Firefighters watch home burn to the ground.

x2 said:
I'm sorry but a slap in the face is not comparable to your house burning down. Yes, they would have had every right to be frustrated, but they should deal with that AFTER they have saved his house. Charge him double, or fine him, but for god's sake don't let a perfectly good home burn down over a measly 75 dollars!
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better.
 
Lupin33andaThird said:
Just following orders is the excuse of criminals and cowards.
Click to expand...

This would be a gray area. Not all situations would make this true. Sometimes your superiors and leaders are there because they have the experience and knowledge to know what calls to make.

In this situation, cowards, most likley. Criminals? I don't think so personally. They did give everyone the notice.
 
No one is flat out saying he deserves it. They offered a service where they put out the fire in the event of one, if everyone thought that way how do you suppose they would continue their services if they only charged after a fire, it's like insurance. People pay the fee so in the event that something happens they're covered.

You could have people there paying for years without having a fire happen, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate it if he just paid the fee once when it happens and the others are paying yearly.

@x2: I understand if he just moved in that year but it's not like a one time fee, other resident's could have been paying that for years
Just think of it as insurance, while it's not morally right to watch a mans home burn while you have the means to stop it. I'm sure he had an ample amount of time to cover his house in such an event. He just didn't want to pay like everyone else
 
Well that's what I am saying, give him an overcharge or something to show others they are serious. Say you don't pay the $75, but they have to put a fire out for you, then you will be charged 2 grand or something crazy. That way, the department gets their money, the owner has their home and belongings, and the neighbors can't complain about unfairness. Seems simple enough, no?

And btw, what happened to just being a good person and doing the right thing!? Would you let somebody die because they didn't have health insurance and couldn't cover costs? No! Because saving them is just the right thing to do, such as it would have been to save this guys house, belongings, memories, etc...
 
x2 said:
Well that's what I am saying, give him an overcharge or something to show others they are serious. Say you don't pay the $75, but they have to put a fire out for you, then you will be charged 2 grand or something crazy. That way, the department gets their money, the owner has their home and belongings, and the neighbors can't complain about unfairness. Seems simple enough, no?

And btw, what happened to just being a good person and doing the right thing!? Would you let somebody die because they didn't have health insurance and couldn't cover costs? No! Because saving them is just the right thing to do, such as it would have been to save this guys house, belongings, memories, etc...
Click to expand...

I can agree with this.
 
Here's what I'm wondering. Let's offer a hypothetical situation in which a person is asleep or incapacitated to leave their house, and it catches fire, and they didn't pay the $75. These firefighters are seriously going to let a house burn and people in it possibly die because they didn't pay $75 beforehand? That's really not cool at all.

I say that they should help people even if they didn't pay, and just charge them double afterwards.
 
Mai Valentine said:
Here's what I'm wondering. Let's offer a hypothetical situation in which a person is asleep or incapacitated to leave their house, and it catches fire, and they didn't pay the $75. These firefighters are seriously going to let a house burn and people in it possibly die because they didn't pay $75 beforehand? That's really not cool at all.

I say that they should help people even if they didn't pay, and just charge them double afterwards.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, they were aware that no one was inside. If there was someone inside, then my attitude towards would definitely be different.
 
x2 said:
Well that's what I am saying, give him an overcharge or something to show others they are serious. Say you don't pay the $75, but they have to put a fire out for you, then you will be charged 2 grand or something crazy. That way, the department gets their money, the owner has their home and belongings, and the neighbors can't complain about unfairness. Seems simple enough, no?
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree they should have done something like that but that's not what they had set up like that, in the end letting his house burn down was just as effective, or more than charging him. It sucks but that's the way it works. Maybe they'll change it down the line but the fire fighters were doing their job. I'm sure this will bite them in the ass if this happens while someone is inside and they don't know someone is, hopefully they'll change it before something like that does happen.
 
CreepinDeth said:
If I'm not mistaken, they were aware that no one was inside. If there was someone inside, then my attitude towards would definitely be different.
Click to expand...

That's in this case. But what if my hypothetical situation became real? Assuming they look up by the address, what if a house where someone is inside and unable to call for help catches on fire, and the fire department doesn't even respond at all because the house isn't one of the ones that paid for fire protection? That's a life that was lost over $75 dollars. I understand that firefighters need to be paid somehow, but I think I'd take saving someone's life over getting a paycheck.
 
I'd also like to point out that the only reason that the firefighters were there is because the neighbors called the fire department because they were afraid that it would spread to their house.

The owner himself called, and they refused to come out.
 
Mai Valentine said:
That's in this case. But what if my hypothetical situation became real? Assuming they look up by the address, what if a house where someone is inside and unable to call for help catches on fire, and the fire department doesn't even respond at all because the house isn't one of the ones that paid for fire protection? That's a life that was lost over $75 dollars. I understand that firefighters need to be paid somehow, but I think I'd take saving someone's life over getting a paycheck.
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing. It's hypothetical so we won't know if it would happen. Since the homeowner called 911, I'm pretty sure he let them know that no one was inside anymore. It's possible that if there was a fire and the firefighters didn't know, then they would've probably actually gone in to look for people.

But it's all hypothetical. It could go either way.
 
aleeock157 said:
I'd also like to point out that the only reason that the firefighters were there is because the neighbors called the fire department because they were afraid that it would spread to their house.

The owner himself called, and they refused to come out.
Click to expand...

It did spread to their lawn. Fire Fighters put that out but not the house.
 
Snatcher_L said:
Yeah I agree they should have done something like that but that's not what they had set up like that, in the end letting his house burn down was just as effective, or more than charging him. It sucks but that's the way it works. Maybe they'll change it down the line but the fire fighters were doing their job. I'm sure this will bite them in the butt if this happens while someone is inside and they don't know someone is, hopefully they'll change it before something like that does happen.
Click to expand...

That's the point - they *weren't* doing their job.

They stood there and watched the house burn.

That is the antithesis of doing your job.

If that's your attitude, then I hope your house burns down and no one helps you. See how you like it.

Might teach you a little humility and a little compassion.
 
Thing is, I don't have to pay a $75 fee to borrow a neighboring county's fire department. So I don't have to worry about that.

He knew about the fee, he CHOSE not to pay it, and he's having a fit over it. It's like getting into a car accident, and going out to the insurance agency after the fact and getting insurance, then expecting them to cover your damages. Or living in an earthquake or flood zone and not having coverage for it and complaining after the fact that you have to pay for your own damages.
 
It's not the same - if you don't buy flood insurance, for example, and you live near the coast, you're an idiot.

This fire was something that was actively preventable - not like a car accident or earthquake.

If the firefighters had saved it, like they're supposed to, he might have gladly paid from now on, happily.

Instead, he's going to be bitter for the rest of his life - and rightfully so.

Those firefighters should be charged with criminal negligence.

If they hadn't shown up at all, like they intended, two houses might have burned down.
 
Here's a different article on it, not sure why I posted yahoo's article, they're horridly biased with almost everything they write.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/
'No pay, no spray' firefighters say they're not demons
Fire chief seeks solution to rural fire protection funding after home burns

A rural Tennessee fire chief says Obion County firefighters are being unduly demonized for letting a man's home burn because he hadn't paid a $75 municipal fee.
The fee, however, is not the best way to protect rural homes, said Bob Reavis, chief of the Hornbeak Volunteer Fire Department. The situation may have been avoided if the county had a tax to cover rural fire protection.

The firefighters' decision to follow orders and let the doublewide mobile home owned by Gene Cranick burn to the ground Sept. 29 while saving the property of a neighbor who did pay the subscription has prompted debate as the event has gained nationwide media attention.
Reavis, whose fire department was not the one involved with the home burning, said it is not firefighters' fault the Cranick home burned.

"The fault is the failure of Cranick family not to pay that subscription," Reavis said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon, surrounded by other county fire officials and mayors. "Subscriptions are not necessarily the way to go," he said of the fee.
"The same thing could have happened anywhere" among three Obion County municipalities that rely on subscription fees to cover rural areas outside their cities' borders. Hornbeak and four others do not require subscriptions. The eight cities' provide protection as the county does not operate its own fire department, Reavis said, but 85 percent of fire responses are in rural areas.

Hate emails and national media have "unduly condemned, criticized, and threatened" Obion County fire chiefs, Reavis said.
Reavis said he operates his all-volunteer, unpaid fire department on $8,000 a year.

Across the county, no cities' tax dollars fund rural fire protection, he said. That's common in many U.S. rural areas, Reavis said, although the notion is not necessarily widely known among people living in urban areas.
A plan for a tax that would cover rural fire protection was rejected, he said, as county officials kept pushing municipalities to opt for subscription plans.
Reavis said he wants local residents to get involved and find a solution to rural fire protection.

"No firefighter wants to stand by and watch his neighbor's home burn," Reavis said.
Cranick, 68, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Tuesday evening, "I'm no freeloader, I've worked all my life for everything I've got. It happens to anybody, I don't care, you forget things and I did. I suffered the consequences for it."

The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond, because Cranick had not paid the annual fee.
The International Association of Fire Fighters condemned the South Fulton Fire Department for their actions and also criticized the South Fulton's policy.
"Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, firefighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."

Radio and TV talk show host Glenn Beck defended the fire department letting Cranick's home burn down.
"If you don't pay your $75 then that hurts the fire department," Beck said in response to the blaze. "They can't use those resources and you would be sponging off of your neighbor's $75 if they put out your neighbor's house and you didn't pay for it."

"As soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the $75, no one will pay the $75," he said.

Fellow conservative commentator Daniel Foster, meanwhile, said that he had no problem in principle with the "opt-in government" philosophy behind the decision to withhold fire services to those who hadn't paid the required fee.

Morally, however, the issue was quite different, he wrote in National Review Online:
"But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?"

Cranick and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years and is common in rural areas.

South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, which Cranick offered to do, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.
Firefighters did eventually show up on the scene, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

Kelly Edmison, fire chief of nearby Union City, said a fire tax would be better than the current fee system.
"Without a doubt, the best is a fire tax," Olbermann quoted Edmison as saying. "The last thing a firefighter wants to do is not be able to help when they'd like to."

Other locals have been sympathetic during this trying period, Cranick told Olbermann.
"Most everybody has been compassionate and neighborly," he told MSNBC. "I understood some of the firefighters went home and were sick. Some of them even cried over it."

"I appreciate it," he said.

Cranick, who is living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.
Cranick has received emergency money to cover immediate costs and the insurance will cover all damage and property losses, his son, Todd, told local media.
Click to expand...
 
Cranick and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat

Okay - anyone who defends this now should be banned from this forum.

There is *no* excuse for letting animals burn to death.

Also - the guy is *68* years old.

Did anyone take into account he may have forgotten instead of decided not to pay?

Every one of those firefighters should face criminal charges.
 
They're providing a service to those who pay, the customers are essentially pooling their money together to pay the fire department to protect their home in the event of a fire, they are not required to save his home it was not part of their job. Yes it's their job to put out fires but in this town it was only to paying customers. The man was aware of the risk, there could be people who have been living there for over ten years who have paid 75 bucks each year and have not had one fire, you think the fire fighterswould be able to even offer their service had people only been paying when a fire occurs?

In this case it was like insurance, I have already agreed it's morally wrong but that's the way it goes. As for if I was in that situation I would have paid the charge. It's your opinion that they didn't do their job, where they were their job is to help paying customers who make it possible for them to do provide their services.

If he didn't like how it was set up he could have moved to somewhere where he didn't have to pay that fee. He chose to live there, he knew the risk, he took a gamble and that's what happened.

He said in the previous article that he figured he could pay on the spot, but like someone else said in that new article, if everyone paid on the spot only people with burning homes would pay, do you even think that they could offer their services if that was what they'd go by?
 
Lupin33andaThird said:
Did anyone take into account he may have forgotten instead of decided not to pay?
Click to expand...

I believe in the original article it's stated that he saw the charge but threw away the notice. He didn't forget. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Of course, now where getting into the realm of whether animals are to be treated the same as humans. I think, if you can, then you should rescue them.
 
Honestly i am more angry at the superiors of the firefighters than the FF themselves... i am sure there is a code of ethics for their jobs and i am also sure that if they broke that code a lot of problems would come to them as well... they are human beings too with families and responsibilities.... i do think the superiors of the firefighters are major inhumane bastards but the firefighters themselves were just following orders... and sadly that is all they can do because that's what keeps the food on the table
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top