Posted on 10/03/2010 5:28:40 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Gene and Paulette Cranick, of South Fulton, Tennessee, US, lost their home after officers were ordered by bosses not to extinguish it.
Fire fighters only arrived when the flames spread to the property of a neighbour, who had paid the fee. However, they continued to refuse to help the Cranicks.
Later the same day, the couple's 44-year-old son was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, after allegedly punching the local fire chief.
Jeff Vowell, the city manager of South Fulton, said: "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens." Mr Vowell explained that there was no county-wide fire service and it was too expensive for the city's officers to serve surrounding rural areas like the Cranicks' as well.
Rural residents can gain access to the service by paying the annual fee. But "if they choose not to," Mr Vowell said, "we can't make them".
Mr Cranick said: "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." His wife said the couple had offered to pay the fire fighters whatever was necessary for them to extinguish the flames, but the officers refused.
However they do not blame the officers themselves, she said. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault." The Mayor of South Fulton, David Crocker, told local reporters: "We're very sorry their house burned."
However he too stood by the subscription policy, arguing that offering a pay-as-you-go service would mean upfront costs could not be met.
About three hours after the fire began, Mr Cranick's son Timothy allegedly arrived at the South Fulton fire station.
It is alleged that when Mr Wilds came forward and asked if he could help, Mr Cranick punched him. "He just cold-cocked him," Mr Crocker
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I have seen house let burn to the ground because th epeople didn’t pay the volunteer fireman. Usually in the country
Very odd. I’ve never heard of a fire prevention “subscription” fee.
They lived in a rural area outside a city. They were not taxed by the city for services. The city offered to cover them for $75. They said No. Owner said: “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong.” They had a choice they said no.
It is give me I want it freeloader thinking.
I agree with you, these guys don’t sound like firefighters to me!
Money grubbing slugs, maybe. But in their defense, they were following orders. It’s a pretty lame defense.
We’re raised to believe that things like firefighting and policing and doctoring are higher callings of sorts. In order for them to deserve that status, they have to act like they deserve it.
And standing by watching a families home burn to the ground while you have the power to stop it don’t cut it, in any way, shape, or form.
Isn’t that how it worked in Boss Tweed’s NYC?
Yes, it is that hard to understand.
And they call Wall Street ‘greedy’.
Fee for ‘services rendered’ could have been an option, an expensive option, but much better than allowing someone’s home to burn to the ground.
It kind of reminds me of the mafia and protection money.
“Oh you didn’t pay the money, now how unfortunate, your house catches fire. We can’t put it out now. No, you can’t pay the fee now either. Too bad for you.”
It could be very easy to have a policy that says if a person who hasn’t paid the fee needs help, you can charge them double or triple what the fee normally is. If someone’s losing their house, they’ll pay it.
Welfare.
Unfortunately, the system breaks down if they put the fire out. As long as there are no people in the building I see no problem in letting it burn to the ground. Heck, maybe the fire department can get sued and the insurance company for the fire “dept” may not cover. There are lots of weird legal things here, but fundamentally, if you want cheap fire service if you live in the country then you have to participate in the system. If you want to be a lone ranger then tough noogies.
None of us put this fire out. Why should these guys have any greater obligation than we do?
It is very common in certain rural areas. All there is is a volunteer fire department and they usually exist on a shoestring budget. You pay an annual fee for protection. If you don’t pay the fee tough luck. They will come out to safe any lives but not the property.
I’d be glad to pay $75. Where I’m at, it is close to $400/yr - and we’re only 5 miles from the fire station! However, they won’t watch your house burn down...they will charge you $10,000 to put it out if you haven’t paid your subscription.
Did I mention I’m also paying $5000 in property taxes this year, and Vail AZ is trying to raise the tax rate this fall to pay MORE to the schools?
Wiki “Marcus Licinius Crassus”
Foreward into the past!
This is how fire insurance began in the Pennsylvania colony. You had to pay a subscription to the local fire company. After receiving payment, a special plaque was mounted on the building to indicate that it was paid up, and therefore to be defended against fire.
The more things change....
The government is a substitute for gangs running your life. If the gov doesn't then a gang will step in and fill the vacuum. Government needs to be strong enough to shut down gangs and weak enough to be less demanding than the gang would be on the citizen.
You got it. The homeowner thought he could save his $75 and get the fire protection for nothing. Life doesn’t work that way.
If I had been there, darn right this non-firefighter would have done anything he could to put out the fire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.