- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Florida Man arrested for intentionally igniting Pacific Palisades fire
Posted on 10/8/25 at 4:26 pm to LootieandtheBlowfish
Posted on 10/8/25 at 4:26 pm to LootieandtheBlowfish
PG&E is bankrupt like California is.
0
Posted on 10/8/25 at 4:35 pm to T1gerNate
Florida Man strikes again.
If he is proven guilty....f-ck him. That was a massive amount of pain and heartache he caused. I almost don't trust California to dispense justice here.
If he is proven guilty....f-ck him. That was a massive amount of pain and heartache he caused. I almost don't trust California to dispense justice here.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 4:44 pm to T1gerNate
If he will just say he was considering transitioning to a woman... California will step up and pay for his defense. He might even come out of this with a paid public speaking role aimed at school kids and fire prevention.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 4:57 pm to T1gerNate
quote:
Rinderknecht
Damn Germans again
Posted on 10/8/25 at 4:59 pm to T1gerNate
If interactions with AI will be used this way we all fricked.
Posted on 10/8/25 at 5:22 pm to dallastigers
quote:
He ignited the Jan 1st fire which was thought to have been put out after and then monitored for 36 hours without any new incidents.
This will be a complicated case and may go either way. The fire department, whichever one has jurisdiction over that area, will have to prove that it actually monitored for holdover. That is their responsibility.
quote:
He deserves charges for Jan 1st fire it appears, but there seems to be some debate on whether or not the buried embers theory started the bigger fire. Also not sure if the city and county (and maybe the state) have any liability for missing issue during the 36 hours of monitoring if this truly ends up being the cause.
The holdover fire is 100% plausible, and happens fairly often. That's why fires are supposed to be monitored. That monitoring entails putting hands on ground, feeling for warmth, and extinguishing any hotspots. LAFD/state forestry/whoever better have its ducks in a row and be able to prove they did what they were supposed to do.
Either way, if they're going with it being a rekindle it will relieve some liability from the power company. Though, there is some splitting of hairs going on with certain members of the wildfire community trying to say that those supposedly charged, but maybe not, powerlines failed during the fire and started additional fires at the heel of the Palisades fire. I disagree with that, even though the allegations actually made it to a civil suit. Homes in the neighborhoods closest to the fire start were involved, or in immediate threat, within a half hour of the fire first being reported. Scanner/radio traffic from the day backs that up 100%.
This will be interesting and is in no way a slam dunk for whoever is prosecuting the guy. Hell, getting convictions for criminal arson is difficult with even the simplest cases.
ETA: The Lahaina/Maui fire was also determined to be a holdover fire. So was the 1991 Oakland fire that killed 25 people.
This post was edited on 10/8/25 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 8:36 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
In Florida’s defense, he lived in Palisades CA when he committed the crimes.
Yep. Lived and worked in CA. He only fled to Florida.
quote:
Jonathan Rinderknecht started a fire near a hiking trail in the mountains near Pacific Palisades a few minutes after midnight on January 1 after he completed a shift driving an Uber car.
Rinderknecht, who told investigators he once lived in Pacific Palisades, was arrested in Florida.
Also, why did it take so long for 911 to answer?
quote:
Rinderknecht, 29, repeatedly called 911 on January 1 before successfully connecting to report the blaze, according to a criminal complaint
And how was the fire "quickly extinguished" on Jan 1 and the reignited on Jan 7? That seems a little strange. So the firefighters didn't actually put it out and let it smolder? 6 days seems like a long time.
quote:
Los Angeles firefighters had thought they had quickly extinguished that blaze, known as the Lachman Fire. But it erupted anew on January 7 after smoldering underground for a week, becoming the Palisades Fire, according to federal investigators.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 8:37 am
Posted on 10/9/25 at 10:43 am to BigBinBR
quote:
And how was the fire "quickly extinguished" on Jan 1 and the reignited on Jan 7? That seems a little strange. So the firefighters didn't actually put it out and let it smolder? 6 days seems like a long time.
When wildfire burns through an area it isn't just the surface vegetation that burns, root systems of plants and trees burn as well. Unlike surface vegetation it doesn't burn quickly. Instead, due to the moisture held in the roots, it smolders.
When seeing wildfire coverage have you heard the talk of "5% contained", or 10%, etc.? Containment of a wildfire always grows slowly because every inch of a perimeter has to have a hand put on it to feel for hotspots. It is labor intensive and takes time.
After a fire is determined to be contained they will let the interior finish burning and monitor the perimeter for hotspots. On small fires that are "put out" quickly, like the New Year's Day fire, they will keep a crew around to continue water work and monitoring for hotspots. There are guidelines in place that determine all of that procedure. This fire, evidently, didn't get the full treatment.
When the Sana Ana winds started kicking less than a week later some of those smoldering embers in the dirt were stired up casting wind-carried sparks/embers into surrounding vegetation. With 70mph+ winds, it was off to the races.
An important comparison to make is between the first fire and the eventual disastrous Palisades fire. Under "normal" conditions they managed that fire and knocked it down in around twelve hours. When hurricane force winds were added to the mix, a fire in the same exact terrain, in virtually the same exact location, became an uncontrollable firestorm.
ETA: The actual firefighting response to that first fire, to get containment, was three hours.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 11:03 am to UncleRuckus
Death penalty for sure.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:15 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
An important comparison to make is between the first fire and the eventual disastrous Palisades fire. Under "normal" conditions they managed that fire and knocked it down in around twelve hours. When hurricane force winds were added to the mix, a fire in the same exact terrain, in virtually the same exact location, became an uncontrollable firestorm.
To expand on this a bit:
That original fire, dubbed the Lachlan Fire after the road closest to it I believe, was held to 8 acres and was "fully contained" in around three hours per multiple reports and radio traffic from the night it happened.
It was a rather unremarkable fire that barely even registered with the various accounts that track California wildfires. It was probably viewed by the fire department/response units as a run-of-the-mill brushfire due to negligence. Being that it happened on a holiday, it isn't hard to envision the possibility of a more relaxed approach to that fire and the monitoring of it.
As I mentioned, that fire burned under "normal" conditions: low onshore flow wind and seasonal humidity levels. The closest neighborhoods were to the west of that fire and what wind there was actually helped to limit the fire's spread towards those neighborhoods. Where the fire started and to the east was Chaparral wilderness with pretty much no homes or structures. The Lachlan fire was managed well from an initial response perspective. It was......unremarkable.
That fire, and the subsequent Palisades Fire, started less than a quarter of a mile from multiple neighborhoods. Go on Google maps to the location of your home and use the measurement tool to measure just under a quarter of mile from your home. That's less than the length of a NHRA drag strip.
When the Santa Ana wind even began it completely changed the environment. The wind shifted to blowing out of the east/northeast, and it drastically lowered the humidity. This was also a high end Santa Ana wind event, comparable only to a handful of others over the years. In reality, the Pallisades Fire was a "wildland" fire for only 15-20 minutes. Almost immediately those homes to the west of the fire were under threat. Within a half hour homes were at threat of being involved. In less than 45 minutes homes in the closest neighborhoods were fully involved.
The initial response was timely. They had engines on that fire and in the closest neighborhoods within minutes. The first responding units reported ember cast (windblown sparks) up to an mile to a mile and a half from the fire. No sooner than responding firefighters could begin the defense of a home that another home would go up. In less than an hours time responding units were faced with a full fledged conflagration in densely packed neighborhoods perfectly aligned to the prevailing winds that were, at times, blowing at or above hurricane force.
That is how two fires in the same exact area, in the same season can have two wildly different outcomes. The first one was held to 8 acres. The second one burned until it reached the Pacific Ocean.
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:18 pm to T1gerNate
quote:
Florida Man
Man in Florida would be more accurate
Posted on 10/9/25 at 12:22 pm to T1gerNate
Not sure I am buying this guy and his cigarette are responsible.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News