Terry Lynn Barton
Posted on 06/02/2008 10:08:37 AM PDT by george76
Terry Lynn Barton has been released from prison after serving a six-year term for starting the worst wildfire in Colorado's recorded history.
Barton, 44, pleaded guilty to arson charges stemming from the 2002 Hayman Fire, which blackened 138,000 acres, destroyed 133 homes and forced more than 8,000 people to evacuate.
She was a fire spotter for the U.S. Forest Service at the time
(Excerpt) Read more at denverpost.com ...
Thanks.
I remember that crew from Oregon coming to help.
She was working for the USFS, not the State of Colorado...” then go and ask the governor ...”
Hopefully, at least indirectly, she will now help some of the people who were burned out.
One thing that she and the Forest Service should do, but are very timid...is creating defensible spaces on public lands. Massive fires ripping thru neglected public lands do not normally stop at the property lines.
Private landowners often understand and create defensible spaces on their own property.
Another example : allow logging of blown down timber that still has some economic value. Combine that with foresters who should be allowed to make the final forestery decisions as to a health forest and defensible spaces next to private property.
Friedrich Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orléans
The SMokey the Bear, “don’t throw your cig out the window, it causes forest fires ads make me laugh”. If you look at past history, federal employees, like this lady, start most of these big fires.
A bankrobber whose intent is to simply intimidate a clerk and walk out with a few grand and no injuries to anyone may wind up in a gun battle that claims several innocent lives.
His initial intent does not excuse the unintended consequences that followed from his act - he intentionally committed a crime, but the crime he committed spiraled out of control.
This woman intended to start a fire and she deliberately left the fire unattended and unextinguished.
She probably never dreamed that her stupid and irresponsible act would have such enormous consequences, but lack of foresight is not a legal defense.
This woman did not walk into a bank with a weapon and threaten anyone.. she stupidly set a fire to burn some dear john letters that got out of control.
Your continued rediculous attempts to equate willfully dangerous behavior with stupidity just makes you look well, more foolish that this stupid gal.
Terry Lynn Barton
Excellent point.
I'm a member of the Gettysburg Friends, and one of the ongoing issues in battlefield restoration is getting permission to remove trees that were nonexistent in 1863 and which obscure important features of the battlefield.
As one battlefield guide said: "Heaven forbid that the Parks Service ever chop down a tree."
She engaged in very reckless behavior which could have killed people.
She did not set the fire accidentally. She set the fire on purpose.
Your continued rediculous attempts to equate willfully dangerous behavior with stupidity just makes you look well, more foolish that this stupid gal.
Your descent into personal invective demonstrates the weakness of your argument.
Again, lack of foresight is not a legal defense.
This woman had as thorough a knowledge of the danger of forest fires as anyone - yet she deliberately set a fire in a wooded area in the dry season and left it unattended.
When informed of the conclusions of the forensic investigators BARTON recanted her previous statements and admitted that they were false. BARTON stated that she had not smelled smoke at all and that, in fact, she had not discovered the fire, but had, in fact, started the fire herself. ... She reported that she looked at a letter that she had received that morning from her estranged husband. She became angry and upset and decided to get rid of the letter. BARTON stated that she drove past the campfire ring off of Road 290 and decided to burn the letter. She walked to the campfire ring, knelt down, and ignited the paper letter with a match or matches she had in her purse. … As she drove past the campfire ring, she claimed that she observed that the fire had escaped from the campfire ring and was on the ground in the vicinity of nearby pine trees, and beyond the trees in the grass. She reported the fire and tried to suppress it, without success.”
The U.S. attorney doesn’t buy Barton’s burning-letter story, either. The indictment charges her with “maliciously” rather than accidentally starting the fire.
Barton radioed for help at 4:55 p.m. that afternoon, and volunteers from tiny Lake George came to engage the fire. Initially, she blamed criminals in a gold van for starting the blaze that she’d tried to fight on her own, a blond smoke-eater whom one friend called “an awesome girl.”
But then questions flared up. What gold van? What criminals?
“I did it,” Terry Lynn Barton told one investigator. “It was a stupid thing.” And with those words, the 38-year-old U.S. Forest Service employee
In March 2008, Barton was re-sentenced by a different judge to 15 years of probation.
Barton served 6-year state and federal terms concurrently and now faces 15 years of state probation and four years of federal probation.
She was ordered to pay $14.7 million in restitution to the federal government and state prosecutors are seeking an additional $27.5 million in restitution. A judge has not yet ruled on the state request.
State and federal prosecutors say it will be up to Barton’s probation officers to arrange payments on the restitution debt.
It is if it negates mens rea. I don't know whether that's applicable here--Colorado obviously doesn't follow common law arson--but I don't think it's quite fair to say that her lack of foresight isn't an issue here.
Open spaces with no trees provide an excellent balance to other areas.
Elk, deer, buffalo...like eating grass more than bark. Grassy fields are also good for eagles, hawks...to catch their lunch.
I love trees, but a balance is nice.
The Gettysburg battlefield is a wonderful place. Removing trees as the area was full of farms in 1863 seems to be a thoughful idea. Getting a better feel of what really happened and what the armies experienced would be good ?
More than likely she will have to make monthly payments no where near what it would take to repay the debt and at some point a judge will excuse the rest of the fine for her good behavior.
And is soon to be an Expat. Woo, I'd be all worried about that probabation violation. NOT. 42million bucks can really slant your perspective.
Many believe that her burning of a Dear John letter was another part of her no so clever scheme.
Her job with the Forest Service had been seasonal and she wanted to move up the ranks to higher pay. I recall that she had recently been promoted to year round ? ( I could be mistaken ).
Her job that day was to note and report any new fire activity ? ( Again, I am basing this on a fading memory ). If accurate, then she reported this alleged gold van which could help advance her career. Also discovering a small fire could have been a job enhancement ( at least in her own mind ).
Apparently, she stuck to her lies until a serious fire arson investigator was brought in. They had the damning evidence; only then, did she change her story.
Pity anyone driving a gold van that day.
Please, she burned some dear john letters, that’s it. Reckless behavior? Please. If that’s your definition of reckless, you really don’t get out much.
You continue to try to equate this womans stupidity with willful dangerous intent, which is just on its face ludicrous.
She’s paid her debt, her name will be mud for the rest of her life, etc etc etc. Keeping her in jail longer serves no justice, serves no deterant, serves nothing.
Fact is simple, forest fires happen, whether by a human being doing something stupid or lighting. You build a house in an area prone to dryness and forest fires, your house burns down, you don’t go thinking the entire loss was due to one persons actions. Just like when a river floods and you live in a flood plain you don’t go saying it was simply the levy being poorly constructed that lead to your house burning down.
You can continue your vengence motif, but frankly its tired, ill justified, and wins none to your side. She’s paid her debt for an act of stupidity.
What the hell is the point, they'll never collect, and all it does is burn up more taxpayer payroll and the court's time for an exercise in futility. They should send the legal bill to the moron state prosecutor and make him pay for it out of his own pocket.
First, the letter-burning is her claim.
The prosecution believed that she set the fire intentionally to play hero by combatting it.
Again, even though she was a trained firespotter, she - according to her own account - deliberately set a fire in a wooded area during the dry season and then walked away from it.
You continue to try to equate this womans stupidity with willful dangerous intent, which is just on its face ludicrous.
She deliberately set a fire in at a time and in a place which she knew from her professional training to be a dangerous area for starting fires.
It would be ludicrous to suggest that she was not fully cognizant of what could happen. But - again relying on her own account - she was so mad at her ex-husband she didn't consider the implications of her actions.
She’s paid her debt, her name will be mud for the rest of her life, etc etc etc. Keeping her in jail longer serves no justice, serves no deterant, serves nothing.
The very question at issue is whether she has "paid her debt" or not. How long should one spend in jail for destroying more than 30MM of personal property? For putting hundreds of people out on the street? For terrorizing 8,000 people into fleeing their homes?
Some would say 10 or 20 years instead of 6 would be appropriate.
I would also point out that punishment and deterrence are two ends of imprisonment, but another very important element is recidivism. What will she do the next time her lovelife takes a turn for the worse?
Fact is simple, forest fires happen, whether by a human being doing something stupid or lighting. You build a house in an area prone to dryness and forest fires, your house burns down, you don’t go thinking the entire loss was due to one persons actions.
Ah, but in this case it was indubitably due to one person's actions.
Just like when a river floods and you live in a flood plain you don’t go saying it was simply the levy being poorly constructed that lead to your house burning down.
What if someone decided to remove a few hundred bricks from a key point in the levee because they wanted them to stack on top of some dear john letters?
After all, who knew the river was going to rise that high before the levee was fixed?
You can continue your vengence motif, but frankly its tired, ill justified, and wins none to your side. She’s paid her debt for an act of stupidity.
If the debt was paid, as you repeatedly claim, why is she still liable for more than $14MM?
$14MM that her debtors will never see more than a few thousand dollars of.
The only thing of value that she has is time, and she shouldn't be allowed to keep as much of it as she has.
Look up the definition of “reckless.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.