Firefighters = Mercenaries only - Pay to spray?

Lucki said:
Since when are homes not houses?
Click to expand...

Home could be a cardboard box if necessary Lucki, c'mon now.

It's what you make it. My home is an apt, not a house.
 
Last edited:
Morcheeba said:
Home could be a cardboard box if necessary Lucki, c'mon now.

It's what you make it. My home is an apt, not a house.
Click to expand...

Then you need to rephrase your earlier statement.
 
Lucki said:
Then you need to rephrase your earlier statement.
Click to expand...

How do you mean?

Yeah there are some incredibly impressive trailerhomes built now. It's mobile, you can relocate them usually if you have a truck with enough balls it can be done easily enough. The preparation is where is hassle lays.

But they are still homes to many. Homes, homes are more valuable than houses when considering sentiment, but obviously not structurally.

We had one for our weekends north. We couldn't afford a cottage, not even a cabin. But a trailerhome bought off someone and reno's can be a perfect spot for crashing after long nights in front of the fire.
Click to expand...

I don't see where in this post I'd need to rephrase. Do I have the wrong post?
 
Morcheeba said:
How do you mean?



I don't see where in this post I'd need to rephrase. Do I have the wrong post?
Click to expand...

How can a home be more valuable than a house, when your home is a house.
 
Honestly, the guy was asking for it. He probably felt that either A) it was a rip off to be having to pay another county for fire protection services because like others here, felt it should be a given from the government, or B) was one of those that just thought it would never happen to him. As stated earlier, there was already a precedence set before hand, and this requirement has been in effect for about 30 years.

Another thing that rubs me raw is this: He CHOSE no to pay for the service, and yet when it actually happened he was offering to pay for the fire departments expenses? Come on folks, that just screams "not impoverished". I also work in the insurance industry, and I see plenty of people who skimp out on certain coverages because of the following: "I've been driving for X amount of years without an accident, I'll be fine. I don't need any extra coverage." Yet lo and behold, when the incident DOES happen and they don't have coverage for it, they come guns blazing with litigation.

I'll give you a prime example of this that hits close to home: a few years ago my mother had finished paying off her somewhat new vehicle and decided to immediately take off all coverage except for liability (which as you all know is required). Not two months later my family was on their way back from California my dad lost control and wrecked the vehicle. No injuries or deaths, but the vehicle was totaled. The $14k that my mother spent on that vehicle went down the shitter at that point since they had no collision coverage to pay for the damages. They CHOSE not to pay for the coverage, they CHOSE to take the risk of losing that vehicle if something happened to it. Does it suck? Yes, but they asked for it =/

Yes what happened to Mr. Cranick sucks, it sucks major balls, but he wouldn't be in this situation if he had prepared for it properly.
 
Lucki said:
How can a home be more valuable than a house, when your home is a house.
Click to expand...

WHAT?

lol

home is more valuable in most context because it is where the heart is, or so they say. But that is the truth. It's built on love, so no matter what structure you live within, beside or under.. if that's where your most valuable possessions are (family being #1) it'll have most value.

But a house is just a structure. And because so much of this discussion focused on constructively breaking down the cost of extinguishing a fire vs. what the structure itself is worth, I figured I could lazily point out the difference. Without getting into semantics. Home is what you make it, a house is a building many are lucky enough to afford.


Edit - unless you are referring to those who do live in a house and call it home. Which I never mentioned... so that would just further confuse me.
 
Last edited:
Morcheeba said:
unless you are referring to those who do live in a house and call it home. Which I never mentioned... so that would just further confuse me.
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked, because your ass-backwards Canaditalk confused me
 
Lucki said:
Which is why I asked, because your ass-backwards Canaditalk confused me
Click to expand...

It's the way you worded it that confused the whole damn thing, bitches!

Had you just mentioned those that actually call a house their home. What do you expect when you're vague? Especially when a family living in a house wasn't the topic of conversation, not by me anyway.

That cabbage is best thrown at you me thinks.

*sorry Trist. You know what he's like!!
 
Last edited:
I am happy they let the mans house burn to the ground. The reason he had to pay the fee is because he lived in a rural area that did not have any fire support on their own. So that they were offered something, another town offered fire protection service on an insurance style plan for 75$ a year per household. The man chose not to pay the fee. His neighbor chose to pay the fee. His house caught on fire so he called the fire department. They said they were not coming. The fire spread to his neighbors house... Fire department came and quickly put the neighbors house out and watched the first mans house burn. The next part is the part that i believe people are confused about, It is my understanding that he offered to pay for the service aka the 75$ fee on the spot for them to put the fire out and they refused. Then they offered to pay 500$ which is still well below the actual cost of putting out the fire and the FD told them it was too late.

Now... back to my original statement. They should have let the house burn because if they put out one house that didn't pay the 75$ no one would pay it. And having to pay 75$ a year for a different cities FD to come is better than what they had before 1990 which was nothing. Least now they have an option. Also this is probably a good thing because no i bet the amount of people paying the 75$ fee has doubled and there is probably some action within the community to get their own FD or at least a semi trained group of volunteers... if any of those 3 are happening... progress.

Another option would be to make the guy sign a document stating that he is responsible for all the fees associated with extinguishing the fire if he didn't pay and that would also be an acceptable consequence to this unfortunate circumstance. Moral of the story.. actions or in this case inaction have consequences... deal with them.
 
Last edited:
Dejavu said:
I am happy they let the mans house burn to the ground.
Click to expand...

Really?

I'm sorry, but I feel like there are some times in life when you help out your fellow human being and worry about what it will cost after the fact. There was a simple solution to this whole thing. They put the fire out and then charge the guy a major fine for not paying the $75 fee. Letting his house burn down is NOT a proper punishment for him failing to pay such a small fee.
 
did u read my second paragraph where i explain why i said that.

I guess let me be more specific. I am not glad the guys house burnt down i wish it never caught fire... i am glad the firefighters let it burn down because they actually had the balls to make the hard but correct decision and keep to the law so that the FD was not put on the slippery slope... because of this situation there is no longer a "i figured they would still put it out" and everyone who has half a brain will figure out a way to get 75$ and pay the fee. The FD's position is firm.

Also i stated if he would agree to pay all the costs of the firefighters trip then they should have put it out but i don't know if that was ever offered... So far as i know the guy only offered the original 75 and then later 500 but by that point his residence was so far gone the FD said it wasn't even worth it.
 
Last edited:
Dejavu said:
did u read my second paragraph where i explain why i said that.

I guess let me be more specific. I am not glad the guys house burnt down i wish it never caught fire... i am glad the firefighters let it burn down because they actually had the balls to make the hard but correct decision and keep to the law so that the FD was not put on the slippery slope... because of this situation there is no longer a "i figured they would still put it out" and everyone who has half a brain will figure out a way to get 75$ and pay the fee. The FD's position is firm.

Also i stated if he would agree to pay all the costs of the firefighters trip then they should have put it out but i don't know if that was ever offered... So far as i know the guy only offered the original 75 and then later 500 but by that point his residence was so far gone the FD said it wasn't even worth it.
Click to expand...

In the article, it does in fact say he offered to pay for the firefighters' expenses when it came to putting out the fire. Problem with that is that when they do put the fire out, and they turn around and charge him for the expenses he can easily recant his story and say he never gave them authorization to quell the fire that was burning down his house. That in turn puts the FD in a bind because now they have to litigate against the guy, which would in turn cost additional money, and they run the risk of the court siding with the homeowner because he did not pay the fine, and therefore shouldn't have had his house fire put out.

Bottom line is that these kinds of things can set dangerous precedents and because of it, and his laziness (or whatever else we wanna call it) his house burned down. Maybe now anyone else who was on the fence about paying that fee will wake up and realize it can happen to them too and everyone will be protected.
 
I am going to skip reading everything after the OP. I can't believe the firefighters just stood by and let the place burn down. That's absolute garbage. A firefighters job is to put out fires and save life and property if they can. Who ever gave them the order not to help should be fired. You put out fires because it's the right thing to do when someones place is on fire. Glad no one was inside but pets. Even so, I'd like to see them explain how if there had been someone inside that $75 wasn't worth saving that life. Just wait til the shit hits the fan and someone does die because firefighters neglected to do the right thing for a miniscule fee. That'll get changed real quick.
 
Last edited:
Ecks said:
I am going to skip reading everything after the OP. I can't believe the firefighters just stood by and let the place burn down. That's absolute garbage. A firefighters job is to put out fires and save life and property if they can. Who ever gave them the order not to help should be fired. You put out fires because it's the right thing to do when someones place is on fire. Glad no one was inside but pets. Even so, I'd like to see them explain how if there had been someone inside that $75 wasn't worth saving that life. Just wait til the shit hits the fan and someone does die because firefighters neglected to do the right thing for a miniscule fee. That'll get changed real quick.
Click to expand...

Problem is, if they put the fire out they could be at risk of losing their job. It's actually the opposite to what you said. I'm not going to lose my job because someone was too cheap to pay $75. Especially in this day and age.
 
Well I think it even goes beyond human decency and the oath these Firefighters are sworn. Hello! They wanted to battle fires and save lives, that should be enough, their chief is a shitrag imo.

Aside from all the shit that was previously discussed. It was also extremely irresponsible and careless for the FD to stand there. To only react to the situation when it was already to late and had a neighbour calling out of fear it would damage his property as well. In the long run, had this fire gotten wildly out of control, it would have cost the FD, their township and the county they responded to a hell of a lot more.
 
Hexx said:
In the article, it does in fact say he offered to pay for the firefighters' expenses when it came to putting out the fire. Problem with that is that when they do put the fire out, and they turn around and charge him for the expenses he can easily recant his story and say he never gave them authorization to quell the fire that was burning down his house. That in turn puts the FD in a bind because now they have to litigate against the guy, which would in turn cost additional money, and they run the risk of the court siding with the homeowner because he did not pay the fine, and therefore shouldn't have had his house fire put out.

Bottom line is that these kinds of things can set dangerous precedents and because of it, and his laziness (or whatever else we wanna call it) his house burned down. Maybe now anyone else who was on the fence about paying that fee will wake up and realize it can happen to them too and everyone will be protected.
Click to expand...

In the article in the OP it does state that he offered to pay the complete expenses but in this article it mentions specifically that he was willing to pay $500 with no mention of the complete expenses.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-...nd-firefighters-stand-watch/story?id=11806407

The interesting line here was the quote midway through the article.

"My neighbor called [the fire department], saying whatever it takes, we want them to put it out, we'll pay $500," said Cranick. "They told us, 'It's too late.'"
Click to expand...

I guess we can chalk this one up to journalistic license/interpretation in that we cant know what the real story is but i will lean towards the quote coming from the person saying they offered 500$ rather than a more likely than not left journalist who is trying to spin the story to make people want government to intervene.
 
Morcheeba said:
In the long run, had this fire gotten wildly out of control, it would have cost the FD, their township and the county they responded to a hell of a lot more.
Click to expand...

Had this fire actually turned into a wildfire and caused massive damage, the town would probably sue the bejesus out of Cranick for at least negligence and at most arson. He started it after all
 
They should of put out the fire. Even I'm not that heartless. What they did was endanger the public.

The solution is very simple:

A) You pay the $75 and the firemen put out the blaze.

B) You don't pay the $75, the firemen still put out the blaze and you receive a very LARGE bill from the town to pay the cost and man hours for them having to come and put the blaze out. If you can't pay the very large bill, then they slap a lien on your property for the balance. Same way they would a tax lien if you don't pay your property tax.
 
Last edited:
Tomasello said:
They should of put out the fire. Even I'm not that heartless. What they did was endanger the public.

The solution is very simple:

A) You pay the $75 and the firemen put out the blaze.

B) You don't pay the $75, the firemen still put out the blaze and you receive a very LARGE bill from the town to pay the cost and man hours for them having to come and put the blaze out. If you can't pay the very large bill, then they slap a lien on your property for the balance. Same way they would a tax lien if you don't pay your property tax.
Click to expand...

Not quite how it works Tom. See, unless the FD carries around a clipboard or something to hold forms to prove the homeowner gave written consent to have the fire put out (which I'm sure they don't) them trying to put a lien, or try to collect on that money by some other means, would easily be countered by even a half-witted attorney. Unless there's overwhelming witnesses (not including the firemen) or a written consent form, as i stated earlier, Cranick could easily walk out of paying that bill by claiming he never gave authorization to have the fire put out. In the end that would have left the FD at a loss, and in turn could cause the yearly rate to go up for all other homeowner's in the area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top