Was the South Fulton Fire Department legally obliged to extinguish the fire at Gene Cranick's house?

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Was the South Fulton Fire Department legally obliged to extinguish the fire at Gene Cranick's house?

[Ken Burch]

1. Other

Legal obligation can't actually be determined through polling.

[ManiacJoe]

2. Oh, sure. Insert facts and logic.....

:fistbump:

[aquart]

3. I don't give a damn what was legal. They let animals die.

[Fumesucker]

4. They let *people* die in America..

Every single fucking day, hundreds of them..

[aquart]

5. So animal deaths warrant no attention. Only human deaths.

How many are sufficient for concern? One? Ten? A thousand? What should we wait for?

[Fumesucker]

6. I would say one..

Do you disagree?

Do you think our politicians have given us a system that will reach that number?

[aquart]

7. So. Animal deaths are nothing. Only a human death rates concern.

That is exactly what they thought during Katrina, isn't it? When they insisted people leave their pets behind, and the dying dogs tried to swim after the boats.

WHAT KIND OF HUMAN LEAVES AN ANIMAL TO DIE?

[Fumesucker]

8. Umm.. One who is about to die himself or herself?

Not to mention that I said nothing about animals, I'm one of those people who stops in the middle of the road and moves turtles out of danger.

[kerkes]

9. South Fulton Fire Department should have a contingency in place to service fires

No one should be getting something entirely for free, however there should be a backup contingency plan in place, to allow for protection against total loss and life of animals or people. Even if there is a hefty fine instituted for receiving emergency services after the fact, there should be SOMETHING in place that allows for service. The owner said he was willing to pay for the fire to be extinguished. People make mistakes, apparently sometimes life-threatening ones. In the current economy, people also don't pay every bill, particularly those they (maybe stupidly) feel are less vital at the time. That said, letting a house burn, with pets inside, is cruel and the firefighters should be ashamed. This was a disgusting act. Firefighters are in an emergency profession and there needs to be an emergency contingency in place, for situations like this, even if it means the city needs to attach billing (as police departments, other agencies do) to tax refunds, etc, to ensure being paid.

The world can only be glad that the view of South Fulton Fire Department is not shared by all firefighters, per quotes from leaders of firefighting organizations:

http://www.wacktrap.com/government/government-bodies/city-government/firefighters-watch-house-burn-over-75-four-pets-killed-

[seabeyond]

20. another state. they dont have the options other areas do that are within same state.

increase the city taxpayers rate to over county?

[seabeyond]

14. no. the owner did. the fire started way away from house. took lots of time to hit house

at anytime he could have walked into the house and gotten the dogs out. why did that man let his dogs burn?

[gratuitous]

10. And what if another fire broke out while they were at the Cranicks?

And let's say, just for fun, that this second fire occurred at a home that had paid its $75 annual fire assessment, and was a couple of miles away. Tell us how you would prioritize things for the firefighters: Stay with the Cranick home, even though all the people were out, or leave it to go attend to the subscribing property? What do you say to the homeowner who paid his assessment, but couldn't get firefighters to come to his fire because they were attending to the non-subscriber?

I'll say again, as deplorable as most people seem to find this situation, it's the situation that the people living there chose for themselves. Everyone knew how it worked, even if they didn't support it. The Cranicks knew how the system worked. And now, when the system didn't perform to their liking, Mr. Cranick goes running to the media to complain about how unfair it all is. I'm sorry his house burned down. I'm sorry the fire department didn't extinguish the blaze. But the system in place was the one the people of the area chose to have in place. Mr. Cranick's complaints are disingenuous and self-serving.

[hayu_lol]

11. Problem is that the next door neighbor was a subscriber...

the fire dept. waited until the fire crossed the property lines and then put it out. They fulfilled their responsibility to their subscriber.

County commissioner for Obion County stated, when the choice of fire service was made, if you are a subscriber, you get fire service. If you are not, you don't. Pretty much the same thing applies to all areas of Obion County.

[HughMoran]

12. Morally

[BzaDem]

13. +1. People are arguing over what SHOULD have happened. n/t

[seabeyond]

15. in our morality, do we bankrupt tax paid city FD? significantly raise city taxes to cover county?nt

[BzaDem]

16. We simply charge non-subscribers whatever it costs to put out the fire.

And add some on top of that if you want for maintenance, etc. Just like how ER's treat first (even someone who ADMITS they won't pay), and collect later.

What we DON'T do is allow the house to burn down.

[seabeyond]

17. simply? they tried that. they did not get payment. they are in another state and could not take

action. it is a town of 2500 people. it does not have resource. it wasnt simple when they tried it. hence, why they moved to this.

now what.

bankrupt the city FD or tax those already poor taxpayer significantly more to cover county, in another state?

if it was so simple... everyone would be agreeing.

[gratuitous]

18. But if you had paid your fee

And the fire department was otherwise involved at the Cranick place, you'd be okay with your place burning down because the only crew and truck was otherwise occupied with a non-subscriber's fire?

I know; it'd never happen in a million years.

[HughMoran]

19. They were occupied - keeping the fire from spreading to the neighbors yard

:eyes:

[gratuitous]

21. Not sure I'm seeing your point

BzaDem was saying that the firefighters should have absolutely put out the Cranick fire. My supposition, far-fetched I'll admit, is that another fire breaks out a couple of miles away while the crew and the truck are putting out the Cranick fire. The second fire occurs at the house of someone who has (and this is totally improbable to the point of impossibility) paid the annual assessment. What should the crew do? Stay with the Cranick fire, because they're already engaged? And now, entering the realm of pure fantasy, suppose that you or BzaDem was the owner of the second home. Would you be all right with your home burning to the ground because the Cranicks had the crew and equipment tied up?

[HughMoran]

22. & I was pointing out the reality that the Cranick fire WAS threatening a house that paid

Let's stick to the facts - supposition isn't something I'm all that fond of.

[gratuitous]

23. Absolutely

The notion of a second fire occurring at or near the same time is just preposterous. Don't even know why it would come up. And even if it did, I'm sure that someone who had paid their assessment would be all right with their house burning down because a non-subscriber called the fire department first.

We Americans are very generous that way.

[HughMoran]

25. gratuitous

;)

[Spazito]

24. Were Canadians legally obliged to allow in-bound U.S. flights to land...

in Canada on 9/11? No. Were there moral grounds to do so regardless of possible risk, yes, and it was done.

Were Canadian police and firefighters legally obligated to go to New York after 9/11 to help out, no. Were there moral grounds to do so regardless of possible risk, yes, and it was done.

Is there a higher moral standard to be held by neighboring countries whereby they help out without ensuring compensation/fees/payment beforehand than the moral standard to be held by neighboring counties/States? If so, why?

My point is less about Canada/US and more about we all have a moral obligation to help out whether legally bound or not and to let anyone's home burn to the ground because they didn't pay the 'fee' whatever the reason is unconscionable to me.