A devastating wildfire tore through Pacific Palisades last year, leaving 12 people dead and destroying over 7,000 structures. The blaze, known as the Lachman fire, was considered a "zombie" fire - a type of blaze that becomes more common as the climate warms. Prosecutors have charged Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 29-year-old Uber driver, with three felonies in connection with the fire. They claim he started the blaze using an open flame, which quickly spread out of control.
Rinderknecht denies any involvement and his defense attorney says that it's unfair to pin all the blame on him, pointing instead to the Los Angeles Fire Department's (LAFD) response to the initial fire as a key factor in its rapid spread. The LAFD has admitted to making mistakes in their reporting of the incident.
Experts say that the case against Rinderknecht will turn on whether he should have foreseen the potential consequences of his actions, or if the firefighters who failed to fully extinguish the zombie fire are at fault. Aya Gruber, a criminal law expert, notes that the outcome will depend on how responsible a jury deems Rinderknecht for the ultimate deaths and destruction caused by the Palisades fire.
The prosecution has described Rinderknecht as "destructive" and "reckless," but his attorney says he is being scapegoated. The defense plans to highlight the LAFD's response to the initial blaze, including allegations that they were ordered to leave the burn area despite knowing it was still smoldering.
Arson investigators have a complex process for determining the cause of a fire. They use cameras and sensors to monitor areas where wildfires start 24 hours a day, looking for indicators such as directional burning or small trees with charred sides.
Rinderknecht's behavior in the days leading up to the fire has also come under scrutiny. He was allegedly agitated and angry when speaking to two of his Uber passengers, and had been listening to music that contained lyrics about despair and bitterness on the night before the fire started.
The trial is set for April 21, 2026, and Rinderknecht has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Gruber notes that the case will likely become a battle of narratives over different accounts of the zombie fire, with prosecutors and the defense team presenting competing versions of events.
Rinderknecht denies any involvement and his defense attorney says that it's unfair to pin all the blame on him, pointing instead to the Los Angeles Fire Department's (LAFD) response to the initial fire as a key factor in its rapid spread. The LAFD has admitted to making mistakes in their reporting of the incident.
Experts say that the case against Rinderknecht will turn on whether he should have foreseen the potential consequences of his actions, or if the firefighters who failed to fully extinguish the zombie fire are at fault. Aya Gruber, a criminal law expert, notes that the outcome will depend on how responsible a jury deems Rinderknecht for the ultimate deaths and destruction caused by the Palisades fire.
The prosecution has described Rinderknecht as "destructive" and "reckless," but his attorney says he is being scapegoated. The defense plans to highlight the LAFD's response to the initial blaze, including allegations that they were ordered to leave the burn area despite knowing it was still smoldering.
Arson investigators have a complex process for determining the cause of a fire. They use cameras and sensors to monitor areas where wildfires start 24 hours a day, looking for indicators such as directional burning or small trees with charred sides.
Rinderknecht's behavior in the days leading up to the fire has also come under scrutiny. He was allegedly agitated and angry when speaking to two of his Uber passengers, and had been listening to music that contained lyrics about despair and bitterness on the night before the fire started.
The trial is set for April 21, 2026, and Rinderknecht has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Gruber notes that the case will likely become a battle of narratives over different accounts of the zombie fire, with prosecutors and the defense team presenting competing versions of events.
this whole thing feels kinda fishy...like they're jumping straight to blaming Rinderknecht without thinking it through. what if he didn't even start the fire? what if it was those burnable trees and dry leaves that set it off in the first place? i mean, arson investigators can only do so much...and what about all the other factors at play? like, how's anyone supposed to know for sure what Rinderknecht did or didn't do?
. I mean, 12 people dead and 7,000 structures destroyed? That's just devastating. And now they're saying it was some dude who might've started it with an open flame? It's like, what are the chances, right? 
. I don't think anyone can really say for sure what happened without all the evidence and stuff.
. But at the same time, you don't know what was going through his mind in those last few days leading up to it. Maybe he didn't mean for it to go that far 
.
.
... so many variables and opinions flying around. personally, i think it's crazy how the prosecution is going after Rinderknecht like he's the only one who could've started that fire 
but at the same time, if he did indeed start it with an open flame, wouldn't you expect him to have seen it spreading out of control? 
... one thing's for sure tho - the LAFD needs to do some serious soul-searching 
over their response to that initial blaze 
. is it really fair to pin all the blame on rinderknecht when the lafd's mistakes might've played a huge role in the whole disaster unfolding? 
. I mean, come on, we can't even take responsibility for our own actions when it comes to something as clear-cut as global warming. The LAFD's mistakes are just the cherry on top – it's like they're saying, "Hey, let's make this guy pay for us being incompetent." Meanwhile, Rinderknecht gets the fall for a fire that was basically a ticking time bomb from the start 
. It's all about shifting the blame and avoiding accountability. The justice system is supposed to hold people responsible, but sometimes it just feels like they're handing out participation trophies instead of actual consequences 
.
. I mean, we all know climate change is real and it's causing these massive wildfires to spread outta control 
. Like, what if he didn't even start the fire? 
? I'm not saying they should get off scot-free, but come on, don't pin all the blame on one person 
. This trial is gonna be so juicy! Can't wait to see how it all plays out 
.
. The distinction between recklessness and foresight will likely be the linchpin in determining his culpability, and I suspect the jury will need to carefully weigh these competing accounts before delivering a verdict 
if we wanna address climate change, we gotta start holding ourselves accountable not just blaming one person 
... It feels like we're missing the bigger picture here. Like, what does our society even expect people to do in situations like this? Shouldn't there be some kind of safety net or protocol in place for when someone accidentally starts a fire? 
it's like the whole world is watching 
this trial is gonna be so dramatic 
even if rinderknecht did start the fire, was he really responsible for everything that happened? 
it's like they're searching high and low for someone to blame 
but maybe we should just focus on preventing these types of disasters from happening in the first place 
don't even get me started on how the prosecution is portraying him as "destructive" and "reckless"... like, isn't that just a load of BS?! 