[Cris Alsrcon]
Misti writes on Social Media, “The hyper-focus on the guns is concerning. The language used in the article, in my opinion, is meant to create bias; particularly when pandering to an audience that does not have or use guns. So what if he posted videos and pictures of shooting “incendiary rounds” in February, almost 3 years ago. Sounds like a responsible time of year to be doing it and why is this information necessary to the article? I’m less interested in their gun habits than I am in wanting to know why there is not a complete arson investigation report. I’m more curious as to why an assistant DA has taken the lead on such a powerful and high profile case in this county and not the DA, himself. To be clear, I do not know either of these men. I support their right to own guns and most definitely a right to a fair and unbiased trial based on factual evidence.”
—
Cris Alarcon Response: It is a “Prosecution” so it IS biased! Just like a “Defense” is Bias. AND a dash of Politics.
So that being “as normal” the question becomes why focus on guns rather then the cause of the fire [factual direct evidence?]
Two reasons – neither has anything to do with guns!
1) This is a VERY high profile case with uncountable investigation work so the D.A. needs to respond strongly. All he seems to have is a circumstance case, one hard to prove – the factual cause of the start of the fire. Without Eyewitness testimony that is hard to “put the match to the flame” so to speak.
If the D.A. would have come out with a “Accidental fire, sorry” the county would have exploded, against the D.A. for being a pawn of the Feds.
So how to make the charges of starting a fire by accident meaningful to the damage done?
2) The defendants gave him a stick to hit them with, illegal guns…
An Automatic with a silencer…. That is a weapon to Take lives not Save lives. That kind of rig is going to be against the vast majority of voters as to the kind of gun used in civil societies…. And those gun charges carry serious penalties.
So “I suppose” the D.A. will use the Guns for two reasons, to add real teeth to the Charges hoping to get a deal where they plead guilty to starting the fire [by accident] saving the most difficult part – proving beyond a reasonable doubt. This will mean using the guns, and prior gun uses as the stick to beat down these men’s reputation [as being careful] to make the case they started the fire by acting reckless.
All of this revolves around their Reckless behavior with their GUNS so all the case will revolve around those guns – a “give me” to the prosecutor and may have Nothing to do with the case [it may have been started by a off-road vehicle without proper spark arrestor…] Key to the case is a pattern of reckless behavior so the D.A. will beat that horse long after it is dead. How will he discredit the defendant’s credibility? A pattern of gun use that most Jurors will find beyond reasonable.
My take? A weak case and the Prosecutor is throwing out “red meat” to provoke an emotional response to cover for what may be a “Arson case” loss! At least he will have real, and serious crimes [guns] to claim “taking off the streets.”
Cris Alarcon, 12/14/21