- Time of past OR future Camino
- Too many and too often!
Remove ads on the forum by becoming a donating member. More here. |
---|
Does anyone know the penalty, in Castilia-Leon, for being a complete knob?
I was just about to ask the same thing... apparently he "walked away"... out of ignorance? or malice? And how did they catch him so fast? Someone must have seen him do something...Causality is such a wide range of things. Did he toss a cigarette into the dry grass, or did he buy some gas purposely start a fire.
Of course, he should get into trouble either way, but I'm interested in whether it was intentional or accidental. That article didn't seem to say. At least in the states, though, even throwing a cigarette into the woods, when there's a high chance of fire danger, is an act that can be prosecuted.
So like is that penal code quoted in message #3 directed at idiotic foreigners? I don't know, but my guess is no.idiotic foreign 'pilgrims.'
Hopefully more than a few years in a Spanish jail, with a requirement to work for the local forestry replanting trees etc. Oh also have passport marked "not valid in Espanya" for 10 years.Does anyone know the penalty, in Castilia-Leon, for being a complete knob?
Tossing a cigarette is a deliberate act, not an accident.How horrible.
Causality is such a wide range of things. Did he toss a cigarette into the dry grass, or did he buy some gas to purposely start a fire?
Of course, he should get into trouble either way, but I'm interested in whether it was intentional or accidental. That article didn't seem to say. At least in the states, though, even throwing a cigarette into the woods, when there's a high chance of fire danger, is an act that can be prosecuted.
Exactly. A fire arising from someone tossing a cigarette into the dry grass or onto forest floor ia NOT an "accident". It is the absolute expected result of the action. And needs to be prosecuted as such.How horrible.
Causality is such a wide range of things. Did he toss a cigarette into the dry grass, or did he buy some gas to purposely start a fire?
Of course, he should get into trouble either way, but I'm interested in whether it was intentional or accidental. That article didn't seem to say. At least in the states, though, even throwing a cigarette into the woods, when there's a high chance of fire danger, is an act that can be proscuted.
I believe that they should not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. That requires a presumption of innocence by the law. On the other hand in my daily life a make hundreds of decisions and judgements about things and people, most of which require only a sense of generosity, not innocence.Few details are given, on this post, about how the fire started, etc., yet so many people making comments willing to condemn an individual, and throw the book at someone without knowing exactly what transpired. Why?
Even if someone has been arrested it doesn't mean that he/she is guilty. We believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, don't we?
If so, may justice prevail. But given the source, I'll wait for corroborate before getting upset. That said...If the quote is true, it's pretty upsetting.The Daily Telegraph quotes a Government spokesman who says it appears intentional as they found a second ignition point.
If so, may justice prevail. But given the source, I'll wait for corroborate before getting upset. That said...If the quote is true, it's pretty upsetting.
Have the media yet reported HOW the fire was started, and perhaps WHY? That goes a long way towards establishing malicious intent. Until I see something in mitigation, I am not inclined to be charitable. Fires like these impose HUGE costs on the local population.
I reserve the right to adjust my opinion once more is known.
A follow up article on a Leon website is reporting that the man who was arrested has admitted starting the fires. It seems that he is originally from Germany and is wanted in other countries for other offences though the article gives no further details. A strange complicated story.
El detenido por el incendio de Castrillo de los Polvazares confiesa la autoría
Al parecer, el ciudadano de origen alemán, podría estar reclamado en otros paíseswww.diariodeleon.es
I agree. The immediate clamouring for harsh punishment seems inappropriate to me. I am glad the perpetrator has apparently been caught, and I trust the legal system to follow its course.We know next to nothing
Could you elaborate on this a bit?'todo el peso de la Ley'
Currently, our Penal Code punishes these acts with prison sentences of up to twenty years depending on the severity of the act committed. The crimes and fines for causing a fire are listed in article 351 of the Penal Code.
'Those who cause a fire that poses a danger to the life or physical integrity of people will be punished with a prison sentence of ten to twenty years. Judges or Courts may impose a lower sentence based on the lesser degree of danger caused and the other circumstances of the act.
When there is no such danger to the life or bodily harm of people, the acts will be punished as damages provided for in article 266 of this Code'.
When we talk about a forest fire, depending on the scope, severity and whether there has been a danger to the life or bodily harm of people, the consequences vary with prison sentences of one to five years and a fine of twelve to eighteen months.
The crimes and fines for causing a forest fire are listed in articles 352, 353, 354 and 355 of the Criminal Code. The factors that will determine the severity of the fine or prison sentence in this case are the following:
- The surface that has been affected
- That it results in large or serious erosive effects on the soil
- The degree of alteration of animal or plant life or that it affects a protected natural area
- The proximity to a population centre or inhabited place
- That the fire is caused when the weather or terrain conditions significantly increase the risk of its spread
- The destruction of the affected resources
In addition, the Criminal Code indicates that the same penalty will be imposed when the author of the fire has acted for economic benefit due to the effects derived from the fire.
In situations where the forest fire has not caused major damage, the person will be punished with a prison sentence of six months to one year in prison and a fine of six to twelve months.
https://www.telemadrid.es/noticias/...io-forestal-0-2686231408--20240708080000.html
Could you elaborate on this a bit?
Perhaps somebody can explain what "released with charges" means. Or rather what "libertad con cargos" means. Or how the police and justice authorities in Spain proceed when someone is accused of having caused a forest fire.That's it?! He destroys pretious forests, endangers human and animal life, and that's it??
Let’s all chill! I believe in the rule of law! Let the legal system deal with it! We should not be fanning the flames or embers. Stop this premature condemnation…That's it?! He destroys pretious forests, endangers human and animal life, and that's it??
I am not condemning, but I am very surprised at such light 'sentence' for such a grave offence. He was not just some drunk shouting obscenities at some people, after all.Let’s all chill! I believe in the rule of law! Let the legal system deal with it! We should not be fanning the flames or embers. Stop this premature condemnation…
Yes. And what about the second start point?Still wondering why he did not put out the fire when it started?
I presume it simply means he is not going to be held in custody until his trial for the charges against him. There may well be bail conditions, such as remaining in a certain location, etc.Perhaps somebody can explain what "released with charges" means. Or rather what "libertad con cargos" means. Or how the police and justice authorities in Spain proceed when someone is accused of having caused a forest fire.
My guess - it is just a guess - is that it means something like "he was released from detention with bail conditions" but as far as I understand it Spain does not know the bail system that we are familiar with thanks to having watched numerous US movies. That Jack from Ireland uses his credit card to bail out Tom who is detained by the Guardia Civil in that movie has always amused me. I don't think it works like this in Spain.
There is a misunderstanding. He has not yet been sentenced!I am very surprised at such light 'sentence' for such a grave offence.
That's why the word was in '', I know he has not been sentenced in a court of law.There is a misunderstanding. He has not yet been sentenced!
Somebody who knows what it means needs to explain what "libertad con cargos" means in Spain. Is he awaiting trial, is he free to go where and when he wants to, does he have to report to police from time to time, "is that it", or what.That's why the word was in '', I know he has not been sentenced in a court of law.
Well, that seems to explain that the starting of the fire wasn't intentional. Which puts it in a very different category.The 34-year-old German pilgrim arrested on Tuesday by the Guardia Civil as the alleged perpetrator of the forest fire declared the day before in the vicinity of Castrillo de los Polvazares, near Astorga, which devastated 800 hectares and threatened several villages, has admitted the charges but has specified that the fire started accidentally when he was preparing food.
Somebody who knows what it means needs to explain what "libertad con cargos" means in Spain. Is he awaiting trial, is he free to go where and when he wants to, does he have to report to police from time to time, "is that it", or what.
But it does not explain why he didn't put out the fire, kept on walking (?) and why there was a second fire start point (or is there only one now?).Well, that seems to explain that the starting of the fire wasn't intentional. Which puts it in a very different category.
I think it can quickly become impossible for someone to put out a fire. Where there is a lot of dry grass, for example, the fire can be out of control very quickly.But it does not explain why he didn't put out the fire, kept on walking (?) and why there was a second fire start point (or is there only one now?).
It's just, it breaks my heart when I see a forest on fire or walk through a soot-black bones of a forest.
Well, that seems to explain that the starting of the fire wasn't intentional. Which puts it in a very different category.
I'm not trying to belittle the situation, which is horrendous. But there's a huge difference between a pilgrim committing arson, and said pilgrim having a cooking accident.
I try not to convict people over media reports, which seemed to be the point of many of the comments here. Instead, we must depend on the authorities and courts to review the complete set of facts and make a decision.
It seems from @Molly Cassidy link above that the person is free on charges but we'll have to re-appear in court when a determination will be made of his responsibility.
It is very sad, because the damage is done, and will be there for decades or longer.But it does not explain why he didn't put out the fire, kept on walking (?) and why there was a second fire start point (or is there only one now?).
It's just, it breaks my heart when I see a forest on fire or walk through a soot-black bones of a forest.
Yes, there are similar rules in Greece, though only in the summer.Based on the laws and regulations of Castilla and León, it is forbidden to make a fire (BBQ etc.) for cooking (or whatever purpose) in the area designed as 'monte' anyway. That is the moment when he went wrong.
https://medioambiente.jcyl.es/web/es/medio-natural/actividades-epocas-peligro-incendios.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?