Firefighters refusing to put out a fire?

[Dess]

Just about anything can be fodder for an ideological dispute these days. Just consider news of the recent fire at Gene Cranick's home in Obion County, Tenn.

Here's the short version of what happened: In rural Obion County, homeowners must pay $75 annually for fire protection services from the nearby city of South Fulton. If they don't pay the fee and their home catches fire, tough luck -- even if firefighters are positioned just outside the home with hoses at the ready.

Gene Cranick found this out the hard way.

When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the Fire Department's defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.

They did, however, come out when Cranick's neighbor -- who'd already paid the fee -- called 911 because he worried that the fire might spread to his property. Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick's home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor's property.

"I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."


Now.. I know the first thing you guys are thinking is WTF....

But a lot of rural areas ( not just TN ) are like this. If a smaller town doesn't have fire or ambulance coverage in their area, they can pay for it. If they don't, then they aren't guaranteed coverage. This particular town didn't have any fire coverage at all until the station in question offered it in 1990. Which is a LONG time to go without Fire protection.

However... if there are people in the house... they do still respond. They aren't going to just leave people in the house to burn alive.

I guess growing up in rural areas for most of my life I'm used to stuff like this. My parents pay the fire department closest to them every month just in case something happens... they consider a part of their insurance policy. You wouldn't ask for auto insurance when you have the wreck.. or health insurance when you get sick... or try to get life insurance on your death bed...

I actually posted this to get a debate going. No arguments. Just wanted to see who was actually capable of seeing from both sides of the fence on it. Consider it experimentation.

[Jokersvirus]

Well, first It needs to be stated that any first responder is in the field they are in because they want to help not because money is involved. If those people made money im pretty sure we wouldnt have alot of crime and the jobs would be full.

If it is a very small town taxes do pay for equipment, training, and keep the engines up to date, I would think, so the fee sounds reasonable, but the FD shouldnt just sit there and be angry about the situation about someone not paying, that will just cause more hate and.. tension between all first responders and the community which in return would result in pretty much the town turning on itself and doing what it wants.


Like I said if its a small town and they dont get alot of income or grants for their station then taxes is the way to go. But like I also said again first responders are in this field to help, not because of the money.

[Dess]

This town doesn't have a station at all. They utilize the one in a neighboring town. Thus the fee. The taxes from these residents aren't going to their department at all. The fee is their way to make up for it.

[Jokersvirus]

If they have to use a station from a different city that money, 75 bucks a year or what not, should go towards their own station, plus getting the wheels in motion to have a local department. Cause if there is a lets say... big big big fire and all units respond to the fire in the city what firefighters will be left to come over to the other city and fight it? This would cause serious issues which would result in a riot of sorts.

I know all towns dont have the money for stations and what not, but they should go to their local and state DHS. For example my local police department, where im from, got a grant for 200,000 which paid for training bomb squad, and so much new brand new equipment its mind blowing. State DHS would be the best bet to go to.

[Dess]

That's one idea... I know in the town I grew up in... there really wasn't a population density to fund a new station... they just use the one from the neighboring city and I haven't heard of any problems from it. But then again... I think they send you a bill if you don't pay their monthly fee... but they never refuse service... Maybe they should try that instead of just watching a man's house burn down...

[Jokersvirus]

If I can or cant not afford a monthly payment of x amount of dollars should not have a impact on the amount of service i get from my police, fire, and ems. If it does that kinda tells me those people are in the wrong field.

My question is what if someone was in that house and they watched it burn, Im pretty sure thsoe firefighters would be getting sued and would lose their jobs and everything.

[Dess]

Just posted above, they don't leave people in the house....

and.. what if those firefighters were just following orders?

[Jokersvirus]

their orders are to help others.
If following orders means letting a man's house burn down because he didnt pay 75 bucks, that isnt cool. I have a friend who is a firefighter I will ask him for his input and post it later on.

The oath they take when they become firefighters is to help others and everything. By allowing the house to burn down they are breaking their oath which is pretty much their ultimate order.

[jango]

.. reminds me of that scene in one of my favourite films 'Gangs of New York' when they're arguing over who should put out the fire, and in the meantime the house is blazing away ..

Anyways, yeah I can kinda understand how this happened but it's a little strange. We do things very differently here so this would never happen anywhere.

[LiNuX]

They showed up and stood there as the house burned down and only moved if the fire was reaching the neighbors house...

And I agree with joker, whether they're following orders or not, they shouldn't have just stood there watching. I'd get it if they were still at their station but they were right there. And their actions would have been praised if they did act because the actions were to help someone. If they got fired I'm sure there would have been legal issues but it's better and definitely cheaper than letting a man's house burn down to the ground over $75.

[EpsilonX]

If this happened to me, what happens afterwards would result in my going to jail.

I'm sure it would have been easier to put the fire out earlier, rather than let it get bigger and start attacking the other houses.

[Jokersvirus]

Im pretty sure there can still be legal action taken against the fire departmnet. which in this case I really hope happens.

Last time I checked our taxes pay for this public service, yes the town doesnt have its own fire department but they are still getting paid to do what they do.

and I have to agree with eps it would most likely result in me going to jail, but I might get off due to provocation, if that law exist in that state.

[BobTD]

Lets consider this, your state is employing and paying those trained in firefighting regardless, water is cheep, and fuel can be covered by an extra fee for homes lying outside of the normal coverage.
Why then do they have a system in place that works on fear, and coincidentally could generate more money then their cost?

I think considering the man offered to pay the fee they could have made an exception. Personally the way state lets fire control govern itself in some places (yet is mandatory where normally covered) is a bit backwards.

You cant for instance, request that the fire department do nothing in an area that normally has state provided fire rescue because of insurance or a cheaper way to demolish a home for a new building.

Also, my largest concern, is that in the case of arson the state should legally be required to defend your home and investigate for a crime. Because thats the kind of protection a lot of taxes go towards, how can you determine if there was a crime committed if you let the fire complete its course? As an extreme example, can you 100% guarantee that a firefighter looking at loosing his job from lack of funding wont go out and light a fire to generate more income for his department?

If you dont get fire protection, do you also get a tax exemption? Or do you pay the same rate as every other resident in the state?

The list of questions one could raise goes on. This simply seems like an unbalanced system. If a fire department is able to respond to a fire in the area they should be required to, regardless of fines that could in all reality be paid after the fact, even to cover some of the previous years.

Am I wrong for looking at this as a sort of blackmail? Doesn't it fit the definition perfectly?

Not to sound like an extremist. But I'm an activist at heart and to many people seem to have taken the bench of apathy on an important issue like this.

[Ilyich Valken]

Lets consider this, your state is employing and paying those trained in firefighting regardless, water is cheep, and fuel can be covered by an extra fee for homes lying outside of the normal coverage.
Why then do they have a system in place that works on fear, and coincidentally could generate more money then their cost?

I think considering the man offered to pay the fee they could have made an exception. Personally the way state lets fire control govern itself in some places (yet is mandatory where normally covered) is a bit backwards.

You cant for instance, request that the fire department do nothing in an area that normally has state provided fire rescue because of insurance or a cheaper way to demolish a home for a new building.

Also, my largest concern, is that in the case of arson the state should legally be required to defend your home and investigate for a crime. Because thats the kind of protection a lot of taxes go towards, how can you determine if there was a crime committed if you let the fire complete its course? As an extreme example, can you 100% guarantee that a firefighter looking at loosing his job from lack of funding wont go out and light a fire to generate more income for his department?

If you dont get fire protection, do you also get a tax exemption? Or do you pay the same rate as every other resident in the state?

The list of questions one could raise goes on. This simply seems like an unbalanced system. If a fire department is able to respond to a fire in the area they should be required to, regardless of fines that could in all reality be paid after the fact, even to cover some of the previous years.

Am I wrong for looking at this as a sort of blackmail? Doesn't it fit the definition perfectly?

Not to sound like an extremist. But I'm an activist at heart and to many people seem to have taken the bench of apathy on an important issue like this. So I have to rile up an argument sometimes.

I completely agree with you Bob. It's ridiculous.

[BobTD]

your welcome, Im here to sum up the argument in a neat and sturdy defense for people who disagree with what is often the popular, yet not so very often a well cogitated social knee-jerk reaction to many of societies shortcomings.

Also, i dealt with this moral issue in Sim city, where I often didn't offer fire protection in order to make up for lower tax rates and a fast development rate. I know it was wrong. But lives where the cost of my metropolis. =/