A Wisconsin man who said he was angry over Congressman Glenn Grothman’s support for legislation affecting TikTok ended up sentenced to prison after police say he set fire to the lawmaker’s district office in Fond du Lac.
The case was featured in bodycam footage posted by Midwest Patrol, which reported that officers responded on January 19, 2025, after a fire was reported outside Grothman’s office. When officers arrived, they found smoke, flames, and what appeared to be burning debris near the back of the building before quickly learning that a young man standing nearby was not just a witness.
According to the footage, the man, later identified through the case materials as Caiden Stachowicz, calmly told officers he had started the fire.
“I’m the one who did it,” he said. “I set the fire.”
When an officer asked why, Stachowicz said he did not like the public representative, and he later explained in an interview that his anger was tied to Grothman’s vote related to the TikTok ban.
Officers Found Flames Behind The Building
The bodycam footage opens with officers arriving near the district office and calling for a fire extinguisher.
One officer said the fire appeared to involve garbage at first, but he later noted there would be structural damage. Officers worked quickly to knock down the flames and secure the area while trying to determine whether anyone had seen who started it.
A witness told police he had been delivering newspapers when he smelled what he first thought might be burning brakes. When he and another person drove closer, they saw smoke and flames near the building and noticed a black car with the driver’s door open.
They backed away and called police.
That witness account helped place the scene in context, but the investigation moved quickly because Stachowicz approached officers and admitted responsibility almost immediately. He also told officers he had a pocketknife in his jacket and warned them it might be covered in gasoline.
The calmness of that admission made the scene unusual. Officers were not chasing an unknown suspect through the neighborhood; they were dealing with someone who stayed nearby, acknowledged what he had done, and then began explaining why he thought it made sense at the time.
“To Set Fire To Glenn Grothman’s Office”
After Stachowicz was taken to the police department, an officer read him his Miranda rights and asked whether he was willing to answer questions.
Stachowicz agreed.
When the officer asked what brought him to Fond du Lac that night, Stachowicz gave a direct answer.
“To set fire to Glenn Grothman’s office,” he said.
Stachowicz told the officer he was upset over Grothman’s role in voting for legislation involving TikTok, which he described as a violation of constitutional rights. He said he had tried peaceful protest in the past, but had come to believe that “peace is not really an option anymore.”
The officer pressed him on whether the fire was really about the congressman’s vote on TikTok.
Stachowicz said Grothman was his representative and explained that he felt the federal government’s action against the platform reflected something larger about the direction of the country.
His explanation was political, but it also sounded deeply personal. He spoke about feeling that the world was moving in a bad direction, that peaceful action had not worked, and that he did not feel he was throwing much away by taking a destructive step.
That is where the case becomes more than a simple property crime. It shows how political frustration, online culture, and personal despair can mix into a dangerous decision when someone decides that symbolic destruction is a reasonable form of protest.
He Said He Wanted Disruption, Not Injuries
During the interview, the officer asked Stachowicz what he hoped would happen.
Stachowicz said he wanted the fire to be bigger and to cause inconvenience and damage to the facility, but he repeatedly denied wanting to hurt anyone physically.
“I don’t want to hurt anybody,” he said.
He told the officer he did not believe anyone was inside the building and said he did not want to harm Grothman personally. His goal, he said, was to damage the office and “send a message” that he was tired of the direction of the country.
When asked whether he wanted the whole building to burn down, Stachowicz said no, noting that other businesses or offices were also in the building. Still, he said if they had suffered problems as a result, that would have been “collateral damage.”
That phrase is important because it shows the contradiction at the center of his explanation. He said he did not want anyone hurt, but he also admitted he started a fire at an occupied commercial building complex and accepted the possibility that other tenants could be affected.
Arson is rarely as controllable as the person lighting the match imagines. Wind, building materials, electrical systems, delayed discovery, and the location of nearby rooms can all turn an intended “message” into something much worse.
Gasoline, Matches, And A Failed Plan To Break In
Stachowicz told the officer he started the fire with gasoline and a match.
He said he had first driven to what he believed was Grothman’s previous office location before realizing the office was not there. He then went to a Kwik Trip to buy matches because he had forgotten them at home, and later drove to the correct location.
According to his interview, he initially considered going to the front of the building and trying to get inside, but the door was not easy to break through. He said he had a glass breaker on his knife that was meant for car windows, but it did not work on the building’s glass.
Rather than continue trying to break in, he went around back and set fire near electrical equipment.
“I was already kind of committed to it,” Stachowicz told the officer.
He said he poured gasoline near the back of the building by the wires and door, and had considered leading it toward the front, but stopped because the wind was bad and he did not want to set himself on fire.
That detail underscores how impulsive and dangerous the plan appears to have been. Stachowicz described a loose sequence of choices, not a carefully contained act. The fire did not become larger only because officers and witnesses intervened quickly, not because fire is predictable once gasoline and a match are involved.
Police Asked About His State Of Mind
The interviewing officer repeatedly acknowledged that Stachowicz had been honest and cooperative.
At the same time, the officer asked about his mental state and whether he had been going through a difficult time. Stachowicz said he felt the world was heading in a bad direction and admitted that, in hindsight, the act seemed meaningless because the building likely had insurance and the consequences would fall mostly on him.
He also said he had thought about historic acts of rebellion, including comparisons other people had made to events such as the Boston Tea Party or the French Revolution, though he acknowledged those comparisons were not exact.
The officer did not excuse what happened, but he did speak to Stachowicz in a human way. At one point, after Stachowicz suggested he may have ruined the course of his life, the officer told him that he was still alive and that was the most important thing.
“Human to human, I’m glad that you’re alive,” the officer said.
That moment gave the interview a different tone from many criminal interrogations. Stachowicz had admitted to the central conduct, and the officer seemed to understand that there was also a mental health dimension to the incident, even while the case still had to move forward as a serious felony.
Charges And Court Outcome
Midwest Patrol reported that Stachowicz was initially charged with four counts: arson of a building without the owner’s consent, making terrorist threats, attempted burglary of a building or dwelling, and criminal damage to property.
According to the channel, the terrorist threat charge was dismissed early in the case. Court records later showed that Stachowicz entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect to the remaining counts, but later withdrew that plea.
He eventually entered a no contest plea to arson of a building without the owner’s consent, a Class C felony. The court accepted the plea and found him guilty.
The attempted burglary and criminal damage to property counts were dismissed but read in, meaning the judge could still consider them at sentencing.
Midwest Patrol reported that Stachowicz was sentenced to seven years in prison, followed by seven years of extended supervision, with 410 days of sentence credit. He was also ordered to complete a mental health assessment and follow-up treatment, comply with any treatment required by supervision, and have no contact with Grothman, his residence or office, or any office or person serving in a political capacity.
The channel also reported that restitution was ordered in the amount of $17,147, along with court costs and surcharges.
A Protest That Became A Felony
The case is a clear example of how quickly political anger can become a life-altering criminal case when someone crosses from speech into destruction.
Stachowicz told officers he had protested peacefully before and felt it had not worked, but the law draws a hard line between expressing anger and setting fire to a building. Once gasoline and matches are involved, the person responsible does not get to control how far the damage spreads or who might be placed at risk.
The bodycam footage also shows how a person can be cooperative, remorseful, and emotionally troubled while still facing serious consequences for a dangerous act. Stachowicz was honest with officers, and they acknowledged that, but honesty did not erase the fire, the damage, or the potential danger to others.
For many people, the TikTok debate was about speech, technology, national security, or government power. For Stachowicz, according to what he told police, it became the trigger for a decision that he later admitted would probably harm him more than anyone else.
In the end, the office fire did not change federal policy, and it did not become the historic act of protest he seemed to imagine in the moment.
It became an arson conviction, a prison sentence, and a permanent reminder that political frustration can be voiced loudly without turning a building into a target.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.
