Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Couple who was charged for crimes related to the El Dorado gender-reveal wildfire in 2020 is now being charged with manslaughter due to a firefighter dying while battling the blaze   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Followup, San Bernardino County, California, Jury, Felony, Firefighter Charles Morton, Grand jury, San Bernardino, California, Manslaughter, felony count of involuntary manslaughter  
•       •       •

2118 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jul 2021 at 8:55 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



142 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-07-21 8:20:27 AM  
While I will acknowledge that it seems like it could be somewhat dangerous to set a precedent where people can be charged criminally for the duty-related injury or death of first responders who are dispatched to their homes, I think this is concern is over-ridden by the fact people who throw gender reveal parties deserve the worst possible fates we can assign them.
 
2021-07-21 8:24:02 AM  
[good.jpg]
 
2021-07-21 8:33:05 AM  
I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.
 
2021-07-21 8:37:47 AM  
The only thing that could make this story better is if their kid ends up trans
 
2021-07-21 8:57:53 AM  

Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.


That was the 70's and 80's when having kids was "meh" and kids were also free range
 
2021-07-21 8:59:02 AM  
I can't wait to see what they come up with for their verdict and sentencing reveal parties.
 
2021-07-21 8:59:41 AM  

SoupGuru: The only thing that could make this story better is if their kid ends up trans


I think it'd be pretty hilarious.  Gender != biological sex.  At the same time, they can't call it a "baby genital reveal".

I guess they could just tell people "it's a boy/girl/ambiguous!" but that lacks the flair of thousands of acres burned.
 
2021-07-21 9:00:08 AM  

sno man: [good.jpg]


It's a gif.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-21 9:00:35 AM  

Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.


Boys used to simply ask girls to prom, but in the age of social media you have to go big.  Like stupid big.  Otherwise you don't get those sweet likes and retweets.  Which, of course, are legitimate ways to prove your worth.
 
2021-07-21 9:04:13 AM  

Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.


And anyway, how dare they impose a gender on a child.
 
2021-07-21 9:04:46 AM  

Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.


I think they are for people who  love attention.  They got a bunch of fuss made about them at their wedding and are now going through withdrawals.  The solution, get knocked up and have a massive gender reveal party to put on Instagram, etc.
 
2021-07-21 9:05:09 AM  

nemisonic: Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.

That was the 70's and 80's when having kids was "meh" and kids were also free range


Free range kids are much tastier than farm-raised.
 
2021-07-21 9:06:21 AM  

SoupGuru: The only thing that could make this story better is if their kid ends up trans


No, that would be terrible.

Either they will not be accepting of their kid's new status, or worse, to support their child, they'll throw another gender reveal party that will probably doom all humanity.
 
2021-07-21 9:06:24 AM  

Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.


That's not going to generate any views on social media.
 
2021-07-21 9:06:49 AM  
I always get in trouble revealing my gender.
 
2021-07-21 9:10:31 AM  
A smoke bomb set off by the couple in Yucaipa, California, on September 5 as part of a gender reveal sparked a fire that went on to burn more than 22,000 acres across two counties, San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson said during a news conference.

You know someone suggested to the couple that this might be a bad idea but they got shouted down.  This is an EVENT!

Now go to Mexico, buy one large blue bomba and one large pink bomba.  But keep the receipt for the pink bomba.
 
2021-07-21 9:12:03 AM  
Is gender reveal party an American only thing? their version of baby shower? I always thought it was a euphemism for an orgy.
 
2021-07-21 9:12:49 AM  

TappingTheVein: Is gender reveal party an American only thing? their version of baby shower? I always thought it was a euphemism for an orgy.


Nay, this is in addition to the baby shower(s)
 
2021-07-21 9:13:36 AM  

SoupGuru: The only thing that could make this story better is if their kid ends up trans


Regardless of gender, this kid will be much better off being oprhaned.
 
2021-07-21 9:13:56 AM  
There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.
 
2021-07-21 9:15:45 AM  

Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.


Many Americans are sick and tired of feeling like they are peons and willingly grasp onto any and every activity that strokes their ego/makes them feel like a bigshot. A party where they get to blow up shirt and make everything about "me, me, ME" is exactly that kind of opportunity.
 
2021-07-21 9:16:48 AM  
What about the rioters of 06 January?  Still waiting for hard time charges for those twunts.
 
2021-07-21 9:17:52 AM  

nemisonic: Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.

That was the 70's and 80's when having kids was "meh" and kids were also free range


Every Saturday after cartoons, mom would put us outside and lock the door.  Lunch will be placed on the porch at noon, water is in the hose.  Don't come back until the streetlights come on.  (But not one second after).
 
2021-07-21 9:18:47 AM  

2wolves: What about the rioters of 06 January?  Still waiting for hard time charges for those twunts.


I think we already know their gender.
 
2021-07-21 9:18:55 AM  

Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.


If they were fully intentionally committing arson, they'd be charged with felony murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
 
2021-07-21 9:22:30 AM  

TappingTheVein: Is gender reveal party an American only thing? their version of baby shower? I always thought it was a euphemism for an orgy.


It's also a thing in the UK, if not elsewhere.
 
2021-07-21 9:24:37 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.

And anyway, how dare they impose a gender on a child.


And to think, they give the baby a name? The child should chose their own man's when they are ready. And what's the deal with choosing to clothe a baby? The child might not like those clothes.  It should be the child's choice of what clothes they identify with.

This is an example of a parent doing it right.
Sonny and Frankenstein
media1.popsugar-assets.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-21 9:25:01 AM  

Serious Black: Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.

If they were fully intentionally committing arson, they'd be charged with felony murder, not involuntary manslaughter.


Good point. But they must have some sort of evidence of intent.
 
2021-07-21 9:25:18 AM  

taintbaggins: 2wolves: What about the rioters of 06 January?  Still waiting for hard time charges for those twunts.

I think we already know their gender.


'Dumbass' is a gender?
 
2021-07-21 9:26:27 AM  
I don't know about that. If they were dehydrated dumbasses on the verge of death stuck in the mountains due to their poor planning and general dumbassery. EMS has to send in a chopper, then said chopper crashes into a mountain because they went to the NBA flight school... They wouldn't get charged manslaughter for the crew. At most wouldn't they just be on the hook for the cost (which you're never gonna pay back because most peoples' lifetime earnings don't equal even a fraction of 30 million)? There are plenty of cases like that.
 
2021-07-21 9:27:52 AM  
In my day, people would simply write or call, but that was when a telephone was something attached to a wall with a cord.
 
2021-07-21 9:28:04 AM  

Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.


Possibly, though if they had proof it was intentional arson they'd probably be looking at first-degree murder
 
2021-07-21 9:29:13 AM  
They should be whipped.
Public flogging.

Set an example.
 
2021-07-21 9:33:32 AM  
I have a German friend that I've known for 30 years, since we first met in high school while he was an exchange student.

About 10 years ago, I asked him: "What's the one thing you hate most about America?" and his response was instantaneous and unambiguous - "bachelorette parties."

About a year ago, I get an email from him out of the blue and it says "Remember when I told you that bachelorette parties were the worst thing about America? Well, gender reveal parties are even worse!"
 
2021-07-21 9:33:58 AM  

Russ1642: Serious Black: Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.

If they were fully intentionally committing arson, they'd be charged with felony murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

Good point. But they must have some sort of evidence of intent.


Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another person while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous felony or a lawful act that might produce death. The crime here was presumably violating restrictions on fires and incendiary devices. Violating that law caused a wildfire (which is exactly why the restrictions are in place) and someone died. Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me.
 
2021-07-21 9:36:05 AM  
GOOD! Why stop there? Charge Prometheus too.

Why didn't they simply rake the forest first? They were warned, no sympathy.
 
2021-07-21 9:37:34 AM  

Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.


Shouldn't be to hard to make involuntary manslaughter stick.

Getting a conviction from a jury in that part of cali just from the fact they burned down 22k acres of woods should be a lay up.
 
2021-07-21 9:41:10 AM  

shut_it_down: Russ1642: Serious Black: Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.

If they were fully intentionally committing arson, they'd be charged with felony murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

Good point. But they must have some sort of evidence of intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another person while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous felony or a lawful act that might produce death. The crime here was presumably violating restrictions on fires and incendiary devices. Violating that law caused a wildfire (which is exactly why the restrictions are in place) and someone died. Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me.


So they're going to try to prove they knew about the restrictions and that they knew their smoke thingy was in violation of it. I think a jury's going to be sympathetic to a crying couple with a new baby unless there's some recorded evidence of them saying fark the rules I do what I want, or of them not immediately reporting the fire, or of them telling the attendees not to say anything to authorities, or something else along those lines.
 
2021-07-21 9:41:53 AM  
Good there actions started the fire and they should be held responsible.

That said  i have never understood the appeal of a gender reveal party, so if you must have one do it safely.
 
2021-07-21 9:47:37 AM  

TappingTheVein: Is gender reveal party an American only thing? their version of baby shower? I always thought it was a euphemism for an orgy.


Not any orgy I'm going to.
 
2021-07-21 9:48:07 AM  

grimlock1972: i have never understood the appeal of a gender reveal party


"Mommies". You will never find a more wretched hive of entitlement and attention whoring.
 
2021-07-21 9:48:17 AM  

TappingTheVein: Is gender reveal party an American only thing? their version of baby shower? I always thought it was a euphemism for an orgy.


Pray it does not escape our borders.
 
2021-07-21 9:50:55 AM  

Russ1642: shut_it_down: Russ1642: Serious Black: Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.

If they were fully intentionally committing arson, they'd be charged with felony murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

Good point. But they must have some sort of evidence of intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another person while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous felony or a lawful act that might produce death. The crime here was presumably violating restrictions on fires and incendiary devices. Violating that law caused a wildfire (which is exactly why the restrictions are in place) and someone died. Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me.

So they're going to try to prove they knew about the restrictions and that they knew their smoke thingy was in violation of it. I think a jury's going to be sympathetic to a crying couple with a new baby unless there's some recorded evidence of them saying fark the rules I do what I want, or of them not immediately reporting the fire, or of them telling the attendees not to say anything to authorities, or something else along those lines.


It will all hinge on what the state considers reckless and can prove that what these people did fit that definition.  It seems like a stretch to me.  I cant seem to find what type of "pyrotechnic smoke generating device" they used, but I'd guess they didn't think that there was a high probability that they would cause harm.
 
2021-07-21 9:51:42 AM  

MythDragon: nemisonic: Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.

That was the 70's and 80's when having kids was "meh" and kids were also free range

Every Saturday after cartoons, mom would put us outside and lock the door.  Lunch will be placed on the porch at noon, water is in the hose.  Don't come back until the streetlights come on.  (But not one second after).


Do you think she did that for your benefit or because kids are annoying little shiats and mommy wants to drink?
 
2021-07-21 9:54:51 AM  

Monkey2: I just don't understand these big Gender Reveal events. People used to just put a pink or blue balloon on their mailbox and that seemed to work OK.


Competitive Attention Whoring. It's a new sport that's really taken off like a wildfire.
 
2021-07-21 9:56:27 AM  
I get that people are angry about forest fires but that seems like a dangerous precedent to set. I mean, it's not as if the firefighter was unaware of the fire he was fighting or unaware of the risks.
 
2021-07-21 9:57:48 AM  

Jeebus Saves: Russ1642: shut_it_down: Russ1642: Serious Black: Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.

If they were fully intentionally committing arson, they'd be charged with felony murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

Good point. But they must have some sort of evidence of intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another person while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous felony or a lawful act that might produce death. The crime here was presumably violating restrictions on fires and incendiary devices. Violating that law caused a wildfire (which is exactly why the restrictions are in place) and someone died. Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me.

So they're going to try to prove they knew about the restrictions and that they knew their smoke thingy was in violation of it. I think a jury's going to be sympathetic to a crying couple with a new baby unless there's some recorded evidence of them saying fark the rules I do what I want, or of them not immediately reporting the fire, or of them telling the attendees not to say anything to authorities, or something else along those lines.

It will all hinge on what the state considers reckless and can prove that what these people did fit that definition.  It seems like a stretch to me.  I cant seem to find what type of "pyrotechnic smoke generating device" they used, but I'd guess they didn't think that there was a high probability that they would cause harm.


Literally every single device I bought for the Fourth of July had a large warning box that explained what kinds of pyrotechnic effects it had and warned you about how to use it to not trigger a fire. If you can't read and understand those kinds of instructions, you are exactly the kind of person who should never be permitted to purchase nor ignite pyrotechnic devices.
 
2021-07-21 10:04:02 AM  
They used to smoke "It's a boy" or "It's a girl" cigars in the hospital.  Hospitals banned smoking, so people came up with something else.
 
2021-07-21 10:06:05 AM  

Serious Black: Jeebus Saves: Russ1642: shut_it_down: Russ1642: Serious Black: Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.

If they were fully intentionally committing arson, they'd be charged with felony murder, not involuntary manslaughter.

Good point. But they must have some sort of evidence of intent.

Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another person while committing a crime that is not an inherently dangerous felony or a lawful act that might produce death. The crime here was presumably violating restrictions on fires and incendiary devices. Violating that law caused a wildfire (which is exactly why the restrictions are in place) and someone died. Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me.

So they're going to try to prove they knew about the restrictions and that they knew their smoke thingy was in violation of it. I think a jury's going to be sympathetic to a crying couple with a new baby unless there's some recorded evidence of them saying fark the rules I do what I want, or of them not immediately reporting the fire, or of them telling the attendees not to say anything to authorities, or something else along those lines.

It will all hinge on what the state considers reckless and can prove that what these people did fit that definition.  It seems like a stretch to me.  I cant seem to find what type of "pyrotechnic smoke generating device" they used, but I'd guess they didn't think that there was a high probability that they would cause harm.

Literally every single device I bought for the Fourth of July had a large warning box that explained what kinds of pyrotechnic effects it had and warned you about how to use it to not trigger a fire. If you can't read and understand those kinds of instruction ...


Right, and if you lit one of those off and set a house on fire, and a firefighter died putting it out, do you think that's involuntary manslaughter?  When you light off a firework, you know there is a danger.  Would you assume that when you light it off that it's highly likely something really bad will happen?  Of course not, but that's what reckless is usually defined as.
 
2021-07-21 10:07:37 AM  

Russ1642: There must be some emails or texts that indicate intent to disregard rules and fire safety measures if they're going after them for manslaughter. It's the sort of thing you'd charge them with if it was fully intentional arson. But they've plead not guilty so we'll find out in trial I guess.


I wonder if this will open it up for people to sue PG&E for the fires they started through negligence.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.