Posted by Huh, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 12, 2012 at 9:57 pm
So, after reading this article several times, I'm still wondering why the grand jury would uphold the original charges of arson and possession of flammable materials, yet drop the charge of intent to set a fire...? Or is that part of the article just poorly written and vague?
Posted by Huh, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm
"Although she was initially charged with arson, possession of flammable material with intent to set fire, and forgery, a grand jury indictment in January brought in two charges: arson and possession of flammable liquids."
@PW Reader: thanks for attempting to clarify; I did see that the forgery charge was dropped, but was unclear whether legally speaking, "possession of flammable material with intent to set fire" was different than simply "possession of flammable liquids".
It seemed to me that anyone could be "in possession of flammable liquids" since most of us have gasoline on hand for our mowers, or paint thinner in our garage.
Posted by Angus, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2012 at 8:51 am
The important word is "intent". The lady used the flammables to torch her home, she planned the act. Mere possesion of such fluids is, of course, quite benign and legal. Using them to cause deliberate damage or harm is crossing the line. As to her sentence of three years? Seems a bit short for having placed her neighbors, and their homes, safety, and property in jeopardy.
Posted by lynn, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:48 pm
This sentence is way too light. Do you have any idea how many people she could have killed with this stunt? What about the first responder's who risked their lives? What about the neighbors whose homes were damaged. I would have thought she'd see at least a decade for what she did.