Will official sources determine that at least two of the major Los Angeles area fires starting between January 6-9, 2025, were the result of coordinated arson?
Background: In early January 2025, significant wildfires occurred across the Los Angeles area (e.g., Palisades, Pasadena, Sunset, Studio City, Ventura). This market aims to determine if at least two of these major fires were intentionally set by a single individual or group acting in concert.
Detailed Resolution Criteria:
This market will resolve to YES if, by January 9, 2026 (a year from the initial period):
A primary investigative authority (defined below) officially and publicly concludes that at least two of the major Los Angeles area fires starting between January 6-9, 2025, were deliberately set by a single individual or group acting in coordination.
A court of competent jurisdiction convicts an individual or individuals for intentionally setting at least two of the major Los Angeles area fires starting between January 6-9, 2025, as part of a coordinated plan.
This market will resolve to NO if, by January 9, 2026:
The predominant conclusion of primary investigative authorities is that none of the major Los Angeles area fires starting between January 6-9, 2025, were the result of arson.
The predominant conclusion of primary investigative authorities is that while some fires may have been arson, there is no evidence of coordination between at least two of them.
No primary investigative authority has issued a definitive public conclusion regarding the cause(s) of at least two of the major Los Angeles area fires starting between January 6-9, 2025, and no court conviction for coordinated arson has occurred.
Definitions:
Primary Investigative Authority: Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), or any other government agency explicitly designated by name to lead the investigation into these specific fires by one of the aforementioned agencies or a relevant government official.
Officially and Publicly Concludes: A formal statement, report, press conference, or similar public communication clearly attributed to the investigative authority itself.
Major Los Angeles Area Fires starting between January 6-9, 2025: The significant wildfires that gained substantial media attention and required significant resource allocation in the Los Angeles area during this period.
Coordinated Arson: The intentional setting of at least two of the aforementioned major fires planned and executed by the same individual(s) or group(s) acting together.
1,000
3.00@SpencerPogorzelski any allegation of arson might be enough to update ppl here and that's fair, but fwiw nothing being alleged so far in this comes at all close to satisfying the criteria. (in fact, given that the alleged arson took place a ~week before the fires for this question began, that makes "coordination" an extra high bar)
@Ziddletwix I agree that the coordination bar is quite high but it does say
> The two officials with knowledge of the case said that investigators believed that the Palisades [Jan 7] fire was an extension of the Lachman [Jan 1] fire.
@SpencerPogorzelski Yup. But the criteria is quite clear that would not count:
This market will resolve to YES if, by January 9, 2026 (a year from the initial period):
A primary investigative authority (defined below) officially and publicly concludes that at least two of the major Los Angeles area fires starting between January 6-9, 2025, were deliberately set by a single individual or group acting in coordination.
A court of competent jurisdiction convicts an individual or individuals for intentionally setting at least two of the major Los Angeles area fires starting between January 6-9, 2025, as part of a coordinated plan.
The Lachman Fire was contained on January 1st. It definitively does not count for a "major LA fire starting between Jan 6-9".
Even if it did, I do not think "single act of arson leads to two separate fires after containing the first one fails" could be considered "coordination"—it cannot be coordination for a single act of arson! But that would need to be debated with the creator (i.e., do you take the title seriously or do you ignore it). Regardless, the fact that the act of arson took place a week before the relevant period for this question means that this person would have needed to come back and set another, separate, fire for this to count (if you assume that "started Lachman fire and it eventually lead to the Palisades fire" counts as "arson that started the Palisades fire", which I do think is reasonable).
@HillaryClinton i put some orders up at 7/8/9.
Tbh I’m not sure what happened at 7, it said you had a large order up but it only filled a small amount of mine? Dunno why
@Ziddletwix Thanks! Whoever did that dumb 5% of loans net worth thing screwed me. Can someone increase that to 10 or 20%? way too low.
@Ziddletwix idk. Maybe I had zero mana?
More at 7%. I need to sell off 50,000 more, I can't loan against.
@HillaryClinton ok took like ~28k more at 7%. that's probably enough for me in this market so may need to find others for the rest