PDA

View Full Version : FIRE! Call 911! Oh wait.......


Neezar
10-06-2010, 05:31 PM
:laugh:


They may show up but just to watch your house burn. :scared0015:



http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/editorial/banners/upshot2_661x80.jpg (http://news.yahoo.com/upshot)
Tue Oct 5, 4:17 pm ET Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate

By Brett Michael Dykes (http://news.yahoo.com/bloggers/brett-michael-dykes)

http://l.yimg.com/lk/api/res/1.2/Vw.k.YNQCC0P6AiAjZxNBA--/YXBwaWQ9eW1lZGlhO2g9MjAwO3c9MzAw/http://mit.zenfs.com/5/2010/10/103957694.jpg

Just about anything can be fodder for an ideological dispute these days. Just consider news of the recent fire at Gene Cranick's home in Obion County, Tenn.

Here's the short version of what happened: In rural Obion County, homeowners must pay $75 annually for services from the nearby city of South Fulton. If they don't pay the fee and their home catches fire, tough luck -- even if firefighters are positioned just outside the home with hoses at the ready.

Gene Cranick found this out the hard way (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=134qd1hc2/*http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html).

When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.

[How "pay-to-spray" fire services work (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=10n61gkmo/*http://yhoo.it/cYs9PU)]

They did, however, come out when Cranick's neighbor -- who'd already paid the fee -- called 911 because he worried that the fire might spread to his property. Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick's home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor's property.

"I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

Watch a video report:




The incident has sparked a debate in many corners of the Web. Writers for the National Review, arguably the nation's most influential right-leaning voice, have seized on the episode to discuss the relative merits of compassionate conservatism versus a hard-line libertarianism. (See their arguments here (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=12polpb46/*http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster), here (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=13cbtdn28/*http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248658/pay-spray-fire-department-doing-right-thing-kevin-d-williamson), here (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=129p10f0q/*http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248665/re-pay-spray-jonah-goldberg), here (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=12n6hl0kj/*http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248669/re-pay-spray-firefighters-john-derbyshire) and here (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=12bjaq6p8/*http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248672/re-re-pay-spray-daniel-foster).)

Daniel Foster, a self-described "conservative with fairly libertarian leanings" who writes for the magazine, took issue with the county's laissez-faire approach to firefighting (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=13387skl7/*http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/pay-spray-firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster), calling it "a kind of government for which I would not sign up."

"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?" Foster wrote.

But Foster's colleague Kevin Williamson took the opposite view (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=13cbtdn28/*http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248658/pay-spray-fire-department-doing-right-thing-kevin-d-williamson). Cranick's fellow residents in the rural stretches of Obion County had no fire protection until the county established the $75 fee in 1990. As Williamson explained: "The South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton's firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives."

Liberals are pouncing on the Cranick fire as an illustration of what they take to be the callous indifference of a market regime that rewards privileged interests over the concerns of ordinary Americans.

"The case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged," Think Progress' Zaid Jilani wrote (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/yblog_upshot/pl_yblog_upshot/storytext/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate/37871615/SIG=1230as2jb/*http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/national-review-firefighters/) in a response to the National Review writers. "It has been 28 years since conservative historian Doug Wead first coined the term 'compassionate conservative.' It now appears that if any such philosophy ever existed, it has few adherents in the modern conservative movement."
(Photo via Getty)

Spiritwalker
10-06-2010, 05:39 PM
Extremely sad...

Firefighters that had died in the line of duty are prolly rolling over in their graves..

Ignoring the rules that brought them to this point..

To be onsite.. and with equipment to stop a home from being destroyed.. and not do anything.. you don't deserve to wear the uniform...

Twinsmama
10-06-2010, 05:47 PM
i don't know how a fireman could watch a house burn and do nothing. i know rules are rules but how could someone who is trained to fight fires watch something burn? the guy is really dumb for not paying the $75 but he doesn't deserve for his house to burn down. here the fire dept is paid by property taxes.

County Mike
10-06-2010, 05:59 PM
I'm on the side of the firefighters.

If you don't pay for the service, you don't get the service.

Yeah, he offered to pay them afterwards, but that's like trying to open a life insurance policy on your dead spouse. Maybe some of the other people in the area will pay their $75. They can't expect the fire department to operate with no money. Basically, the dude was selfish and it's too bad, so sad.

flo
10-06-2010, 06:13 PM
I can understand both viewpoints.

Either way, I feel sorry for the homeowner. It would have been better had they not responded at all, I just can't understand the firefighters standing by and watching his house burn.

Right or wrong, that's pretty damn cold.

Twinsmama
10-06-2010, 06:34 PM
I'm on the side of the firefighters.

If you don't pay for the service, you don't get the service.

Yeah, he offered to pay them afterwards, but that's like trying to open a life insurance policy on your dead spouse. Maybe some of the other people in the area will pay their $75. They can't expect the fire department to operate with no money. Basically, the dude was selfish and it's too bad, so sad.

i bet they get a lot of $75 checks in the next week!:laugh: i think they made their point:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
10-06-2010, 07:24 PM
the firefighters did what they had to do, but it is a moronic thing to stand and watch the place burn down .. they need to use their skills ... if there was a person trapped in the house, would they have let them burn in their too? why not .. the guy didn't pay his $75

County Mike
10-06-2010, 07:29 PM
if there was a person trapped in the house, would they have let them burn in their too? why not .. the guy didn't pay his $75

That's a completely different situation. I doubt they would have let anyone burn inside.

I think this is similar to places with volunteer fire fighters (such as where I live). Nobody HAS to pay for it but I think a lot of people are very willing to give donations. I know I donate whenever I see them doing a coin drop. Also, they send out a mailing about once a year asking for donations. I always send at least $100. It's a small price to pay to help ensure they have the equipment and people to put a fire out if someone needs it. If nobody was willing to donate, we wouldn't have a fire department to call.

rearnakedchoke
10-06-2010, 07:31 PM
That's a completely different situation. I doubt they would have let anyone burn inside.

I think this is similar to places with volunteer fire fighters (such as where I live). Nobody HAS to pay for it but I think a lot of people are very willing to give donations. I know I donate whenever I see them doing a coin drop. Also, they send out a mailing about once a year asking for donations. I always send at least $100. It's a small price to pay to help ensure they have the equipment and people to put a fire out if someone needs it. If nobody was willing to donate, we wouldn't have a fire department to call.

that's what i am saying ... you are there, you are trained to save people and put out fires ... they should have put the fire out ... if they didn't, they don't deserve to be fire fighters ...

BamaGrits84
10-06-2010, 07:34 PM
A caller on rick & bubba this moring that is from this area give some insight. 1st this wasn't the first home that had burned down over someone not paying their yearly "insurance". So this man knew what would happen. Second, it was stated that another instance occured with a home fire and someone not paying their fine but since the resident was occupied the fire department did respond. Plus this guy faught against taxes being raised so everyone in his area could be covered and instead want to be able to "opt in".

The thing is these people in the area know they are not in a municipality that covers fire service for them. This local department offers it for a very small fee - they don't have to offer it at all. I heard the comment made if a police department had a similar policy and someone was getting their butt kicked do you think the cop would just stand there until the victim handed him a $50?

You know the guys son went and punched the fire cheif? That lead to the best comment of all "Let some socialites fancy home get burned down you're gonna get sued. Let a double-wide burn down you're gonna get punch."

VCURamFan
10-06-2010, 08:11 PM
This is being used by socialists as a great example of why capitalism if a terrible economic system. "Look, they don't care about you! They'll giggle while your house burns down! Give us more of your money & we'll keep your house standing!!"

As sad as it is that this man's house burnt down, it's his own fault that it did. It's his responsibility to keep his property safe. In my county, that's done my paying taxes which go to the firemen. In his, it's done by paying a fee. It's ridiculous for him to willing choose to leave himself open for danger & then rail against other when it bites him in the @$$. It's like if a cop chose to leave his vest in his locker & then got pissed when a criminal shot him in the chest. :banghead:

Country Breakfast
10-06-2010, 10:20 PM
Maybe Obama can get some sort of universal fire care package passed.

logrus
10-06-2010, 11:55 PM
Wonder what would happen if I went to two separate sub divisions and started a bunch of house fires. Would those people who paid the 75$ be compensated?

Wonder what would happen if they were watching my neighbors house burn and then all of a sudden the gas pipes blew and my house was in ashes due to the lack of action for the neighbor.

Wonder what would happen if both my neighbors house and my house were on fire and they sprayed the wrong house.

TexasRN
10-07-2010, 12:13 AM
You pay for a service, you get the service. You don't pay, you don't get it. I am on the side of the firefighters with this one. I wouldn't want to risk my life for someone who wasn't paying for the service.


~Amy

bradwright
10-07-2010, 01:18 AM
i agree with about half of you guys on this one.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 01:29 AM
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

He took the gamble and he lost.

I'm guessing that what some of us pay in taxes, that portion that goes to city services like fire, is a hell of a lot more than that $75 annually. That breaks down to $6.25 a month people!

He should be kicking his own @$$ not blaming those firefighters.

There's no guarantee his house wouldn't have been a total loss (fire and water) even with the firemen battling it. Let's just hope he has insurance.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 01:31 AM
i agree with about half of you guys on this one.

Which half?



I know you were just waiting for someone to ask that Bradwright! :tongue0011:

:laugh:

TexasRN
10-07-2010, 01:37 AM
i agree with about half of you guys on this one.


:laugh:

Wait, you agree with my half of the debate, right? :unsure-1:


~Amy

J.B.
10-07-2010, 01:52 AM
It's easy to say "well he should have paid the fee", but the bottom line is it's pretty cold to stand there with the fire hoses in hand and do absolutely nothing about it. Not to mention the potential hazards involved with just letting somebody's house burn down.

We are talking about a fire department from a town with under 3,000 people. You mean to tell me that after all these years they couldn't have found a way to implement this into the taxes for the county? That is just dumb. Not to mention the fact that I bet an extremely high percentage of the people in the rural part of the county bring revenue to the city, because it's the only city that is anywhere near them.

When stupid people go hiking in the mountains without proper gear and we have to rescue them, we don't lower a credit card machine down from the helicopter before sending the ladder. When people call the cops to report a crime, they don't check and see if you have any unpaid bills with the city before helping you. Hell, the guy even offered to pay, and they still just stood there and watched his house burn down with hoses in hand. No wonder the guy's kid went down to the station and knocked the fire chief out.

bradwright
10-07-2010, 02:10 AM
Which half?



I know you were just waiting for someone to ask that Bradwright! :tongue0011:

:laugh:

the half that are right.:wink:

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 02:17 AM
the half that are right.:wink:

Which half is that?

(I already know what you're going to say....but go ahead) :laugh:

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 02:19 AM
It's easy to say "well he should have paid the fee", but the bottom line is it's pretty cold to stand there with the fire hoses in hand and do absolutely nothing about it. Not to mention the potential hazards involved with just letting somebody's house burn down.

We are talking about a fire department from a town with under 3,000 people. You mean to tell me that after all these years they couldn't have found a way to implement this into the taxes for the county? That is just dumb. Not to mention the fact that I bet an extremely high percentage of the people in the rural part of the county bring revenue to the city, because it's the only city that is anywhere near them.

When stupid people go hiking in the mountains without proper gear and we have to rescue them, we don't lower a credit card machine down from the helicopter before sending the ladder. When people call the cops to report a crime, they don't check and see if you have any unpaid bills with the city before helping you. Hell, the guy even offered to pay, and they still just stood there and watched his house burn down with hoses in hand. No wonder the guy's kid went down to the station and knocked the fire chief out.

Maybe their hands were tied, and maybe it was hard for them to stand there and watch his house burn.

J.B.
10-07-2010, 02:29 AM
Maybe their hands were tied, and maybe it was hard for them to stand there and watch his house burn.

I understand that, but that don't make it right. Just think if we applied that line of thinking to the other hypothetical examples I gave. For instance, "Sorry, and I feel really bad about it, but you didn't pay last months water bill to the city so it's too bad that your house got robbed but we can't help you. Have a nice day." Or, to even take it one step further, what if the cop just watched my house get robbed but couldn't do anything because I didn't pay? I just think that's a crazy way to approach those type of situations.

It's one thing when we are talking about a person who is getting evicted or losing their automobile because they haven't paid thousands of dollars in bills. Those are sad situations where people's hands are tied. This is a situation where a measly $75 couldn't have been collected after the fact. That's not a case of anybody's hands being tied, that's just being cruel and ridiculous, and having ass-backward policies. Sure, the guy is at fault for not paying the bill, but give me a break. That is beyond stupid.

flo
10-07-2010, 02:49 AM
Maybe Obama can get some sort of universal fire care package passed.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

logrus
10-07-2010, 03:08 AM
I understand that, but that don't make it right. Just think if we applied that line of thinking to the other hypothetical examples I gave. For instance, "Sorry, and I feel really bad about it, but you didn't pay last months water bill to the city so it's too bad that your house got robbed but we can't help you. Have a nice day." Or, to even take it one step further, what if the cop just watched my house get robbed but couldn't do anything because I didn't pay? I just think that's a crazy way to approach those type of situations.

It's one thing when we are talking about a person who is getting evicted or losing their automobile because they haven't paid thousands of dollars in bills. Those are sad situations where people's hands are tied. This is a situation where a measly $75 couldn't have been collected after the fact. That's not a case of anybody's hands being tied, that's just being cruel and ridiculous, and having ass-backward policies. Sure, the guy is at fault for not paying the bill, but give me a break. That is beyond stupid.

We had such a hot and dry summer a few years back I actually watched the guy across the streets grass just start on fire. What if that neighbors house is burning down and it ignites his neighbors. It wouldnt take very long to ruin the neighbors life. Also what if part of that house broke free and landed on a neighbors house. Seriously what happens then?

I think its sad, especially to sit there and just watch it burn.

J.B.
10-07-2010, 03:14 AM
We had such a hot and dry summer a few years back I actually watched the guy across the streets grass just start on fire. What if that neighbors house is burning down and it ignites his neighbors. It wouldnt take very long to ruin the neighbors life. Also what if part of that house broke free and landed on a neighbors house. Seriously what happens then?

I think its sad, especially to sit there and just watch it burn.

Or what if you DID pay the fee and they say you didn't because of some clerical error? Kinda hard to show them the receipt when it's inside my house which is burning down.

Then what? Too bad, so sad? :rolleyes:

Seems like the smartest thing to do would be put the fire out instead of standing there with the hose like a bunch of goofballs.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 03:19 AM
I understand that, but that don't make it right. Just think if we applied that line of thinking to the other hypothetical examples I gave. For instance, "Sorry, and I feel really bad about it, but you didn't pay last months water bill to the city so it's too bad that your house got robbed but we can't help you. Have a nice day." Or, to even take it one step further, what if the cop just watched my house get robbed but couldn't do anything because I didn't pay? I just think that's a crazy way to approach those type of situations.

It's one thing when we are talking about a person who is getting evicted or losing their automobile because they haven't paid thousands of dollars in bills. Those are sad situations where people's hands are tied. This is a situation where a measly $75 couldn't have been collected after the fact. That's not a case of anybody's hands being tied, that's just being cruel and ridiculous, and having ass-backward policies. Sure, the guy is at fault for not paying the bill, but give me a break. That is beyond stupid.

I see two solutions: 1) for that city to discontinue to offer it's fire services to that rural area so firemen won't be put in this position again, or 2) start taxing ALL residents of that rural community to pay for those city services.

Put it on a ballot and let the rural community vote on it. If they don't want to pay taxes so they can have fire services then let them start their own voluntary fire department and pay for a fire engine and get people from their community to be volunteer firemen.

And we don't know that he would have paid after the fact either?

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 03:22 AM
Or what if you DID pay the fee and they say you didn't because of some clerical error? Kinda hard to show them the receipt when it's inside my house which is burning down.

Then what? Too bad, so sad? :rolleyes:

Seems like the smartest thing to do would be put the fire out instead of standing there with the hose like a bunch of goofballs.

The only reason they were there was because his neighbor called (the neighbor that did pay!) because he was afraid his house was going to catch fire too. As soon as it leaped to his property they were there. They didn't go out there just to stand and watch the first guy's house burn.

J.B.
10-07-2010, 03:38 AM
I see two solutions: 1) for that city to discontinue to offer it's fire services to that rural area so firemen won't be put in this position again, or 2) start taxing ALL residents of that rural community to pay for those city services.

Put it on a ballot and let the rural community vote on it. If they don't want to pay taxes so they can have fire services then let them start their own voluntary fire department and pay for a fire engine and get people from their community to be volunteer firemen.

And we don't know that he would have paid after the fact either?

The only reason they were there was because his neighbor called (the neighbor that did pay!) because he was afraid his house was going to catch fire too. As soon as it leaped to his property they were there. They didn't go out there just to stand and watch the first guy's house burn.

We are talking about a small city in a small county, they should have done that from the start. There is no sense in even offering the service to the rural areas if you are only going to serve some of the people. I don't disagree with anything you are saying when it comes to running the operation differently from the top down, but the bottom line is it's ridiculous to see a bunch of fireman standing there watching a house burn.

Who knows if the guy would have paid? He said he would, but that's not the point. It's a measly $75, and they are just gonna let his house burn over that? Also, who cares who calls it in? Shouldn't the firemen have known there was a potential for the fire to spread the moment the original phone call came in from the guy who didn't pay?

The point is they were standing right there with a big fire hose and watching the guy's house burn down. Believe me, they could have EASILY billed him after the fact and gotten their money. When a government agency wants to get paid, they can make your life hell if you don't pay up. When we rescue these people off the side of the mountain because they think they are Indiana Jones, they make them pay the bill, but they still toss them a ladder and rescue them before they complain about the money.

Chuck
10-07-2010, 04:33 AM
The point is they were standing right there with a big fire hose and watching the guy's house burn down. Believe me, they could have EASILY billed him after the fact and gotten their money.

This post = /thread.

:applause:

huan
10-07-2010, 04:42 AM
When we rescue these people off the side of the mountain because they think they are Indiana Jones, they make them pay the bill, but they still toss them a ladder and rescue them before they complain about the money.Pretty much the perfect example for Arizona; this happens far too often here... I consider myself a reasonably staunch conservative, but this entire situation is plainly BS. We're talking about a US citizen who more than likely pays his state/local taxes (which happen to not be OPTIONAL). He is a dumb ass no doubt, I mean his kid literally set the house on fire by burning trash, but this is the perfect example of a city/county failing to legislate and budget properly. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you combine irresponsible citizens and irresponsible government.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 04:42 AM
We are talking about a small city in a small county, they should have done that from the start. There is no sense in even offering the service to the rural areas if you are only going to serve some of the people. I don't disagree with anything you are saying when it comes to running the operation differently from the top down, but the bottom line is it's ridiculous to see a bunch of fireman standing there watching a house burn.

I agree it should have been set up as "all pay". But I imagine that some people like this guy kicked up a fuss so they made it where people had a choice to pay for service or not pay for service. He obviously made his choice and he seemed perfectly happy NOT to pay until his house caught on fire. It just seems unfair to me that someone was allowed a choice and now these firemen are catching all the flack for it. :angry: These firemen have been put in an untenable position.


Who knows if the guy would have paid? He said he would, but that's not the point. It's a measly $75, and they are just gonna let his house burn over that? Also, who cares who calls it in? Shouldn't the firemen have known there was a potential for the fire to spread the moment the original phone call came in from the guy who didn't pay?

I'll turn it around on ya: It's a measly $75 and this man was willing to risk his house burning down over that?

The man whose house was on fire called 911 first. I'm saying they only came out after the neighbor called about the possibility of his own home catching fire from the first guy's. I don't think they were even coming out for the first guy cause he didn't pay for service. The neighbor pays for the service. They must have something in their system that shows who pays and who doesn't when the calls come in....I guess. :unsure-1:

It's just a lousy set-up and it needs to be changed.

Spiritwalker
10-07-2010, 04:56 AM
Either way.. the fire fighters were THERE... and did nothing...what if there was a cop there.. and some guy was breaking into the house...

Piece of crap firemen... but if they are unionized (another bad idea).. they could have been "messed up" had they done anything...

union or not.. I couldn't have stood by...

J.B.
10-07-2010, 05:03 AM
Pretty much the perfect example for Arizona; this happens far too often here... I consider myself a reasonably staunch conservative, but this entire situation is plainly BS. We're talking about a US citizen who more than likely pays his state/local taxes (which happen to not be OPTIONAL). He is a dumb ass no doubt, I mean his kid literally set the house on fire by burning trash, but this is the perfect example of a city/county failing to legislate and budget properly. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you combine irresponsible citizens and irresponsible government.

very well said :)

J.B.
10-07-2010, 05:12 AM
I agree it should have been set up as "all pay". But I imagine that some people like this guy kicked up a fuss so they made it where people had a choice to pay for service or not pay service. He obviously made his choice and he seemed perfectly happy NOT to pay until his house caught on fire. It just seems unfair to me that someone was allowed a choice and now these firemen are catching all the flack for it. :angry: These firemen have been put in an untenable position.


I'll turn it around on ya: It's a measly $75 and this man was willing to risk his house burning down over that?

The man whose house was on fire called 911 first. I'm saying they only came out after the neighbor called about the possibility of his own home catching fire from the first guy's. I don't think they were even coming out for the first guy cause he didn't pay for service. The neighbor pays for the service. They must have something in their system that shows who pays and who doesn't when the calls come in....I guess. :unsure-1:

It's just a lousy set-up and it needs to be changed.

I agree the guy should have paid it, but he said he was under the impression they would still put the fire out. Maybe he thought they just wouldn't come out if his cat was stuck in a tree, I don't know. The point is they could have just billed him for it.

Obviously they have it filed on a CPU who has paid and who hasn't, but if you have a group of people in the neighborhood who DO pay, surrounding one guy who doesn't pay, shouldn't the fire department know they need to respond in the event one of the other houses catch on fire? What if that neighbor was asleep in his house and didn't call the fire department? His house could have went up in flames and killed him and the fire department would never have responded until it was too late, all because the guy who originally called owed $75. Or what if they made a mistake and the person calling actually DID pay and they refuse to come? It's just a horrible setup and it's sad that there are local governments this messed up on such a simple level.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 05:48 AM
I agree the guy should have paid it, but he said he was under the impression they would still put the fire out. Maybe he thought they just wouldn't come out if his cat was stuck in a tree, I don't know. The point is they could have just billed him for it.

Obviously they have it filed on a CPU who has paid and who hasn't, but if you have a group of people in the neighborhood who DO pay, surrounding one guy who doesn't pay, shouldn't the fire department know they need to respond in the event one of the other houses catch on fire? What if that neighbor was asleep in his house and didn't call the fire department? His house could have went up in flames and killed him and the fire department would never have responded until it was too late, all because the guy who originally called owed $75. Or what if they made a mistake and the person calling actually DID pay and they refuse to come? It's just a horrible setup and it's sad that there are local governments this messed up on such a simple level.

I get what you're saying, I do. But it sounds like from Bama's post, this was well-known, in that rural area, that they would not come out for those who did not pay for the service. I agree with "but shouldn't they take into account the fire could spread, someone could be asleep, etc..." I just hope someone with some sense does something and fixes this before something even more awful occurs.

I just don't think it's fair for these firemen to get dumped on for something they didn't implement and have no control over. I imagine it was the city manager and/or council that approved this plan and the people in that community agreed to it. Like you and huan said, poor planning, and, I think, definite lack of foresight.

NateR
10-07-2010, 06:02 AM
If I get into a car accident, I won't need to show proof of medical insurance before an ambulance rushes me to a hospital. If I don't have medical insurance, then arrangements for payment of the medical services will be made later.

That's what should have happened here. They should have put the fire out, then sent the guy a bill for their services, rather than standing by and watching it burn.

Besides, once he realized that the fire department wasn't going to put out the fire on his neighbor's house, why didn't the guy who called them help his neighbor fight the fire? Have we seriously degenerated to a society that will just sit idly by while our neighbor's house burns to the ground, because we are too cowardly to risk any sort of personal injury?

NateR
10-07-2010, 06:03 AM
Wonder what would happen if I went to two separate sub divisions and started a bunch of house fires.

You'd go to prison for arson.


End of story.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 06:39 AM
If I get into a car accident, I won't need to show proof of medical insurance before an ambulance rushes me to a hospital. If I don't have medical insurance, then arrangements for payment of the medical services will be made later.

That's what should have happened here. They should have put the fire out, then sent the guy a bill for their services, rather than standing by and watching it burn.

Besides, once he realized that the fire department wasn't going to put out the fire on his neighbor's house, why didn't the guy who called them help his neighbor fight the fire? Have we seriously degenerated to a society that will just sit idly by while our neighbor's house burns to the ground, because we are too cowardly to risk any sort of personal injury?

It said the guy called 911 when he couldn't contain the blaze with his water hose so I imagine the blaze was too big at that point for the neighbor to be of much help, Nate. The neighbor may not have seen or realized what was happening until it was too late by then. And then he was worried about his house catching fire also so he called 911. He might have been trying to hose down his own home while waiting for the fire department to get there. I can't blame him for that.

I can understand why you guys think the firemen should have gone ahead and put the fire out, but what I don't get is why everyone else is catching backlash except the guy who didn't think his home was worth $75.

Neezar
10-07-2010, 07:04 AM
If I get into a car accident, I won't need to show proof of medical insurance before an ambulance rushes me to a hospital. If I don't have medical insurance, then arrangements for payment of the medical services will be made later.

That's what should have happened here. They should have put the fire out, then sent the guy a bill for their services, rather than standing by and watching it burn.



Well if someone's life was in danger then it would have been different (so they said). So your comparison shouldn't be the medical help but more like:

If you get into a car accident, you can't then call the insurance company and offer to pay insurance dues so they will fix it.



I can understand why you guys think the firemen should have gone ahead and put the fire out, but what I don't get is why everyone else is catching backlash except the guy who didn't think his home was worth $75.

I know, right. I read another place where he clearly signed a waiver opting out on wanting the fire department to respond in case of a fire.
These people haven't ever had a fire dept. It is only the last 10 years they have been offered the services of someone else's fire dept for a fee. I wonder if he ever 'opted in'. I don't tend to believe his plea of ignorance.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 07:47 AM
I know, right. I read another place where he clearly signed a waiver opting out on wanting the fire department to respond in case of a fire.
These people haven't ever had a fire dept. It is only the last 10 years they have been offered the services of someone else's fire dept for a fee. I wonder if he ever 'opted in'. I don't tend to believe his plea of ignorance.

I don't either. Here's why:

When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.

I think he was trying to put the fire out himself initially because he knew they wouldn't come out because he hadn't paid $75 for fire service. When he couldn't put it out, then he calls 911 and offers to pay for expenses to try and get them to come.


"I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

I think the bold is exactly what he thought and was counting on if anything ever did happen. :wink:

And if what you read is true that he signed a waiver, well....

J.B.
10-07-2010, 07:48 AM
I read another place where he clearly signed a waiver opting out on wanting the fire department to respond in case of a fire.

If that's truly the case, and he would be so stupid as to sign something opting out of having the fire department respond then that's his own fault for being a moron, but it still doesn't make the concept of how that system works any less ridiculous.

I don't think anybody disagrees that this guy is probably a top notch idiot, but the reason the firefighters are getting so much flack is because they are typically held to a higher standard in the public opinion. When people see a story where firefighters are standing by with all their equipment ready to go and they just watch a house burn down, it tends to make them scratch their heads a little bit.

J.B.
10-07-2010, 07:54 AM
Also, if he was offering to pick up the cost of the services to defend his home, at the VERY least they could have said..."Okay, but since you didn't pay your annual fee, you will be billed full cost for the time and equipment needed" :wacko:

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 08:05 AM
I could be wrong, JB, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as it appears--them just standing by and watching a house burn. I think they must be bound legally/contractually or in some way where they are literally not allowed to work a fire (as in this case) where the service isn't paid for. I'm thinking it's got to be something like that. I know this has some "holes" in it, but that's what I meant earlier about "their hands being tied".

J.B.
10-07-2010, 08:26 AM
I could be wrong, JB, but I don't think it's as cut and dried as it appears--them just standing by and watching a house burn. I think they must be bound legally/contractually or in some way where they are literally not allowed to work a fire (as in this case) where the service isn't paid for. I'm thinking it's got to be something like that. I know this has some "holes" in it, but that's what I meant earlier about "their hands being tied".

I'm sure you are right and there are some legalities to it as well, but it's still silly. On the flip side of that, like I was saying earlier, what happens if they fail to respond and the fire does spread to homes of those who have paid? Couldn't that potentially be a lawsuit against the fire department? Or if they made a mistake and a person actually did pay, but they still failed to respond?

Seems like the better idea in these types of situations is to ensure that when a fire department is going to respond to an area then they should work out a way to get compensated through that area's tax revenue so they don't have this problem of haggling over "annual fees". To which, it's also fair to mention that a lot of times the residents of rural areas still shop and spend tax dollars in the cities that are technically outside of their district because those are the closest towns/cities to them.

Bonnie
10-07-2010, 09:10 AM
I'm sure you are right and there are some legalities to it as well, but it's still silly. On the flip side of that, like I was saying earlier, what happens if they fail to respond and the fire does spread to homes of those who have paid? Couldn't that potentially be a lawsuit against the fire department? Or if they made a mistake and a person actually did pay, but they still failed to respond?

Seems like the better idea in these types of situations is to ensure that when a fire department is going to respond to an area then they should work out a way to get compensated through that area's tax revenue so they don't have this problem of haggling over "annual fees". To which, it's also fair to mention that a lot of times the residents of rural areas still shop and spend tax dollars in the cities that are technically outside of their district because those are the closest towns/cities to them.

It's a good probability that at some point something like that could happen.

We have a volunteer fire department in our area but we are also near the city too; I'm not sure if just one or both would respond. I guess I should find out. :laugh: It's not rural where my home is, but there are surrounding rural areas nearby. I'm really surprised the people in that community haven't established a volunteer fire department. :unsure:

rearnakedchoke
10-07-2010, 02:35 PM
You pay for a service, you get the service. You don't pay, you don't get it. I am on the side of the firefighters with this one. I wouldn't want to risk my life for someone who wasn't paying for the service.


~Amy

Would you provide treatment to someone who couldn't afford it?

Neezar
10-07-2010, 03:05 PM
Would you provide treatment to someone who couldn't afford it?

Would you fly down here and fix my car if I couldn't afford it? :laugh:

Twinsmama
10-07-2010, 03:46 PM
if he was too cheap to pay $75 i bet he doesn't have homeowners insurance. in my mind the $75 was a type of fire insurance. people like him is why the government will take over the fire department billing and add it into property taxes like it is down here....then no one can opt out.

i'm an insurance dork i know but you guys would be surprised if you knew how many people drop important coverages on their homes or cars when they have no loans. many people down here say "My house is block if I ever did have a claim it would be from windstorm and FEMA would step up" yeah i've never seen a block house burn.:laugh: also i didn't know burglars only targeted frame houses or that broken water pipes do also.:laugh:

VCURamFan
10-07-2010, 04:54 PM
If that's truly the case, and he would be so stupid as to sign something opting out of having the fire department respond then that's his own fault for being a moron, but it still doesn't make the concept of how that system works any less ridiculous.

I don't think anybody disagrees that this guy is probably a top notch idiot, but the reason the firefighters are getting so much flack is because they are typically held to a higher standard in the public opinion. When people see a story where firefighters are standing by with all their equipment ready to go and they just watch a house burn down, it tends to make them scratch their heads a little bit.
The reason the firefighters responded was not to sit around & watch. They responded because the man's neighbors had all bought the coverage & they showed up to protect their houses from this guy's idiocy.

VCURamFan
10-07-2010, 05:01 PM
Here's an AP article I just read. Bullet points are as follows:

The county itself has no fire department. The subscription is so that the fire deptarment of a nearby town will come out to your house
They had bought the service in the past, but didn't this year
They have insurance

A Tennessee woman said Wednesday she doesn't blame the firefighters who watched while her house burned to the ground after her family failed to pay a $75 annual protection fee.

Paulette Cranik said the firefighters who came to the scene were just following orders. Her family had paid the fee in the past but simply forgot it recently. Cranik, 67, said she's just thankful no one was hurt in the fire last week that destroyed the doublewide trailer in rural northwest Tennessee.

"You can't blame them if they have to do what the boss says to do," Cranik told The Associated Press. "I've had firemen call and apologize."

Firefighters did not try to save the burning structure because Cranik had not paid the subscription fee for fire protection. Firefighters went to the scene to keep flames from spreading to nearby property whose owners had paid. The county does not have fire service, but rural residents can pay a fee to get service from the nearby town of South Fulton.

Her grandson, Lance Cranik, 21, who lived there with her and her husband, started the fire while burning trash in a barrel. He went inside to take a shower and upon returning saw a shed next to the house in flames. It spread despite his efforts to put it out with a garden hose.

Paulette Cranik said they had paid the fee in the past, although sometimes late, but it slipped their mind this year.

Lance Cranik said "this is something I've got to live with the rest of my life."

"To see the house and everything you grew up in burning down before your eyes is kind of harsh," he said.

He recalled that he called the fire department and asked them to come but they declined.

"I was in shock," he said.

Local officials did not immediately return phone calls Wednesday to The Associated Press for comment but have confirmed to local media that the family did not pay the fee.

Paulette Cranik and her husband are now living in their year-old camper and Lance is living with his mother. The family says it's received offers of help but that the aid isn't needed.

"We have insurance and are happy everyone is alive," she said.

J.B.
10-07-2010, 05:12 PM
The reason the firefighters responded was not to sit around & watch. They responded because the man's neighbors had all bought the coverage & they showed up to protect their houses from this guy's idiocy.

I understand that, but the fact is they didn't show up until the other neighbor had called. What if nobody from another house had called and the houses who did pay had all burned down? Then would we still solely blame this guy for being an idiot, or would we also acknowledge that the system is broken?

It would be safer and much more logical to just broker a deal that deducts tax revenue from the rural residents rather than relying on the FD to have to collect an annual fee. That way, we know the FD is getting adequate money, and this kind of crap can't happen. Or, the other route is just to bill the crap out of people who don't pay the fee if the FD has to respond, but standing there with high powered hoses and telling a person "tough luck moron", just seems like the wrong way to go IMO.

rearnakedchoke
10-07-2010, 06:27 PM
Would you fly down here and fix my car if I couldn't afford it? :laugh:

for you .. yes .. anyone else ... don't know ..

Chris F
10-07-2010, 06:48 PM
No lives were in danger so the fire dept. has no obligation to that man. If he truly cared about his possesions he would have paid the bill. My guess is he also does not have home insurance either. Billy Graham once said look at a mans calenadar and his checkbook and its there you will see his priorites. this mans house was not a priorty. The firemen did nothing wrong. I am sure had a man been trapped in the home they would have done something.

Chris F
10-07-2010, 06:50 PM
Here's an AP article I just read. Bullet points are as follows:

The county itself has no fire department. The subscription is so that the fire deptarment of a nearby town will come out to your house
They had bought the service in the past, but didn't this year
They have insurance


Good at least some of their stuff and their home was protected. Surprised they were to cheap to fork over the 75 dollars yet they did pay for it in the past.

J.B.
10-07-2010, 07:21 PM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4809-familys-home-burns-after-not-paying-fire-fee
(http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4809-familys-home-burns-after-not-paying-fire-fee)
The community has offered its help to the Cranick family, but the family graciously turned down the offers, as they are receiving help from their insurance company.

Local news station ABC 7 reports that the Obion County Budget Committee had decided to expand its subscription-only fire service to additional towns.

Union City Fire Department Chief Kelly Edmison objects to the expansion, however, supporting instead a 13-cent increase in property taxes, which is allegedly all it would take to fund fire services for towns within the county.

Edmison adds, “It eliminates this having 911 or whoever check to say, ‘Are they covered or not covered?’ ”

:rolleyes:

TexasRN
10-08-2010, 11:06 AM
Would you provide treatment to someone who couldn't afford it?

Our office doesn't. We are a for profit company. If someone doesn't have their copay, we turn them away. Keep in mind I work in a doctor's office, NOT an Emergency Dept. I don't give free care; there are county clinics for that.

Now if I am out in public and I see a child choking, I will stop to help. If there is a car wreck, I do stop to offer assistance as needed. BUT I don't put myself or my family in danger to do so. I don't see this stopping to help as giving any more medical assistance than any other American citizen could do if they know any kind of first aid.


~Amy

TexasRN
10-08-2010, 11:10 AM
The guy's house burned down because they were burning trash and nobody stayed outside to watch it and make sure nothing caught fire. That's not very bright. We had to burn trash when I was growing up and my little brother and I were sometimes put in charge of watching it to make sure it didn't catch anything else on fire. It was never left unattended. Ever. I do feel bad that they lost all of their possessions though.



~Amy

Tyburn
10-14-2010, 12:00 AM
In England, The Fire Service is covered by the Council Tax everyone pays. They claim to be passionate about their jobs and to save lives...something I decided I didnt believe them about, when they dared to go on strike because they felt underpaid.

We paid for a service, and during the strike, if we had a fire, they would refuse to do their job...they cant then claim to be passionate about saving lives...the laugh of it is, they are greedy and simply want more money...if they get what they want...and I think they did in the end...suddenly they are all passionate again

Sorry...I dont buy it. If you were passionate about saving lives and had the means, you would do it for free if it meant that, not to do so, would mean certain death for someone.

Emergency Services should be like the Military...it should be a criminal offense for them to go on strike.

btw...we dont get an option about paying for our fire service...tiz compulsory whether they turn up...or strike and refuse.

F34R
10-14-2010, 12:30 AM
all our rural volunteer, county, and municipal fire teams assist each other regardless of location, etc. I'll get some more info on how fees, etc., work out to compare how this stupid tradegy SHOULD have been avoided.

Firemen are there to protect, not cater to bueracracy. I wouldn't stop at each house I go to a call and ask if they paid their city taxes before I assisted them with any police matters they have. Effin ridiculous.

J.B.
10-14-2010, 02:02 AM
all our rural volunteer, county, and municipal fire teams assist each other regardless of location, etc. I'll get some more info on how fees, etc., work out to compare how this stupid tradegy SHOULD have been avoided.

Firemen are there to protect, not cater to bueracracy. I wouldn't stop at each house I go to a call and ask if they paid their city taxes before I assisted them with any police matters they have. Effin ridiculous.

+1