I need a SURVIVAL EXPERT

**Ken** · 03-10-2009, 09:38 AM

I found this on the web:

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?se...cal&id=4833235

and this:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=4&gl=us

and lastly, this:

"Dear Judge,

We the undersigned do not agree with what is being imposed on Patrick Courtney. We believe that any person, whomever they may be, has a right to survival. I've included details of the case as well as links to factual information, so those who are signing know the facts. We ask that this petition be taken seriously and most importantly keep in mind that each and every one of these people are putting their self in his shoes.

It should be kept in mind that this case will set a precedent in the State of California. This will prevent others from wanting to survive, when lost in the forest, because they will think that they will occur charges. A person has a right to defend one’s own life against animals, the cold, and a right to be found when lost!

Patrick's Story:

Patrick ,my fiancée, committed a crime when he was 18 years old, and now he is having it used against him at 31 and in Feb he will be 32. The crime at 18 has nothing to do with the charges he faces now. However, it's being brought up against him, even though there is no arson charges involved in his past conviction.

On September 2006, Labor day, he was lost in the forest for 24 hours, and when he was found they sent him home/ with his lighter. Two days later [while there was fires going all week long] they send a plane up and it crashes.

The NTSB concluded its investigation into the crash as pilot error.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

"the pilot's failure to maintain adequate terrain clearance while maneuvering over rising terrain in a box canyon. Also causal was the pilot's failure to adhere to procedures/directives regarding minimum altitude requirements."
Source for this information is:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...16X01351&key=1

On that site there is also a full narrative report into the crash! This is public record and these links were in the paper, for all to go see!

However, Patrick was charged three months after the crash with aggravated Arson and Two counts of First Degree murder. Those charges have since been downgraded to unlawful fire and 2nd degree murder. They claim they can charge him with murder because of the California Felony Murder rule. Because he had a warming fire- which a judge said he clearly showed effort to put out- they said the plane wouldn't had been up there in the first place.

Patrick had a warming fire and admitted this to them. He said, he was cold, scared of animals, and thought that this might signal someone. Because Patrick was previously convicted of something when he was 18, he is now 31, they have been completely biased. They have not pursued anyone else for this, and keep in mind it was Labor day weekend. There were so many people there that day, we had no place to park! There has been violation after violation. It started shortly after his arrest which, was three months after the crash, they recorded his conversation with his attorney. The lead investigator on their side heard the whole conversation. The judge ordered this to be turned over to his attorney however, imposed no further sanctions. Then, there was the revelation of evidence, that was so conveniently withheld from his preliminary hearing. They found a intact bottle of Vodka and a gun with dispersed bullets. this was found within days of the crash..... The next violation was, on the eve of trial the prosecution turns over 2,000 pages of evidence, forcing postponement. The next one was the other lead investigators footnotes were turned over 6 months after the judge threatened sanctions about discovery. Not to mention, they asked him to take a polygraph during an interview then, during this process has denied this. He has been incarcerated since November 17, 2006 and still has not been to trial

However, because of his past conviction they want to strike him out, with the Three Strikes Law. If convicted he is looking at 150 years in prison- for being lost in the forest!

Judge reduces charges"

**klkak** · 03-10-2009, 12:28 PM

I must be missing something. Why is he on trial?

**Ken** · 03-10-2009, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by klkak

I must be missing something. Why is he on trial?

Trial happened a couple of years back. He was convicted.

Guy started a fire somewhere in California. A plane with fire spotters was directing firefighters to the location. Plane crashed. Pilots died. Government claimed fire was arson. Arson is a felony, and if a felony reasonably results in someone's death, the death is considered murder. (Felony Murder Rule) So, guy was charged with murder.

His defense was that the fire wasn't arson. Fire was necessary as a signal because he was lost and in a survival situation. Bull****!

**wildography** · 03-10-2009, 02:24 PM

You might also consider talking to a leader/member of a rural SAR (search and rescue) team. I'd specifically recommend the Yosemite SAR team, because I worked with them a bit and know how they operate.

Members of Yosemite's SAR team have died during SAR operations... its something that happens. Your client MAY be guilty of negligence, or some other lesser charge... I don't think he should be found guilty of an "UNLAWFUL" fire, either. I wouldn't think he could (or should) be found guilty of any level of arson...

unless, of course, he was an idiot and set the whole dang forest on fire just to attract attention... there are common sense ways to build a signal fire without catching the whole forest on fire. So, if he was an idiot... yeah, maybe he deserved to be convicted. But if he controlled the fire... no way.

HOWEVER, according to the above post it was just a "warming" fire that he tried to put out... that doesn't sound like he was trying to burn down the whole forest to attract attention so he could get rescued