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

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

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    That doesn't mean they didn't ask. Presumably they asked if anyone was in danger and were told no, or as per policy, if human life is in danger they would go.

    If you watched the first story on this the Firefighters have tried to get the County to do away with this Subscription service. Indeed, a County wide plan that would cover every resident, for just $36 per year (less than half the subscription charge) was TURNED DOWN by the County.

    So it's clear that the Fire Dept and the City have tried to get the County to do away with this system and provide universal coverage.
    Because the County refuses to make everyone pay a small fee, people who are paying the subscription fee are paying over TWICE as much as they should because their neighbors are counting on the City granting them exceptions when their house is on fire.
    If they continue to grant exceptions and so over time even fewer people pay, it will simply get to the point that the City declines to cover the County at all, and the net will be that people will die.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. countezero Registered Senior Member

    I hope you will forgive me if I prefer trained professionals, on site, to assess whether a fire could threaten lives or spread and become a larger hazard, rather than the guy on the phone trying to convince an operator to take him seriously.

    So what? This man is not the county government. Nor is he the firefighters who stood there and did not do their duty.

    You're making slippery slope arguments and ignoring what happened, the morality that surrounds what happened and the decisions that were made -- not to mention, common sense.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Indeed. Who'd have thought we'd agree on something..

    So often we hear of people standing by and doing nothing as something terrible happens to another.. You have all heard the stories of people ignoring cries for help as someone is being beaten or raped, etc. And we all wonder, what kind of person does that? Who sits there and does nothing? We have seen stories of animal abuse or animals that are killed due to abuse or mistreatment, and again, we ask ourselves, what kind of sick bastard does that to an animal or does nothing to stop it?

    Yet, we have just witnessed a bunch of firemen not only sit back and watch as a family's home burned to the ground over a $75 bill, but we got to watch as they ignored the pleas and begging of the family and their neighbours to save that home and the pets. We got to see that family and their neighbours beg to pay the $75 before the fire got to their home.. And we got to see a bunch of supposedly trained professionals sit and do nothing but watch that fire approach and burn down their house. We got to see these supposedly brave men sit and do nothing as that family's pets burned alive in that house...

    All for a $75.

    So what kind of person or people sit and do nothing as something horrible happens to someone else and what kind of person sits and does nothing, knowing that animals are dying in the worst way?

    A bunch of firemen led by a fire chief who are all bunch of greedy, cowardly and selfish fucks.

    Now, add to that the likes of those who not only defend those firemen and their petty and selfish policy and actions (or lack thereof), but also mock and make fun of a family who have lost everything because of that petty and selfish policy.

    Those are the type of people who would sit and do nothing as something horrible happens to someone else and who would sit and do nothing as animals are allowed to burn to death..

    People have accused Cranick of sponging off his neighbours, the very neighbours who offered to pay the firechief the money as well, before that fire hit that house..

    Did anyone actually ask his neighbours their opinion on the matter? Considering they were offering the firechief money in the hope that he would save Cranick's house, I would hazard a guess and say that they did not see it as Cranick trying to sponge off them.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    So you think the City is somehow responsible to provide fire coverage to the residents of a County which refuses to pay the city for the cost of that coverage?

    Why yes he is. That's the whole point of voting. He votes for the county commissioners and he pays county taxes and he knows he doesn't have any County based fire support and if he wants it he has to pay for it UP FRONT. The fire fighters were ordered by the Fire Chief not to fight the fire. If you are angry, take it out on him.
    But, it's pretty clear that the Fire Chief works for the City and the City gov, in the form of the Mayor, supports this decision.

    Nope, the more I've learned about this the more I agree with the Fire Chief.
    At some point you have to teach the County people a lesson and this was a low cost and safe way to do so.

    I think they got their message across, and indeed, that's EXACTLY what the city based news reporters said in their report (that the County residents would be watching for their local news) that this was a LESSON.

    A lesson that if people heed and agree to end this stupid subscription service and simply pay $36 a year none of this will have to happen again.

    Net/Net, the City can't force the County residents to make an intelligent decision about fire protection, but they can teach them a lesson and maybe help them see how stupid their existing system is.

    Finally, if the City was charging $100 per month for this, I'd sympathise with the County residents, but the City offered universal fire coverage at just $3 per month and yet the County wouldn't agree to even that piddly amount.

    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Are you saying that firemen should not put put fires or put out a fire that threatened someone's home and their animals, not to mention the home owners as well?

    What the hell are firemen there for but to actually put out fires instead of sitting on their arses and watching the fire actually burn a person's house, belongings and pets down?

    This is what people don't seem to grasp. We aren't talking about a bunch of people who were driving by, but about trained firemen who sat there and didn't lift a single finger as a fire burned down a family's home and burned their pets alive. For $75 that they refused to accept when the family and their neighbours offered to pay it there on the spot.

    They are firemen.

    There was a fire which endangered property and animals and possibly people as well. And as firemen, they refused to do anything.

    That goes against what being a fireman is about.
  9. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member


    Arthur is correct. If anyone is to blame, it would be Obion County, not the firefighters, nor the city.

    A Presentation Regarding the Establishment And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Actually, the resident offered to pay the $75 -- he even offered to pay more. But because he hadn't paid beforehand, they decided to use him to prove some sort of dubious point.

    But all of this theory of government stuff just sidesteps the fact that the fire dept. responded to a call, belatedly it seems, and decided to act completely and utterlu without reason, empathy or common sense. And you're defending them...

    Bullshit, Arthur.

    One man and one vote does not dictate county policy, and this man cannot be held accountable for his government's failure to establish a service delivery strategy any more than I am to blame US fiscal policy regarding Japan. You're making inane arguments.

    Is it his fault he did not pay the $75? Yes, it is. Is it the fire department's fault this house burned down? Yes, it is. They stood there and did nothing.

    And as I've said, I don't care. Public servants are public servants. This kind of blind organizational loyalty you are advocating, in which public servants ignore the public in favor of their organizational and political bosses is a formula for a rather frightening world, if you ask me. Public servants should do the right thing. Policies be damned.

    A disgusting sentiment. But hey, you'd make a perfect bureaucrat if you really believe such petty impulses are highminded principles.
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    I'm saying that they were on the scene and knew that no people were in danger and thus, since it was just property, it was a good and apparently very needed lesson for the County residents.

    Hopefully they will wise up and finally agree to the piddly $3 per month cost for universal coverage.

  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    It's just property.
    Which was insured.
    So it was a good opportunity to teach a needed lesson.

    The alternative, that eventually the City stops this money losing subscription plan, would leave the County residents with no recourse at all.

    Look at the plan the Mayor and the Fire Chiefs TRIED to get the County to go with: County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf

    They clearly want to do what's right for the community.

    But the voters turned them down, so sometimes you have to give a dose of tough love

    Face it, they only need half the votes to get universal fire protection approved and since the cost of that is $36 a year and the cost without is $75 a year, then at $36 X 2 = $72, they are very close to having the votes needed to get past this dumb system.

    If this event is sufficient to get that small percent of County residents to change their mind, then in fact it will have been a very good lesson.

  13. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member


    "Dan, you pompous ass." I hate to admit it but you are as usual, correct…:worship:

    A Presentation Regarding the Establishment And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Sure thing "Jane" (you ignorant slut).

  15. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Bells Staff Member

    You mean the lesson that the firemen, at their whim, can allow a house and animals to burn to the ground..?

    I am sorry, but since when was it for the fire brigade to teach people lessons? That is not what they are employed for. They are employed to protect people and property from fire. They failed in their duty to do so.

    It was not "just property". That "just property" was someone's home. That "just property" also included people's pets.

    Are you advocating holding people to ransom in this fashion? Tell me, if someone doesn't pay you something, do you advocate going to their home and killing their pets and burning their home? Because in effect, this is what the fire brigade decided to do in refusing to act, not just in time, but at all.

    I'll make you a deal. Next time you are late with anything at all or forget anything at all, someone will come round to your house and burn it down and also burn your pets alive as well.. just to teach you a much needed lesson. Does that sound fair to you? Yes? No?

    What they have wised up to is that there are people like you and Beck, not to mention that fire brigade, who willingly and knowingly allowed a house to burn and allowed animals to suffer and be burned alive.
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Actually it was the Fire Chief who made the call.

    Which is just property.

    Why yes I do.
    Who wouldn't?

    So obviously you can only deal with the CURRENT and not worry about the LONG TERM.

    People in government have to take the longer view.

    Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

    The Fire Chiefs and the Mayor have tried to convince the County to do away with this Subscription system and have failed by conventional means.

    This was a logical next step.

    Quit with the exemptions (as noted in the video, that they had been giving) and see if that didn't change the County residents votes.

    Let me ask you something though.

    The way the Subscription service worked and the County residents agreed to, was if they didn't pay the $75 fee up front, then the City fire department wouldn't come to their aid for a property fire.

    So, if someone who didn't pay their fee, called up the Fire Dept to put out a property fire, agreeing to pay the $75 fee when they got there, are you saying they should do it?

  18. Bells Staff Member

    Upon the instructions of the Mayor, I believe. But the 'call' was made from the person on the phone, who initially told them 'no'. So it was not just the fire chief's call.

    So if your pets catch fire, you'd shrug and say 'it's just property'?

    Do you comprehend the trauma that family, those grandchildren (that's right, the pets belonged to the grandchildren), would have suffered at the thought that their pets were being burned alive as the fire brigade refused to do anything? They are not going to get those pets back. And that trauma will remain with them forever. And you see it as 'just property'.


    What kind of person sees nothing wrong with letting animals suffer and die in this fashion over $75.. or orver any amount of money really?

    I guess people who aren't arseholese.

    Long term?

    Lets look at the "long term", shall we?

    The long term is that this will cost everyone something. That little lesson over $75, which the firemen refused to accept payment for, before the fire reached the house, is going to cost everyone.. Do you know why? Because his insurance company will have to pay him out and they will be paying him out. He and his family will also now be reliant on public help or welfare, as they are now homeless and have lost everything. That long term reality is going to cost everyone a lot more than that $75 fee they had begged to be allowed to pay before that fire reached their house and were refused.

    And to prevent all of that, they could have put out the fire before it reached the house and billed him, or taken the $75 and put out the fire before it reached the house. That "current term" would have ensured the reality of the true long term did not happen.

    You mean the longer view to cost the community more in terms of money and expenditure in dealing with a now homeless family, which will affect everyone in some way, over the view that they could have just taken the $75 they were so hung up on and put out the fire or put out the fire and billed them afterwards and possibly tacked on an extra fee if they are that obsessed with money? And I am not even going to touch on the negative press they are getting locally, nationally and internationally, for which they will now have to spend money to try to overcome.

    I don't think you quite grasp what "the way" actually is.

    So to teach the County a lesson, they make this poor family suffer by letting their house and pets burn?

    My my..

    I'm sorry, but at no time is it logical to render a family homeless and to allow animals to burn alive. There is nothing logical about this.

    What exemptions?

    What have they been giving? Are you responding to me or someone else?

    I have a friend, a close family friend, who is ultra conservative and very much a libetarian. I was talking to him today and pointed him towards this story in the media. His first reaction was 'how can they live with themselves?'..

    If that $75 is so vitally important to the Fire Department's survival, which people are carrying on as if it is, then yes. They could have billed them afterwards. They were there, sitting in their fully equipped trucks and they watched that house and those pets burn. YES, they should have gotten off their fat arses and done their job and put out the fire, $75 or no $75.

    You are asking me if a Fire Brigade should be made to put out a fire.. Are you serious?
  19. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Let's say that Person A buys a new car and refuses to buy the extended warranty for $1000. Eight years later, after the standard warranty has expired, the car has some catastrophic mechanical problem that will cost $6000 to fix. Person A can't afford to pay $6000. At that point, Person A offers to pay the $1000 for the extended warranty so the car can be fixed. Would the people at the dealership be assholes for refusing Person A's offer?
  20. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Since when does human compassion take a back seat to money....ohhh wait..since always.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    So businesses should just provide all goods and services for free, right?
  22. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Again, we're not talking about business. We're talking about the government. The government is not "in business".

    Again, you're behaving pretty disgustingly here.

    This is not a classroom where instruction is warranted. This is real life. And you can say "it's just property," because it's not YOUR property.

    And, of course, you are conveniently overlooking the pets which were allowed to burn to death. Isn't that nice? All so some petty buereaucrat can teach some "lesson" about civics? Give me a break.

    How does allowing pets to die and a home burn to the ground figure into that equation?

    These are all good points, and should be taken note by those who think this is some sort of exercise in philosophy of govt. Count the cost of the fallout from this, and the "lesson," regardless of its intentions, is just dumb. I also wonder if the insurance company might sue the fire department? It seems possible.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2010
  23. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    No, I think you are confusing a business with a public service...?:shrug:

Share This Page