A **VERY NARROW** question regarding the house burning: Did pets die or not?

[Stinky The Clown]

I have no clue and haven't been able to find hard news one way or another. Some say there were dogs and cats in the house who died. Some say that was not the case at all and that no evidence of it exists.

Does anyone have any actual, reliable link to reporting one way or the other?

I am not putting up this thread to debate any larger issues. I am simply asking about the veracity of the story about the dead pets.

[SteppingRazor]

1. According to the homeowner, when he was interviewed by Olbermann, the answer is yes. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

3. I understand that. So far, that seems to be the only source of the story

Has that been verified?

Why was it not reported elsewhere? (<---- rhetorical, not being posed to you)

[Defectata]

8. WTF?

It seems to me that the homeowner would be the primary source any reporter would go to. If the homeowner says the pets died, what else will it take to convince you? Seeing the bodies?

[seabeyond]

17. he also said he forgot to pay. though things he said before refutes that.

the fire started well out in the yard. lots of time before made it to house. why didnt the owners get animals out of house?

that is why people question

[SteppingRazor]

26. I think people who question that don't realize how quickly fires can spread. n/t

[seabeyond]

30. we do know it took time. started in back yard, hit the shed and reports... creeped to house

they had time to make plenty of calls.

[fasttense]

27. Sarah Palin would love your English.

By the way, your argument is nonsense. Animals get frightened around fires. They will refuse to come and refuse to go to safety. Livestock has to be blind folded to get them out of a burning barn.

Scared cats and dogs will hide from rescuers. Maybe if the fire had been gotten under control, then the animals would have survived.

[seabeyond]

31. kids will hide too. gonna leave them in there for quite a while waiting for fire? i am not.

hildish you.... going after language. dont get it, dont like it, dont read it.

[Fumesucker]

19. Why would the family leave pets in a home that has fire advancing towards it?

If I thought a brush fire was about to engulf my home the very first thing I would think of is getting my family, explicitly including my pets, out of the home. Period..

[SteppingRazor]

25. It wasn't a brush fire headed toward the home. The fire started at the home.

And, obviously, these things can spread with surprising speed. I can't blame the homeowners for failing to save their pets. It's tragic, certainly, but it might not have been possible to save them.

[Fumesucker]

28. The fire started around a burn barrel some distance from the home..

Even the cognitively challenged don't put a burn barrel right up against the house..

[SteppingRazor]

34. You don't know how old the grandson was who started the fire.

You don't know how far the burn site was from the home.

You don't know how quickly the fire spread.

You don't know if the pets were in the part of the house that first caught fire, or whether the fire separated them from their people and trapped them.

You don't know if any attempts were even made by the Cranicks to save the pets.

And yet, despite all these variables, you insist on kicking these people when they're down. I dunno. I just think we should have more sympathy than that.

[seabeyond]

35. we do know that it took quite a while to get to house, owner and reports establish that.

grandson alone playing with matches?

[SteppingRazor]

39. Sounds that way.

Every report I've read said that the grandson started the fire, with no mention of the son or Gene Cranick himself present. So, maybe not playing with matches, but possibly unsupervised. Again, that's a bad idea, but it's a far cry from that to the idea that they let their animals fry.

[seabeyond]

42. instead of making up a feel good story, they and duers accuse allowing FD to fry animals. i want to

know.

because IF there was opportunity, which i instinctively know there was.... he is scum bag, either for lying about animals for sympathy, or not saving animals.

[SteppingRazor]

43. OK, I just think I need more information before making such a pronouncement.

I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to make judgment calls based solely on instincts or feelings.

[seabeyond]

44. i am asking the questions. waiting for a reasonable answer. but then i am called uncompassionate

cause i dont readily acept this mans illogical tale.

[fasttense]

10. I'm confirming what SteppingRazor posted as fact.

I heard the homeowner on Countdown say 2 pet dogs and a family cat were burned alive in the house.

What reason would the owner have to lie? He knows his family would watch the show and point out any inconsistencies.

[TexasObserver]

2. a few cats and dogs

Consider them sacrifices to the Goddess Ayn Rand by her loyal followers.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. That's unfair and not at all my attitude.

[TexasObserver]

5. I wasn't implying it is. I'm mimicking the libertarian crowd.

I've altered the post to make its intent more easily understood.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Fair enough. Thanks!

I'm hypersensitive about this after having been (I think intentionally) misunderstood and then excoriated on this issue.

[seabeyond]

9. the fire start well outside of house. lots of time before reached house. why didnt owner get his

dogs out of house. he had plenty of time and then some.

[TexasObserver]

14. Your weak attempts to justify the Fire dept refusal are not bolstered by repetition.

[SidDithers]

18. +1...nt

Sid

[seabeyond]

21. then you explain, how a fire starts away from house, takes time to get there, those animals remained

in house to burn.

it is a simple question to the death of those animals.

[hfojvt]

40. One morning I woke up and smelled smoke in my hallway

Went upstairs and saw that nothing was burning. Turned on the radio and heard that a downtown building was on fire. A building that had burned in the 1960s (and been rebuilt). Thought this must be historical. If it was on fire now somebody would have told me since it is right across the alleyway from where I live in my store. Go around the block and see the fire is still kinda raging although the fire department is there fighting it. Go get my car and pack up some valuables just in case it spreads to my building in spite of the fire department's best efforts.

So, yeah, if he had time, which it seems he did, then why didn't he get his dogs out? (A cat is more problematic since you cannot whistle or call for most cats).

[seabeyond]

45. yup.

if it were a child..... and i see the same humainity with an animal as i see a person, would you wait for the fire dept as the fire "creeps" (per report) to house to get that child out.

no fuckin way.

and i agree. i have had dogs. easy enough. dont know much about cats. why i keep saying dogs.

[hfojvt]

47. I have even trained my dogs for storm emergencies

I goto the cabinet and grab some biscuits. They hear that and eagerly follow me into the basement.

[seabeyond]

20. it is not about the FD. it is about dead animals. what is weak about a fire starting well into

back yard and taking time to make it to the house. and the animals left in the house to die.

what is weak about that.

i have to wonder, why you wouldnt say... ya, why is that? too.

[fasttense]

15. Oh that Goddess Ayn Rand is a cruel and heartless Deity. n/t

[TexasObserver]

24. She demands first that one give up their soul.

[seabeyond]

6. i want to know too. fire out way in yard. took a while to get to house. owner could easily

get pets out fo house. why didnt they.

took a long time for fire to reach the house.

[fasttense]

23. Because the animals were probably very frightened

and couldn't be caught. Have you ever been around animals during a raging fire? You can't just call their names and they come running. They hide, they refuse to move, they wont run to safety.

I've been in barn fires, where we had to blind fold the animals to get them out. I suspect the animals were hiding in the place they felt safest. Unfortunately, it was a house that was on fire. Maybe if the fire had been gotten under control it wouldn't have killed the animals in their hiding places.

But we will never really know.

[seabeyond]

32. ah.. so with this, as the fire does reach the house, when the animals truly are frightened

opposed to before the fire got there and no fear in the animals.... you are wanting fire to go in and hunt down these frightened animals that elude owners and cannot be caught?

[seabeyond]

33. stutter

?

[rocktivity]

7. Here's what victim Gene Cranick told Keith Olbermann yesterday

CRANICK: Everything that we possessed was lost in the fire. Even three dogs and a cat that belonged to my grandchildren was lost in it. And they could have been saved if they had put water on it. But they didn‘t do it. That‘s just a loss.
link

I wonder if the firefighters would have bothered to save any humans that were trapped in the house.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Fumesucker]

11. The fire took considerable time to reach the house...

Why did the family not remove the pets before the fire got to the house?

[fasttense]

29. A fire doesn't have to be right on top of an animal to scare them.

Sometimes just the smell of smoke is enough to scare an animal into hiding.

If the fire took as long as some posters here describe, then it should have been an easy job for the homeowner to put it out.

[seabeyond]

12. why didnt the owners get the animals out of house. why did they wait for fire to reach house

and burn and expect FD to get animals. took lots of time to make it from yard... to shed.... to house to create this fire that killed the animals.

logic is not making sense of this story.

[SidDithers]

16. If a human was trapped in the house...

how would the FD even know that, unless they respond?

That whole situation is such a fucked up mess.

Sid

[Fumesucker]

22. They didn't respond..

They went to the neighbor's home when that property was endangered.

[hayu_lol]

36. Many of the reports say that the fire took...

TWO HOURS to reach the house. Maybe the dogs weren't licensed so the owner could turn them loose.

The neighbor had paid the fee...fire department was there to protect their client...not the free rider flake. This guy had another fire at another location 3 years ago. He was not a paying member then...but the fire dept.put that fire out...sent the guy a bill and it has not been paid to date.

[Ineeda]

37. According to the homeowner, yes.

And sorry, this is not a **narrow** answer. First of all, I believe the firefighters should have put this fire out and dealt with the legal/monetary issues later. I would be the humane thing to do. That being said, however, here are some facts: The homeowner is not poor and the house was insured. The homeowner did not pay his $75 fee. He claims to have forgotten but he was notified and reminded of this lapse and its consequences many times, both in writing and by other means. It would be interesting to know if he'd paid the fee in prior years, or not. I think that's relevant to the 'I just forgot' reason. Ultimately, the homeowner, despite his ability to pay, did not. The homeowner's other property (apparently occupied by his son) experienced a fire, and despite not paying the fee on that property either, the fire was extinguished. The cost levied for that fire has not been paid. According to the homeowner, this fire started some distance from the house, caused by trash-burning by the son (in unsafe conditions, obviously.) It stands to reason that there was time for the homeowner and/or the son to save any animals they claim were inside. I hope I'm wrong, but something smells fishy.

[Mimosa]

41. I'm the most bleeding heart liberal here. I say Cranick is a deadbeat.

Apparently he has the money and never paid the fee despite frequent notices. He gambled that a fire wouldn't strike his home.

[Ineeda]

46. I'm feeling this could turn out to be a 'balloon-boy' type of story.

Lots of sympathy, lots of lies. Truth will out.

[TreasonousBastard]

38. The only evidence appears to be Cranick's story, and he appears to be a lying sack...

so maybe there were, and maybe there weren't.

(I'm not sure I care any more.)

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Is it a fair assumption that we have only the man's story to suggest the death of pets is true?

No news sources have corroborated - or even repeated - the story of three dead pets?