Did Aqua Fanatics burn down?
 

That's what I heard from a friend of mine. Is this true or was it just a bad joke?

Someone had mentioned it here a few weeks ago with a link to the news article.

That really sucks
they were one of the few SW stores in Richmond :sad:

Yeap, unfort its true.

I drove by there after hearing about it. Entire building is burnt. I heard the glass was melted to the ground. I guess their website was hosted thru the store, as it is no longer up as well. Here is a clip from the Richmond Review newspaper:

Suspicious fire destroys pet store

Richmond RCMP are now investigating a suspicious blaze at a pet store on No. 3 Road that gutted the building Monday morning.

Around 3 a.m., a passerby spotted smoke coming from Aquafanatics Aquarium at 160-3411 No. 3 Rd. and reported it to the fire department.

Richmond Fire-Rescue's John Mitchell said there was nobody inside at the time and there were no injuries.

Damage to the structure is estimated at $300,000 and about $200,000 worth of contents were also destroyed.

The owner of the fish store was fully insured.

Mitchell said arson is suspected and that Richmond RCMP is now investigating.

Mitchell said the building was secure when firefighters arrived and nothing is believed to have been stolen.

As firefighters approached the building, the front window of the fish store cracked and the fire roared out.

The building contained no fire alarm or fire sprinkling system.

blah

:eek: I don't think it is funny at all to imagin some one would kill off all that live stock just for insurance money.


Steve

didnt it burn from inside out tho??

sigh

Innocent until proven guilty.

It may sound suspicous but wait for this to be investigated before jumping to conclusions.

deleted

building built befor code didn't require them.

most fires start inside (suspicious or not) usaly arson starts outside with an accelerant.

you know given the conditions of most LFS the probable cause was salt creep build up on a outlet causeing a short. but the police say it is suspicious so we will have to wait and see when they are done the investagation.. no sence makeing up stories when we don't have the facts.

Steve

This is a pretty sensitive issue that the mods should look at carefully. To speculate as to the circumstances about this fire is one thing, but to post it in the public domain is another.

There is precedent in the states where a BB AND the poster was sued over the content of the posting. It was determined that the BB is also liable for information being posted. Anyone following RDO should be well aware of this. All I am saying is...be very careful.

At this point I think it normal for specualtion about the news heading claiming suspicious fire. Seth has jokingly offered his opinion and I think that is acceptable. The other side is promoting the burden of proof policy and sems like a civil conversation at this point. If I see direct accusations, I will deal with them at the time. Titus can of course decide to pursue this if he sees the need.

so many thing can cause a fire in a fishroom, pump failure, electrical equipment failure of any kind, salt creep shorting something as was mentioned, heck a fish could have splashed and been the arsonist that started the fire....

Well I don't think Seth has lent his opinion in a joking fashion. He has laid out his "opinion" that essentially is casting a cloud of suspicion upon the owners of Aquafanatics. Very very serious.

I have passed on your concerns. Thank you.

argh fine I will just delete my post
didn't know it will get this serious
just my personal opinions
everyone has opinions
i didn't accuse anyone of anything
i'm just saying there's a chance something like that could happen
on the other hand, maybe nothing ever happened, a pump failed or whatever.

Hmm, I follow rdo and see no lawsuits? Did I miss something?

I would think it would be pretty damned tough to bring a suit over something said on a message board and make it stick. Especially when at this point, its all conjecture and speculation. Especially in Canada.

Hell, we all thought the same thing when we read the article... business was poor and the firefighters said it was suspicious. Suspicious makes us all think the owners or staff did it for insurance payout.

If anyone should be sued, sue the firefighters for publicly saying its suspicious.

thanks lostmind
somehow I feel better now :lol:

Salt creep its something called the freedom of speech


In the states its just rediculious because you can sue over anything such as that person who sued macdonalds for making them fat....In Canada you just can't sue ppl without GOOD and LOGICAL reason that caused harm in someway.

If you want freedom of speech, stand on a street corner. This, like most, is a privetely owned board, with guidelines for posting.

I dont think it matters whats was in the papers or what someone else was talking about, it does not need repeating here , without factual proof. Speculation is for the birds.

Thats not the purpose of this board.

Thanks

People...I am just trying to play devil's advocate and save some possible grief for everyone involved.

If you don't think it can happen in Canada, dig your head out of the sand. I will ask you to look at;

www.petswarehouse.com

Tell me what you think and how it is relevent to this discussion. There are many parallels. By the way, I believe that defamation of character or slander can easily get you in a heap of trouble in this country.

It's sad that the world has become so litigious...

I'd be curious to see the outcome of that legal battle.

if you have received poor service and shitty products from a company, are you not allowed to inform the public about it? there are many sites that do reviews on the internet, if you could sue over statements about poor service, could you not sue over a poor review?

anyways, just some thoughts.

I am not a lawyer by any means, but it would blow my mind to see seth sued over the comments above. but then again, I guess its possible.

back on topic, it sad that one of the few marine shops in the lowermainland burned down. bye bye a little bit of selection...

here's an article from the richmond local paper

-------------

Fish fry in suspicious blaze

Richmond Fire Rescue responded to a suspicious fire that caused more than $500,000 in damage to a tropical fish store on No. 3 Road.

According to fire captain John Mitchell, the department received a call in the early morning hours of Monday by a man driving by.

He noticed smoke billowing out of Aquafanatics at #170- 3411 No. 3 Road.

When fire rescue members arrived at the scene, the building was ablaze.

"Somebody entered the premises between midnight and 3 a.m. and set the place on fire," Mitchell said. "The damage to the building and the contents was extensive."

The building was unoccupied at the time but many exotic fish died in the blaze.

The arson is still under investigation and so far the police have no suspects.

----------------

According to this article, someone did set a fire. (I SAID "ACCORDING TO THIS ARTICLE", NOT MY OWN OPINION! DON'T SUE ME!) :razz:

According to THIS article, I'm wondering who in the world would set a fishstore on fire?

Seth, my friend, you are still missing the entire point. There is a fine line in these cases and some would argue that your statements have crossed that line.

"haha i'm betting it was some plot to claim insurance money" - Seth

In another post, which has since been self-deleted, you indicated that torching a business is what an individual does when they are in financial trouble. Public posts like this, IMO, casts a dim shadow on the owner of the aquarium store prior to a conclusion of the fire investigation.

Be careful in what you say (or post) as yes we have freedom of speech, BUT with responsibility.

ok thanks for the heads up saltcreep
i guess i'll keep these "extreme" opinions to myself next time
but it is still very suspicious which the article stated

Despite what news papers tell us, there is a fair amount of speculation in reporting. Seth, and everyone else involved needs to consider that "We" don't know for sure what happened. Maybes, I bets and I wonders all lead to opinions being made against people and businesses that aren't always correct.
Doug Lowey's comment about this being a private board is correct. If someone comes into your home and says something that you don't approve of, or if they use your property (to be more precise) to run a slander campaign against someone it's your right as the owner or caretaker of the property to ask them to stop. From what I've seen Titus hasn't said anything but Doug is a staff member of the board, if you think Doug is wrong send him an email but, free speach on public property is well and fine, on private property it's at the owners discretion or the owners representitives discretion. Is there anything constructive on this thread? (okay not all posts are contructive but come on..)

Doug

Saltcreep

Only 2 "BUT"'s in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, that is not one of them.

Wendell

I've seen you say this on a couple occasions saltcreep, and I'm beginning to wonder if you acutally have valuable content to contribute to this forum, or if you are just here to troll for reactions and irratants?

Firstly, there is NO correlation between what happens in the US legal system and the Canadian one. They are completely independant systems with vast differences in both criminal and civil law. Based on your assumption does that mean that because a convicted criminal is executed in Texas that now Canadian courts will start ordering executions because "a precedence has been set in the US courts"? Dig YOUR head out of the sand.

Secondly, the guy instigating those lawsuits in the US is a f#$'n moron. He deserves everything he gets in counter-suits and frankly I find it amusing that he's filed for bankrupcy. I'm sure he could have dealt with the entire situation in a more reasonable maner, but due to the litigious nature of Americans he decided to try to get the courts to provide him financial compensation for his (Quote) "headaches, nausea, nervousness, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation and mental distress".

While I'm not one for defaming, embarrasing or otherwise demeaning anyone on this or any other forum, I do believe that I am entitled to my "opinion" and as long as my "opinion" does not cause anyone financial or physical harm or violates any Canadian law I say we should all be allowed to speak our minds.

And ditto to Wendell's comments, I don't recall seeing that "But" in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms either.

This thread was dead for 9 days and I think it was better that way. If anyone thinks the Charter is a good topic, please create a new thread in the lounge.

This thread asked if a place burned down... Yes, it did. Let it go. :biggrin:

Ouch, did I just get spanked? :cry:

Yehaaw, Lounge here I come.... NOT :biggrin:

Moderators, moderating.............

Point taken.


Wendell

Just doing a little trolling...Andrew you have PM.

Just a friendly update, I noticed the AquaFanatics Website is back up, with some news posted on their front page:

Important Update
2004-02-04 @ 4:47pm
Aquafanatics was recently the victim of a suspected arson attack. Unfortunately, the entire building was consumed in flames and destroyed before anything could be done.

Aquafanatics fully intends to restore its operations as soon as possible, bigger and better than ever, however we have no ETA as of yet. We will continue to update the website, currently hosted off-site, more frequently now that we have a better handle on things.

Currently all of our web services (forum included) are inaccessible as our servers were all destroyed.

We value all of our customers highly and thank you all for the support, past and future, that you have given us.

-The Aquafanatics Team

:arrow: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :exclaim:
sweet