Is that your house on fire? So sorry.

M

Matorbogl

Newbie
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
276
Reaction score
0
The Telegraph said:

Tennessee Firemen ignore burning house over unpaid subscription fee

Gene and Paulette Cranick, of South Fulton, Tennessee, US, lost their home after officers were ordered by bosses not to extinguish it.

Fire fighters only arrived when the flames spread to the property of a neighbour, who had paid the fee. However, they continued to refuse to help the Cranicks.

Later the same day, the couple's 44-year-old son was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, after allegedly punching the local fire chief.

Jeff Vowell, the city manager of South Fulton, said: "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens." Mr Vowell explained that there was no county-wide fire service and it was too expensive for the city's officers to serve surrounding rural areas like the Cranicks' as well.

Rural residents can gain access to the service by paying the annual fee. But "if they choose not to," Mr Vowell said, "we can't make them".

Mr Cranick said: "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." His wife said the couple had offered to pay the fire fighters whatever was necessary for them to extinguish the flames, but the officers refused.

However they do not blame the officers themselves, she said. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault." The Mayor of South Fulton, David Crocker, told local reporters: "We're very sorry their house burned."

However he too stood by the subscription policy, arguing that offering a pay-as-you-go service would mean upfront costs could not be met.

About three hours after the fire began, Mr Cranick's son Timothy allegedly arrived at the South Fulton fire station and asked for Mr Wilds, the fire chief.

It is alleged that when Mr Wilds came forward and asked if he could help, Mr Cranick punched him. "He just cold-cocked him," Mr Crocker said.

Mr Cranick allegedly had to be pulled off Mr Wilds by other firefighters, after having knocked him to the ground. The 44-year-old is said to have been taken to hospital after injuring his hand committing the alleged assault.

Mr Wilds was said by officials to be "doing OK". The Cranicks are temporarily staying in a mobile home.
Click to expand...

No more free rides in Tennessee.
 
Subscription to firefighting services? I didn't know this even was a thing people did.
 
What the ****? I would have clocked the damn fire chief too, what a ****bag.

"PLEASE JUST SPRAY SOME OF THAT WATER AT MY BURNING HOUSE WHICH CONTAINS ALL OF MY WORLDLY POSSESSIONS MR FIREMAN"
"LOL REGULATIONS"
 
they should privitise all essential services so these sort of things become common place ..take heed conservatives the next time your house is on fire
 
Well I mean, it is America. I'd be equally unsurprised if the story were "firefighters extinguish blaze in spite of unpaid fees, are subsequently sued by home owners because LEGAL SYSTEM LOL"
 
Wow, they were there anyway and did nothing. Nice of them!
 
Bad^Hat said:
Well I mean, it is America. I'd be equally unsurprised if the story were "firefighters extinguish blaze in spite of unpaid fees, are subsequently sued by home owners because LEGAL SYSTEM LOL"
Click to expand...

only in amerikkka

Best part was this:
"Later the same day, the couple's 44-year-old son was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, after allegedly punching the local fire chief."

What a rad dude.
 
Erestheux said:
only in amerikkka

Best part was this:
"Later the same day, the couple's 44-year-old son was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, after allegedly punching the local fire chief."

What a rad dude.
Click to expand...

Must have felt so good, though.
 
Or on the other hand, why would you buy a house and then not pay the fireman fee of $75 per year? Seems silly to buy a $000,000 house and not pay the $75 to help protect it?

Over here it's included in your 'council tax' / 'business rates', so you're forced to pay it.

If they still put the fire out even though they hadn't paid, then no one would pay and there would be no fire service in the first place.
 
kazsymonds said:
Or on the other hand, why would you buy a house and then not pay the fireman fee of $75 per year? Seems silly to buy a $000,000 house and not pay the $75 to help protect it?

Over here it's included in your 'council tax' / 'business rates', so you're forced to pay it.

If they still put the fire out even though they hadn't paid, then no one would pay and there would be no fire service in the first place.
Click to expand...

They could have set it up to bill them later. The homeowners were saying they'll pay whatever if they'd just put it out, but they still denied them.

And who knows if they even knew about the subscription? I didn't know such a thing existed, and I would have assumed my state taxes would have covered firefighting services.
 
Wow. This type of shit only happens outside of our major cities. (because it's not happening here)


Edit: Our house caught on fire in 2002.
 
I wonder if they can even get home insurance covering fire if they refuse to pay for firefighting services.
 
Krynn72 said:
They could have set it up to bill them later. The homeowners were saying they'll pay whatever if they'd just put it out, but they still denied them.

And who knows if they even knew about the subscription? I didn't know such a thing existed, and I would have assumed my state taxes would have covered firefighting services.
Click to expand...

But again, if they get paid per fire, they won't have enough funding to keep the fire department. Who is going to work as a fireman if you don't get paid unless there is a fire?

This is like insurance, it's no good waiting until the house is burning down to buy it then, you should be protected before hand.

Agree it should be in with the taxes, and if necessary, the taxes should be higher to cover it. Such necessary services shouldn't be optional, much like the police service. If people are out of work, or struggling perhaps there should be some kind of state help? I don't know how it works in America.

Our council tax is a tax levied on every person that owns a home, it covers the 'ground rent' along with 'fire service' and 'police service'. It's not optional.

Maybe I'm being too ruthless, and if it was a mistake to not pay it then I feel sorry for them, but if they just thought they would take the chance over 75 measly dollars, then how can you not blame them?
 
The way this story is written it makes the fire chief a bad guy.

He isn't. The only bad guys here are the retarded population of that county who don't vote for a STALINISED fire service.

Either you have a service which is run by the state: Nationalised/Socialised/Lenninised or you have a private system where if you don't pay you don't get help.

If that fire chief had put out that fire anyway, other people would not pay him for his services as it's clear they could get them for free. When you have a private system this is what happens.

GG america.
 
Solaris said:
The way this story is written it makes the fire chief a bad guy.

He isn't. The only bad guys here are the retarded population of that county who don't vote for a STALINISED fire service.

Either you have a service which is run by the state: Nationalised/Socialised/Lenninised or you have a private system where if you don't pay you don't get help.

If that fire chief had put out that fire anyway, other people would not pay him for his services as it's clear they could get them for free. When you have a private system this is what happens.

GG america.
Click to expand...
No, the fire chief is still a bad person. He shirked his moral responsibility in favour of a rule. If I were him I would have gladly saved this person's house only to lose my job in the process.
 
Stigmata said:
No, the fire chief is still a bad person. He shirked his moral responsibility in favour of a rule. If I were him I would have gladly saved this person's house only to lose my job in the process.
Click to expand...

You would? Why would you want to work for a private fire company in the first place then. You wouldn't last long in the job.

Perhaps he could have faced criminal charges as well as that water belongs to a private company.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is what happens when you turn public services into a profit driven enterprise, people burn to death, die of treatable illnesses and such.

But the media don't want you to see this, that's why they use the ****ing stupid word 'Socialized' healthcare, becuase "OMG SOCIALISM IS EVIL".

It's not evil, it's everyone putting money together so even the poorest of the poor has access to emergency services if they need them.

**** you America for having privatised fire services.
 
this is almost as bad as medical practitioners not administering help because someone didn't pay their last bill. this planet is becoming more and more like every man for himself bullshit
 
Solaris said:
You would? Why would you want to work for a private fire company in the first place then. You wouldn't last long in the job.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, you're taking my example to non-applicable extremes. It stands that this guy put bureaucratic stipulations ahead of let's say one-third of another person's entire life (i.e. aggregate effect of lost time/money/property over said life). I mean, really. Would you have done the same thing? You would have stood there, actively refusing to save another human being's livelihood, over $75 and three lines of text in a handbook?
 
This is the result of "free market" public services. DAMN THAT SOCIALIST FREE FIRE PROTECTION! You must pay to have your house saved by our firemen!

Socialized fire departments are a GOOD THING. Imagine subscription based police services.

"What's that ma'am, you're being raped and murdered? Can I please have your account number ma'am? LOOK LADY, WILL YOU STOP SCREAMING ALREADY? If you go to our website at www.dallaspolice.net you can subscribe to our service for a low low fee of... ma'am, what was that? Sounded like a gunshot. Ma'am? Ma'am? <click> Stupid prank callers."
 
Fire-fighting fees? Isn't that what our taxes are for?
 
No, taxes are the government stealing your money. Paying corporations is Better and More Reliable and Less Susceptible To Corruption.
 
Talked this over at dinner with my lawyer parents -- apparently the community only had a fire protection subscription deal because it was an unabsorbed township whose local government was too limited to be able to tax income (like, at all) and levy funds for their own fire service, and so the county's major city basically hired out their fire department on a household by household basis. The residents were notified of this and presumably everyone was okay with it.

Basically, the guy was an idiot, didn't pay the extremely reasonable fire protection fee ($75 a year? That's my car insurance for a month), and hopefully he'll be wiser in the future. He obviously knew about the service because he knew he wasn't covered under it. Why you would not pay for something like that absolutely boggles my mind, but whatever, it wasn't my house.

Now, my dad, who was a fireman for about ten years, assures me that had there been someone trapped in the house or something like that, the fire department would have acted. He also said that, depending on what state the house was in when the fire department arrived (if the neighbor's house was at risk, it was probably pretty far gone to begin with), even if the guy had paid for service, they probably would have let it burn anyway, because there's not much else to do after a certain point. As the situation stood, however, if there was no threat to life, had the chief tried to extinguish the fire, he would have been guilty of misappropriating resources, as the owner of the house had not paid for them.
 
Since I live in a rural area we too have to pay a yearly subscription service for our local fire department. My parents use to pay the fee for our local fire department, but they stopped paying when our local fire department stopped giving them membership slips even they payed their fee. But I think they'd be a waste of money anyways because the fire department we have is pretty worthless. A couple of years ago one of our neighbors' house caught on fire and they took so long to get here it was halfway burnt by the time they got to the spot. And then they let the fire burn down the rest because they ran out of water. Yeah, they got to the scene of the fire without any water.
 
hakojo said:
Talked this over at dinner with my lawyer parents -- apparently the community only had a fire protection subscription deal because it was an unabsorbed township whose local government was too limited to be able to tax income (like, at all) and levy funds for their own fire service, and so the county's major city basically hired out their fire department on a household by household basis. The residents were notified of this and presumably everyone was okay with it.

Basically, the guy was an idiot, didn't pay the extremely reasonable fire protection fee ($75 a year? That's my car insurance for a month), and hopefully he'll be wiser in the future. He obviously knew about the service because he knew he wasn't covered under it. Why you would not pay for something like that absolutely boggles my mind, but whatever, it wasn't my house.

Now, my dad, who was a fireman for about ten years, assures me that had there been someone trapped in the house or something like that, the fire department would have acted. He also said that, depending on what state the house was in when the fire department arrived (if the neighbor's house was at risk, it was probably pretty far gone to begin with), even if the guy had paid for service, they probably would have let it burn anyway, because there's not much else to do after a certain point. As the situation stood, however, if there was no threat to life, had the chief tried to extinguish the fire, he would have been guilty of misappropriating resources, as the owner of the house had not paid for them.
Click to expand...

Sitting back and watching someones house burn like that knowing you have the equipment and expertise to stop it... as it's your job... is wicked.
 
Well this is certainly regrettable but:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75"

This is just stupidity. What do you think the fee is for? You chose not to pay it. Maybe if you didn't pay it AND were actively trying to change this rule, then I could understand. But it seems more like they just figured 'eh our house probably won't catch on fire, not worth the money'
 
Vegeta897 said:
Well this is certainly regrettable but:

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75"

This is just stupidity. What do you think the fee is for? You chose not to pay it. Maybe if you didn't pay it AND were actively trying to change this rule, then I could understand. But it seems more like they just figured 'eh our house probably won't catch on fire, not worth the money'
Click to expand...

If the Good Samaritan law was ever repealed... I would still help people if put in the situation. I wouldn't just say, "**** it, they have no recourse so what do I care."
 
Raziaar said:
Sitting back and watching someones house burn like that knowing you have the equipment and expertise to stop it... as it's your job... is wicked.
Click to expand...

It's not their job to protect the houses of the people who didn't pay up. I know that sounds totally insensitive, but...a line has to be drawn somewhere. Being a good Samaritan is one thing, but in this case the firefighters would have been using equipment and water paid for by other people on this one guy who couldn't be arsed to just cough up for their services. In essence, they'd've been stealing, which I can't justify.

Also, keep in mind that this wasn't a fee that needed to be paid in addition to income taxes or anything; the $75/year was in lieu of money for a fire department being taken out of the income of the county's residents. It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 
Hakojo, I have a question for you.

Presume that you work at a grocery store. It's a small store. You and your boss are the only two people who work there; don't ask how, you two somehow manage to run the store all by yourselves.

You have no cash or cards on your person or in the building. The store is otherwise empty of people.

A man shuffles into the store, wheezing, and clearly suffering greatly. He explains to you that he has no money, but is literally dying of thirst, and needs a bottle of water. You can see that his skin is parched and taut, and as he talks his lips smack together like dry rubber. His voice is like sandpaper.

The two of you have no money, and your boss refuses to give him water for free. If you were to give him the water yourself, you would be fired for theft.

What do you do?
 
hakojo said:
It's not their job to protect the houses of the people who didn't pay up.
Click to expand...

It's not your job to try and help an accident victim out of their car and away from the wreckage either if it's a dire situation(fire, etc). But people still do it, because people naturally have a good nature.

I mean I can understand completely ignoring the call... but actually responding to the call because neighboring houses are also going up in flames... fighting those fires and ignoring the other one and the cause of it... that's just cold.

Fact of the matter is, these sorts of fire departments should not exist, and they are detrimental to society. Fire fighting shouldn't be a business, it should be an emergency service paid for by taxes that you and I and everyone else pays. It's a good socialist styled service, much like the military and the police force.
 
Stigmata said:
What do you do?
Click to expand...

Call an ambulance on the store phone, give him a drink from the faucet in the back in the meantime (if this place is anything like where I work, sink water is complementary). If our phone wasn't working and there was no water for some insane reason? I'd give him the bottle of water and then happily take my employer to court if he tried to fire me, as a human life was at risk.

Nobody was stuck in this guy's burning house, and the only people who stood to be at risk were the firefighters. If it meant so much to him, he should have paid for fire service.
 
You are intentionally dodging the question.

Imagine the ONLY WAY this man can survive is if you give him the water that will result in your loss of a job. If you don't do this, the man will die.

What do you do.
 
Well I would have risked by job to save that family's livelihood.

:arms:
 
Stigmata your analogy is flawed.

The people were not in danger, they were out of their home and safe. ANY human being would be obligated to save another person's life regardless of what their job is.

Comparing saving their house to saving a person's life is not the same thing at all.
 
Stigmata said:
You are intentionally dodging the question.

Imagine the ONLY WAY this man can survive is if you give him the water that will result in your loss of a job. If you don't do this, the man will die.

What do you do.
Click to expand...

And you've just moved this situation into one that has absolutely nothing to do with the original issue. A man's life is at stake in your scenario. If it came down to my job and his life? Okay, I can get a new job, but he can't get a new life, so yeah, I'd give him the water. Or is this a world where this is the absolute last job I can ever acquire, and if I don't give this man a bottle of water, I'll be destitute for the rest of my life?

As I said in my original post, I talked to my dad (an ex-fireman) about this, and he said that, had someone been stuck in the house, of course the team would have tried to rescue them. But as the only thing at risk was property, which you're legally not even allowed to defend with a firearm in most places, of course the firemen weren't going to risk their lives on its behalf without any sort of monetary incentive.
 
Vegeta897 said:
Stigmata your analogy is flawed.

The people were not in danger, they were out of their home and safe. ANY human being would be obligated to save another person's life regardless of what their job is.

Comparing saving their house to saving a person's life is not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

Okay, yeah, that's true. I just... okay, I'm going to be honest here. Anyone who, in these firefighters' shoes, would rather keep their job than save almost all the material possessions that someone has accumulated through their life, all over a $75 dispute, absolutely disgusts me. I believe that something has to be deeply wrong inside of you to think that way.

*extenuating circumstances excluded, like if the firefighter's pay grade is what's keeping someone else from succumbing to health problems, or keeping his/her family off the street due to bills.
 
Stigmata said:
Okay, yeah, that's true. I just... okay, I'm going to be honest here. Anyone who, in these firefighters' shoes, would rather keep their job than save almost all the material possessions that someone has accumulated through their life, all over a $75 dispute, absolutely disgusts me. I believe that something has to be deeply wrong inside of you to think that way.
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't technically 75. It was 75 per year, all those years they didn't pay. It's not like you can just pay 75 for the year that the fire happened.

It's like insurance. You have to always be paying because you never know when something will happen.

That said, I think they should have accepted a large sum of money to make up for the missed fees. That seems kind of pointlessly harsh that they would just reject any amount.
 
I think insurance companies are largely scams, and any that aren't will eventually become so due to inevitable management shifts and the nature of corporate-ladder progression. I can already see this whole thread arriving at an argumentative stalemate :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

katsung47
Ron Paul Defends Russia After Malaysian Plane Crash
Replies
0
Views
3K
katsung47
katsung47
Sectorial
Half-Life 2 Canon (Theory)
Replies
6
Views
3K
1marcos6
1marcos6
15357
SK, once again, discovers that NK sent a team of spies to kill someone
Replies
13
Views
774
63
63
CptStern
The War on Dogs continues in Prince George's County
Replies
15
Views
770
Kakashi
Kakashi
morgs
TTT Fanfic - The Island
Replies
8
Views
2K
Krynn72
Krynn72
Back
Top