When a fire damages a building, causes property damage or harms humans, an investigation typically follows. Professionals try to determine what may have caused the fire and who might be at fault. Occasionally, investigators determine that the fire may have been the result of arson.
They allege that someone intentionally set the fire, possibly with the goal of harming others or justifying a sizable insurance claim. In some cases, property owners may find themselves accused of starting fires at their own homes or businesses. Other times, people who have relationships with property owners affected by a fire may find themselves facing accusations of arson.
Certain details about the situation may increase the risk of arson accusations. For example, professionals might allege that the presence of accelerants at the scene of the fire indicates that someone set and spread the fire intentionally.
Can those accused of arson involving accelerants fight the charges they’re facing?
Most properties contain some accelerants
It is a crime to intentionally start a fire with the goal of harming others or filing a fraudulent insurance claim. The presence of accelerants can lead investigators to assume that the fire was intentional. However, sometimes accelerants simply happen to exist near where a fire starts.
Numerous different compounds may act as accelerants to a fire. Obviously, petroleum products, including gasoline and kerosene, can spread fire quickly. Many people have gasoline in their garages, sheds or businesses. Some people keep kerosene in their homes for special lamps. People with small kitchens or large families could have small standalone ranges that have canisters of fuel that could combust and rapidly expand a fire that breaks out near storage or a kitchen.
Alcohol and cooking oil, which people may have in their kitchens or pantries, could also become accelerants that increase how quickly the fire spreads and how much damage it causes. Items used for gardening and craft projects could also potentially act as accelerants. Even rubbing alcohol, which people may have used to sanitize after a pet accident on a carpet, could linger after its application and might worsen a fire that occurs later.
What appears to have been an accelerant applied to intentionally worsen a fire might simply have been a household item that the individual kept on hand or a chemical that they relied on for business purposes. In some cases, it may be possible to explain the presence of accelerants at a property by showing that someone routinely used those items.
What appears to be arson is sometimes simply a fire that broke out in the wrong location and came into contact with the wrong items nearby. Looking into forensic evidence and other details about the case can help individuals accused of arson explore their options for fighting their charges. Raising questions about intent is one viable strategy. Proving that an individual did not have access to the property at a certain time could also help limit the likelihood of an arson conviction after a house fire.
Recognizing that seemingly problematic details are not always indicative of criminal activity can help people respond effectively to pending arson charges. Property owners and others facing scrutiny after a major fire may need help analyzing the state’s evidence and preparing an appropriate legal response, and that’s okay.