Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

Remove all ads!

Thank God someone else actually read the article and understood it.

 

You could have saved us a lot of effort if you had done the same.

 

Couldn't the county government just work out a deal to cover the county and pay for it with taxpayer dollars? I see no reason that they couldn't. Hell, they'd probably even get a discount, paying the equivalent of substantially less than $75 per unit protected. Many hands make light work.

My reading and research have not been able to confirm this. The county didn't go out until the neighbor (who was a subscriber) called in. Once there, they merely watched the house burn to the ground, ready to act if the fire spread to the neighbor's yard. It never did, and they never acted.

 

The people refused to pay the 75 bucks a year. Peanuts. For anyone, even those who are government supported. They don't pay taxes to support their own fire department like many others do, so they are already getting the discount. It's not the fault of hte neighboring town that their community can't afford their own department. Either allocate your budget to do so, raise taxes to do so or pay the 75 a yr for the neighbors support. But don't expect a free ride. Instead, the neighbors offer up their own for a small charge. And the family still refused to pay a token 75 bucks for coverage. No sympthay from me on this one. Cough up the bucks. Beats risking the lives of your family, donesn't it? To me, it's a no-brainer.

 

Blades, it isn't just about a "free ride". Not subscribing to fire protection endangers more than just myself. It also endangers my neighbors who have subscribed to such protection. Like trash collection, fire protection shouldn't be a choice.

 

to me, this is one of the most important quotes in the article, it shows the attitude of the home owner. He wanted a free ride, arrogantly believing that he could save his money and recieve the service anyway.

 

Drew, I heard interviews with the Cranick's. The interviews (doen the following week) presented a bit different picture than the articles -- as far as I know none of journalists chose to correct their articles after the facts of the story were revealed, nor was any apology issued to the fire department.

 

Issuing an apology would get in the way of the fun everyone has smearing the fire department and the whole setup in general.

I agree with Drew, though, that fire services should not be optional (barring extreme circumstances). In addition, the civic government should be doing everything in it's power to provide effective fire services. I mean, fire, police, ambulance . . . these are the baseline things that the government should be funding properly, not daypasses for pieces of **** who rape 4 year olds or grants to people who smear their own feces on a wall and call it "educational art".

EDIT: I admit, though, that I have never lived in a rural area as described earlier. If the setup was made clear beforehand, and the guy didn't choose to pay the fee, he really has no one to blame but himself. It's a sucky setup, and were I a citizen there I would a) pay the damn fee and b) lobby to have a better system set up. People who just want to work the system tick me off no end. You can't buy life insurance for Uncle Bob AFTER he has died. That's not discrimination, it's the way the world often works.

 

Ah. I trust you. News outlets like to accuse on the front page and retract upside down, backwards, and in small print on the last page of the style section, so this is easy to believe.

 

This interview? It may expalin how things became the way they did if one is willing to believe Mr. Cranick as a credible source. Notice that he comments that, "the fire dept. refused to come out," even during the 911 phone call because, at least according to his version, "he was not on the list."

 

why does anyone care? he refused to pay the very reasonable fee. his home insurance is covering the damage.

If I dont pay my home and contents insurance and lightning hits my house, its my own fault.

 

Why should he? According to T2's information, they still could not have helped him.

Yeah, as a journalist/interviewer of someone who has experienced a tragedy, one has to. Being empathetic is part of the job, whether it's genuine or feinged, especially when its on TV.

 

Good ol' Keith. Too bad MSNBC issued a "retraction" on him. Although from what I've seen that appeared to be a mutual parting of ways.

 

I listened to interviews on my radio (the DJ's called the family) and got a slightly different picture -- slightly different in that the Cranicks were not as emotional and had more information. There were also additional interviews with the fire chief and the station responding to the fire (which was not the closest fire station to the fire -- the normal station was responding to another emergency) -- clips were played of those.

Perhaps I'm confusing this with another house that burned down at roughly the same time and same area of the country (with very similar circumstances).

 

I guess I'm pretty spoiled in this regard. The fire station in my area is half a block down the road from my house. If there's a house fire, it has to be dealt with or the surrounding houses are almost certain to go up in flames, not to mention the rolling hills that surround my area. On the other hand, I live in an area that has a fairly high risk of brushfire.

Some of you may remember the Freeway Complex Fire from November 2008 that burned nearly 30,000 acres. That started about a mile from my house, and only because the wind happened to be blowing west rather than east that day was my immediate neighborhood spared from the flames.

So in another regard, I guess I'm not so spoiled afterall.

 

I pay my taxes, thats still no guarentee the fire service will save my house

 

Well, Im going by T2's comment here:

Now, I realize the articles that Ragusa posts say something a bit different, that the fire department could have in fact put the fire out, but it could be that that Cranick was aware that there were no fire hydrants in the area and that the fire department more than likely could not have helped him anyway. But again I'm basing that on the above quote. Otherwise, if Cranick offered to pay them at the scene, they should have taken his money and then put the fire out, IMO. Because emergency service should not be the same as insurance, unless you want your government to be run like a Vegas casino.

 

... not like a casino, but like a protection racket.

And here's the thing: A 'buy-in option' would have dispelled that notion, but in the absence of it, it was the firemen making him an example as a warning for others not to pay. Of course this man's fate is likely get more payments from others. So does Don Vito burning down your storehouse for you turning down his brand of fire protection.

And, besides, what about poor people who actually can't afford to pay the fee? You couldn't afford to pay the fee, no water for you! Husband having a heart attack? No insurance? Sorry, take an aspirin and don't call me in the morning. Yeah, let's just rationalise avarice as a virtue and call it 'emphasising individual responsibility' and have a tea party.

As 'fire fighters' they're a disgrace to the profession who sully the reputation of thousands of professionals who - unconditionally - put themselves in harm's way every day to ensure homes and families are safe. These guys here are not fire fighters but extortionists, plain and simple.

Of course it is not just them ('... just following orders!' - a lame excuse if there ever was one), but the harebrained funding scheme their county's politicos found and that created not just a disincentive but an outright prohibition to help. Why not just make that fee mandatory and generate more revenue to be invested in better equipment (as in: fire engines with larger tanks)? Just imagine that subscriber-only-services scheme and the same situation in an urban setting.

In a very rural environment, the outcome perhaps is a tolerable - no neighbours were at risk. In an urban environment, you don't want to let the Chicago fire get started because one home owner decided to be cheap. You don't put out the fire to protect the cheapskate, you put out the fire to protect the rest of the city. Then, you can worry about putting the screws to the cheapskate to pay up, fines and all.

Why didn't the fire department just help, and then send him the bill, if they must, perhaps with a premium for hot having paid up before? Infinitely preferable to watching his livelihood getting destroyed in the fire and tell him: 'Gee, you see, we could have put out the fire, but you know the policy - you could have just paid, but so you brought it on yourself, that'll teach you, sucker.' An abomination, and all that simply because of the policy to only help people who have paid protection money. There was no practical reason that prevented them from helping, they were there, they had the time and the means. Talk about professional integrity.

Spoiler

The Firefighters' Creed

When I'm called to duty god
wherever flames may rage
give me strength to save a life
whatever be its age

Help me to embrace a little child
before it is too late
or save an older person from
the horror of that fate

Enable me to be alert
to hear the weakest shout
and quickly and efficiently
to put the fire out

I want to fill my calling and
to give the best in me
to guard my neighbour and
protect his property

And if according to your will
I have to lose my life
bless with your protecting hand
my children and my wife

Spoiler

fine print: all this being conditional, of course, on any of those people coughing up the fee required to secure my services