'I think the issue is whether it should be pursued legally. '

you and I don't have a say in the 'issue' .

An act of arson happened on BLM land. It has it's own inertia well beyond what the BORG desires.

I'm glad you appreciate what happened, but there are many others who do not.

one thing for sure, it will not be a jury of burners who will be deciding his fate. It will be a bunch of Reno retirees.

I think the issue is if you support people taking action they believe is good for the future of the event. Knowing you are a big supporter of that Sunshine I know you can appreciate folks taking the path they believe is right. Thanks for your support!

Right on, I agree.

How is it that he can be convicted of arson when he burned up something that was constructed so that it could be burned? Do I commit arson when I light a candle?

"My answer... no charges should be pursued.
Its burning man.
I can appreciate it.
Let the guy go."

Well, would you feel he same way if someone you loved was in the pavillion when he set the man on fire? Because there were people in there.

"its burningman" is the same excuse it seems everyone who breaks a law there uses and tries to use in a court of law.
Its the same excuse the now convicted rapist of 2 women on the playa used.. its burningman its excpected so what they cgot more than they bargined for.

Sorry I am not buying it.
Its burningman is not an acceptabel excuse to commite arson, assualt, battery, rape, sexual assualt, drunk driving or any other horrid violent antisocial distructive illegal behaviour. I dont care what you do if it effects no one but your self .. wanna get high and be stupid fine just don't drive, wanna make a statment about Buringman and your opinions on it fine just don't destroy others property doing so.
How would you feel if the same jackass came and burned down your camp because he did not agree with it.

Much of the spin this metanly ill man has put out is pure BS.
and lets acknowledge what he is a man with a long history of mental illness who has been in and out of institutions and mental health facilities for years.
He is no hero he is not a poster child for some statment he is just a mentaly ill guy who did somthing destructive and now has every one acting like his ytwisted ranting had actual meaning.

Steve Fritz is a good photographer. I have seen his stuff before.

Apologies, someone contacted me about problems with that link, so cut & paste this URL instead: home.comcast.net/~playaitch/b7mana.htm (remember to add the http :// bit) or go to: home.comcast.net/~burningman/bman.htm (if that works) then scroll down, and click on "Man A" photos, scroll down and see the fire starting, happening, and the fire engine putting it out.

There are other good photos, click on "Steve's Main 2007 Burning Man Page" - very good.

I agree with you Jamie, in that the accused will be found guilty of the crime through other pieces of evidence, eye witnesses and testimony from LEOs. I'm just saying that this photo alone is not proof enough to convict him because it doesn't clearly identify him and there is no apparent visual representation of a fire. To me, the photo is akin to a bloody glove. It's interesting to look at though. Steve Fritz is an excellent photographer, I've used his work -- with permission I might add -- in my podcast.

Telly Savalas?!

I thought that was Yul Brynner! It's a puzzlement!

As I burn the effigy of rancid deli meat (dedicated to my god) My small army of cultist would be loading the long range trebuchet with mounds of flaming human fat combined with gelled gasoline & launching the yummy mixture at the large, man shaped pile of sticks!

Free Paul Addis!

oops.. that is "condemn".

What can I say, I'm sleepy, its 9:00 am on a saturday
;P

actually Sunshine you are incorrect the Law can and does condem people for could have beens.. its called endangering the public.. when some one commits an act that has the potental to harm others weather it did or not.

"You cannot condemn someone for things that didn't happen."

So ... if you fire a gun into someone's home at night, if the bullets don't actually hit anyone, then it's just a really funny prank. If you kill the television you can claim it was a political statement. We all participate in the same economy, so really, any damaged property would be to "our" property and destined for eventual replacement anyway. Certainly not worth getting the law involved.

I haven't read anyone condemning Paul for committing murder. That didn't happen. I would not be surprised if the charge was felony arson with reckless endangerment. Not to mention damage to exhibits in the pavilion.

Of the several first hand reports that have come forward, I have not read anyone saying they were warned or asked to vacate the area prior to the Tuesday burn. I think Paul's claim of a group of people assuring public safety is entirely a product of his imagination and the act of a coward not willing to face the full consequences of his action.

What I regret most is the effect this event will have on future security measures.

So tell me, what's possesion with INTENT to distribute? Or ATTEMPTED murder? Or all the various traffic laws that are in place to keep people from killing each other on the road? Restraining orders deter people from doing things that "could be".

No, Sunshine. There are MANY laws in place that can convict people of "those terrible might have beens."

-Gabriel

"You cannot condemn someone for things that didn't happen."

Then why are people sent to jail for Attempted Murder or any assortment of other "Attempted" crimes? No one got murdered after all, right? Perhaps the intent to not hurt anyone was there, but the conditions where that could well have happened were in fact created by him.