We have neither the right nor the duty to judge this man's conduct. And we certainly have even less knowledge as to the actual facts of exactly what he did. Unfortunately news reportage is often inaccurate in both details and generalities. Whether he will or will not be arrested and prosecuted will be sorted out by the local sheriff and prosecutor based upon whether what he did was or was not illegal. Hopefully that will be a fair decision. Later a jury (presumably) will dispassionately judge his conduct in light of the fully proven facts sorted through the matrix of law.

I personally would be loathe to discharge an aerial flare in the dry, brushy conditions prevalent in much of southern California presently. It's a tinder box ready for ignition. The validity of the high fire danger warnings is proven by the many and large forest fires epidemic in the region. In many parts of the country, it is not so dry as to be so readily susceptible to fire. I even recall one USFS ranger admonishing me not to worry so much about fire regulations and forest fires in that state since they were welcomed as a means of cleaning and renewing the forest, a remark that struck me as being in marked contrast to the attitudes prevalent in areas like southern California.

However the potential sources for ignition are innumerable. So the question really becomes why vegetation was allowed to become so dangerously thick. While the environmentalists will deservedly get much of the blame, our political leaders and upper forestry management are also responsible for tolerating those conditions. Therefore that is really a political question and not a criminal legal assessment to be imposed one foolish or hapless individual. (End of rant.)

John