Firefighters let home burn
No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn
Tennessee house in ashes after homeowner 'forgot' to pay $75 fee Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. "They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. 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. "We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him. Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee. Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out. His offer wasn't accepted, he said. The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years. "Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker. Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee. "They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said. South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire. Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home. "Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough." After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, according to WPSD-TV, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky. Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's house was allowed to burn. WPSD-TV reported that Wilds was treated and released. © 2010 msnbc.com Reprints http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/ |
Nice, no one had any ethics on that fire truck.
|
After I saw the title I thought it was Eds house. Have us unlock your door eh we will let the fugger burn.
|
Quote:
Let's hope the Cranick the Younger knew how to fight and hung an ass whipping on the Fire Chief....if he's gonna get done for A&B anyway he should at least ensure it's worth it. Can you imagine riding all the way out there on the fire truck....seeing the guys house burning....and then putting the fire out on the OTHER side of the fence? Over a $75 shakedown....I mean....fee? That is a special kind of douche-baggery right there. :td: |
Why is he talking to Keith Olberman? Is the fire chief Bill O'Reilly?
|
"Forgot" is in quotes.
Keith Olbermann reports. I'll wait for the rest of the story. |
The roof is on fire!
|
if they let it burn knowing the animals were inside, that i believe is felony negligence contributing to death of animals or some such law.
|
I know it's easy to blame the fire fighters here, but I question any rule-law-statute-city policy that requires them to check a "list" before responding to a call and them become de facto repo men once on scene.
|
It was like that a long time ago. You had to subscribe to a fire fighting service. When you paid your house was identified by a firemark on the front of it. If you didn't have them the firemen would stand there and let the house burn, while protecting your neighbors who had subscribed to their service.
You still see the marks on buildings today in older cities like lower Manhattan, Boston, Philly etc. http://www.locohistory.org/blog/albe...fireplaque.jpg I'm betting Einstein there didn't understand that he needed to subscribe to get fire fighting service. County government FAIL. |
I'd say if he knew he "forgot" to pay, he was aware of it and assumed like so many other americans today that he'd get a free ride and they'd take care of it anyway he just ignored the letter or bill I'm sure he was sent. They probably send it out with tax statements n such.
Not saying they were right to let his place burn. |
You want the service... you pay for it... I'd guess this guy "forgot" to pay for years... What's worse? This guy's house burning down, or everyone house burning down because the fire dept. cannot afford to put out fires because they gave away so many freebies?
|
Quote:
Plus the asshole said on the phone he'd pay what he owed. I think that right there says "ok I admit I skipped your fee's but I'll pay them now put my fire out". Fuck those firefighters I hope they burn in their sleep for letting defenseless animals die. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm thinking....how is this much different than mob shaking down a neighborhood for "protection?"
The mob says....Don't want your business to have an accident? PAY US. The fire department in BFE here says....Don't want your home to burn up? PAY US. Seriously? What kind of fucking shake down is that? And I'm with Dave...what the fuck are his property taxes buying if not fire and police service? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sounds like this community needs to reevaluate their current system. Set it up to put a levy against the homeowners land for the cost of fighting the fire. Don't allow the issue of any building permits for repairs until the levy is paid. If it isn't paid after a reasonable amount of time foreclose on the land and sell it at auction. The homeowner may even be able to put in a claim for the cost against their homeowners insurance. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't know what this guy's property taxes are buying but it obviously does not include fire service. |
I gotta side with the fire department. That would be like me riding around with no insurance for years, and then when I get in a wreck try to pay a one-month premium to get all my bills paid. That's not how it works.
I'm thinking this guy saw it as one more expense he could skip out on, because "what's gonna happen?" That said, though, I do think the county needs to reconsider their policy here. |
Quote:
|
i brought marshmellows and the captain got caught making a smore on the dude's house., that's why the dude went after him.
|
Quote:
Maybe they should already have them paid in every other way everyone else does? I do share my DIAF for almost EVERYONE. People who skip bills, scam others, screw the system, etc who are all responsible for my rates going up can in fact, DIAF! But why could the firefighters not do the humane thing? I guess I can't get the answer to this question because no one's paid their fee to do so. :rolleyes: |
I can't believe the people in this thread....amazing. Yeah, let a house burn down and fry four animals over 75 bucks, which the guy was willing to pay at a minimum.
How about changing your fucking laws to include police and fire in propery taxes....doesn't sound like rocket science to me. |
Quote:
The poor animals though :( If they're so adamant on payment, the Fire Department should have a published hourly cost for those who do NOT pay into the system. Then they could put the damn fire out, charge the guy, and go on their merry way. |
Quote:
You pay for it, and hope that you never have to use its service. To me paying that would be a no brainer. I don't know how they go about services as far as EMT's and paramedics, or is it just fire service that they charge for? |
Quote:
There are a lot of different ways this community could have run their fire service and I'm sure they will reevaluate the way they charge for it in the future. You deleted the way I suggested they should go about doing it. What remains is this community did not run their fire service any of those ways. They gave their residents the freedom to pay for, or opt out of, the fire department. This guy, intentionally or not, opted out. Since when are people entitled to services they don't pay for? |
I'm going to bet the grandson that started the fire is the son of the man that beat up the fire chief....
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You have yet to actually come up with an excuse as to why they failed to do their job that's not related to "money". |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
In this particular case, their job isn't to just put out any fire. Their job is to put out fires for the people who have paid for the service. See the insurance analogies above. But again, I think the structure needs to be changed so the fees are included in property taxes, but then you still have the issue of "what if someone doesn't pay their taxes?" People pay for services rendered, in one form or another. Whether that is through actual payment, through trade, or through taxes. If they put his fire out, even though he didn't pay the fee, the rest of the community will stop paying the fee, since it's clear they don't have to. If the community stops paying, then the fire department doesn't respond to that community at all. |
Thank you Captain Morgan. You have made it unnecessary for me to say any more on the matter :dthumb:
|
I heard about this yesterday and was infuriated.
I agree with the policy, TO A POINT! Sure, he didn't pay, and I get that, but think about this. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it directly. We all too often say *poor animals* when something like this happens. I hate it, and it pisses me off that pets were left to die in that house. There's a special place in hell for people that will knowingly do that. However, what if there were a PERSON inside. Can you imagine the uproar then? Surely those firefighters would not have just let the fire burn knowing there was a person inside. Let's forget firefighter ethics and responsibilities to the community. What the hell happened to BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING?! I can assure you the town of South Fulton would be facing lawsuit after lawsuit right now if a person had died as a result of that fire. |
Something else to consider, since it appears everyone thinks that fire service is standard for where this happened and this guy had a right to services, but these firefighters had to respond outside of their service area to get to this place.
Those folks asked to pay the $75 service fee are outside of the normal service area, and the service is rendered after the fee is paid as an option only, just like the insurance analogy Capt. used. If the fire department didnt want to, they wouldnt have to respond to fires outside their area of service. So they offer services for a fee. And $75 annually considering the fuel costs alone for driving to the back of beyond to fight a fire outside your service area is a pretty darn good deal. Someone still should have saved the animals, but do we know that they were told there were pets in there? Or was the owner simply screaming and hollering at them to save his house? Having a few country cousins of my own, they dont give 2 shits about their pets, animals just show up and disappear at will and they just toss out some food...if it came down to it, they'd be hollering about their houses and only realize hours later that a few animals are missing. Do we know the animals were killed in the fire? Or did they run off in fear and just haven't shown back up? |
The truth, however, is that animals are not humans. They are generally considered to be property under the law. Sure, they're bastards if they let pets die, but where do you draw the line?
Every now and then, on a local board, I'll butt heads with a self-professed "anarchist" who thinks that he shouldn't have to pay taxes, because he doesn't have the choice of only paying for only the services that he uses. He's one of the few members of that board I've actually met, a student at this university, so I happen to know that he's made extensive use of heavily subsidized education, government backed student loans, etc.. I agree with those who say that his house should have been saved but he should have been hit with a massive bill for it but then again, as others have also noted, how do you guarantee payment? I also think that his insurance company would be well within their rights to deny him coverage for the incident, based on him not paying the fire department stipend. |
Quote:
Yes, it's shitty. But, it wasn't a secret. I wonder how many times this has happened in the past 20-years. |
Quote:
They charge him whatever hourly rate and then if he can't pay it, they take whatever other steps they'd need (collections, etc). People would probably still bitch about how "it's not fair that they charged him to save his house" but he'd at least have his pets and stuff. Then they reposess his house and have a cool firefighter hang-out pad :D |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's not like he's within their normal service area and didn't get service. |
Quote:
I already posted how I would guarantee payment. Put a lien on the property and deny building permits for repairs from the fire. If the lien isn't satisfied in a reasonable amount of time foreclose on the property. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I was confused on the "pay to play " aspect of this story....I've not heard of that arrangement before. Every "community" I've ever lived in has taxed the residents living there, usually based on property, and used the proceeds to provide for "common services" like a public education, police and fire departments.
I guess that wasn't the case in this community....if a fee was required to be eligible for fire service and he didn't pay I guess he's fucked..but it still just seems like an odd way to go about providing "services" to that community. |
In FL where I lived in town it was considered part of property taxes. I just learned from a co worker here in GA that they dont put it in property taxes but they bill you for the cost of fighting your fire, and put a lien on your property if you fail to pay it.
Living in town is waaaaaay different than living in a rural area tho. Like in this guys case, he wasnt part of a community, he lived in the boonies outside serviced areas. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The insurance analogy made earlier was an accurate one. Say we have the same scenario without the "pay to play" thing. Person's house catches fire and the fire department comes out and puts the fire out but the house is damaged in the process. Say said property owner failed to pay his home owners insurance but still tries to make a claim. Would eveyone be all upset at the insurance company who denies said claim because of lack of premium payment? |
The only thing that will come of this in regards to the rest of the country is: "Dumb southern fireman let a house and 4 animals die over 75 bucks. And they call themselves "Christians"."
Negative publicity only works in Hollywood. |
So if he paid 75$ yearly for the out-of-range service, the firemen should then have at least once a year training to improve response time to his address, learning the local and confusing rural roads, etc. But you know that is not the case, they simply sit there and collect the money and hope they dont have to drive out to butt-fuck egypt.
It goes both ways, and they are not an insurance company, the insurance company is his insurance company. You think that there should be more insurance companies, or that other companies or god forbid community services should adopt the disgusting, scummy practices that insurance companies love so much? fuck that, Insurance is one of the oldest scams in the book. The less , the merrier. Obviously rural areas need to have their own FDs or be included in larger metro areas and that would solve it going forward. |
Quote:
The federal govt isnt going to pay for it. The locals would have to, and if they dont have the funds, as they usually dont because they are a rural community, not a booming city, then where do they get money to run it? How do you propose they include a rural area in the regular service area of a metropolis FD? Who's going to take care of the city fires and emergencies while the FD is off 30 miles from town fighting a ditch fire that someone set off with a cigarette? Just asking... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
First Tenn has no state income tax and property taxes are low, the state citizens choose this option in exchange for uncertain funding in other areas...i.e. fire services. Which is what leads to the pay for service concept. Again it is their choice!
Second you then have to "pay" for certain services that you low tax base does not cover, again it is your choice! If your choice is not to pay for the services you suffer the consiquences. Unfortunately this man learned the hard way. If you choose not to pay then you should at least make sure you are insured to cover the loss when the inevitable happens. If you don't want to "pay" for services move somewhere where they will be provided.....my state charges approx 5% state income tax, 1% local income tax, property taxes are sky high, local millage on top of that and I still only have a volunteer fire department. But I do not have to pay a fire fee, yet. If you want the service, then vote to pay higher taxes so the service is provided or pay your bills! We are creating a country where no one is responsible for their own actions and everyone want something for nothing! Eventually someone has to pay for all these "services" that are provided. Nothing is a free ride! I must say I am sick of paying for the "free ride" For example If the fire fighters provide him the service and another customer who payed for the service had a fire at the same time in a different area and they couldn't respond in time and that family who payed for the service lost their home how is that fair? Or is it fair that firemen may be job eliminated because the community will not committ to paying the fire fee, then they will not have anyone to respond? Is that fair. I am not saying I don't feel bad for the guy and his pets...especially his pets because he was responsible for their deaths, they had no control over the situation, they are innocent.......he is not! But if he sues and wins, no one and I repeat no one will pay the fee anymore and the fire department will fold! Then the service will not be available for anyone period!!! He will not learn to be responsible because of the "someone fixed it last time so someone will fix it next time mentality." BUT if he is made to be responsible, and held accountable for his actions....he will never underinsure himself again, he will pay the appropriate fees and so will everyone in the area because they now know if you don't pay you won't get freebies! As my daddy always said......its expensive to be stupid! |
Quote:
|
While it's true he should have paid, there's no denying that.
I think that if I were a firefighter I'd have a hard time coming out and just watching it burn....especially knowing that there were pets inside. But sounds like their hands were tied. |
Quote:
|
Its definitely too bad there weren't any human children in the house, that would've really taught that cheap fucking prick a lesson!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This guy didn't think it was important enough to pay for the fire service, therefore he didn't get it. Oops, sorry, forgot? Doesn't matter, it was HIS responsibility to pay it. It was HIS fault his pets died. Blaming anyone else is ridiculous. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Or maybe just rape his wife instead, that'd be even Steven. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's not the fire department's responsibility to clean up your mess or take care of your negligence, laziness, or stupidity. This clown failed to pay for the appropriate coverages, then set his own damn house on fire and then pissed and moaned when nobody saved his ass. As a multiple pet owner, I do feel bad for the animals. I also make sure that I take care of my animals and take steps to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen to them. It's a little thing called PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY. I have it, this guy didn't. Hopefully he learns a very valuable lesson here about that very topic and his son learns a very valuable lesson about prison rape for assaulting someone clearly better than him. Interesting thought, though- I wonder if his homeowner's insurance company knew about the paid fire service and required a subscription. If they have such a clause, they definitely have grounds to deny his claim here. |
BTW, how 'bout these firefighters huh? These guys are some real American heroes. There they are with the knowledge, power and equipment to put the home out. Every fiber of DNA in their bodies is screaming at them, "THAT HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN, PUT THE FIRE OUT, YOU'RE A GODDAMN FIREFIGHTER!!!" yet through sheer force of willpower they are able to resist the temptation to assist another human being because they know enforcing this $75 fee will benefit society in the long run.
Guys dying of cancer after searching through the rubble at WTC for days on end? Yea, fuck those guys. These guys are the new breed of American Hero. |
Quote:
|
People who don't pay their electric/gas bill shouldn't have their service turned off either? People will die in the winter without heat. If the gas/power company set a precedent and continue service without payment, don't you think eventually everyone will soon "forget" to pay their bill in the winter?
|
Quote:
|
Kaneman, you still don't get it. This is not a case of a tyrannical government oppressing its citizens.
This man had a choice. Either have the means and a plan to handle any fire-related contingencies on his property, or pay someone else a small annual fee to have those capabilities for him. He chose to handle it himself rather than pay the fee. When the shit hit the fan, he found it was beyond his capabilities and tried to get retroactive coverage. If the firefighters had done what you seem to think was the "right thing to do", they would be undermining their entire system. The system may need revising, and after this event it no doubt will get that, but in the meantime, it has to be upheld or everybody will be SOL. Please, save me the bleeding heart bullshit. If you want less goverment interference in your life (as you clearly seem to want), then you have to be prepared to provide for yourself as well. This man chose to have less government involvement by refusing to retain the services of a fire department. That means he's on his own here. You can't have it both ways. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
poor dogs and cat, thats all i am going to say and that the firemen should of rescued them, i say that they are in negligence
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Justice served. Profit made. Everyone wins. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Rape Burn 2012. |
Quote:
I have an alternative suggestion. How about homeowners decide to pay for the services they want and not pay for the services they don't and everyone doesn't bitch and moan if those choices catch up with a homeowner. Obviously this is less than ideal but would you prefer the previous system where this part of the community had no access to fire service at any price? |
I don't know what's funnier. Kaneman's suggestions or Goof2 trying to logically argue with him. :lmao:
|
Quote:
|
I'm bored so I'll go along.:shrug:
|
Quote:
Though there is a certain seriousness in the absurdity behind advocating burning a man's house down while you rape his family in front of him....as you and goof are suggesting. For shame. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.