Rural Tennessee fire sparks conservative ideological debate

[LisaKinVA]

[quote=Sebastian (a lady);

It would be a very illegal taking for a city to try to collect taxes on a property outside the city limits.

 

True, but the county COULD have collected the fees as part of their property tax, and sent a lump sum to the city(ies) with whom they had set up the contract(s). That would have been completely legal.

[justamouse]

True, but the county COULD have collected the fees as part of their property tax, and sent a lump sum to the city(ies) with whom they had set up the contract(s). That would have been completely legal.

 

Our old town used to do this.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

None of this is the issue. We have a moral obligation not to stand by and watch a neighbour's house burn to the ground if we have the means to put it out.

 

I would think that there should be some serious discussions happening in their county about forming a volunteer fire department so that their neighborhood can in fact develop the means to put out fires, rather than depending on the goodwill of a city they aren't living in.

 

Fires and the destruction they cause in dwellings aren't a new development. There were volunteer fire companies in the US well before the Revolution. There are tens of thousands of volunteer fire companies in rural and urban areas still.

 

My brother in law is a paid fire fighter for one city and a LT in the volunteer fire district in which they live. He's been a volunteer firefighter since he was a college student. Dozens of other men and women in his township have similarly chosen to be of service to their neighbors. I've not seen any indication that the family in question or their neighbors had made a similar choice to serve, rather than depending on the investments made by someone else's community.

[mommaduck]

I would think that there should be some serious discussions happening in their county about forming a volunteer fire department so that their neighborhood can in fact develop the means to put out fires, rather than depending on the goodwill of a city they aren't living in.

 

Fires and the destruction they cause in dwellings aren't a new development. There were volunteer fire companies in the US well before the Revolution. There are tens of thousands of volunteer fire companies in rural and urban areas still.

 

 

This I agree with :)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

There are two "shoulds" here: The family should have paid the fee, and the fire department should have put out the fire. Neither fault excuses the other.

 

Tara

 

One of the articles I read mentioned that the family had had a previous fire while not paying for services and the department put it out. That was evidently a chimney fire. Might have been more contained when the department arrived.

 

I've not seen much mention of how involved the fire was when the call was made. Or of how many "reminders" the family received about their fire coverage. Or of why a family that had already been granted services through grace once thought that they shouldn't make sure they were covered the next time.

 

It's not that $75 is going to make or break a department. On the other hand $75 probably wouldn't even pay for a length of hose.

 

The cost of putting out any individual fire is far higher that the couple hours worth of salaries or the gas to get to the fire. It is the cost of buying and equipping a fire engine; training and paying for fire fighters; building and equiping a fire station; establishing, maintaining and staffing an emergency dispatch center; etc. Spread over several years to have a functioning system that is then able to respond to a particular call for services.

 

The residents of South Fulton evidently felt that such a fire service was worth investing in. The residents of the county outside seem not to have had the same opinion, or there would have been something along the lines of a rural fire protection district, a volunteer department, or a small and perhaps less well equipped and trained paid department to which South Fulton could make agreements for rendering mutual aid.

 

If South Fulton "should" have put out the fire, how many miles outside their city limits does this obligation extend?

[Haiku]

If South Fulton "should" have put out the fire, how many miles outside their city limits does this obligation extend?

 

IMO, to any place where the department has an agreement to provide services.

 

Of course, I am pink enough to believe that if a fire engine were out for a joyride 500 miles from home, enjoying the summer breeze, and it came upon a fire, it and the people operating it should stop and put out the fire. NQA. :D

 

Tara

[cdrumm4448]

To those berating the FFs for NOT putting out the fire, again, I did read that by the time they arrived on the scene the fire was out of control and there was nothing they could do. There was no standing around and watching it burn while there was anything they could do about it. There was nothing they could do. The only reason they showed up at all was to protect the neighbor's houses from the fire.

 

There is no way I would want my FF husband attempting to put out a structure fire when there is almost NO CHANCE of it succeeding. Maybe the general public has NO IDEA of the risks FFs take every day. I don't expect any FF to risk his or her life to attempt to fight a fire that is a losing cause. Raising my children with a father is that important to me.

[Haiku]

To those berating the FFs for NOT putting out the fire, again, I did read that by the time they arrived on the scene the fire was out of control and there was nothing they could do.

 

But they ignored the original call, when the fire could have been contained, and only showed up when neighbors called to complain that the fire was in danger of spreading to their house.

 

Tara

[cdrumm4448]

But they ignored the original call, when the fire could have been contained, and only showed up when neighbors called to complain that the fire was in danger of spreading to their house.

 

Tara

 

Ignore is not the appropriate term here. Many have covered this already, but the fire district doesn't extend to the Crannick's area. The people in the uncovered area had the choice to participate in fire protection services. For whatever reason, they chose not to participate. The fire department acted accordingly.

 

I believe people must say what they mean and mean what they say. If you say,"No thanks" to something, I assume since you're a grownup that you mean it.

 

Grownups take responsibility for their action or inaction.

[aude sapere]

But they ignored the original call, when the fire could have been contained, and only showed up when neighbors called to complain that the fire was in danger of spreading to their house.

 

Tara

 

Because the family had not purchased fire protection services.

 

No payment = no service agreement = not in service area.

 

Neighbors paid = in service area.

Call from area under service coverage answered.

 

QED

[LisaKinVA]

But they ignored the original call, when the fire could have been contained, and only showed up when neighbors called to complain that the fire was in danger of spreading to their house.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

[LisaKinVA]

Because the family had not purchased fire protection services.

 

No payment = no service agreement = not in service area.

 

Neighbors paid = in service area.

Call from area under service coverage answered.

 

QED

 

Again, the fire dept. had established a de-facto policy of responding REGARDLESS of pre-payment, and taking payment after the fact.

 

It is not that simple.

 

Additionally the fire originated as a trash fire, which became a brush fire... the department has a prior agreement to automatically come out for a brush fire. The brush fire is what eventually consumed the house and damaged the neighbors home as well.

[cdrumm4448]

Again, the fire dept. had established a de-facto policy of responding REGARDLESS of pre-payment, and taking payment after the fact.

 

It is not that simple.

 

Additionally the fire originated as a trash fire, which became a brush fire... the department has a prior agreement to automatically come out for a brush fire. The brush fire is what eventually consumed the house and damaged the neighbors home as well.

 

I am not a fan of case law. Just because someone did something once that deviated from the policy does not mean that deviation should become the new policy. Regarding the Constitution, this is how we have come so far from the founding fathers' intent, but that's a whole other discussion.

[LisaKinVA]

case law, in fact, pre-dates the constitution. The process of nullification is what I have been referring to, is a theory that came about during the "age of enlightenment" during the time our constitution was founded. Locke espoused the theory (secession was also based upon the legal theory of nullification).

 

I have, and continue to argue, that if the fire department tosses the written policy out the window (probably more than one instance here), than that then becomes the de-facto policy, nullifying the written policy.

 

Citizens today also have the power of nullification in the courts...

 

And, it is NOT how we got so far from what the founding father's intended... we did that through a re-interpretation of the meaning of words to justify what we wanted. In many cases, CONGRESS enacted laws that were arguably unconstitutional -- we "adopted" a new policy outright -- the courts helped with that, to be certain -- but it does not have to do with the legal theory of nullification, nor with the demise of the Constitution.

Edited October 6, 2010 by LisaK in VA
clarification

[aude sapere]

Again, the fire dept. had established a de-facto policy of responding REGARDLESS of pre-payment, and taking payment after the fact.

Where are you getting this? What is your source for the "de facto policy?" Did the department make numerous other exceptions to other residents? Please provide your sources.

 

 

It is not that simple.

I think it's pretty clear cut. No payment = no service

 

 

Additionally the fire originated as a trash fire, which became a brush fire... the department has a prior agreement to automatically come out for a brush fire. What is your source for this? The brush fire is what eventually consumed the house and damaged the neighbors home as well.

 

 

 

The City of South Fulton offered the service, for a fee, to rural residents. This family chose not to participate.

[unsinkable]

How fast can the fire department determine who paid and who didn't pay?

 

What method do they use?

 

I am picturing a homeowner in the $75 fee area calling 911 for an active fire and then...what?

 

Does the 911 operator have that info?

 

I am just wondering how it actually happens...

[LisaKinVA]

The City of South Fulton offered the service, for a fee, to rural residents. This family chose not to participate.

 

It came from the 2nd article already posted. No one knows how many times the FD acted in this manner, but one *could* definitely presume, based on the knowledge they in fact did so once, that they did so on other occasions. I would expect that if people chose to dig -- more examples of this could be found, and will come to light.

[LisaKinVA]

How fast can the fire department determine who paid and who didn't pay?

 

What method do they use?

 

I am picturing a homeowner in the $75 fee area calling 911 for an active fire and then...what?

 

Does the 911 operator have that info?

 

I am just wondering how it actually happens...

 

The fire department apparently looked them up (either computer or electronically)... at least that's what the articles imply.

[aude sapere]

case law, in fact, pre-dates the constitution. The process of nullification is what I have been referring to, is a theory that came about during the "age of enlightenment" during the time our constitution was founded. Locke espoused the theory (secession was also based upon the legal theory of nullification).

 

I have, and continue to argue, that if the fire department tosses the written policy out the window (probably more than one instance here), than that then becomes the de-facto policy, nullifying the written policy.

 

Citizens today also have the power of nullification in the courts...

 

And, it is NOT how we got so far from what the founding father's intended... we did that through a re-interpretation of the meaning of words to justify what we wanted. In many cases, CONGRESS enacted laws that were arguably unconstitutional -- we "adopted" a new policy outright -- the courts helped with that, to be certain -- but it does not have to do with the legal theory of nullification, nor with the demise of the Constitution.

 

So, if the police are doing a speed enforcement detail, pull someone over for doing 65 in a 55, but don't issue a ticket, does that nullify the speed limit law?

 

Now, is the speed limit unenforceable because someone was issued a warning instead of a ticket?

Edited October 6, 2010 by aude sapere

[unsinkable]

The fire department apparently looked them up (either computer or electronically)... at least that's what the articles imply.

 

Just musing here...then the FD tells the 911 operator "nope" and the 911 operator says to the homeowner "They're not coming!"

 

Just seems so strange...

[LisaKinVA]

So, if the police are doing a speed enforcement detail, pull someone over for doing 65 in a 55, but don't issue a ticket, does that nullify the speed limit law?

 

Now, is the speed limit unenforceable because someone was issued a warning instead of a ticket?

 

Your logic strikes me as flawed.

 

If you've ever given a pan handler a quarter, by your logic,

you are thus required to give every pan handler a quarter.

Good luck with that.

 

Now, you're reaching. According to state law, the police HAVE the authority to issues a ticket or a warning. One or the other will be issued. The police usually are required to make an accounting of that stop. If the police are otherwise occupied and cannot pull over every person speeding, that does not nullify the law. The law is being enforced to the best ability possible. The law has not been changed.

 

Most nullification cases have to do with just and unjust treatment. The police officer scenario here is not being unjust. He is upholding the law to the best of his ability. There are limitations.

 

In the case of the fire department, had they been "otherwise engaged" in a fire, they would have had to make a judgement call as to which fire was more important (I believe departments have procedures in place for things like this). I doubt there would have been *any* outrage if they were fighting a fire somewhere else and couldn't put out the trash-to-brush-to-2homes fire. It would have been tragic, but the moral obligation and the policy would not have been called into question.

 

In this case, the fire department had entered into at least one known agreement (and most likely others) to accept payment after the fact. This sets a precedent and a reasonable expectation that it would occur again in the future. This creates a "de-facto" policy, which essentially says, "we prefer you to pay in advance, but we'll help you if we can, and take payment later."

 

Now, as far as my giving a pan-handler a quarter... that's not something I usually do. Buy them a sandwich, yes, but give them money? Not usually. Also, that obligation comes from Christ. I am not set up as a homeless shelter -- who has entered into a social contract with the public to provide meals, a cot, and toilet facilities. I am an individual.

 

The fire department has a contract, social and legal, to provide services. The services are laid out by policy, but apparently the FD has and can act independently of the policy. This is a different scenario entirely.

 

In the case of my neighbor's house on fire... I would not have stood by and watched. I would have grabbed whatever I could to go and help. I would have called the FD. I would have grabbed a wet towel and beaten the flames in the grass... I would have grabbed our roto-tiller and tried to create a fire break...but I would not have just stood there.

[Wheres Toto]

I think the fire department definitely had a moral obligation to put the fire out but I also wonder a few things about the story.

 

-The family said they forgot to pay and that one other time, 3 years ago, they also forgot to pay. Not knowing how long they lived under this policy it's hard to say if they basically just decided not to pay or if it's more likely they did just forget. If they lived there and contributed for 20 years and forgot twice that's different than if they've lived there for 3 years and "forgot" twice.

 

-Did the fire department KNOW that noone was trapped in the house when they decided not to answer? Or was that decision made regardless of what the loss of life might have been?

 

I definitely think this method of providing fire fighting services to this community needs to be reworked. Hopefully, with all the publicity this is getting, if nothing else that will be an outcome.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Just musing here...then the FD tells the 911 operator "nope" and the 911 operator says to the homeowner "They're not coming!"

 

Just seems so strange...

 

We once lived in an odd location in DC. Our housing was in the district on a military base, but right on the Potomic river. We smelled a fire as we were coming home on night and I called on my cell phone to report it. The closest cell was evidently across the river in Virginia. I was transferred a couple of times from one 911 center to another as they tried to find the one that covered our juristiction.

 

I imagine that there are similar transfers in more rural areas from one dispatch center to another as a call is taken by a central 911, then passed along to the sherrif's department or specific city police departments.

[cdrumm4448]

case law, in fact, pre-dates the constitution. The process of nullification is what I have been referring to, is a theory that came about during the "age of enlightenment" during the time our constitution was founded. Locke espoused the theory (secession was also based upon the legal theory of nullification).

 

I have, and continue to argue, that if the fire department tosses the written policy out the window (probably more than one instance here), than that then becomes the de-facto policy, nullifying the written policy.

 

Citizens today also have the power of nullification in the courts...

 

And, it is NOT how we got so far from what the founding father's intended... we did that through a re-interpretation of the meaning of words to justify what we wanted. In many cases, CONGRESS enacted laws that were arguably unconstitutional -- we "adopted" a new policy outright -- the courts helped with that, to be certain -- but it does not have to do with the legal theory of nullification, nor with the demise of the Constitution.

 

I was not referring to nullification (a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional.). I was referring to case law:

 

Case law is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts which make new interpretations of the law based on precedents.

[cdrumm4448]

In the case of my neighbor's house on fire... I would not have stood by and watched. I would have grabbed whatever I could to go and help. I would have called the FD. I would have grabbed a wet towel and beaten the flames in the grass... I would have grabbed our roto-tiller and tried to create a fire break...but I would not have just stood there.

 

Then you have never been around an out-of-control structure fire.

[LisaKinVA]

I was not referring to nullification (a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional.). I was referring to case law:

 

Case law is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts which make new interpretations of the law based on precedents.

 

However, the most egregious examples regarding the U.S. Constitution were not based upon case law -- they were completely new in and of themselves. Had the jurists actually limited themselves to case law, and followed Stare Decisis, most of those decisions could not have been made.

 

Some will argue that the court had a moral justification to reverse itself in some cases -- but there will be great argument as to which cases we it should, or should not have been used.

 

Should this ever see a jury -- the evidence given by the defense will be (a) what was the written policy. The evidence given by the prosecution will be (b) what was the pattern of behavior, and © was there an unwritten contract based upon the pattern of behavior , (d) was there a reasonable expectation to expect the pattern/contract to continue, and (d) was that contract violated.

 

Despite whatever the written policy was, IF there was a pattern sufficient to determine that YES the fire department had essentially engaged in a contract to provide services regardless of prepayment, and/OR accept payment after the fact, then YES, the contract was violated.

 

This would not be a reinterpretation of the law, but an extension of it.

[LisaKinVA]

Then you have never been around an out-of-control structure fire.

 

But, it didn't start off as a structure fire. The fire was outside, initially contained somehow and became a brush fire.

 

The call that was ignored took place PRIOR to the home being consumed, and was when the trash fire became a brush fire.

 

The brush fire *could* have been contained. Still dangerous, yes -- but more manageable if caught early, and you don't have wind issues to deal with. People from the fire department have said that the house could have been saved [assuming the original call wasn't ignored]. Fire fighters have called the family to apologize.

 

An out of control structure fire is a whole different ball game -- but the fact remains that in all likelihood, it didn't have to become an out of control structure fire.

[RoughCollie]

IIf they lived there and contributed for 20 years and forgot twice that's different than if they've lived there for 3 years and "forgot" twice.

 

They lived there for more than 20 years. They told the FD that no person was inside the house.

[Kate CA]

Found it eye opening that she wouldn't answer the question though.

 

So your standard for assigning "guilt" to this person is that he/she did not answer your question? The *house* burned. There was no child. Had the fire department come and found a child inside it would be *murder* for them to allow the child to die on purpose so your hypothetical isn't one at all. Of course they would have gone in and any fire chief would have ordered them to do so.

 

While I do agree that this man should have purchased the fire protection, I am also a believer in helping each other out. I find it disturbing that the firefighters did not put out the fire once they were there helping the neighbor keep his home safe. I don't understand the mindset of either group - this guy for not paying the fire protection yet *expecting* it anyway:

 

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

 

...or the firefighters for not putting it out once they were *there* keeping the neighbor's home safe.

 

I see lots of people saying that this fire department came to other homes where other people had not paid and allowed them to pay afterward, but I have yet to see that in any article I have read. If they allowed this for others they should have allowed it for this guy I guess, but how can the fire department be expected to take care of all the people that don't care enough to pay for the protection?

 

I see both sides here and neither look 100% in the right to me.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Kate CA

[Abigail4476]

I don't care about libertarian philosophizing at this point; there's no way around the fact that it's morally reprehensible for a community to be AWARE of a person losing life and/or property in a catastrophic way and not try to help prevent or stop it. Even if the person didn't pay a bill and they somehow "deserved" to lose everything, it's STILL morally reprehensible.

 

It's just as reprehensible as turning someone away for emergency medical treatment because they can't pay the bill. Those who can help have a moral obligation to do so, no matter what their superiors tell them. This fire department should have mutinied against their superiors and done the right thing. Period. What they did[n't do] is sickening.

 

This is a clear example of how libertarian ideals can FAIL. The whole idea behind small government is that it isn't NECESSARY to have big government, since communities and neighbors will step in when help is needed. REALLY? It doesn't look like anyone did that here.... This is actually the WORST combination of big government and libertarianism; on one hand, libertarians want to hold the man responsible for his choice to not have fire protection, and completely alleviate any blame of the FD. On the other hand, the Big Bad government is PREVENTING the local fire department from helping a citizen in dire need because of a few unpaid dollars. It would be similar to withholding emergency health care due to unpaid back taxes, or failing to send an ambulance to pick up a stroke victim because someone didn't pay their last hospital bill.

 

Did the owner logically deserve to have his house burn down because he CHOSE to not pay for fire service? Sure...I guess he made a choice that panned out badly for him. It was a bad choice and he bore the brutal consequences. Should his community have allowed his house to burn down to purposely punish him because for his bad choice? Only if we think it's okay to not care about our neighbors.

 

I'm sorry. I just can't bring myself to care that some superior told this FD that they couldn't do anything. Shame on every last one of them for standing there and doing nothing. It's completely un-American. :glare:

 

...

 

Wow. I'm just...appalled and sickened. I can't IMAGINE my husband standing by and watching someone's house burn down, when he had the power to stop it from happening. I know I want to teach my children that choices have consequences, but at the same time I want to teach them that we are to be compassionate and merciful to those who make bad choices. Do unto others....

 

Politics should NEVER matter more than people.

Edited October 6, 2010 by Abigail4476

[Abigail4476]

IMO, to any place where the department has an agreement to provide services.

 

Of course, I am pink enough to believe that if a fire engine were out for a joyride 500 miles from home, enjoying the summer breeze, and it came upon a fire, it and the people operating it should stop and put out the fire. NQA. :D

 

Tara

 

 

:iagree:

[Renee in NC]

When my dh was a volunteer fire fighter, the standard procedure in a mobile home fire was to let it burn while preventing it from spreading. They burn fast and generally are considered a complete loss when they do (especially a 20 year old mobile home.)

 

They should have responded for the initial brush fire if required to under their contract. Letting the mobile home burn might have had nothing to do with the $75 at all.

[Wheres Toto]

They lived there for more than 20 years. They told the FD that no person was inside the house.

 

Then I don't understand why so many don't believe they legitimately forgot and keep saying he "chose" to not pay. Twice in 20 years doesn't sound like he's trying to cheat the system and still get services. 18 years of payment doesn't entitle him to help when his house is on fire??

[Jamee]

From what I've seen, the family made several 911 calls before they finally responded when the neighbors called. Before putting blame on the fire department, were they even aware of the call before they showed up to put out the neighbor's fire? Did they show up finding the house fully engulfed only to realize then that nothing could be done?

 

I do agree that this policy is just WRONG and I hope the media attention brings changes. I had heard that fees could have been added to various bills to ensure coverage, but weren't. Why on earth not?

[justamouse]

IMO, to any place where the department has an agreement to provide services.

 

Of course, I am pink enough to believe that if a fire engine were out for a joyride 500 miles from home, enjoying the summer breeze, and it came upon a fire, it and the people operating it should stop and put out the fire. NQA. :D

 

Tara

 

Amen.

 

Because the family had not purchased fire protection services.

 

No payment = no service agreement = not in service area.

 

Neighbors paid = in service area.

Call from area under service coverage answered.

 

QED

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Christ has left the building.

[justamouse]

Then I don't understand why so many don't believe they legitimately forgot and keep saying he "chose" to not pay. Twice in 20 years doesn't sound like he's trying to cheat the system and still get services. 18 years of payment doesn't entitle him to help when his house is on fire??

 

You are KIDDING me? That's for real? He forgot to pay 2 times in 20 years and they let his house burn?

 

And there you go. The more I hear the more I'm putting all my escarole on Tara's theory.

[RoughCollie]

You are KIDDING me? That's for real? He forgot to pay 2 times in 20 years and they let his house burn?

 

That's true.

 

The Cranicks lived on their farm for 40 years, 21 of them in a modular home.

 

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7020119673?Firefighters%20Allow%20Home,%20Pets%20to%20Burn%20Because%20of%20Unpaid%20Service%20Fee

 

Not only that, he said it slipped his mind. He forgot. Gee whiz, who among us has not forgotten something? This man is 68 years old. Believe it or not, Young Ones, when one gets older, one becomes more forgetful.

 

He and his neighbor offered to pay the actual cost of fighting the fire.

 

His wife has told the media that they don't blame the firefighters for this.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/06/2010-10-06_firefighters_let_house_burn_in_rural_tennessee_because_homeowner_didnt_pay_75_fe.html?r=news

 

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

 

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

 

Even when he offered to pay whatever the cost might be to put out the fire, the department refused to respond to the emergency during the two hours it took for the flames to spread from his yard to his house.

 

Cranick, 68, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Tuesday evening, "I'm no freeloader, I've worked all my life for everything I've got. It happens to anybody, I don't care, you forget things and I did. I suffered the consequences for it."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/

Edited October 6, 2010 by RoughCollie

[justamouse]

That's true.

 

The Cranicks lived on their farm for 40 years, 21 of them in a modular home.

 

Even when he offered to pay whatever the cost might be to put out the fire, the department refused to respond to the emergency during the two hours it took for the flames to spread from his yard to his house.

 

That makes me so disgusted I can barely think straight--and for people to say that this is *right* a just *consequence*?

 

Dear God, what kind of society do we live in?

[LisaKinVA]

Wow. I'm just...appalled and sickened. I can't IMAGINE my husband standing by and watching someone's house burn down, when he had the power to stop it from happening. I know I want to teach my children that choices have consequences, but at the same time I want to teach them that we are to be compassionate and merciful to those who make bad choices. Do unto others....

 

Politics should NEVER matter more than people.

 

Amen.

 

Reminds one of the saying, "just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right!"

[justamouse]

Cranick, 68, told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC on Tuesday evening, "I'm no freeloader, I've worked all my life for everything I've got. It happens to anybody, I don't care, you forget things and I did. I suffered the consequences for it."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39535911/ns/us_news-life/

 

Well then, all the people arguing that this was his just desserts should be incredibly happy.

 

I'm sick to my stomach.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Well then, all the people arguing that this was his just desserts should be incredibly happy.

 

I'm sick to my stomach.

 

:crying:

[LisaKinVA]

That makes me so disgusted I can barely think straight--and for people to say that this is *right* a just *consequence*?

 

Dear God, what kind of society do we live in?

 

Well, I'm relieved to report that the vast majority of people (over 75% by some polls) think like you and I, all hope is not lost. From other reports I've heard the entire neighborhood is outraged... and many of the fire fighters became physically ill over the issue. They knew in their hearts that it was wrong.

[RoughCollie]

Video here. http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=13281481

 

During the press conference, the Cranicks' son Todd addressed the fire chief.

 

"My neighbor was standing there with an open checkbook and told 'em to put it out no matter what it cost," Todd Cranick said. "My dad, an open checkbook. It's not like the money wasn't there. Seventy-five dollars versus 5 to $10,000, which would you rather have?"

 

"I'm on your side, brother," Reavis answered. "I'm on your side, you know and that's my point."

 

Oh yeah, the fire chief was on their side all right. It sounds like the fire chief decided to make an example of this family. They offered to pay the actual cost, so did the neighbor, both with the funds to pay. This was not an issue of funding, as a commenter to the article pointed out.

 

Also, this was not a mobile home, a trailer. A few articles describe it as a modular home. It was a house. The son grew up in it. I'm not sure modular homes were available that long ago, so the media may be wrong about it having been a modular home. The home is referred to as a house, not as a mobile home or trailer, in every article I've read.

 

According to Zillow.com, the house was built in 1910.

Edited October 7, 2010 by RoughCollie

[justamouse]

Well, I'm relieved to report that the vast majority of people (over 75% by some polls) think like you and I, all hope is not lost. From other reports I've heard the entire neighborhood is outraged... and many of the fire fighters became physically ill over the issue. They knew in their hearts that it was wrong.

 

You know, I feel sorry for them, I really do. Instances like this test your character and to come up lacking is not an easy place to be. And to learn it at the hands of another person's loss makes it all the worse. The family is already so forgiving, God bless them. Really, in the non snide way. ;)

[Lolly]

Then I don't understand why so many don't believe they legitimately forgot and keep saying he "chose" to not pay. Twice in 20 years doesn't sound like he's trying to cheat the system and still get services. 18 years of payment doesn't entitle him to help when his house is on fire??

 

Well, we don't actually know how many years he paid. We know that the two years his house caught fire he had not paid. This does not equate to he paid the other years.

[cdrumm4448]

Amen.

 

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, Christ has left the building.

 

Christ said nothing about the government forcing taxpayers to cough up for fire protection if they didn't want it.

[justamouse]

Christ said nothing about the government forcing taxpayers to cough up for fire protection if they didn't want it.

 

No, you're right, he just said to love your brother as yourself.

[RoughCollie]

From what I've seen, the family made several 911 calls before they finally responded when the neighbors called. Before putting blame on the fire department, were they even aware of the call before they showed up to put out the neighbor's fire? Did they show up finding the house fully engulfed only to realize then that nothing could be done?

 

The family had been calling 911 for help for 2 hours before the FD showed up to fight the fire which had spread to the neighbor's cornfield, and by then, to the family's house. Yes, the fire chief knew about it.

[RoughCollie]

That makes me so disgusted I can barely think straight--and for people to say that this is *right* a just *consequence*?

 

Dear God, what kind of society do we live in?

 

Apparently we live in a society in which some people don't care about anyone except themselves and judge everyone using their own perfect selves as the yardstick by which the measurements are made. Cookie cutter minds, cookie cutter people, who view everyone as though we are alike and are machines, not human beings.

 

And sometimes what comes around goes around. The black/white thinkers who lack compassion and empathy and a basic understanding of what it means to be human, have a problem. The humans step in to solve it. The cookie cutter may then be grateful enough to become human, too. Or CC may think that the humans are stupid for helping, but if it's free, he'll take it. I've seen it go both ways.

 

What would be really great would be if the community rallies around, including the fire department, and builds those people a new house. The community provides the labor. The insurance proceeds provide the materials. I would really like to see that happen.

 

The only players I see taking the high road here, so far, are the Cranicks. They accept responsibility for the fire. They accept responsibility for forgetting to pay the bill by offering to pay the actual cost and having the ability to do so, they do not blame the FD for the fire.

Edited October 7, 2010 by RoughCollie

[WishboneDawn]

Christ said nothing about the government forcing taxpayers to cough up for fire protection if they didn't want it.

 

The Good Samaritan story covers this territory unless Christ meant to praise the folks that walked by the poor fellow in distress.

 

Somehow I think not.

 

If money is the issue, fight the fire and bill the guy after. But refusing to fight the fire at all? I can't see any line of reasoning that, to me at least, wouldn't seem to be simply a way to justify a lack of moral action.