Fire destroys Central Point landmark
A Central Point landmark has been destroyed. The Mail Tribune newspaper reports that the old Mon Desir restaurant went up in flames early today, with firefighters from Medford and Jacksonville helping to battle the blaze from outside the building.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Appeal Tribune.
#1 Jan 11, 2010
#2 Jan 11, 2010
This is so sad. I have many memories of special times at the Mon Desir: prom night dinners in high school, an engagement party, my late father's retirement party, anniversaries, birthdays, and so much more. Even when they rebuild, as the owner says he will do, it will not be the same 100-year-old building with all its charm and ambience.
And to "Fancy:" If it was insurance fraud, why would the owner plan to pay out probably more than the insurance would pay to rebuild? Don't jump to conclusions like that. It doesn't speak well of your attitude.
#4 Jan 13, 2010
Now that they have determined it was arson, chances are they will find some homeless person sought shelter in the abandoned building, built a fire for warmth, and it got out of hand. That is a much more likely circumstance than the owner setting it on fire, especially when he doesn't even live in the area. Who would risk hiring someone that, when caught, would "blow the whistle?" Let's not condemn without facts.
#5 Jan 14, 2010
Most would concur that withholding condemnation is appropriate until the facts are known.
However, suppositions without facts, such as "...chances are they will find some homeless person...", are also inappropriate. Furthermore, what is most disturbing, is the implication that a crime might be excusable in light of some undefined "social injustice."
#6 Jan 14, 2010
Intentional arson or arson for profit is really quite rare and is almost always uncovered, given our advanced forensic science methods, with prosecution following. I was merely expressing an opinion that is supported by statistics that most human-caused fires are started by children playing with fire or by homeless people trying to keep warm. Neither instance is a crime (unless criminal trespass is involved), just an unfortunate accident. There was NEVER a supposition that any crime is excusable and the term "social injustice" never entered the posting. Don't put words in my mouth.
#7 Jan 15, 2010
Holy hypersensitivities Batman!
Look, I don't want to "put words in your mouth," but, I am also very capable of reading between the lines.
Your knowledge of Oregon law as it pertains to felony arson, and "just an unfortunate accident," is incorrect.
Re: ORS 30.765, ORS 163.577, and ORS 164.335.
Children playing with fire (even if an "accident"), that causes damage can be charged with a Class A Misdemeanor and tried in adult court. ORS 419C.349
"Neither instance is a crime..." WRONG!
My gut feeling is that this incident will be determined to be felony arson, but I have been wrong before.
#8 Jan 15, 2010
Having worked for various district attorneys and having two law enforcement officers in our family, when I wrote about "crime" I meant to refer to possible arson as a felony--a deliberate criminal attempt to set fire to a structure or other property, whether for profit or any other reason. The key word here in determining such a felony crime of arson is "deliberate." Regardless of how the law reads, the way the courts and law enforcement interpret and apply those laws determines if a crime will actually be prosecuted. A child playing with matches would probably be considered as having caused an accident and not prosecuted, regardless of what the law says. For example, the 7-year-old which recently set fire to those apartments on Barnett Rd. in Medford which left 8 families homeless, including his own. He is not being charged with anything, misdemeanor or otherwise, and his punishment is being left to his mother---and rightly so. There are many laws on the books that are never applied because no criminal intent or criminal responsibility could be proved. Unfortunately, the courts and district attorneys everywhere just don't have the manpower, money, or time to deal with accidents which "might" have criminal law (i.e., misdemeanor) applicable. But until the arson investigators uncover some hard evidence that the fire was set with provable criminal intent, we have to wait and see, don't we?
Add your comments below
|Looking for||Feb 2||The Ex||1|
|Oregon model photos (Jan '15)||Jan 29||Dont go there||7|
|Cause of Mr. Thom's fire doesn't surface quickly (Jul '08)||Jan 19||Kent||9|
|kpmomof789 Kate parker speak up about your no l... (Mar '14)||Jan '16||More to the Picture||16|
|Grants Pass woman pulled out of her burning apa...||Dec '15||Becky||1|
|Aria Gin's New Tasting Room Creates Northwest D...||Dec '15||fuzmorten||1|
|Air strikes destroy Crater (Sep '11)||Nov '15||McWood||5|
Find what you want!
Search Central Point Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC