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

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

  1. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    So many red herrings and straw men...

    It's like a scarecrow fishmarket in here, now.

    In the end-- Who Cares about the trivial bullshit?

    We can peck away at each other for the next 6 months and get no where.

    What we have is a fire chief that did just that. He pecked at the trivialities. Now that entire county, city, mayor and fire department are being examined under a microscope by the media.

    How many people arguing in this thread, had they been that guy-- would have Said, "Aww Screw it..." Grabbed a fire house and then confided, "Settle the $75 later and don't tell anyone. Now step aside and let us do our job."

    No matter what tenets are used to JUSTIFY the act this fire chief chose...

    The results disagree. The results demonstrate that a lot of poor choices were made. Before the event, even. By all parties. But I bet that chief is NOW wishing, with all this backlash, that he had just gone ahead and hosed that thing out real quick.

    Was it worth losing his HOME over? $75? You can say that it's his fault for not paying it on time.

    I think we can all agree- that was a dumb mistake. But was that mistake large enough to lose his HOME over when it was VERY preventable? When the people that we are supposed to trust were on the scene and could have handled the situation properly?

    There are SO MANY much more productive ways that the situation could have been handled. Why not examine those fervently instead of pointing the finger coldly?

    This wasn't an Insurance Company. It was 9-1-1.
    A service we are expecting to TRUST.

    People talk so much about Social cooperation, multi-faith cultural exchange, Teamwork... We boast about the premise of people working together to overcome problems. We put it in advertising campaigns and politics and sports... We teach it to kids in kindergarten.
    Yet, those people that Justify this fire chiefs act have forgotten all of that. They are so busy crunching the numbers and making petty arguments-- They forgot what it means to Be Human -- To Make Dumb mistakes -- to need to swallow your pride and admit error and flatly Ask For HELP. "Ok, I was stupid. But please, please help."

    I did not go to Jonestown VFD to watch fires. I joined up to put those fires out. I wasn't getting paid. I did it to HELP people.
    Yes, to help STUPID people. And unlucky people. And people that weren't at home... people that forgot the oven was on... People that smoked inside or didn't hire the RIGHT electrician to swap out an outlet.
    Because the trauma they went through was more than enough to learn the lesson.
    No one needed to act like an ass to them and watch their house burn down. It wasn't our job to tell them whose at fault.

    It was our JOB to Extinguish the Fire.

    All of you justifying that action-- I feel embarrassed for you. I pity you, really, for forgetting that you are no better than that man is. For forgetting that we're all faulty and we need a helping hand sometimes.

    And you can laugh off this post or tell me I'm wrong... and if whatever circumstances ever led to you finding yourself in such a bind as that man had and I was the one who could help... And you turn to me...

    I won't bat an eyelash. I will help you. Because my judgment of you is not relevant to me doing my damned Job.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    No joe you miss the point, those home owners in California paid the taxes, and yet they were not protected by the fire departments.

    Again, there is no legal expectation by the private citizen of individual protection "special relationship," by the Government.

    The same Court Rulings Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, are applicable to the fire department as they are a public entity or a public employee, and that has been codified in California Law along with many other states.

    California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Neverfly the problem with that line of thought is the insurance, the Health, Life, and Liability, insurance that protects the individual fire fighters on the job, along with the departments that are involved.

    That unless a obligation can be proven, if a fire fighter in injured in a fire, or causes negligent damage fighting a fire, that is not their responsibility to service, or that department has damage to the equipment, or cause injury to life or property, and are found negligent, those insurances will not cover the Fire Fighters or their Departments.

    And guess who gets to pay those cost if they lose the suite? The Tax Payers, and the Individual Fire Fighters.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    The Mayor and the Fire Chief work for the City and the City is offering this service on a subscription basis only to County residents who pay for it.

    So the net of it is, County residents who don't subscribe DON'T have 911 fire service for PROPERTY fires.

    And from what I can tell, the Mayor fully supports the Fire Chiefs decision to not put out the property fire, and guess what, he isn't elected by the people who live in the County. So, as long as most people in the city go along with it then there is no issue with the Media. Considering the discussions on this board, I suspect that a majority of the City residents would likely agree with the City policy. Listen to that last video clip, the city based news guys weren't bad mouthing the Fire Chiefs, indeed they gave them plenty of air time and ended up talking about "a lesson learned" for County residents.

    It might seem strange, but it's been this way in this county for TWENTY YEARS, and indeed it's expanding to all unincorporated areas of the county next year.

    Now you say, Yeah, but I'm a big swinging dick and I'd put out that fire for you, 'cause I'm fireproof and made of Hickory and tanned leather, and that's just how I am.

    But the reality is, if you're are a Fireman with a good job and the benefits that go with it, working for that City, you aren't likely to throw your job away by going against that Fire Chief just to save a cheap house.

    Arthur
     
  8. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Well, this was all really dumb wasn't it? Oh, let's mobilize our fire team to protect one house, and watch the other burn down. How much does it cost to train a firehose on the neighbor's house? The guy would have, according to the story, readily paid for the service after the fact. To deny him that, while having already expended whatever precious money it costs to come out and stand there, protecting the house next door, and not lift a finger to help?

    And this idiocy someone proposed about the firefighter "doing his job" or "following orders" by allowing the other house to just burn down? That the firefighters could have lost their jobs if they had helped the guy who didn't have some petty contract (which he had paid for before and apparently forgot this year?) and prevented his house and pets from perishing?:bawl: CRY!

    If any firefighter had "disobeyed" orders and hosed the fire down while they're already standing there, and gotten fired, I can almost certainly guarantee those persons would have been regarded by many as heroes. It would have been a scandal. Firefighters actually putting out a fire and preventing the complete destruction of a family's property, and getting fired for it. How many people would have stood up for those lawbreakers? I would.

    Glenn Beck's ugly, money-worshiping comments about how he probably would have let the house burn down over 75 fucking dollars is outrageous. Oh, free market at all cost.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh, I could help you out. After all, we have to stand here and protect your neighbor's house, so it wouldn't be that hard to spray some water over your way, I suppose. BUT. We really can't make deals anymore. You missed the deadline. Sorry for your loss. This is responsibility. This is the free market. LA LA LA LA LA!!!

    I lick Ayn Rand's cunt! Look at me! WEEEE!!!!
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,983
    I guess we should be thankful that not all firemen are so mean spirited and selfish. Then again, seeing how some have defended their lack of action in driving there and sitting there and watching that house burn down, along with the pets and everything that one has in a house to make a home, not to mention having seen how some mocked Cranick for his misfortune, I should not be surprised.

    It is things like this that show a lowering of humanity and what it takes to be human. But, as they say, it takes all kinds. There are some who will laugh at his misfortune and others who seem to think that it is perfectly justifed that a family lose their home, pets and all their belongings because of a $75 fee. There is the saying that what goes around comes around... And frankly, I hope it does come around to those who sat and watched that house burn and refused to unreel a single fire hose to put it out and others who defended their lack of action and those who mocked the true victims of this personal tragedy.

    What we have seen in this thread and in the general media in reporting and commenting this story a fracturing of our ability to actually step outside of ourselves and our self absorbed lives and actually help someone in need. We saw it with those firemen who sat and watched for a fair length of time as a family's house burned down and refused to listen to their virtual begging to help them and refuse to even accept the payment that led to this. We see it in this thread where people who consider themselves decent human beings can quite openly criticise the victim for his loss and excuse the firemen who had the ability to actually put out that fire and willingly chose not to. And we saw it in the likes of Beck and his sidekick who then went on to mock and make fun of the Cranicks and Mr Cranick's misfortune.

    People keep harping on about Cranick sponging off his neighbours if the firemen had actually put some god damn water on that fire. What is telling is that in one of the interviews I saw of Cranick, he commented that his neighbours who had come to his aid and rescue had equally begged the firemen to put out that fire and offered to pay the $75, to no avail. What is even more telling is that the fire department has, according to Cranick, waived the fee and actually put out fires on properties where the owner had not paid the service fee.

    The Cranicks have shown more charity and humility towards those firemen who refused to do their duty and help put out that fire that destroyed their home and their lives. Those firemen certainly do not deserve the Cranick's pity or charity. But they gave it to them regardless. And I think that is quite telling of who they are compared to those firemen, some in this thread and the likes of Beck and co.
     
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Hmmm?
     
  11. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593
    Me thinks with that in mind, perhaps a higher up in the fire dept., had a personal problem with Mr. Cranick?
     
  12. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Neverfly.. volunteer firefighting is noble. It's charity work, I would say.
    And it's a necessity in some areas.
    In a small county, like where my grandparents live, really, that's all they can do. They don't have enough people to pay for a full-time fire department. It's kind of appalling that a family loses a house because a fire department already on the scene is miffed about $75 dollars.
    Is it just me, or do small towns respect their communities more. I guess it depends. That particular county is multi-generational ranching communities, kind of like an extended neighborhood. That's a good motivator for people to help those they've known most of their lives.

    How difficult or dangerous or, *shudder*, expensive would it have been for those firefighters who are just standing there to spray that house? The danger part is being played here and there in this thread, but really? A trailer home?
    It's almost like a couple police officers with guns standing idly by while a guy with a knife is stabbing people and doing nothing but keeping him confined to a small area.

    Sad really, that this purposeful inaction is being defended. Especially, I must repeat, over a less than hundred dollar payment. I'm very positive this guy would gladly have payed more, like he said, for them to do it. If he had thrown a couple hundred in cash at them, would they have let that burn too?

    Sad..
     
  13. Gypsi Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    You seem to have missed the fact that in DeShaney v. Winnebago it was held that the state does not "generally" owe a duty of care. Rehnquist (and the majority) also ruled that there may be circumstances in which it does, notably where the government has (a) created the danger or (b) restrained an individual's liberty so that they are unable to protect themselves. In both these cases the government does have an affirmative duty to protect.

    You also seem to have missed the fact that since DeShaney v. Winnebago there have been several significant cases (e.g. Wood v. Ostrander, Davis v. Brady, Munger v. Glasgow Police Dept.), affirming that a duty to protect does exist where the government has created or enhanced the danger and been "deliberately indifferent".

    As things stand today (further to numerous cases based on the DeShaney exceptions) a duty to protect is deemed to exist where all three are true:

    (a) Government created or enhanced the danger
    (b) The danger was forseeable
    (c) Government was deliberately indifferent.

    In short, there are some expectations of protection.

    Should someone have died or been injured as a result of being left to their own devices in this fire case, it seems that the three above criteria would have been met, allowing for a successful suit against the government.

    In light of this, one would expect that the fire dept would have erred on the side of caution.
     
  14. runa77 Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Fire Fighters Refuse to Fight Fire

    Hi
    I read your article .But some time i don't understand some topic .
    Really its very good.
    Thanks
     
  15. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    LOLZ!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,983
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I really recommend that everyone in this thread watches that report.

    It's quite revealing and it covers a great deal more than that the F.D. had granted exceptions before quite easily.

    The commentator also really nails several of the things a lot of us have pointed out in this thread.
     
  19. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,554
    Guys, they didn't demand free service. According to the articles, he offered to pay the fire department the 75 dollars on the spot. The fire department still refused, probably because their minds were rather diseased at the time. This publicity might be a wake-up call for them.

    Also, if anyone else doubts the sickness that is at work here, the fire department let the pets in the house burn to death too. Just because they didn't get the 75 dollars which might have been split down to 5 dollars a person. Leaving pets to die just because you didn't get 75 dollars is not noble, guys.
     
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Damn Skippy.
     
  21. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Actually the "granted exceptions" was mentioned by the person who lost his house, so it also casts some doubt on his claim of having just "forgotten" to pay.

    The key points were covered.

    Ideally, Emergency Govt services shouldn't be structured this way.

    I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

    The City Fire Dept TRIED to get the County to go with a non-subscription service.
    Their report showed they could fund it with a $3 per month additional charge on everyone's Electric bill.

    This is quite illustrative, as the $36 per year charge means that MORE THAN HALF of the County residents don't pay for the service, which if they grant exceptions, as is suggested they have done in the past, then even more will opt out.

    Think if this story was different, and they came out and put out the fire and the news reports that though he didn't pay his $75 fee, the fire dept granted him an exception. Would the number of people paying next year go up or down?

    Down obviously.

    So, the sad fact is, as the Fire Dept Report stated it was getting harder and harder to convince the City managers to put our fires in the County "because it was the right thing to do", and thus if the County residents continued on their trend of not paying the fee, then eventually the County residents would all lose the coverage and ultimately more houses and LIVES would be lost.

    Go back to the LOCAL City news report.

    It's quite clear the CITY backs the Fire Chief and this policy and does see it as teaching the County people a lesson.

    And since it was just property, and the property is apparently fully covered by insurance, it was probably a good lesson.

    Indeed, I would wager any amount of money, that the number of people paying the fee next year, and thus getting protection, goes up.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  22. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Update: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/

    From the story,

    The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond, because Cranick had not paid the annual fee.

    So they did not immediately respond. That means a life may very well have been at stake or the blaze could have been out of control. They would not have known. They weren't responding...

    Meanwhile,

    The International Association of Fire Fighters condemned the South Fulton Fire Department for their actions and also criticized the South Fulton's policy.

    So other firemen are distancing themselves from this lot of pay or else firemen. That's good. A little shame is in order here.

    Amen.
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Sorry, but I would have expected that you would have had more empathy for the actual fire-fighters. You know that in a city like that, that job is a prized job and it's not likely that a Fireman would risk that and defy his Chief over this property issue.

    Arthur
     

Share This Page