when closing arguments ended Tuesday afternoon.
The crew of San Bernardino National Forest Engine 57 was overwhelmed after deploying to protect an unoccupied house perched at the top of a steep drainage in the San Jacinto Mountains.
Three firefighters died there and a fourth died soon after at a hospital. The fifth died five days later, the same day Oyler was arrested.
Prosecutors showed jurors graphic photos of the firefighters: Jason McKay, 27; Jess McLean, 27; Daniel Hoover-Najera, 20; Pablo Cerda, 23, and Loutzenhiser, 43.
"To the man responsible, I harbor no anger, only hope," Hoover-Najera's mother, Gloria Najera-Ayala, said after Wednesday's verdict was announced. "Hope that you will understand the depth of pain you have caused so many families, including your own."
Judge W. Charles Morgan previously ruled Oyler mentally competent after an evaluation by a psychologist.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,449
9,667
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, guy sets a wild fire, several of them actually.

Some firefighters get caught up in the flames and die.

Guy gets convicted of murder and the jury suggests the death penalty.

Seems harsh to me. Unless there is proof that they guy wanted to kill people via his fires. More likely the guy was just a typical arsonist who liked to watch things burn.

What do you guys think?

If he is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then he did cause the deaths of those fire fighters. That he set multiple fires across SoCal sort of proves he intentionally set those fires, I would execute him.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
You should see the thread in OT where most of the replies showed people supported the death penalty for rape.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
If the judge agrees with the jury then this seems like a perfect case to take to the Supreme Court.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Yeah sounds kind of harsh, but can't blame Californians, wildfires are a serious problem over there. Controlled burning would probably go a long way to reduce the brush that fuels these fires, but of course the environmentalists are against it (but this is a completely different discussion, I guess).
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
OK with me :thumbsup:

He is not an "arsonist" he is a murderer. That is what he is getting the death penalty for. Not really anything the Supreme Court can do.

Your thread title is dishonest.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
OK with me :thumbsup:

He is not an "arsonist" he is a murderer. That is what he is getting the death penalty for. Not really anything the Supreme Court can do.

Your thread title is dishonest.

how did he commit murder?


did he throw these dudes into the fire?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why is the title dishonest??

It is nearly quoted word for word from the link.

"Arsonist" makes it sound like he is being given the death penalty for setting the fire. He is getting the death penalty for the deaths of the firefighters.

"A jury recommended the death penalty Wednesday for a man convicted of murdering five federal firefighters "
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
OK with me :thumbsup:

He is not an "arsonist" he is a murderer. That is what he is getting the death penalty for. Not really anything the Supreme Court can do.

Your thread title is dishonest.

how did he commit murder?


did he throw these dudes into the fire?


Read up on how murder works.

In many states (like Florida), if someone dies in the commission of a felony, everyone goes down for murder.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
If you are a drunk driver and kill someone are you a murder?

If you are speeding and kill someone are you a murder??

If you are talking on the cell phone while driving and kill someone are you a murder??

Where do you stop?

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
OK with me :thumbsup:

He is not an "arsonist" he is a murderer. That is what he is getting the death penalty for. Not really anything the Supreme Court can do.

Your thread title is dishonest.

how did he commit murder?


did he throw these dudes into the fire?


Read up on how murder works.

yeah i thought 1st degree (death penalty) murder involves intent. where is the intent?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.

All of this was proven to a jury, that is why he was convicted.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you are a drunk driver and kill someone are you a murder?

If you are speeding and kill someone are you a murder??

If you are talking on the cell phone while driving and kill someone are you a murder??

Where do you stop?

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.

furthermore, if you get in a car and obey all laws, and you kill someone, you are still guilty since you knew the risks.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.

All of this was proven to a jury, that is why he was convicted.

doesn't mean the jury was right, hence the thread.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
OK with me :thumbsup:

He is not an "arsonist" he is a murderer. That is what he is getting the death penalty for. Not really anything the Supreme Court can do.

Your thread title is dishonest.

how did he commit murder?


did he throw these dudes into the fire?


Read up on how murder works.

yeah i thought 1st degree (death penalty) murder involves intent. where is the intent?


You can argue that all day long, but a jury got him for murder, so he is being executed for murder, not arson.


In many states, you can get "murder" for anyone dieing in the commission of a felony.


For what it is worth, I think he is going to get life with no parole. Which in a way, is much worse.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.

All of this was proven to a jury, that is why he was convicted.

doesn't mean the jury was right, hence the thread.

Well they sat there in a court room, and we are on the internet after reading 1 news article. Ill side with them over anyone here right now.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,449
9,667
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If you are a drunk driver and kill someone are you a murder?

If you are speeding and kill someone are you a murder??

If you are talking on the cell phone while driving and kill someone are you a murder??

Where do you stop?

Show me that his goal was to kill people, or that there was a reasonable expectation that someone might die via the fire THEN I might agree with you. But so far all I see is a guy who started a fire that killed some one.

Your analogy is wrong. You yourself stated he set multiple fires. That makes him a serial arsonist, not just a "oops, the campfire got out of control" sort of guy. These were no accidents, and people who want to watch the world burn needed to be killed yesterday.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
OK with me :thumbsup:

He is not an "arsonist" he is a murderer. That is what he is getting the death penalty for. Not really anything the Supreme Court can do.

Your thread title is dishonest.

how did he commit murder?


did he throw these dudes into the fire?

The prosecutor was able to show enough evidence to convince the jury that there was intent to kill. Hence being found guilty of murder instead of a lesser charge.
The jury thought that the crime was heinous enough to warrant the death penalty for the murder charges.

That simple.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
OK with me :thumbsup:

He is not an "arsonist" he is a murderer. That is what he is getting the death penalty for. Not really anything the Supreme Court can do.

Your thread title is dishonest.

how did he commit murder?


did he throw these dudes into the fire?


Read up on how murder works.

yeah i thought 1st degree (death penalty) murder involves intent. where is the intent?


You can argue that all day long, but a jury got him for murder, so he is being executed for murder, not arson.


In many states, you can get "murder" for anyone dieing in the commission of a felony.


For what it is worth, I think he is going to get life with no parole. Which in a way, is much worse.

Not yet, It's only a recommendation. He hasn't been sentenced yet and it is up to the judge to decide if death is appopriate.

I think life without parole is better. He would have plenty of time to consider his actions and how he came to be in his perdiciment. Hopefully he'll have a long life behind bars to think.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
I would say that, given the conditions in California and the fact that he set multiple fires on purpose, it was reasonable to expect that somebody would be killed by his actions. Presuming he was judged sane, he was aware of this and knew it was wrong. Therefore being tried and penalized for murder seems appropriate.

Not going to comment on death penalty for murder in this thread.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
Kill the MoFo. Tax Payers won't have to foot the bill for life in prison.

Let's air the this on national television. You know... Make an example to assholes that want to burn down your house and possible kill you...

I think we should go one step further. Feed him to the lions.

EDIT...

That is what is wrong with the USA today.

We are TOO SOFT on criminals. PJ just wants to slap him on his wrist and set him free to spark up some more fires.

I guess I'm pretty harsh on this because I think people should lose a finger for stealing ... I was a corrections officer and when you've seen all the BS that happens in american prison system you'd be outraged as well. It's a shame and a joke that needs to be fixed --- We need to start PUNISHING people for the crimes they do.