"The ARSONISTS in Portland."

I'm glad you brought this up. See, Arson has a specific legal meaning. At common law, before statutory penal codes, the crime of arson was strictly limited to "the malicious burning of the dwelling of another." /1

This meant that a person could only be an arsonist if, for a malicious purpose, they set your house on fire. In some jurisdictions that was later expanded to not just a house, but any building, and not just malicious, but intentional.

/2

The difference is under the old common law rule "Bob set the grocery store on fire because, and he meant to do that" would not have been arson. "Bob burned down his ex's house to teach them a lesson would be."

You can see why they expanded the definition.

/3

Anyhow, the common law kind of sucked for criminal purposes, because when you commit a crime you sort of like to have the rules in advance, right? Like, you don't want to light a fire in your back yard and then be charged with arson, right? So we codified them in statutes. /4

And, in many cases, those statutes would EXPAND the scope of the things that qualify as elements of the crime, and create different degrees of the same crime. Like Arson.

/5

In Oregon, where I have been informed Portland is actually located via the ultra-secret Antifa Telegraph Communication Network, there are two degrees of Arson: First Degree and Second Degree. /6

Starting with the most serious, First Degree arson is as follows: /7

As you can see, First Degree Arson in Oregon is best summarized as "intentionally setting a fire that damages 'protected property' of another, ANY property if it causes an injury to a cop or firefighter, OR when a meth lab goes boomy boom." /8

And while you may say "BUT PROTECTED PROPERTY MEANS ANY PROPERTY" I would like to remind you that when we write laws we give specific meanings to specific words sometimes, and in relation to Arson in Oregon, the meaning is as follows:

So, "protected property" is an actual term defined as a structure occupied by people. Not a sidewalk, but a building. And I haven't seen anything indicating a BUILDING has been set on fire. So we can rule that out. /10

Likewise, I've seen nothing saying cops or firefighters were injured. So there goes the second point. At this point we can say that, unless Kansas's old friend CRYSTAL METH was involved), if this is Arson it isn't Arson in the First. /11

So we look to Arson in the Second: /12

Arson in the second is best defined as "intentionally burning any type of building, or another person's property if the damages are $750 or up." And we look again to the definition for "property of another" which is "Property someone else has an ownership interest in" /13

...oh yeah, and meth. Meth is still in there. But we've covered that.

So, the question would be "Whose property was burned and what property was damaged, and what was the value of either?" in determining whether or not second degree arson applies. /14

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say there probably was not $750 worth of garbage burned on the concrete. I may be wrong, but that's my gut feeling. Also, who has a legal interest in garbage? Many court cases imply there is no ownership or privacy interest in trash. /15

Fun fact: MOST of those cases were determined to give the police the right to dig through your garbage without a warrant in the search for evidence. Take from that what you will, and enjoy the mental image of the cops handling your used kleenexes from your "cold." /16

So it's likely not First Degree Arson, possibly not Second Degree Arson, but we all know you can't just SET SHIT ON FIRE LEGALLY, so what is it? /17

...I mean, most likely Reckless Burning, which literally is just "You set the property of someone else on fire and it didn't fall in any of our other classes."

/18

"But they were within the fence and doesn't that mean it's arson because of the curtilage?" you ask, or more likely don't ask because who but lawyers ever uses the word "curtilage?" (It means the area surrounding a building that forms on part of it...think a fenced in area.) /19

And the answer is "I mean, is a road/sidewalk really part of the curtilage of the building itself just because you put up a couple concrete barriers and a fence? I'd argue no, and also, we tend to use curtilage rules for houses." /20

And "Well, they STILL COMMITTED A CRIME" is a valid response, but not really because while, even if it wasn't arson, it is still a crime the word "arson" has a very specific legal and general meaning as "BURN IT TO THE GROUND." The usage imports a very serious offense. /21

Not, you know, just starting a fire with some garbage that likely caused less than $750 worth of damage.

But I get it.

Nobody can build a narrative by saying "The ANTIFA RECKLESS BURNERS."