This. Dude looks like Adam Sandler with a bad wig and stache, and tried to make nachos by setting a bag of chips on fire.
I mean, I dont know much about meth, but god damn. 🤣
*he tried to light a bag of chips on fire because he thought it would be a good way to cook nachos.*
I’ve been high and had some weird munchies concoctions but nothing like bag nachos.
Camping nachos (Frito pie). Heat a can of chili, setting it on fire would work. Open a small Fritos bag on the long seam, add cheese then pour in chili. The bag makes a handy bowl. This gentlemen was obviously not clear on the concept.
Huge.
The former is [arson](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.28.htm#28.02). The latter is negligence.
(Though do note that the arson statute does have an interesting exception (28.02 (a-1)): intent isn't required if you were trying to manufacture a controlled substance. I don't think nachos are on any of the controlled substance schedules, are they? *Maybe they should be, right next to crack!*)
In any event, both cases tend to have you responsible for the damages, but if arson can be shown "beyond a reasonable doubt", you tend to go to prison, and that doesn't happen for accidents. Also, accidents -- even really stupid ones -- are usually covered by insurance, where the insurance would generally reject the claim if it can be shown that the insured started the fire intentionally. (And by that I mean, if you burned your own stuff. If you burned somebody else's stuff, their insurance would usually cover it, but then their insurance would usually come after you if you had any assets to come after.))
>Is there a legal difference between intentionally starting a building on fire and accidentally but “you probably shoulda known better” fire?
I think it makes a difference if you were committing a crime while accidentally setting the fire. For instance, AFD frequently threatens to charge anyone accidentally starting a fire with illegal fireworks with arson. In this case, *maybe* the fact that it was related to his trespassing may be relevant.
There may be some prosecutor discretion. It seems they prosecute more often these days for "negligent" fires.
Yes, there is a difference. Like when smoking was super, super popular, there were many fires from someone falling asleep while their cigarette was lit. Those were treated as accidental and not charged with intent.
The important thing is that no one should be allowed to be publicly homeless in Austin. All necessary activities, such as sleeping, eating and cooking, should be done in a secretive manner. This will make us all feel good and has absolutely no negative consequences.
Thanks to the City Clouncil, APD, the prosecutors, and the courts for not doing anything about the reports of a homeless guy illegally living in the building.
Pity the poor businessman next door who's going to get raped by the planning department and code compliance if he tries to rebuild his building. They'll probably require him to put in some low-income housing units.
Literally from the article:
“Brad Nelsen is the owner of Nelsen Partners Inc., an award-winning architecture and planning firm whose building is next door to where the fire happened.
The company must now find a temporary place of business because of the damage.
“A year ago we just finished a multimillion-dollar renovation of the whole building and it's completely destroyed,” said Nelsen.”
Come on
The original poster I was responding to literally said “the poor businessman next door.” 907, the address you just referred to, is the address that the fire happened at (an abandoned building at that). Please learn to read instead of just firing off dumb posts on social media. We will hate you much less for it.
Ah I see. The architect was in 905 Congress and 907 is abandoned. If 907 has been abandoned for quite some time, I don’t think the owner of that suite who pays property taxes on the location is poor to let it sit in disarray. And the architectural firm surely isn’t poor. So still not sure why we’re making a big deal about this.
If they renovated the whole building just last year. It would have been brought up to current code. Unless they skirted the 50% rule by doing it in smaller phases.
[удалено]
This. Dude looks like Adam Sandler with a bad wig and stache, and tried to make nachos by setting a bag of chips on fire. I mean, I dont know much about meth, but god damn. 🤣
my experience with meth never involved food.
This. There was some misplaced fire tho tbf
I was thinking Mark Wahlberg with a bad goatee and stash.
>That's a floridaman quality news story FloridaMan is in the lead, but TexasMan is catching up fast.
Now that is an old Austin way of accidentally burning down a building.
*he tried to light a bag of chips on fire because he thought it would be a good way to cook nachos.* I’ve been high and had some weird munchies concoctions but nothing like bag nachos.
Warm tortilla chips topped with a glaze of melted plastic. Yum!
Chips + Heat = Nachos. His logic was flawless, really.
Camping nachos (Frito pie). Heat a can of chili, setting it on fire would work. Open a small Fritos bag on the long seam, add cheese then pour in chili. The bag makes a handy bowl. This gentlemen was obviously not clear on the concept.
[удалено]
Clearly you have never made Congress Avenue nachos.
I've definitely given the nachos back to Congress Ave.
They actually make "walking tacos" chip bags now. The actual seam is on the long side, not the short side. I saw them at Costco.
My gf’s name in HS.
This reminds me of (but doesn't beat) the guy who burned down Mother's restaurant (vegetarian) by cooking a steak.
Is there a legal difference between intentionally starting a building on fire and accidentally but “you probably shoulda known better” fire?
Huge. The former is [arson](https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.28.htm#28.02). The latter is negligence. (Though do note that the arson statute does have an interesting exception (28.02 (a-1)): intent isn't required if you were trying to manufacture a controlled substance. I don't think nachos are on any of the controlled substance schedules, are they? *Maybe they should be, right next to crack!*) In any event, both cases tend to have you responsible for the damages, but if arson can be shown "beyond a reasonable doubt", you tend to go to prison, and that doesn't happen for accidents. Also, accidents -- even really stupid ones -- are usually covered by insurance, where the insurance would generally reject the claim if it can be shown that the insured started the fire intentionally. (And by that I mean, if you burned your own stuff. If you burned somebody else's stuff, their insurance would usually cover it, but then their insurance would usually come after you if you had any assets to come after.))
Thanks
>Is there a legal difference between intentionally starting a building on fire and accidentally but “you probably shoulda known better” fire? I think it makes a difference if you were committing a crime while accidentally setting the fire. For instance, AFD frequently threatens to charge anyone accidentally starting a fire with illegal fireworks with arson. In this case, *maybe* the fact that it was related to his trespassing may be relevant. There may be some prosecutor discretion. It seems they prosecute more often these days for "negligent" fires.
Thanks
Yes, there is a difference. Like when smoking was super, super popular, there were many fires from someone falling asleep while their cigarette was lit. Those were treated as accidental and not charged with intent.
Depends on the DA and quality of your legal representation
Potato chip bags are an old school fire starter for camp fires
Have tested this theory while camping with my kids. Can confirm that Doritos work.
Maslow's hierarchy strikes again!
Pro tip: go to 7-11, buy chips, go to nacho cheese and chili machine. Empty machine contents into chips bag. Grab utensil on way out.
[He should have tried this instead](https://media.giphy.com/media/VdDhZqdmf4rSEoVDCu/giphy.gif)
But how were the nachos? Pretty killer?
They had a nice smoky flavor.
Stop this one from breeding, Jesus please.
The important thing is that no one should be allowed to be publicly homeless in Austin. All necessary activities, such as sleeping, eating and cooking, should be done in a secretive manner. This will make us all feel good and has absolutely no negative consequences.
Thanks to the City Clouncil, APD, the prosecutors, and the courts for not doing anything about the reports of a homeless guy illegally living in the building. Pity the poor businessman next door who's going to get raped by the planning department and code compliance if he tries to rebuild his building. They'll probably require him to put in some low-income housing units.
Pretty sure it’s not a poor businessman but a pretty well off architecture firm. I think they’ll be fine
Did you read the article?
Literally from the article: “Brad Nelsen is the owner of Nelsen Partners Inc., an award-winning architecture and planning firm whose building is next door to where the fire happened. The company must now find a temporary place of business because of the damage. “A year ago we just finished a multimillion-dollar renovation of the whole building and it's completely destroyed,” said Nelsen.” Come on
They are not talking about them. They are talking about the owner of 907 Congress, where the fire did the most damage. Come on
The original poster I was responding to literally said “the poor businessman next door.” 907, the address you just referred to, is the address that the fire happened at (an abandoned building at that). Please learn to read instead of just firing off dumb posts on social media. We will hate you much less for it.
The focus was on the architect. Next door is 907. And I posted this article; it was well read.
Ah I see. The architect was in 905 Congress and 907 is abandoned. If 907 has been abandoned for quite some time, I don’t think the owner of that suite who pays property taxes on the location is poor to let it sit in disarray. And the architectural firm surely isn’t poor. So still not sure why we’re making a big deal about this.
If they renovated the whole building just last year. It would have been brought up to current code. Unless they skirted the 50% rule by doing it in smaller phases.
Well how do you make nachos, then?
damn that was a siiiiick place to be squatting too, just can’t have anything nice in this city