Firefighters refuse to put out fire, watch house burn down

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sporadic

CAGiversary!
Feedback
53 (100%)
Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

We asked him why.

He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.
Click to expand...

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

An area fire department felt the heat Thursday after a department policy allowed a home to burn to the ground.

The focus remains on what's called subscription fire service. Some people living in Obion County, Tennessee must pay a $75 fee to a city fire department if they want firefighters to respond in an emergency.

On Wednesday afternoon, a home in Obion County burned to the ground because the home's owners, Gene and Paulette Cranick, didn't pay the fee.

"Well, I don't mind the home. I know it can be replaced, but other things I got in there can't be," Gene Cranick said. "Other than that, we're doing fine, nobody got hurt that's a good thing, everybody is okay. We're going to live over this."

South Fulton police arrested one of Gene Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge. When officers arrived at the firehouse Wednesday, South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was in an ambulance receiving medical treatment.

Police said Cranick was upset firefighters weren't putting out the fire and attacked the chief. The South Fulton city manager said Wilds was treated and released and will recover just fine.

The incident is shining new light on a policy that's got a lot of people upset. But Union City Fire Chief Kelly Edmison is defending the firefighters in South Fulton.

"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department."

And with no fire department, people living in the county rely on nearby city or volunteer fire departments in an emergency.

In Obion County there are eight municipalities. South Fulton, Union City and Kenton are the only ones on subscription service, meaning if you don't pay, you don't get help.

That's exactly what happened to the Cranicks Wednesday. It's a situation Edmison said isn't ideal but a necessity to keep fire departments operating.

"If we just waited to charge when we went out there, you'd be working on a per-call basis," he said. "With no more calls than there are, the money wouldn't be there in a sufficient source to buy the equipment you need."

He and other fire chiefs in Obion County who charge subscription fees for county residents know they're in a tough spot.

"It's like car insurance," Edmison said. "I wish I could wait until I have an accident until I pay my premium on my car insurance, but it doesn't work that way. So why should the fire service be looked at anything different?"

Again, if the fire situation is life threatening, fire departments will respond. However, that was not the case with the fire in South Fulton Wednesday.

Edmison said Obion County has entered into a letter of intent with all eight fire district municipalities, so all eight departments will soon respond to county residents through subscription service only.
Click to expand...

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

How fucked up is it that they refused to put out a fire because the guy hadn't paid the $75 annual fee for people out of the city limits? You think they would put out the fire and send the bill afterwards but the chief is right, this is like not paying your car insurance :roll:

This is the direction people want us to move in.
 
I wish Bush was here for some compassionate conservatism.

Luckily there were no pets or people in the house.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I wonder if the fumes from the house smelled like concentrated Libertarian bullshit.[/QUOTE]

This.

Both parties are assholes here. It's hard to take either side in this case honestly.
 
Lets privatize the fire and police departments, what's the worst that could happen?

...

......
.........

Oops.

I'm also starting to feel that Tennessee is becoming the new Texas, this stupid shit always seems to happen here lately.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, question - all of you that are up in arms over this, how many of you volunteer your free time with your local fire department? How many of you put your life on the line - for free - just to save the property of those too cheap to spend $75 on - basically - insurance?
 
We don't ALWAYS have to buy our heroes, they just show up and do amazing things.

EDIT: like someone in the article said, it's a problem with the higher-ups
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, question - all of you that are up in arms over this, how many of you volunteer your free time with your local fire department? How many of you put your life on the line - for free - just to save the property of those too cheap to spend $75 on - basically - insurance?[/QUOTE]

My best friend is a volunteer fire fighter...and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't watch a house burn down while putting out the field behind it because the owner of the house didn't pay the $75 annual fee and the owner of the field did.

And I wouldn't call putting out a house fire "putting your life on the line". Going inside the house, yes. Putting out a house fire, no.
 
I sometimes think bob and knoell just take whatever position is opposite of everyone else's. I don't care if they didn't pay the $75, it's morally abhorrent to sit there and watch someone's home burn down, especially over 75 fucking dollars. Hell they had neighbors apparently trying to put out the fire with garden hoses, they weren't asking to be paid.
 
[quote name='Clak']I sometimes think bob and knoell just take whatever position is opposite of everyone else's.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much. I had a good laugh when I saw Bob's response. He's pretty much a caricature at this point.
 
Odd - so far none of you who have chimed in with your "witty" little replies have mentioned any of your experience in the fire fighting line of work (or volunteerism).

And Sporadic - you're a fool if you don't think someone is putting their life on the line putting out a house fire - with or without going inside.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Odd - so far none of you who have chimed in with your "witty" little replies have mentioned any of your experience in the fire fighting line of work (or volunteerism).[/QUOTE]

How is this relevant? Is every fire department in the country doing the same thing as these TN fire departments?
 
SpazX - Ask all the volunteer firefighters you know how many fires they'd be able to put out if no one paid into the firefighter's fund.
 
[quote name='IRHari']How is this relevant? Is every fire department in the country doing the same thing as these TN fire departments?[/QUOTE]

It's just as relevant as Bush is.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Odd - so far none of you who have chimed in with your "witty" little replies have mentioned any of your experience in the fire fighting line of work (or volunteerism).

And Sporadic - you're a fool if you don't think someone is putting their life on the line putting out a house fire - with or without going inside.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Mr. Fire Fighter, I forgot we had an expert in the house. You are right. Putting out a housefire is a life threatening situation. Not putting out the housefire but putting out the section of the fire that crossed into a paying customer's field is A-OK.

My friend would laugh right in your face if you tried to tell him that.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Sorry Mr. Fire Fighter, I forgot we had an expert in the house. You are right. Putting out a housefire is a life threatening situation. Not putting out the housefire but putting out the section of the fire that crossed into a paying customer's field is A-OK.

My friend would laugh right in your face if you tried to tell him that.
[/QUOTE]

I seriously thought about making a reply to this, with relevant links and everything... then quickly realized that you've already made up your mind and wouldn't be interested in the facts.

But for anyone else who's stupid enough to think that putting out a house fire is as simple as leaning back with a hose and spraying the house, here's a quick factoid for you - one of the biggest killer of active fire fighters is stress-induced cardiac arrest. But putting out a house fire probably isn't very stressful.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']SpazX - Ask all the volunteer firefighters you know how many fires they'd be able to put out if no one paid into the firefighter's fund.[/QUOTE]

They said far fewer than if this one guy didn't, they put out his house fire and he paid after.
 
Those people know full well when they brought the house that the have to paid $75 to get the service, but just figure it will never happen to them and didn't paid. The firefighter should never put out the fire since other people will think they can the service for free. However I think the should be able to charge people some ridiculous fee if they need the service and never paid the annual fee.
 
[quote name='SpazX']They said far fewer than if this one guy didn't, they put out his house fire and he paid after.[/QUOTE]

You're assuming he would pay after. He was too cheap to pay $75 before.

Now, ask how many houses they'd be able to save if the only people who ever paid in were the ones who's houses had already caught on fire (then, you hope they have enough money to pay afterward).
 
[quote name='62t']Those people know full well when they brought the house that the have to paid $75 to get the service, but just figure it will never happen to them and didn't paid. The firefighter should never put out the fire since other people will think they can the service for free. However I think the should be able to charge people some ridiculous fee if they need the service and never paid the annual fee.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Why pay in at all? Why should anyone pay in ever? Damn fire fighters should just put out the fire for the fun of it. I mean, it's a simple, carefree job with no risks of injury or death or anything. Just do it and shut up, stupid fire fighters.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']lol you are the greatest unclebob

my next thread is going to be about child molesters. can't wait to see you defend them.[/QUOTE]

Let me guess, you're an expert on child molesters, eh?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're assuming he would pay after. He was too cheap to pay $75 before.[/quote]

You're right, he is a horrible person, I don't believe what he says. Maybe all his money was in the house.

[quote name='UncleBob']Now, ask how many houses they'd be able to save if the only people who ever paid in were the ones who's houses had already caught on fire (then, you hope they have enough money to pay afterward).[/QUOTE]

Probably not many. But what if every third house paid on even years and every second and fourth house paid on odd years? How many houses would they be able to save? Whole houses only, no rounding.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let me guess, you're an expert on child molesters, eh?[/QUOTE]

I bet you'll tell me I have no right to comment on it since I've never had a boy's penis in my mouth and start sourcing Rind et al. on how no harm was done.

You are a pathetic guy Bob.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I bet you'll tell me I have no right to comment on it since I've never had a boy's penis in my mouth and start sourcing Rind et al. on how no harm was done.[/quote]

If you weren't willing to not have sexual relations with underage people, I wouldn't expect you to make a topic about how people shouldn't be allowed to have sex with underage people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I deleted some of my older posts because I don't want this thread to derail too hard but I do want to say that your points, Unclebob, are insane and laughable.

You say that heart attacks are the top killer of firefighters but that isn't even tracked in police officer deaths (if what I read is right, the top killer of cops is suicide). And what's the rest of the pie chart for firefighter deaths? That's right, shit falling on them and asphyxia/burns from going inside. The fact that you are trying to play up putting out a housefire as some type of life and death battle (when they fucking put out the fire that was in the field behind the house) is craziness. Housefires are my friend's favorite part about volunteering.

Trying to say that the guy was cheap and that putting out his house means that nobody would pay for fire fighter service is also nuts. Why wouldn't you just send him a bill instead of endangering the properties around it?
 
This is what happens when taxes are so low that you can't even provide basic services.

The fire department sat there and watched the house burn down Mafia style. Oh, you didn't pay our little "fee"? Tough shits. You and everyone else in this county is gonna watch your house burn down and I'm sure we'll have a bunch of $75 checks tomorrow, aren't we?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, question - all of you that are up in arms over this, how many of you volunteer your free time with your local fire department? How many of you put your life on the line - for free - just to save the property of those too cheap to spend $75 on - basically - insurance?[/QUOTE]

Fire fighters dont put out fires for free. Whoever told you that is full of shit, or you just have no concept of how it works. Volunteer firefighters, yes they volunteer but the official fire department that goes out and puts out fires and such. They get paid to do it. My best friends husband is a lt on FD here and he makes about 33k a year.

Besides, why have a fire department for the city if they dont put out fires? To me that sounds like extortion really.

The people of the city pay taxes to the city, the city pays the fire department, its all pretty cut and dry.

Id be ashamed to be on that fire department. Let a familes home burn to the ground and lose their entire lives and everything they own when they live a couple streets away from you and shop at the same grocery store and maybe even your friend just because they didnt pay the city for fire protection? That is disgraceful and honorless.

No one deserves to have their home burn down infront of them at all, let alone while people who can help knowingly do not.
 
gargus, they lived in an unincorporated part of the county. They use fire services from the city and that's why they had to pay the $75. Most of the time, volunteers have to put out fires when you live out in the county.

I understand why they had to pay the $75. I don't understand why they couldn't pay when the fire fighters showed up or been billed.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's just as relevant as Bush is.[/QUOTE]

Clearly I was joking about Bush. You seemed serious about having 'experience' as somehow relevant.

Good to see we were both joking. Lawl @ firefighter experience.
 
[quote name='depascal22']gargus, they lived in an unincorporated part of the county. They use fire services from the city and that's why they had to pay the $75. Most of the time, volunteers have to put out fires when you live out in the county.

I understand why they had to pay the $75. I don't understand why they couldn't pay when the fire fighters showed up or been billed.[/QUOTE]

By me the firefighters are volunteers (although after x years of service they get a decent pension) but they still cost tax money to set up the fire house, buy the trucks and maintenance etc. unless you expect the firefighters to pay (or hold bake sales) for the privilege of saving everyones ass.

The firefighters in this instance were insistent they would save the lives of anyone caught in the fire but not put out the actual fire.

Maybe the reason why they wouldn't "let" the guy pay during the fire or after is that they think more people wouldn't pay year after year and only pony up the relatively piddling amount of money per fire meaning everyone else subsidizing their service.

Why didn't the guy pay? Times are hard but the guy is a homeowner and doesn't appear to be so broke as to 75 bucks being more than he can afford.

Perhaps the guy thought he was sticking it to the man, maybe the firefighters would ask for more money for operations and have to deal with people calling them socialist parasite government workers.
 
[quote name='depascal22']gargus, they lived in an unincorporated part of the county. They use fire services from the city and that's why they had to pay the $75. Most of the time, volunteers have to put out fires when you live out in the county.

I understand why they had to pay the $75. I don't understand why they couldn't pay when the fire fighters showed up or been billed.[/QUOTE]

It's like the idea that shoplifters should only have to pay the cost of the merchandise if they get caught. If such a law were passed, then everyone might as well shoplift - either you get caught and have to pay anyway or you don't get caught and you get free stuff.

In this situation, everyone could just go without paying until they had a fire, then pay the $75 and get the fire put out. Except, if the area goes a lengthy period of time without a fire, they'd have no income to pay for bills and maintenance.
 
Head of the firefighter group who was there putting out his neighbor's fire should've tried to extort the guy for an obscene amount of money. You said you'll pay anything? Why, I have a contract right here for $10k. Plus the contract can be long and full of garbage because dude isn't gonna have time to actually read it. Since they missed out on a major money making opportunity in particular as well as an opportunity to exploit others for their own gain in general, I'm gonna say this is not a situation of libertarianism.
 
I don't agree with those who argue that the family whose home was left to burn deserved what they got.

Now - if it can be proven in a court that the homeowners were made reasonably aware of this optional fee/service, and having been made aware of it, refused/declined to pay - well, then that's one matter and I'd agree with letting the house burn.

However - if there's a possibility that these 'county folk' (that's condescending urban liberal speak for what sarah palin calls 'real America', like the Real America you only hear about in John Cougar Mellencamp songs) simply weren't aware of the fee or given reasonable opportunities/notice to pay? That's another issue entirely.

Simply put, not paying the fee isn't enough to let the family's house burn, IMO.

If not paying the fee = fuck you, government pigs, then let it burn.

If not paying the fee = we didn't know, I don't remember seeing that form and/or it must have been lost in the mail - then its immoral to let their property burn.

An alternate solution is to charge that inflated sum for fire services. Have contracts with inflated - severely inflated - prices. Yeah, they didn't pay the fee therefore its hard to maintain services, but it cost more than $75 to send out a squad, let alone fight the fire at that house. So there's mismatch here. Make it $10,000 - whatever the *real* cost of fighting the fire would be in terms of labor/resources, along with a several hundred dollar fee ($750 instead of $75 sounds like it should be cognitively appropriate). Aren't there people who say they want government run like a business? I think they're positively inane, but if they want it, there's one solution. Finance your natural disasters!
 
The fire should have been put out and then the homeowner should have received a huge bill for the actual cost of labor/resources required to put out the fire.

The owner then has his property, assuming the fire is contained, and can work out a payment plan. If the bill is not paid, the government seizes the property.
 
Only in America would letting someone's home burn to the ground over $75 be a teaching moment. You sure showed that family.

And then everyone shuffled into church on Sunday.
 
I bet they have homeowers insurance.

What I'm wondering is why the heck this policy was instituted to begin with. Were taxes really that low that it couldn't support a fire dept?
 
So someone's house catches on fire, and the first thing the FD does is check whether or not they are paid up. Delightful.

I wonder if the same policy applies to traditionally tax-free establishments like churches.
 
I wonder what the responses would be if it had been his grandchildren burning/asphyxiating to death instead of "only" his cats and dogs.
 
[quote name='BillyBob29']The fire should have been put out and then the homeowner should have received a huge bill for the actual cost of labor/resources required to put out the fire.

The owner then has his property, assuming the fire is contained, and can work out a payment plan. If the bill is not paid, the government seizes the property.[/QUOTE]

That could lead to a can of worms. Basically, anyone who doesn't want to pay $75 is unlikely to pay more later (despite his claims at the time). Plus he could be not happy that the FD didn't do enough, or caused too much water damage, or drove over his garden, etc and refuse to pay.

If the gov't seized his property, then he becomes the next right-wing "victim".

I wonder how much the cause of fire impacts how people feel. It may not matter to some, but if it was arson, then that is harder to accept the doing nothing. I hope his "police bill" is paid up.
 
Just thought I'd chime in. In my opinion, they were right. He should have paid the $75 fine. It's essentially fire insurance, you might not use it, but you still have to pay for it if you by some chance do need to use it. If you quit paying your health insurance bill, would you expect the health insurance company to cover your broken arm from a car accident?

Anyway, just my opinion. For $75 a year, I'd gladly pay the fine to keep my house safe.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Just thought I'd chime in. In my opinion, they were right. He should have paid the $75 fine. It's essentially fire insurance, you might not use it, but you still have to pay for it if you by some chance do need to use it. If you quit paying your health insurance bill, would you expect the health insurance company to cover your broken arm from a car accident?

Anyway, just my opinion. For $75 a year, I'd gladly pay the fine to keep my house safe.[/QUOTE]

Do you also expect a nearby doctor to stand by and look on, or go tend to your insured neighbor's sprained ankle as you lay there with a bloody and debilitating compound fracture?
If so, you have some disturbing expectations of humanity and morality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top