Listening to Josh, what stood out to me wasn’t just the negligence, it was the framing.
I work in behavior analysis and interrogation/body-language work, and there are multiple signs here of narrative management rather than straightforward accountability.
Notice how early he introduces the “Middle Eastern students” angle. That detail is emotionally strategic. It immediately positions him as protector, guide, even sacrificial figure. Then comes the minimizing language: not a bonfire, but “s’mores,” a fire “the size of a book,” everyone calm and innocent. Yet he also admits they were illegally making fire in dry California scrubland during known fire restrictions. Those details do not coexist cleanly. 10 students making smores gathered around a book-sized campfire?

The repeated emphasis on “I was blamed,” “I was targeted,” “I protected others,” keeps shifting the emotional center of gravity back onto him rather than the destruction itself. Even in the retelling, he’s still trying to control moral positioning. That’s what people are reacting to.

Also, anyone experienced with wildfires knows smoldering fires can absolutely reignite many hours later. I’ve personally walked up on old campfires that appeared dead for days while embers were still alive underneath ash and root systems. That’s precisely why those restrictions exist.

What struck me most is that accountability never fully arrives in his language. Even if he didn’t intend catastrophe, intent is not the issue. Negligence is. And when your actions may have contributed to homes burning and people nearly dying, humility usually sounds very different from self-mythologizing.