A jury is set to decide whether Jonathan Rinderknecht intentionally set the Lachman Fire that reignited into the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles—after prosecutors described the act as “revenge against society.” The defense calls that narrative a “ridiculous” sme
On a trail above the hilltop where the first flames started. investigators say Jonathan Rinderknecht walked with something in his head and a plan in his steps—hours after he had been dropping off passengers as an Uber driver. When the Lachman Fire erupted on Jan. 1, 2025, firefighters eventually put it out. But it lingered. A week later. it reignited and surged into Los Angeles’ affluent Pacific Palisades neighborhood. becoming the most destructive wildfire in the city’s history.
Now, in court, prosecutors want jurors to see something else in the fire: not just chaos, but revenge. Defense attorneys are pushing back hard—arguing that prosecutors are trying to turn a set of political views into motive, and that the accusation is “categorically ridiculous.”
Prosecutors told the jury during opening statements on June 10 that the wildfire was part of a vengeful plot driven by resentment toward the wealthy. They described Rinderknecht as someone who. in their account. “blamed society for all his troubles” and wanted “revenge against society because he blamed society for all his troubles.”.
That framing also reaches beyond any alleged grudge against neighbors. A month before trial began. prosecutors said Rinderknecht was “fixated” on Luigi Mangione and his alleged killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Court documents cited by prosecutors describe Rinderknecht telling investigators that the fire could be an act of “desperation” comparable to the murder Mangione was charged with.
For the defense, the motive theory is the central problem. One of Rinderknecht’s lawyers. Steve Haney. has said the case has turned him into a scapegoat for what he argues are failures by the Los Angeles Fire Department to fully extinguish the Lachman Fire after it reignited into the Palisades Fire. In statements in court, Haney accused prosecutors of “character assassination by advancing inaccurate, misleading, and even false claims.”.
Haney also rejected prosecutors’ attempt to connect the accused arson to his politics. He called it a “ridiculous” attempt to politicize Rinderknecht’s left-leaning ideologies into evidence.
“I think it is categorically ridiculous that the government wants to politicize my client’s left-leaning ideologies into motive and. worse. use them as evidence. ” Haney said. “This is the United States. We should be able to believe. think and say something contrary to another’s beliefs without the threat of our thoughts being criminalized. but this is the nation we have become.”.
Investigators’ timeline and the dispute over cause
Court documents described investigators’ theory of how the early fire started. They said Rinderknecht, who worked as an Uber driver, dropped off passengers in the hours preceding the Lachman Fire and then walked up a trail to the hilltop where it began.
But what actually sparked the fire is one of the case’s central disputes.
Rinderknecht has been charged with three arson-related counts for allegedly starting the Lachman Fire on Jan. 1, 2025. Prosecutors must prove he acted “maliciously”—a standard that. in their framing. requires that one either intentionally damaged property or disregarded the likelihood that damage could result from their actions.
Crucially, prosecutors do not need to prove a specific motive or prior planning existed. Even so, prosecutors have offered motive anyway—tying the act to revenge, resentment, and online fixation.
They also pointed to alleged search activity. In a memorandum, prosecutors claimed Rinderknecht used search terms including “free Luigi Mangione,” “lets take down all the billionaires,” and “reddit lets kill all the billionaires,” allegations Haney has strongly criticized.
The case arrives while residents challenge the response
While the arson case proceeds, other legal fights tied to the Palisades Fire have been moving through the system. In October. attorneys filed suit on behalf of residents against the city of Los Angeles. the state of California. and multiple public utility companies. The lawsuit argues those entities bear responsibility for the Palisades Fire.
The complaint alleges that draining a local reservoir resulted in fire hydrants running dry. It also alleges that a lack of land inspection after the Lachman Fires left potential embers smoldering.
Reporting cited by Reuters and the L.A. Times has said the outcome of the arson case could affect other civil cases against local authorities. It could leave residents and their insurers mostly on their own for damages from the fire.
Rinderknecht’s plea and the stakes
Rinderknecht pleaded not guilty in October. If convicted, prosecutors said he could face up to 45 years.
For jurors. the question is narrow in law but massive in consequence: whether the evidence proves malicious arson—without needing to settle every motive—but with prosecutors asking them to see revenge in the smoke. and the defense insisting the state is smearing political beliefs into criminal intent.
In the days ahead, the verdict will not only decide Rinderknecht’s fate. It will also send a signal through the parallel fights over responsibility—whether the Palisades Fire will be traced to one man’s alleged choice, or to a wider failure set in motion long before the flames returned.
Palisades Fire Lachman Fire Jonathan Rinderknecht Steve Haney arson trial revenge motive Luigi Mangione Brian Thompson Los Angeles Fire Department maliciously standard civil lawsuit hydrants reservoir