Firefighters stand by as familys house burns to the ground

[Danny]

http://gizmodo.com/5656373/firefighters-stood-by-and-watched-while-this-house-burned-to-the-ground

Holy fuck Tennessee that is a messed up firefighting system.

This article did the rounds through the blokes in my family who are firefighters themselves ,its kind of a family thing i suppose, and there opinions varied from calling the firefighters lazy scum to just being disappointed that its allowed to happen.

Personally its screwed up but honestly i dont know what the hell the us firefighting system is like. is it the same thing as the police or something over here? Obviously not like our hospitals and ambulances but still, here, if your home is on fire you will have people there trying to save it over here.
Like i said, maybe its because its a common job in my family for 3 or 4 generations and so its kind of up on a pedestal but i've always heard over here of firefighters put in the same league as cops and soldiers, risking there lives to save people when others might not be as brave and there not the kind of people who will stand across the street with the fire engine but do nothing because they didnt pay there fee for it. it sounds crazy that this system is in place.

[Publius]

The fire department was the fire department of the City of South Fulton, TN. It's paid for by the taxpayers of South Fulton to fight fires in South Fulton. Many rural areas in the US don't have fire departments. The South Fulton fire department decided to offer fire protection service to people who chose to pay for it (only $75 per year) in areas of Obion County outside of the city. This gave county residents the possibility of more fire protection than they had before, without the bother of establishing their own fire department. The Cranick family decided not to pay for this service, so they didn't get it. Is that really so surprising? What's the alternative? Should the City of South Fulton go back to its original status and cancel its voluntary program for Obion County, meaning that county residents will then have NO current option for fire protection? Or is it reasonable to expect South Fulton to pay for fire protection for the whole rest of the state of Tennessee if other Tennesseeans see what a good deal (free fire protection!) Obion County residents are given and decide to scrap their own fire departments and just call South Fulton's if they have a fire? Heck, why not expect the good people of South Fulton to establish a free fire station in every neighborhood in the country!

It's the South Fulton fire department. The Cranicks don't live in South Fulton, and didn't have any agreement with South Fulton to get fire protection from them. That should be the end of the story. Like you say, we similarly put cops on a pedestal, but if I had a criminal emergency, I wouldn't expect to be able to call the NYPD and get any help, because I don't live in New York City!

[bassman]

Like Publius says.....they brought it on themselves. It's a shame, but there's really nobody to blame but themselves.

It's like people that expect free medical service without insurance or the ability to pay. Hospitals, Fire Departments, Police, Etc aren't charity services. They're businesses. If you don't live within their jurisdiction where your taxes pay their bills but have the option to pay for their service(small fee in this case, might I add), I suggest you do it...

[MikePizzoff]

It's the South Fulton fire department. The Cranicks don't live in South Fulton, and didn't have any agreement with South Fulton to get fire protection from them. That should be the end of the story. Like you say, we similarly put cops on a pedestal, but if I had a criminal emergency, I wouldn't expect to be able to call the NYPD and get any help, because I don't live in New York City!

No no NO. What happened here isn't like the fire department got their phone calls and said "Sorry, you're not in our district and you didn't pay us." But the actually WENT TO THE SCENE and WATCHED the fire burn down the house. To me, that's pretty fucking disgusting. That's like a cop watching an old lady get mugged, from a few feet away, and saying "I'm not on duty".

If I were one of those firefighters I'd be saying to hell with the fact that they didn't pay us; we're on the scene and we have everything with us so we're going to stop this fire. Obviously that department is filled with humans that aren't good people.

[bassman]

I see what you're getting at mike, but still....it's a business. If they had helped, then the county would have losses in the water, employee time, liabilities, and not to mention the risk of death or injury. These guys aren't charity workers. They're paid to do a job. Besides...I'm sure if they were told people were in the house, this would probably be a different story.

If I don't pay for trash service pick up, I don't expect the guy to go ahead and pick up my garbage just because he's already at the neighbors.

[AcesandEights]

I dunno, this is kind of a gray area for me. If it's true the guy 'forgot' to pay his bill, then I do feel very bad for him.

That said, the occupant(s) didn't pay for the service and the firefighters very well may have been liable for loss or damage of their equipment in fighting the blaze and--possibly--open to lawsuits for interfering if any of the occupants were harmed (not sure how good Samaritan clauses work in this case).

How'd you like to get fired because you put your ass on the line for some schmuck who couldn't be bothered to cough up $75 for to protect their home and family? And don't think someone who was hurt in a fire wouldn't hesitate to sue the fire department or individual responders, if they're foolish or desperate enough to not pay a minimal fee for security of fire service, they are stupid or desperate enough to engage in such questionable activities.

If people were still in the house/mobile home it would be one thing going in and getting them, but risking lives over property and exposing their department and themselves for some short-sighted people may be asking a bit much. At some point people have to be responsible for their actions and choices.

That said, there should probably be an assumed continuance clause when someone has paid for the service that covers them for the service if they have not paid within 6 months, or even a year, as people will make mistakes and note of payments can get lost in the bureaucratic cracks.

[JDFP]

No no NO. What happened here isn't like the fire department got their phone calls and said "Sorry, you're not in our district and you didn't pay us." But the actually WENT TO THE SCENE and WATCHED the fire burn down the house. To me, that's pretty fucking disgusting. That's like a cop watching an old lady get mugged, from a few feet away, and saying "I'm not on duty".

If I were one of those firefighters I'd be saying to hell with the fact that they didn't pay us; we're on the scene and we have everything with us so we're going to stop this fire. Obviously that department is filled with humans that aren't good people.


It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a person is a "good person" or not. It's policy.

A doctor has two patients who have the same condition and he/she can perform a surgery to save the patient's life. The insurance company of one patient will pay for the patient, the insurance company of the other patient will not pay for the surgery. Thus, the doctor is able to save one person's life while the other person dies. It doesn't mean that the doctor is "not a good person" because he was only able to save one patient's life and didn't throw away his career and his profession (and lose his medical license and probably have a lawsuit filed against him as well by the hospital administration) by saying: "Screw it, I'm going to operate on this other person anyway!" -- it just means it's policy. It doesn't mean it's right that one person should be saved and other person should not -- any more than one person's home should be saved from fire and another person's should not -- it's just a matter of policy.

No doubt, I'm sure most (if not all) of the firefighters wanted to help and put the fire out. Of course, they would have more than likely lost their jobs for doing it. They have to worry about their own family. You have to pick and choose your battles. If you don't like it, you don't say "Screw it!" and do it anyway so you can lose your job -- but you go against the policy that is in place for things to be the way they are.

j.p.

[MikePizzoff]

You guys are making analogies that don't work. Sure, a Dr helping a patient with insurance VS not helping a patient without insurance makes perfect sense... when it isn't compared to this story. The way that analogy would work would be if the Dr went to the home of the patient without insurance and just stood there watching them die.

My point of anger with this situation was... if you're going to go to the scene of the fire and just stand there and watch the house burn, then there's something completely fucked up with you. If it's policy not to help, then don't fucking go stand out front of the house! It's as if they were like "HA HA! This what you GET for not paying us! NA NA NA NA NA NA!"

I know that they showed up to put out the fire on a neighbors field... but after that they stayed and just watched the victims house burn down. If anything, they should have just put out the field fire and left.

[Legion2213]

I'm assuming they turned up to save lives if somebody was trapped in there then?

When it turned out nobody was at risk "their responsibility was finished" to quote a popular zombie movie.

Seriously though...if you live somewhere where there is no fire department and you are offered a chance to pay a VERY reasonable fee for cover, you should probably take it.

[AcesandEights]

It's as if they were like "HA HA! This what you GET for not paying us! NA NA NA NA NA NA!"
.

Just after you get done accusing some of us for making bad analogies, Mike? Et tu, MikePizzoff? Et tu? :)

I feel the logic behind all my statements is sound and not based off of an emotional response, and, as I stated above: there should be a continuance of service clause to protect not only the homeowner, but the neighboring municipality furnishing the service.

[MikePizzoff]

Just after you get done accusing some of us for making bad analogies, Mike? Et tu, MikePizzoff? Et tu? :)


:fin:

Sorry, I'm all riled up today. (anxious about the start of the post-season)

[DubiousComforts]

I see what you're getting at mike, but still....it's a business. If they had helped, then the county would have losses in the water, employee time, liabilities, and not to mention the risk of death or injury. These guys aren't charity workers. They're paid to do a job. Besides...I'm sure if they were told people were in the house, this would probably be a different story.

If I don't pay for trash service pick up, I don't expect the guy to go ahead and pick up my garbage just because he's already at the neighbors.

Oh, please. Trash pick-up service is not the same as a first-responder crisis situation. If this is really all aboot "business" and "liability" and "paying your bills," then simply bring a waiver to the scene of the job and invoice the customer. Problem solved, dingbats.

The fire company didn't make any money by allowing their customers house to burn down, did they? Bad business model.


Just after you get done accusing some of us for making bad analogies, Mike?

Hey, if the fallacy fits, you may be forced to wear it. :p

You know, many towns that can't rely on the resources of large urban areas quite successfully utilize something called a volunteer firefighting squad.

[bassman]

Oh, please. Trash pick-up service is not the same as a first-responder crisis situation.

Crisis? Did they say someone was in the home? Any danger to any human lives at all? I missed it if they did.

So in that case, there is no reason for the fire department to risk their lives to save the home of someone that had the option, yet failed to pay the small price for their service. This whole situation would've been different if there was the chance of someone being inside. I'm sure the firefighters would've said "fuck it" and did their best to save the person regardless of orders.

Hopefully the guy had insurance so he'll get a new home. Unless of course he didn't feel the need to pay that bill either...

[AcesandEights]

Hopefully the guy had insurance so he'll get a new home. Unless of course he didn't feel the need to pay that bill either...

I was kind of wondering whether something like not maintaining the residence with fire Dept. service might void the policy, but I don't know. I certainly hope not for his sake.

[Exatreides]

He states on Olberman that he did indeed have house insurance. He also stated that he had the money on his scene to pay the firefighters, and this his neighbors also offered to pay upwards of 5x the $75 for the firefighters to put it out. Who refused. The man responsible for determining this was contacted on his cell phone who quickly said no so he could finish his game of Golf.

Also his pets burned alive in the fire.

This is why there's something wrong with Capitalism as an Economic model. Would his house have burned down in France or Denmark? Not only does it place the value of the dollar above someones home, it dehumanizes the whole process. Turning the firefighters from public servants into servants of fat cats.

As a Medic, I'm not going to ask someone if they have insurance before I treat them. I don't care. my job isn't to process paperwork, my job is to keep someone alive long enough to get to the hospital. The idea that an EMT, Firefighter, Cop, Doctor or anyone should not render services to someone in need due to capital is a disgusting inhuman thought.

[Publius]

You guys are making analogies that don't work. Sure, a Dr helping a patient with insurance VS not helping a patient without insurance makes perfect sense... when it isn't compared to this story. The way that analogy would work would be if the Dr went to the home of the patient without insurance and just stood there watching them die.

Right, as you noted they were on the scene to fight a fire on the property of a neighbor who HAD paid. So a better analogy would be if the doctor made a house call to the patient with insurance and the patient without insurance lived next door.


The fire company didn't make any money by allowing their customers house to burn down, did they? Bad business model.

I dunno about that. I bet more people will opt-in to fire protection service and fewer people will "forget" to make their payments now that they know the fire department won't put out fires out of the goodness of their hearts.


He also stated that he had the money on his scene to pay the firefighters, and this his neighbors also offered to pay upwards of 5x the $75 for the firefighters to put it out. Who refused. The man responsible for determining this was contacted on his cell phone who quickly said no so he could finish his game of Golf.

That would be the only somewhat disturbing element to me -- if they had made contact with someone who did have the authority to enter into an ad hoc reimbursement agreement, and that person said no just to get back to golfing.


This is why there's something wrong with Capitalism as an Economic model. Would his house have burned down in France or Denmark?

Yes, because in France the firefighters would probably have been on strike (http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/france-firefighters-clashed-with-police-while-demonstrating-to-demand-a-lower-retirement-age-and-a-premium-of-70-euros-for-everyone/vG5HUurLsJXEx8CmhL-wkQ) to demand a 6th week of vacation and the right to retire at 40. :D

[MikePizzoff]

As a Medic, I'm not going to ask someone if they have insurance before I treat them. I don't care. my job isn't to process paperwork, my job is to keep someone alive long enough to get to the hospital. The idea that an EMT, Firefighter, Cop, Doctor or anyone should not render services to someone in need due to capital is a disgusting inhuman thought.

This is what I was trying to convey. You did a much better job.

[EDukes]

I dunno about that. I bet more people will opt-in to fire protection service and fewer people will "forget" to make their payments now that they know the fire department won't put out fires out of the goodness of their hearts.




You have to think about the folks who won't bother paying the $75 until they needed the fire department. The whole point of the $75 fee is so that fire fighting services can be made available. If people were only paying it because there was a fire, then the department wouldn't be able to go out to the area when they were needed.

Also, the deaths of the animals seems a little odd to me. It took a while for the fire to travel from some barrells to the house. He tried fighting the fire with a garden hose before it reached the house. He then had time to argue over the phone with the department over billing. Just seems like an extended time period to not open the doors so that the pets could get out.