Go ahead she says. Try new things she says.
THANKS FOR NOTHING, MOM.

And now the taxpayers will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on his continuing burn care and medical expenses while in custody, and when released, he'll just go out and cook some more because there will be no meaningful reform or education done for him while he's in prison.

YAY WAR ON DRUGS!

"My life meth for youuuuuu!"

He has something to talk about these days...

Lives in his mother's mobile home and is now covered in chemical burns?

Look out, ladies!

He went just a *little* crazy with the Mike Tyson DIY Face Tattoo Kit.

How'd he start a fire? Shake n bake don't need no flame.

sheep snorter: Arson charges?

39-14-301.  Arson.

  (a) A person commits an offense who knowingly damages any structure by means of a fire or explosion:

   (1) Without the consent of all persons who have a possessory, proprietary or security interest therein; or

   (2) With intent to destroy or damage any structure to collect insurance for the damage or destruction or for any unlawful purpose.

(b)  (1) Arson is a Class C felony.

 Seems like it meets the criteria to me.

There's a difference in burning your house down because you left the bacon on the stove, and because the Coleman's Latern Fuel you were cooking the Meth in flashed over.

ZEH GOGGLEZ!
ZEY DO NOTHI...

Oh wait. Looks like they actually did something. Carry on then.

balisane: Man, once someone is addicted to meth, it seems like their brain chemistry is broken forever. Give them the choice of opting out of life altogether.

My wife has worked in medicine with homeless, prison, and jail populations.  She does not know one single person who has kicked meth.  She knows people who have kicked cocaine, heroin, and alcohol.  It really is an awful, awful chemical.

Dragonflew: Two articles in two days where I knew said face would be tattooed before I even clicked the link.

Uh.. no it isn't.

namegoeshere: Xcott: hardinparamedic: sheep snorter: Arson charges?

39-14-301.  Arson.

  (a) A person commits an offense who knowingly damages any structure by means of a fire or explosion:

   (1) Without the consent of all persons who have a possessory, proprietary or security interest therein; or

   (2)  With intent to destroy or damage any structure to collect insurance for the damage or destruction or for any unlawful purpose.

 Seems like it meets the criteria to me.

Snuh?

A meth lab explosion is not "intent to destroy or damage," or "knowingly damaging" a structure.

An accidental fire does not become arson simply because an unlawful purpose was involved.  It has to involve intent to set the fire, for that purpose.

If he was one of the twisted cooks who sets booby traps in his lab for the cops, even if he triggered his own traps accidentally, it would qualify.

It's because you, like many laypeople, are confusing the common definition of "intent"--"I meant to set this house on fire"--with the legal definition of "intent"--which also covers "knew or reasonably should have known." If you're engaged in an activity which you know has a very high likelihood of resulting in the kind of damage that is covered in the statute (in this case, arson), then you meet the legal definition of intent.

So if you're a regular person cooking soup in your kitchen, taking reasonable precautions to cook your soup, and you have a grease fire and the house burns down--no arson, because you didn't reasonably expect that your house would burn down due to your activities. However, if you're a meth head cooking meth in your kitchen, you have to have a reasonable expectation that the chemicals can explode and burn the house down. Thus, when they do, you meet the definition of arson, because you knew they were going to explode and yet you proceeded with your activities anyway. Since the activity was unlawful (cooking meth), you've got no other argument, because you had other options (not cooking meth).

For legal purposes, "intent" doesn't always mean a deliberate act. It can mean wanton recklessness coupled with unlawful action.