CA Arsonist Gets Death Penalty For 5 Firefighters Murder

[tekisui]

Source: AP

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) — A convicted arsonist was sentenced to death Friday for setting a Southern California wildfire that killed five federal firefighters struggling to defend a rural home from raging, wind-driven flames.

Raymond Lee Oyler, 38, was found guilty in March of five counts of first-degree murder for setting the Oct. 26, 2006, blaze about 90 miles east of Los Angeles.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge W. Charles Morgan said Oyler "set on a mission ... to wreak havoc in this county" by setting fires and became increasingly proficient.

"He knew that young men and women would put their lives on the line to protect other people and property and he continued anyway," Morgan said.

Oyler's case is believed to mark the first time a death sentence has been ordered in the United States for an arson wildfire involving the deaths of firefighters, said John Hall, a spokesman for the district attorney.

During the trial the prosecution characterized Oyler as a serial arsonist who was bent on destruction, "a man wanting to be so important he unleashed disaster on five men."

The firefighters' deaths stunned the region and some 10,000 people attended the memorial service for Jason McKay, 27; Jess McLean, 27; Daniel Hoover-Najera, 20; Mark Loutzenhiser, 43, and Pablo Cerda, 23.

more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5goGvr2aGMuUAVRMZr4RxsQhYLfGQD98KN97G2

[proteus_lives]

1. Good!

He killed five men and endangered hundreds/thousands more.

[NightWatcher]

2. sentanced to death for killing ???? The death penalty is stupid, hypocritical, and WRONG

He didnt even kill them DIRECTLY with his bare hands. Life without Parole accomplishes the same protections for our society without becoming hypocrites.

[mitchum]

28. A serial arsonist would also be a potential danger to other inmates

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

41. "He didnt even kill them DIRECTLY with his bare hands"

Look, I know you aren't for the death penalty........but you really sound foolish when you say things like that.

[EFerrari]

3. I'm sorry to hear that.

[vadawg]

6. Im sure there are plenty of people who are happy at this desicion, im ambivalent

[EFerrari]

8. The death penalty has not been shown to be a deterrent of any kind.

And the down side is too permanent. Those young men are gone and no retribution will bring them back. We'd be further ahead to put more money into prevention and into taking care of their families, imo.

[vadawg]

10. well if your against the death penalty fine, done get it, other people are for it

its one of these issues that splits the populace, personally im for it in certain cases.

[EFerrari]

12. I guess I just don't understand it. We can only kill this guy once.

That's not justice for those five lives.

While the pro-DP people may feel better if this guy gets killed, what about those families? What about the next five firemen?

It just seems like an easy solution that really doesn't solve anything, but that's mo.

[vadawg]

13. so your saying you want him to suffer more, personally im for the death penalty in some cases

as it gets the piece of shite of the planet, that simple really, and im not speaking for the families, im all for letting them vote if you want and going with the majority decision.

[EFerrari]

14. No, I'm just pointing out that the punishment doesn't even fit the crime.

And, no, I'm also not for letting grieving people make life and death decisions, either. That's unfair to them.

[vadawg]

15. okay what does fit the crime then, he gets burned alive like the people he killed

surely the best way to make punishment to fit crime is to make it the same thing, kinda like an old episode of Red Dwarf from years ago.

[EFerrari]

16. And that's exactly the point: retribution can never, ever match the crime.

It can never put back the life lost or go back in time and prevent the suffering of the loved ones who lost those men.

[vadawg]

17. In your eyes, but what if the family said yes kill him

i know if someone killed me then my family would want them to be put to death, i guess its a cultural thing, culturally your against it, others are for it.

[EFerrari]

27. In what other instances should we kill people because their family is for it?

Rape? Incest? Burglary?

I'm sorry. But the disposition of a life shouldn't be left up to the emotions of grieving people.

[paulsby]

19. neither does imprisonment for life

it's a false assumption that people are for the death penalty cause it "matches the crime"

[EFerrari]

20. Okay. Let's hear a reason. I've yet to hear one.

Or not. I don't expect to change anyone's mind and I don't need to.

But the death penalty is irrational, it's not one side of a close discussion. It's still in place because American politicians pander to the least common denominator. There is no benefit to society whatsoever over life imprisonment.

[vadawg]

21. one advantage over life imprisonment, the liklehood of the dude killing again

especially a CO or deputy is a lot lower if hes dead than if hes in jail for the rest of his natural and nothing to lose.

[EFerrari]

23. If they killed anyone in the first place. Yeah, that would be right.

Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations

There have been 238 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States.

• The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 34 states; since 2000, there have been 170 exonerations.

• 17 of the 238 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row.

• The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,968.

• The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26.

Races of the 238 exonerees:

141 African Americans
70 Caucasians
21 Latinos
2 Asian American
4 whose race is unknown

• The true suspects and/or perpetrators have been identified in 103 of the DNA exoneration cases.

• Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php

[vadawg]

24. now you are changing the subject, instead of answering the question i posed

not everybody who is convicted of killing someone is innocent you know.

[EFerrari]

25. I answered you very clearly. I said you were right. When someone is dead

they can't again.

And neither can an innocent person kill again when they are dead.

[4lbs]

34. You assume there was a chance he is innocent. He isn't.

You know what he was doing when he was apprehended? Trying to start another fire!

He had on his possession a map of the greater area with circles of locations that matched exactly where the other fires had been determined to have begun.

His vehicle's license plate number was also a partial match to what several witnesses gave when they said they each saw a truck speeding through the area just before the fires broke out.

Some coincidence eh?

So, unless someone just happened to plant all those on him, and give him the truck, he's guilty.

Normally, I'm against the death penalty because so often you can't be 100% sure of the guilt of the person.

This time, I don't see how it could have been anyone else but him.

Just like the argument against Timothy McVay: "Either he did this, or else he's the unluckiest person in the world because all these things lead to him."

By the way, those racial stats you cite aren't really applicable in this case. The guy is a white, right-wing nutjob that lived in Riverside.

Do you think that Scott Roeder, the guy who shot Dr. Tiller, shouldn't get the death penalty either?

[EFerrari]

36. Nope. I made no such assumption. n/t

[paulsby]

22. i'm not going to respond to insults

you are claiming that those who support the DP are "the lowest common denominator"

if you can have a rational discussion without belittling those you disagree with, get back to me.

[EFerrari]

26. My reasons for opposing the death penalty are rational.

And that can't be said for those promoting it.

[paulsby]

30. thank you

for continuing the ad hominems.

"my beliefs are rational, yours are irrational"

not only is this an assertion w/o evidence, but it's also yet another insult.

that's not rational discussion. it's arrogant rhetoric

[EFerrari]

31. I've already laid out my argument. Yours is "fry the fucker".

[paulsby]

32. that wasn't my argument

that was my response.

like i said, if you wanted to have a rational discussion, i am for that.

i didn't explain why i am for the dp, and it's clear that such a discussion with the likes of you is pointless, since you are so confident that all that disagree with you are irrational.

iow, your mind is closed. mine ISN'T.

i am open to arguments from people who disagree with me.

but then again, i'm not a close minded person like you

[EFerrari]

33. Calling me closed minded isn't a rational argument either.

And you confuse a considered position with a closed mind.

[paulsby]

35. it is a rational response

to evidence presented, specifically that you believe that those that disagree with you are irrational and the "lowest common denominator"

grok the difference?


fwiw, i am (for example) pro-choice. it does't follow that everybody who isn't is either irrational or the lowest common denominator. i don't demonize, belittle, and prejudice myself against those i disagree with. especially not BEFORE hearing their position.

[EFerrari]

37. Nope. You cite my owned opinion but none of my argument.

That's the kind of cherrypicking one expects from someone with no argument.

If you are pro state sponsored killing because of me right now, what was your excuse this morning?

[paulsby]

38. not going to accept your evasions, thanks

like i said. you have yet to apologize for calling dp supporters the lowest common denominator and irrational.

at a minimum, you are prejudiced, or arguably bigoted.

there is no point in having a rational discussion with you. you already admit your close mindedness.

like i said, i enjoy hearing opposing pov's. the reason i AM pro-choice (I wasn't always ) was the power of persuasion, introspection, and research.

you are not open to any such thing, as you said. you are right, we are wrong. so what's the point? not to mention we are "irrational" and the lowest common denominator

[EFerrari]

54. More smearing, still no argument. Check. n/t

[anigbrowl]

64. Save your energy. Tht poster isn't interested in having debates, just arguments.

Incidentally I'm against the death penalty and don't agree with your reasoning. but at least you are able to field an argument, unlike your nominal disputant.

[MadMaddie]

4. This guy doesn't seem to have any remorse for the victims

and their families.

What a terrible loss of life because of one idiot. I don't care if he was depressed and on medication.

[MrSlayer]

5. Burn him at the stake.

Of course the punishment can't fit the crime, because that would be "wrong". This dude will be 60 or older before justice is served.

[EFerrari]

9. Nice post, King Hammurabi.

[MrSlayer]

40. Thanks.

I'm glad you like it.

[LAGC]

52. It would be cheaper to just let him die naturally...

Like you said, he'll be 60 or older before all the expensive appeals are exhausted anyway. Why even bother? From a pure financial stand-point the Death Penalty doesn't make sense...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. *Checks inner self* Nope, still unequivocally against DP. -nt

[tabatha]

11. Arson is a terrible problem in California.

Five fighters is a huge price to pay for the actions of just one man.

Besides the fire fighters, enormous other damage was done.

Unfortunately, I think the punishment fits the crime.

[EFerrari]

29. But what does that mean to you?

Do you think by killing this guy, arson will stop being a problem in California?

Does killing him make up for those five lost lives? Is there an equation here?

Does killing this man pay for all the property damage and environmental damage?

I don't think so. It's what our government does to get us to forget about all of that and to not ask, what is being done for their families, what is being done to prevent arson, what is being done to rebuild, what is being done to help those property owners? It's just a big fat "feel good" red herring. It doesn't help anyone.

[tabatha]

43. I am against the death penalty, except in these cases:

rape and murder of children

gassing of people in concentration camps

killing thousands of creatures, plants and any people in arson fires

People who do these things have not earned the right to live.

[armyowalgreens]

48. What authority do you have to say if someone does not have the right to live?

[paulsby]

18. as a former firefighter, i say

fry that motherfucker. fuck him.

[Raine]

39. I'll shed no tears for him

I'm against the death penalty but I'll not be crying or lighting candles when he takes the dirt nap.

[TripleKatPad]

42. I read nothing but the OP's title and have this opinion

Putting someone to death is not the answer. JMHO.

[opihimoimoi]

44. We kill our Strong and save our criminals?

[armyowalgreens]

50. Apparently criminal= forsaken one.

Another illogical conclusion.

[Fire1]

45. Guess that'll bring the firefighters back. So stupid.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. You are correct in that putting him to death will not bring back the dead firefighters.

But I am just as correct in saying that he's one more firebug (who, along with molesters, have the highest rate of recividism) who won't light any more fires with little cigarrette/matchbook/slingshot contraptions. He'll never again put whole communities in jeopardy of losing their belongings and their lives. He'll never again make orphans out of loving children.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[armyowalgreens]

49. So instead of attempting rehabilitation, let's put him to sleep.

That makes perfect sense.

:sarcasm:

[depakid]

53. It's unlikely that a serial arsonist can be rehabilitated

the risk of harm is too great to let him back out into society. That however, does not provide a rational argument for capital punishment.

[scrinmaster]

57. Since nothing will bring them back, why not just let the poor guy go?

:eyes:

[Fire1]

61. You can roll your eyes all you want but don't make ass-

umptions about something I neither said or implied.

[armyowalgreens]

46. Sigh. I'm still waiting for the capital punishment to be banned.

I refuse to rejoice in the death of any man.

[depakid]

51. Americans and their lust for vengence and violent retribution

What a sad sorry people they often prove to be....

[Catshrink]

55. Another domestic terrorist.

He should be sentenced to fight forest fires everyday there is one for the rest of his sorry life.

[flvegan]

56. The death penalty is revenge, not punishment.

Let him rot in prison until he's rolled out dead due to age or other circumstances.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. And when he's released by a "progressive" judge because that person thinks he's been punished enough

how will you explain to the families of the NEXT five heroes that the matchbooks with rubber bands holding lit cigarettes that killed their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons that he's not guilty enough to pay for his transgressions with his own life?

Convicted murderers who murder for gain, serial molesters who can't stop themselves from putting their nasty hands on innocent children, and firebugs whose fires kill and produce orphans need to die.

I will bet you MONEY that he lights a fire before he's put to death, which should take oh, about twenty five years or so. Firebugs and molesters have something that compels them to do what they do. They will not change.

Here's a challenge for you: Find ONE STORY about a molester or firebug who's been "rehabilitated" to the point where they've gone 20 years without re-offending.

[Independent_Voice]

58. As a Southern Californian....

...living on the cusp of Fire Alley (aka the San Fernando Valley), I shed no tears over these arsonists.

In fact, I believe the punishments for them should be far, FAR worse and more severe.

Obviously, those of you who don't live in California have no idea how these wildfires scare the living shit out of those of us who live amidst the Santa Ana Winds.

I also place blame on the L.A. area media for doing such a half-assed job at letting residents know which direction the fires are moving, along with our Gropenator for being in bed with the firefighter unions and holding back on the helicopter waterdrops so the firefighters can get paid for more hours.

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. As someone who lives in the San Bernardino Mountains, I agree

Someone will though, blame us for living in a place where fires are possible. They'd rather have us live in hives in small enclaves.

[Kajsa]

63. I agree,Independent Voice.

Living in OC
I remember well the inferno of October 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2007_California_wildfires

There is nothing quite as scary as being surrounded
by wildfires.

One of our members who lives near the border of the
Santiago Fire was on her roof, hosing it down at night!

We live with this every year and there is no specific
fire season anymore. It comes anytime, anywhere.

btw,

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

62. If I thought The State should have the power to kill its own citizens, I would be pleased with this.