Firefighters refuse to put out fire, watch house burn down

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='looploop']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.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't, as a human life and a house are very different. If somebody would have died in that fire, it would have been a very different story. Fortunately, only property was lost, and that's nobody but the owner's fault.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']No, I don't, as a human life and a house are very different. If somebody would have died in that fire, it would have been a very different story. Fortunately, only property was lost, and that's nobody but the owner's fault.[/QUOTE]

Then don't compare health insurance to this in the first place.
Nonetheless, I maintain that if you approve watching the economic destruction of your neighbor over a paltry fee you have some disturbing expectations. With that kind of policy it's only a matter of time until innocents are harmed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to wonder what would have happened had this been the home of a local politician. Or hell, some family of one of the fire fighters for that matter.
 
[quote name='Clak']I have to wonder what would have happened had this been the home of a local politician. Or hell, some family of one of the fire fighters for that matter.[/QUOTE]

I think those people would be smart enough to pay $75
 
It is silly to think that firefighters should ignore every house that doesn't pay and let them burn, rather they should put out the fire and then hit the house with the full cost of putting out the fire because they didn't pay the $75 dollars. Its only fair, why do I have to pay $75 dollars when my neighbor doesn't and they still do the same service for both of us?

Edit: Also is homeowners insurance required in Tennessee? I would think that their homeowners insurance would require them to have fire department services paid.
 
We're saying that the house that didn't pay would get the $75 PLUS a fine of some sort. Make it a couple hundred bucks and everyone will pay up. Best of both worlds.
 
I wonder if the time it takes to look up whether or not people are paid up is factored into your shit burning away. I'm guessing a piddly seven-five isn't going to cover the cost of the smoke damage alone that would transpire in that time.

It's nice to see basic safety response teams adopting the McDonald's drivethru method for service. That makes me sleep muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better at night.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is silly to think that firefighters should ignore every house that doesn't pay and let them burn, rather they should put out the fire and then hit the house with the full cost of putting out the fire because they didn't pay the $75 dollars.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but apparently the guy offered to pay whatever the fuck it took and they still let that shit burn.

Best solution would be to make a fire tax that everyone pays and is 'covered' by one fire department or another.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Agreed, but apparently the guy offered to pay whatever the fuck it took and they still let that shit burn.

Best solution would be to make a fire tax that everyone pays and is 'covered' by one fire department or another.[/QUOTE]

i dont see a problem with charging $75 dollars separately out of taxes. This disables the state from getting its grubby little hands all over it before it gets to the fire department, and as long as the fire department does as I said in my previous post, it should work out fine.
 
While I think it's a great injustice to the homeowner, the anger comments shouldn't be directed at the them or the Fire Fighters. No city or county in this day and time should be without a tax system that provides for Fire, Police and EMS service. I am a 31 year career Fire Fighter who has never been put in the Obion situation, but I can guarantee that there isn't a a FF I know would have gave a rat's ass about what a city manager might want to do to him or her if they put the fire out. I would venture to say that if there was discipline handed down it would have most likely turned on the city manager or mayor and they would be the ones looking for work. I agree with an earlier post that stated pay the lesser fee now or if you don't and you call us it will be considerably higher. I truly hope and believe that this issue will help end this subsciption service that is used all across our great country. It's an honorable days work, whether you volunteer or you're a career FF. Some communities can not afford a fully staffed department, but cases like these should never happen and if they do then city management jobs should be lost. Period.
 
As someone previously mentioned, the man's home was in an unincorporated area. There were three other towns around him that refused to offer fire service in his area, and this town offered it for $75 per year.

People who lived in the town proper didn't have the fee, as their taxes paid for their fire service - only folks outside of town, who didn't pay that tax had the $75 bill. The town certainly isn't to blame for the situation - nor are the firefighters (as in the people who put out fires, do the dangerous work). however it doesn't make this situation any less disturbing.

If the fire department (as in the administrators, not the firefighters) is running itself like a business, it should have acted like one and mitigated its own potential losses by putting the fire out; the fire department failed miserably as a business in this instance.

The thing about fires is they spread - this one spread to the neighbor's field, which the department had to put out. Had the fire department put the fire out before it grew, the neighbor's property very well may not have been been damaged at all.

Letting the fire burn out of control (as evidenced by the fact it spread at all) because of this fee was not only dangerous, but the dynamics of how fire spreads and grows made it a poor business choice. The fire department contracted to a number of other people in the same area, to put out fires... Ignoring this one drastically increased risk of damage to those clients' properties, which I would imagine scared the hell out of them.

Just because the man's home wasn't paid up does not mean the fire wasn't something they should have dealt with. They put people at risk, and didn't serve their clients by letting it go as they did.
 
It amazes me just how much money depends on your survival. Fire fighters won't even put a fire out in your home if you have not paid them. Really sad story to read.
 
Here's Allahpundit on it:
That’s America’s health-care dynamic in a nutshell, no? No one’s getting turned away from the ER, even if they can’t afford to pay; thus, we need a mandate to force everyone to pay up front in order to shrink the pool of free-riders and help absorb the costs of those left in the pool. Which is to say, why not simply levy a $75 tax on everyone to force them to pay for fire coverage? Or, as Foster notes, if they’re willing to pay anything once the fire’s consuming their house, why not let them opt in after the fact for a vastly increased fee?
Click to expand...

It's a little of what Knoell said and what I said.
 
This is easy

"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?"
Click to expand...

You get two choices: You raise taxes (or "redistribute them" and make money come out of thin air) to pay for the fire fighting supplies (and, additionally, maybe salaries). Or you pay the $75 fee for out-of-state, someone else's taxes paid this, fire insurance.

This isn't rocket science. The money comes from somewhere. In this case, someone else's taxes.
 
So do they look up your address to see if you paid first while your house is burning? Very bizarre, wonder if they would do anything if a person was trapped inside, and why even come down if they are not going to fight it?
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']wonder if they would do anything if a person was trapped inside,[/QUOTE]

[quote name='jputahraptor']and why even come down if they are not going to fight it?[/QUOTE]

Read the article:

"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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Or I guess you expected everyone else to read it for you so you wouldn't have to read it? That's the definition of a neocommunist socialist. The rest of the group did the work so I don't have to. Get off the government teat you lazy fuck.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']As someone previously mentioned, the man's home was in an unincorporated area. There were three other towns around him that refused to offer fire service in his area, and this town offered it for $75 per year.

People who lived in the town proper didn't have the fee, as their taxes paid for their fire service - only folks outside of town, who didn't pay that tax had the $75 bill. The town certainly isn't to blame for the situation - nor are the firefighters (as in the people who put out fires, do the dangerous work). however it doesn't make this situation any less disturbing.

If the fire department (as in the administrators, not the firefighters) is running itself like a business, it should have acted like one and mitigated its own potential losses by putting the fire out; the fire department failed miserably as a business in this instance.

The thing about fires is they spread - this one spread to the neighbor's field, which the department had to put out. Had the fire department put the fire out before it grew, the neighbor's property very well may not have been been damaged at all.

Letting the fire burn out of control (as evidenced by the fact it spread at all) because of this fee was not only dangerous, but the dynamics of how fire spreads and grows made it a poor business choice. The fire department contracted to a number of other people in the same area, to put out fires... Ignoring this one drastically increased risk of damage to those clients' properties, which I would imagine scared the hell out of them.

Just because the man's home wasn't paid up does not mean the fire wasn't something they should have dealt with. They put people at risk, and didn't serve their clients by letting it go as they did.[/QUOTE]


Yeah this makes the most sense out of anything I've read in here
 
[quote name='usickenme']If the gov't seized his property, then he becomes the next right-wing "victim".[/QUOTE]

This. I don't know about the "right wing" aspect of it, but if they had put out the fire, then sent this guy some huge bill (like many of you are suggesting) or seized the property, there'd be a large amount of people up in arms over the fact that the fire department was asking so much from these people who had already lost everything. It's lose-lose.

[quote name='looploop']Then don't compare health insurance to this in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Let's move away from health insurance and move to something closer - automotive insurance.

You just totaled out your car. You haven't paid premiums for three bill cycles. Do you think you should be able to go up to the office, pay the most recent bill and the insurance company should pay to replace your car?
 
From the original article:

"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.
Click to expand...

That, right there, sums up the situation.

Also, to anyone wanting to know the details about what caused the fire, one of Mr. Cranick's grandsons was burning trash next to the house.
 
[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]
I did 2 years worth with fire prevention and 3 years of volunteering at night as an EMT...think they'd come to my house and take volunteer time as pay. No, they wouldn't
 
I agree with DoK. Both parties are to blame for this.

This is exhibit "A" why the guv'ment isn't always the boogie man. Some things should not be privatized, because they affect everyone.

Sounds like some douchebag bureaucrat pencil pushers at the office were throwing their weight around too.

LoL at the comments that compares it to car insurance. This isn't a 20k car, this is a 150K house! People live there, and could die, for Christ's sake!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71f6B0AqZAU&feature=player_embedded

3:53 mark.
This guy's son's house caught on fire three years ago. They called the Fire Department and the Fire Department offered to waive the fee until the next day and come out to put the fire out.

Cranick was well aware of the policy and the need for him to pay $75 if he wanted coverage.[/QUOTE]

This story highlights what I hate about Olbermann, he is worse than hannity by far.
 
[quote name='looploop']Then don't compare health insurance to this in the first place.
Nonetheless, I maintain that if you approve watching the economic destruction of your neighbor over a paltry fee you have some disturbing expectations. With that kind of policy it's only a matter of time until innocents are harmed.[/QUOTE]

If they would have put out this fire, then they would have to put out every fire in the town, even if the people didn't pay the fee. Then, before you know it, nobody pays the fee anymore because they don't need to, because they will put the fire out anyway. They had to make an example out of somebody. Just pay the damn fee and you don't have to worry about this crap. Damn guy shouldn't be so cheap.
 
I think this fee is shady. I'd be totally behind the firefighters if this involved some upper middle class Republican saying "I hate Obama, I don't want to pay taxes." But if it's just some "firefighter subscription fee", it shouldn't have existed in the first place because it implies fire departments are a luxury, not a necessary part of the town's infrastructure.

From what I gather, the town doesn't have a fire department and is leasing another town's department? Hopefully this town organizes a volunteer department like every other town that can't afford to pay for career firefighters.
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']I think this fee is shady. I'd be totally behind the firefighters if this involved some upper middle class Republican saying "I hate Obama, I don't want to pay taxes." But if it's just some "firefighter subscription fee", it shouldn't have existed in the first place because it implies fire departments are a luxury, not a necessary part of the town's infrastructure.

From what I gather, the town doesn't have a fire department and is leasing another town's department? Hopefully this town organizes a volunteer department like every other town that can't afford to pay for career firefighters.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't involve 2 cities... it involves a county and a city. It's the cities fire department that is paid for by city taxes, which people living in the county do not pay. Now technically the county could take some of the county taxes they take in and pay for use of the cities fire department I would assume but then you would be making the people living in the city limits pay twice for fire service.

Basically from what was said on the interview I doubt that if they had a volunteer fire department that they would get enough donations to function.

One thing that I wonder tho. Depending on how far away the fire department was from the home, they may not have been able to save it anyway. Depends on the type of home, where the fire had reached by the time they got there, and if they could supply enough water to help. Not to mention how much water damage it would have taken. Sadly I've seen a home burn down within 2 miles of a fire department with 2-3 trucks on scene in a few minutes.

All in all it's a sad situation for all involved. A family lost their home and I would think that sitting there a doing nothing probably haunts a few of the firefighters as well.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']So do they look up your address to see if you paid first while your house is burning? Very bizarre, wonder if they would do anything if a person was trapped inside, and why even come down if they are not going to fight it?[/QUOTE]

Holy shit. Even Jputa can see this is a bad policy.
 
Oddly, this reminds me of that scene in little miss sunshine when that bitch wants to deny them entry to the contest because they're five minutes late and 'rules are rules'

I hate 'rules are rules' people. I think 'rules are rules' people are the exact type of people needed to create a nightmare scenario like '1984'
 
[quote name='62t']I think those people would be smart enough to pay $75[/QUOTE]
I don't know if ti's an issue between smart and stupid but either way, never underestimate the stupidity of people.
 
Why was he burning trash? He didn't want to pay the trash fee? I'm sorry but somebody stupid enough to do that deserves to get his home burned while the fire department watches.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']This. I don't know about the "right wing" aspect of it, but if they had put out the fire, then sent this guy some huge bill (like many of you are suggesting) or seized the property, there'd be a large amount of people up in arms over the fact that the fire department was asking so much from these people who had already lost everything. It's lose-lose.


[/QUOTE]

You have a good point, I could definately see the guys on this forum creating a thread complaining that the fire department is charging sooo much after someones house just got burned down.

The way to fix it though is to just deal with their complaints that we are beating up the little guy while the system itself will work. I can't see many people not subscribing to the fire service once they realize they might have to front thousands of dollars if they require fire department services.

It is a much more humane way of dealing with this than saying "let it burn"

Also again I don't know why the guys homeowners insurance didn't take note of this, I believe it is required in Tennessee, unless he paid his house off (or it has been in the family), and doesn't have it. Then he would be an idiot.
 
I can't believe this is the CAG forums and nobody used the Xbox Live defense. "It's like sacrificing one Xbox game to play all your games online. That's a GREAT deal!" In all seriousness, I don't understand how this guy couldn't swing $75 a year. Sounds like he wanted to protest it and got bit in the ass. Same way I used the "Insurance sucks, you pay all that and never need anything out of it." Only now I've got to pay $1400 out of pocket to get my wisdom teeth yanked. Guess who's buying dental insurance ASAP?
 
[quote name='skiizim']Why was he burning trash? He didn't want to pay the trash fee? I'm sorry but somebody stupid enough to do that deserves to get his home burned while the fire department watches.[/QUOTE]
That's a common thing to do out in the sticks. Sometimes you don't have garbage pickup that far out.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Best solution would be to make a fire tax that everyone pays and is 'covered' by one fire department or another.[/QUOTE]

They already have that. It's $75 and you pay it every year.
 
I guess Olbermann thinks this guys house is too big to fail.

anybody know what the cost to put out a fire is? I am thinking the $75 is a pretty good deal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']I guess Olbermann thinks this guys house is too big to fail.

anybody know what the cost to put out a fire is? I am thinking the $75 is a pretty good deal.[/QUOTE]

It's in the hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars.
 
While I don't delight in this knucklehead's misery, I enjoyed the local news' tagline " No pay, no spray"
 
The $75 isn't insurance and I'll illustrate why. If you do not pay your health insurance premiums you can still go to a clinic and pay out of pocket to receive health care. If you do not pay your car insurance premiums you can still get your car repaired by paying out of pocket. If you do not pay your legal insurance premiums you can still get a lawyer. If you do not pay your life insurance premiums you can still pay for funeral costs out of pocket. If you do not pay your homeowners insurance you can still have your home repaired out of pocket.

In this situation he agreed to pay whatever cost to have them put out the fire but they refused to do so.

Insurance helps to cover your costs whenever the applicable event occurs, not deny your access to basic emergency services. This whole "fee" for fire department services is the whole reason fire departments were brought under public domain in the first place, to prevent people from being denied these types of services.

Sure you can inject the libertarian argument in here but unless someone is an extreme libertarian, borderline anarchist, they should believe in basic government services.

One thing that I will continue to watch this story for is the aftermath with regard to lawsuits. Insurance lawyers are notoriously meticulous, if they find anything they can bring suit against this county for, they'll do it and then the implications of this story will truly get interesting.[quote name='UncleBob']Fun fun!
It is ILLEGAL to burn trash in Tennessee.
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/apc/pdf/OpenBurningBrochure.pdf

Wonder if Arson charges will be filed.[/QUOTE]

Arson would only apply if he intentionally burned down a structure. As it is, he negligently caused his house to burn down. Unless there's a statute against negligent arson in Tennessee, which I doubt, he can't be charged with arson.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']One thing that I will continue to watch this story for is the aftermath with regard to lawsuits. Insurance lawyers are notoriously meticulous, if they find anything they can bring suit against this county for, they'll do it and then the implications of this story will truly get interesting.[/quote]

The only thing such a suit would likely do would be to end the practice of Fire Departments covering areas outside of their jurisdiction/tax base - no matter what the cost is.

Arson would only apply if he intentionally burned down a structure. As it is, he negligently caused his house to burn down. Unless there's a statute against negligent arson in Tennessee, which I doubt, he can't be charged with arson.
Click to expand...

While it may not be "arson", I'm sure there's a similar charge for illegal burning that spreads to cause damages. You know what would suck even more? If this guy's insurance didn't cover anything because of the illegal activities that lead to the fire. Wonder if that's something they would even cover.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']
While it may not be "arson", I'm sure there's a similar charge for illegal burning that spreads to cause damages. You know what would suck even more? If this guy's insurance didn't cover anything because of the illegal activities that lead to the fire. Wonder if that's something they would even cover.[/QUOTE]

The other charge would be negligence of some kind (negligent destruction of property possibly, I dunno, it would be hard to say not knowing Tennessee's laws) and I find it difficult to swallow a district attorney would throw public opinion completely out the window just to nail this guy on what would probably be, at best, a gross misdemeanor.

His insurance company has already agreed to cover him, which I have a feeling they will continue to do at this point if for no other reason than for the positive public opinion. What better way to present a positive public image as an insurance company than being able to say you helped out this family when the government failed them?

If his insurance company had bailed on him I would certainly feel much more sympathy toward the guy. As it is the story is still a sad one because there are many things in a house which can't be replaced by insurance, certainly the animals that perished, but at least the guy isn't reduced to homeless and broke in the whole ordeal as well.
 
[quote name='usickenme']While I don't delight in this knucklehead's misery, I enjoyed the local news' tagline " No pay, no spray"[/QUOTE]

I can think of another industry that could use this tagline.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The other charge would be negligence of some kind (negligent destruction of property possibly, I dunno, it would be hard to say not knowing Tennessee's laws) and I find it difficult to swallow a district attorney would throw public opinion completely out the window just to nail this guy on what would probably be, at best, a gross misdemeanor.

His insurance company has already agreed to cover him, which I have a feeling they will continue to do at this point if for no other reason than for the positive public opinion. What better way to present a positive public image as an insurance company than being able to say you helped out this family when the government failed them?

If his insurance company had bailed on him I would certainly feel much more sympathy toward the guy. As it is the story is still a sad one because there are many things in a house which can't be replaced by insurance, certainly the animals that perished, but at least the guy isn't reduced to homeless and broke in the whole ordeal as well.[/QUOTE]

Being in insurance myself. I can tell you that this guy is not the type of risk that insurers want to cover.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']I can think of another industry that could use this tagline.[/QUOTE]

Exterminators?
House painters?
Crop dusters?

I NEED TO KNOW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top