# Fire Fighters Refuse to Fight Fire, Homeowners Forgot to Pay Fee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by spidergoat, Oct 6, 2010.

1. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
There's a problem here...

One: You just admitted that you know of people that would do it. You defeat your argument that no one would do it. You completely contradicted yourself.

Two: I am not bragging. You were the one who started talking shit until my attitude got riled up. Now you want to distort what I've said. I simply stated What Is.

Clearly, your intent is nothing more than a very clear personal attack on my character. You are trying to call me a liar, an attention seeker and a charlatan.

Adoucette- is that really the best you have to offer?
When it escapes you to think that other people might actually be willing to stand up for what is right- You must attack their character?

Character...hmm... Yeah, this is very telling about yours.

3. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
All those issues about the 9/11 operator not knowing.

Correct, but that's what happens when you have a SUBSCRIPTION service.

The fire dept has to figure out if they have to roll based on what they know.

Tough luck, but you get what you pay for.

Ah, all those emergency payments, which are PIDDLY, come from the STATE. The insurance money comes from the Insurance company. None of that comes from the City so I'm sure they could care less. Again, that's part of the problem with a subscription system and again, you get what you pay for.

All your BS about paying AFTER the fact WAS true, because the story shows that they HAD been doing exactly that, and clearly that wasn't working.

The evidence of which is that the City offered the county a deal for $3 a month to avoid these kind of situations and in essence the County said "Fuck You, we're not going to pay even a piddly$3 per month because we know you'll come out and put out the fires anyway".

Guess they will have to rethink that strategy.

Arthur

5. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
I never said no one would do it.
I said someone who would, wouldn't likely say they would.
I said I thought you would have more empathy for the fire fighters.

You're the one who is running around beating his chest.

I seem to meet so many brave people on the Internet.

That is your real name, right?

Arthur

Last edited: Oct 8, 2010

7. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Um, why wouldn't they?
I have more empathy for the homeowners.

Again, from experience, if a guy started hooking up the hose, he'd likely have been put on report. Not fired.
Secondly, in all this media attention, he probably woulda been off the hook, anyway.
Here's another brave guy on the internet...:

8. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Now THAT was BRAVE.

:yawn:

Messages:
3,576

Messages:
7,829
11. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Well... What do you know... It looks like you'll resort to being "Brave on the Internet" too, eh?

Which is the basic problem with your speculations. Isn't it?

The point has been made that by making the decision that he made, the fire chief ended up costing everyone a lot more.

The point has been made that the system they have in place is faulty. That each of the parties involved is guilty of fault.

The point has been made that the situation was handled very inappropriately and inhumanely.

The point has been made that Emergency Services don't get the right to decide on a whim who gets service and who does not.

The point has been made that the law is on the Cranicks side.

The point has been made that it's perfectly average and normal that many people will speak out against such things. Such is our history and it's quite full of people that will even stand up to authority.

And what is it now, after all these arguments you are most concerned with? Petty behavior.
All you can do is attack a persons character and make accusations about which you don't really KNOW what you are talking about-- and you'll even sink to lower behavior when pushed.

Here: Have a third helping.

12. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
23,019
What 9/11 operator?

Confused much Arthur?

Is it?

To my knowledge, this is the first time a fire department has sat and watched a house and pets burn over a subscription fee. Sheds and fields have burned, to my knowledge, but never someone's house and their pets.

Do you have links to instances where those who have failed to pay their subscription had the fire brigade stand outside their home and watch it burn? You keep saying that this is what happens when you have a subscription service and all other evidence points to firemen putting out the fire and recouping later if necessary.

Actually, they always investigate, because panicked people on the phone often get things wrong. And often, lives are lost.

Indeed. And now Fulton's fire department is paying for a destroyed reputation and have ensured that everyone gets to pay to cover the costs of what they decided. Good work.

Firstly, who funds the State? Where does the State get its tax dollars from?

Secondly, I am willing to bet that the family received more than the $75 in emergency payment. And insurance companies get that money from where? Oh yes, other people's premiums, collectively. And I can assure you of one thing, insurance companies always try to recoup their losses if they can. It would not surprise me one bit if the insurance company sued the Fire Department and the city to recoup its losses, which will inevitably cost the tax payers much, much more. Did you assume that insurance companies got the money they pay out, out of thin air? How was it not working? The fire department was still being recompensed for their time and effort, regardless. In fact, Cranick begged to be allowed to pay them much more before the house burned down, and they refused. So Mr Cranick is to be held personally responsible for this? He is being made to pay the lesson, and thus, the State as a whole is also being made to pay? Interesting.. That lesson is going to prove to be much more expensive than even the$75 and everyone collectively will now have to pay for it. And you support this?

Hmm..

Will be interesting to see how much this costly little lesson ends up costing tax payers as a whole in the end.

13. ### TrooperSecular SanityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,784
"The Cranicks said they also forgot to pay their fire service fee on time about three years ago. But the fire department then did not hesitate to put out a chimney fire and let them pay the fee the next day."

Does anyone know if this is just a rumor? Is he a repeat offender? Did the fire department already bend the rules for them once?

Insurance Journal News

14. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Does anyone know if this is just a rumor? Are you a repeat poster?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2629980&postcount=194

15. ### TrooperSecular SanityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,784
Neverfly? You should have used Gadfly.

Did you answer the question, smart one?

16. ### BellsStaff Member

Messages:
23,019
You mean the fire department knew they would be able to get payment from him after the fact and that he would have paid them before it hit his house, as his house was burning and after.. and they knew this?

Does not really put the fire department in a good light if one knows that they had prior knowledge that he would have paid before, during and after the fact and that they had accepted payment after the fact on a previous occasion without any problems.

In fact, it shows that the insurance company has even more grounds to sue them (fire department and the city) to recoup their losses, which will cost the city tax payers much much more in the end.

17. ### NeverflyBannedBanned

Messages:
3,576
Others did.

It's a claim made by the Cranicks that has not been verified one way or the other.

Messages:
1,784
Then Cranicks themselves are claiming to be repeat offenders and they didn't pay for the true cost of putting out the first fire. They only paid the $75. No wonder, he thought that they'd come again, and put it out whether you paid, or not. They did it before for him. Give me a break... 19. ### keith1Guest 20. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member Messages: 7,829 Yeah, fun isn't it. Don't you just love to challenge someone to Step Outside and settle it like REAL men? Didn't cost the City or the Fire Department he works for a thing. The rest isn't the City's problem BUT, fighting fires for which they aren't reimbursed is a big problem and if this gets the County to switch to full coverage for$3 per day, it will eventually save everybody money.

The city is guilty of nothing. The Fire chief is guilty of nothing. The fire chief and the mayor tried to get the County to install a better system, for a piddly $3 per month, and were told no thanks, we prefer the Subscription plan. Handled exactly based on how the Subscription system they signed up for is supposed to work. Now when the City played by the rules it's just sour grapes. It's not a whim. If people are in danger they come. If it's property that's in danger they don't come. No law is on the Cranicks side. The only one who got arrested that day was a Cranick for punching the Fire Chief. No charges are pending against the City. Yup, the whole County stood up to the authority of the City and said FUCK YOU, we don't want no Fire Service. Take your$3.00 per month and put it where the sun don't shine. Not working out that well for them though.

Oh my, you've hurt my feelings.....

What ever shall I do

:bawl:

Arthur

Last edited: Oct 8, 2010
21. ### adoucetteCaca OccursValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,829
Nope,
They pointed out it was an exception the last time.
He has no expectation that they will continue to make an exception for him.
That's what exceptions are all about.
Arthur

22. ### TrooperSecular SanityValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,784

You have been missing the point about the \$75 since the beginning of this thread. How many times do you expect people to explain it. That is not how the system works.

Last edited: Oct 8, 2010
23. ### keith1Guest

This is a symptom of tight budgets, and rural denial of the cost of modern services. Be expecting to see a lot more of these cases, as the belt further tightens...