-
Putting on Ears
June 11, 2013 | 20 comments
-
My Grandfather, Aaron Homnick (1893-1969)
May 29, 2013 | 4 comments
-
That Is What We Do
May 14, 2013 | 108 comments
-
Shame Old Shame Old From Obama
April 19, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Cut Out the Chase
April 5, 2013 | 83 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Flaming Conservatives
What child in South Fulton, Tennessee, will want to become a fireman now?
It was always my dream to become a fireman when I grew up but sadly I had to abandon the ambition upon realizing I would never grow up. Fire is a hissing fiend imbedded in the warp of nature, ever threatening the cities men dare to build. This angry agent of carnage must be faced down by agents of courage. Extraordinary men and women step forward to hold the line against the encroaching enemy, fighting fire with fire in their hearts and what tools they can summon to hand.
Sometimes the day is not won without warriors falling in battle. Too often they are victims of “friendly fire,” paying for the folly of their peers who ignite in ignorance or keep combustible items in dangerous locales. Our firefighters are heroes who show mettle worth a thousand medals.
All this makes the current situation kind of sad, because the hook and ladder boys are on the hook in rural Tennessee. Folks are upset at the South Fulton Fire Department for standing by and watching a house burn down. The story in brief is this: there are several farmhouses outside the South Fulton city limits which are not within the purview of any city or county fire department. As a service, South Fulton will take responsibility for those properties if the owners pay an annual fee of $75.
A few days ago, the Cranick family called to say their house was beginning to burn. The neighbor called in as well. There was a difference, though: the neighbor was up to date with the fee but the Cranicks were behind, although they had paid in the past. The trucks went out to the area, standing by to protect the paying customer, but with nary a droplet of water to spare for the laggard. The house pretty much burned to the ground while the firemen held their water.
As a postscript to news reports on the story, they mention that the elder Cranick’s son was arrested for aggravated assault on the fire chief. Frankly, this strikes me as a rare case where the aggravation mitigates the assault. The fire department turned the arrear into an affront, and got everything all backwards.
A debate has begun raging among political theorists, all anxious to see this as a shibboleth for contemporary mores. Liberals are angry at the idea of letting people suffer as a consequence of their negligence. Conservatives are divided. Some folks enjoy scoffing at scofflaws and beating up on deadbeats. They won’t pray for the fate of people who don’t pay their freight. Others say that when life and property are being destroyed, morality compels intervention: the math can be sorted out in the aftermath.
In Jewish terms, any time a man is willing to work alongside you now to help himself, you have an obligation to help him deal with his current crisis. If it costs you time from work, or if the service you provide is one you sell for a living, or if you use materials on his behalf, you can bill him to recover that expense. The only exception to this rule is when the man lit the fire himself intentionally and then changes his mind.
It seems fairly clear to me that the American experience has led to the correct approach in the form of our system of emergency-room care. We accept people who have not bought insurance and offer them full treatment, then we send an invoice with the force of law. This should have been applied to the fire as well. The fire should have been extinguished and the homeowner charged for the investment of manpower, services and materials. In fact, this should be publicized in advance: you either pay $75 for the year or $500 an hour when the men have to make a house call.
This is where our fearless men with the triangle hats failed to figure all the angles. A neighbor approached them with an open checkbook and offered to pay the full price if only they sprayed the wealth. Instead they stood by. That is when the mind must rule; never mind the rules. This is not a case where there is some virtue in going by the book. There comes a time, my friends, as Ecclesiastes might have said, when you have to burn the book.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (145) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jay D. Homnick
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/08/flaming-conservatives
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Doorgunner| 10.8.10 @ 6:27AM
You cannot calculate honor in dollar amounts. To watch a man's dreams, memories, and labors perish in flame while you literally hold the means to stop the immolation in your hands is self-degradation of the basest sort.
Ned| 10.8.10 @ 12:25PM
confirms my opinion of firemen in general... just more hyper-thyroid a$$holes... whenever my profession has intersected with theirs the results have ALWAYS been offensive... for example (since I know you'll ask) we had an alarm at one of our 103 buildings - the firepukes showed up and proceeded to rip down several solid exterior doors trying to get into the building. All the doors they ripped down were access to equipment closets and deadends, not building access... the building access door was ten feet to one side, with large glass windows, where you could SEE down the hall they wanted into... afterwards the fire-pukes stood around bragging how they can tear up anyone's property with impunity, and how quickly they can trash a door with their axes... too bad for you if its usually the wrong door.
Ned| 10.8.10 @ 1:01PM
...or smashing out a door in another building because it was 200 feet to were the guy with the key was and they were too damned arrogant to walk over there, or even yell at him to come and unlock it... all to silence a false alarm...
Wes| 10.8.10 @ 1:34PM
Ned, it sounds like you had a bad experience with one department. Maybe however, you are one of the many ungrateful idiots we run into often. I am a captain of a fire department. One day we had a working fire in a quadplex. While we were trying to gain entry with as little damage as possible, we received word that an elderly female may be inside. I immediately broke the sliding glass door into a million pieces with an axe. It turned out that she was not home. We extinguished the fire, saving the apartment, as well as four other families belongings. The owner showed up, nevermind we saved his investment, all he could do was complain that we broke his sliding glass door.
Ned| 10.8.10 @ 1:54PM
not ungrateful at all - I just don't care for arrogant a$$holes, no matter what color uniform they wear, or how much self-justification they lavish on themselves...
Stammon| 10.8.10 @ 4:48PM
OK, now you shut up. Did you file a fire plan with the local? Did they have the info they needed to combat your fire?
If you did file an up to date plan, then I apologize, if not, you are just another selfish asshole.
BH| 10.8.10 @ 2:13PM
"extraordinary men & WOMEN" Come on, that's PC I thought this was a conservative site ! Women are quotaed in, there is nothing extraordinary about the lower standards applied to them.
Rev. Jesse Jackson| 10.9.10 @ 12:42AM
As they say in the movie, "No Country For Old Men", "It's the tide, the dismal tide. It's not the one thing." I love our firemen. Several of my friends are firemen. The New York firemen are possibly the greatest heroes this country as seen. However, these "letter of the law" pricks remind me of the gutless wonders that will stand by while a woman is being assaulted and do nothing.
Robbins Mitchell| 10.8.10 @ 6:30AM
Well,I grew up about an hour east of there in Paris,TN...Henry County...and I can assure you that nobody I know there would ever permit that to happen....those firepricks ALL ought to be bitch slapped into next week....and I'm somewhere to the right of Cardinal Richelieu
kevinsoberg| 10.8.10 @ 6:41AM
Sorry, I disagree, respectfully.
The moral hazard was established in advance with the "no pay, no play" rule.
If the governing board wants to change the rules, it should do so in a thoughtful manner. To do so in mid-situation is not thoughtful.
Additionally, the fire department has its own liability issues with which to contend. If a firefighter were hurt or killed while fighting an unauthorized fire, then it could financially endanger the entire department and/or the fire captain, personally.
Beer for my Horses| 10.8.10 @ 7:32AM
Oh, of course! We haven't heard from the tort lawyers yet. No worries, they will sort this out and tell us what should have been done.
Harry the Horrible| 10.8.10 @ 8:41AM
I have say that I think the Fire Dept. chose poorly and forfeited a great deal of good will.
IMHO, they should have saved the house, then slapped a lien on it for the amount of the up-front service. I believe this runs about $10K.
PolishKnight| 10.8.10 @ 10:32AM
This situation is a good allegory for the conservative/liberal dichotomy. Liberals advocate rescuing people no matter how irresponsible they are ultimately making a virtue of irresponsibility while conservatives advocate literally letting a house burn down to make a point.
Both viewpoints have their merits but until conservatives address the shortcomings of theirs, they leave a wide hole open for liberals to push through other ugly aspects of their destructive agenda which includes, in the end, taking away the home from a politically unpopular and labeled "privileged" person to score points with another (but people don't see that's where the road is leading. But it always does.)
In this case, Harry the Horrible's suggestion helps push people right in to the loving arms of the Stalinists. $10K for the up-front service? Really? I call BS. This is like the healthcare scam where people are charged $10 per aspirin "up-front". The hospitals in that case are padding their bills to make up for expenses elsewhere or even to cut a profit. It's an abuse of the term "up-front" which means immediate expenses. The up-front costs for an aspirin is about 20 cents. The up-front costs for a fireengine to get out to a site, daily insurance costs, and staffing probably are about $2K.
GB| 10.8.10 @ 1:26PM
$75.00 a year for protection for a multi thaousand dollar property? Sounds like a good deal to me. I wonder if the property owner has a cell phone, cable TV, buys beer or liquor? Do you think he spends $75.00 a year on these items? He probably said my house will never catch fire I'll save $75.00. Penny wise and pound foolish.
Say what you want about the fire department the property owner knew this in advance and made a choice.
Harry the Horrible| 10.8.10 @ 2:12PM
They can pay $75 for 100% coverage for the entire year. Or they can pay $10K for each time the FD responds to their call.
This deal works for tech support. What is so hard about that?
Bob Campbell | 10.12.10 @ 5:51AM
With all due respect, I get the impression just because we are conservative we are not capable of doing the right thing. I don't approve of freeloaders but were I come from "common sense" takes front row. The fire department should have skipped the politics, done their job, and worked out the money details after the fact. A conservative would charge the guy time and material for not paying. A liberal would hand him the money and then some. Of course the liberal would use other peoples money to pay the bill.
Doctor_X| 10.8.10 @ 7:01AM
My dad was a volunteer firefighter and chief of the local V.F.D after he left the Army where he was a professional fire-rescue Captain on an airport crash crew. The local V.F.D. was supported by a small tax that was added to the annual property tax paid by all homeowners. The V.F.D. did ask on an annual basis for voluntary additional contributions from homeowners and businesses but it was far from mandatory! I cannot imagine my father or anyone in his V.F.D. refusing to fight a fire because someone didn’t pay their property tax or make an additional donation. The only time my father would pull his men and women back is when the risk to their safety was too great and the best course of action was to let the building burn in a controlled manner.
I have a friend who is a professional firefighter and I have the upmost respect for him and I couldn’t imagine him ever standing by and doing nothing. I just can’t understand how this happened! It is a very sad time that we live in!
Darin| 10.8.10 @ 7:10AM
My understanding is that there was a levy previously on the ballot to fund the fire department. It was defeated, so the "pay to play" idea was implemented.
Freedom includes the requirement to take responsibility for your actions. Taxpayers voted not to fund the fire department, and since the service was important, you were given the option to sign up and pay your "subscription" cost. Liberty can be painful, but the alternative is giving local governments the right to force you to pay for things you as a community have decided you don't want to pay for.
Kevinsoberg makes a good point about liability. If the fire department were responding to a "non-paying" customer and a fireman was hurt, their insurance companies would have legitimate grounds to refuse payment as it's a clear case of the fireman in question engaging in a personal (not job-related) risk. Yes, this sounds cold and callous, but from a legal standpoint it is likely correct. Good samaritan laws protect you from lawsuits when you try to help. But such laws are for individuals, not organizations. And since the fireman is only there because they are part of the fire department, such laws may be considered irrelevant.
Nick| 10.8.10 @ 7:19AM
They did what they had to do!
Insurance. If you do not pay the premium your coverage lapses. If retroactive coverage is available who would pay before disaster strikes? Only a fool! It is the tragedy of the commons.
Bob K.| 10.8.10 @ 8:18AM
As I understand it this was the municipality of South Fulton's Fire Department and it was selling what appears to be insurance or "protection," if you will, to people outside South Fulton's municipal boundaries.
Governments should not be in the insurance or "protection" business. It raises too many questions about questionable practices when incidents like this occur.
The fire department should properly have responded to the fire here, as any honorable fire department would have, and the municipality of South Fulton should have billed the municipality where the victims lived for it's services.
Doug| 10.8.10 @ 5:41PM
I can see the legal squabble when the bill arrives to put out the fire for the non-subscriber: "You want $10K to put out a fire! That's outrageous! It's like paying $20 for an aspirin in a hospital. I won't pay!" It goes to court and is resolved two decades later. The homeowner has to pay $200, while the suing city pays $250K in legal fees. In the meantime, no one pays his $75 annual subscription because a no-pay precedent has been set. The volunteer fire department folds due to lack of subscription payments. Hilarity ensues.
Bob K.| 10.9.10 @ 9:57AM
If you click on the link in the 3rd paragraph of this article you will see that this was not a volunteer Fire Department. It was run and supervised by the County.
If you follow the links therein you will see how very unpopular the 1/2 baked libertarian ideas espoused by the so-called conservatives posting their comments here are with the general public.
Since this incident the County has agreed to extend coverage to everybody. They figure that it will increase overall property taxes by 13 CENTS a year!
The libertarian boobs who think that our Great Nation can be run on a fee basis should not be linked to the Conservative Movement. They are no better than the liberal clowns who worship President Obama and who think that the Government is the answer to all of our problems.
Petronius| 10.8.10 @ 7:40AM
The Roobs are showing their true colors again. We are back to those 4 words that dominate our polity,
"I don't like it." For "it", substitute "him".
Mr. Cranick's house was let to burn because "he" is not one of "them".
Anybody will make exceptions for those who are popular. What did the powers that be in South Fulton really have against this guy?
M| 10.8.10 @ 7:49AM
Sorry, this isn't a conservative article. It isn't a complete article at all. Rather, it is the first half of a stock lefty article, where the story in question (whether true or allegorical) becomes a metaphor for how some victim group suffers for the want of some good or service owned (because earned) by the meanies around them--in-state tuition for illegal aliens, etc. GMAFB.
Melvin| 10.8.10 @ 7:51AM
There is validity to both sides of this argument. But, a fire department watching a man's house burn to the ground over $75.00 just doesn't sit well.
Have we as a society become so callous, and our lives centered around the God Almighty Dollar, that we would allow a neighbors house to go up in flames?
Even my neighbor of whom I loath and can't stand, if his house or yard caught on fire and I observed him having a hard time, I would put my personal feelings aside and help in anyway I could, by at least dragging my garden house over to help out with a yard fire.
Some of mentioned about insurance companies don't respond when a person's insurance lapses. Yes, this is fine well and good, but our local fire departments are not insurance companies, many of them are part of our communities and are our neighbors.
I dunno, just seems at times we as a society are just getting to damn callous to each other. For crying out loud just standing there watching a man and his family whole life going up in flames over a measly damn $75.00.
edo| 10.8.10 @ 5:25PM
You said it!
1FreeMan| 10.8.10 @ 5:30PM
Seems to me that helping your fellow man, no matter the "pay" in in is what sets us apart from the barbarians. "Pay me and I'll help" is abhorrant and disgusting. Assaulting the firechief would be the lesser of what would fill my mind. ...and what if a person were trapped in the fire? Would these laggarts,these lousy excuses for men of this firehouse, have stood by and watched them die? Time to dismantle the volunteers firehouse and set up a different system.
QUESTION: If you didn't pay your taxes should I, as a soldier, just let your freedom lapse and allow terrorists to threaten your family? Sorry, I have more honor than that. Firemen, blah!! Greedy cowards, more likely!
Here's what you do: Send these "firemen" to go talk to Engine 54, Ladder 4 and Battalion 9 New York, NY. ... if you can find them. HINT: They all DIED trying to save lives on 9/11. ALL OF THEM ARE DEAD, they gave everything to serve.
You guys getting any of this?
Chalkdust| 10.8.10 @ 7:58AM
The definition of a tragedy is when two rights collide.
Shamus| 10.8.10 @ 8:00AM
In the old days fire protection was provided by the company that issued insurance. If government fails to do anything for citizens, perhaps we'll go back to that model.
Claypoole| 10.10.10 @ 8:11AM
Yes, Shamus, and every house that was insured had a firemark mounted on an outside wall. These firemarks were, of course, always metal, often castiron, and depicted the logo of the insurance company. Some of the insurers were the firefighting departments themselves. These firemarks are quite desirable as antiques, but if you're interested, watch out--many of them have been reproduced.
Lawrence of Lutz| 10.8.10 @ 8:08AM
When one person doesn't pay and the fire is put out, evently enough people won't pay. Where does the fire service get the funds to operate the equipment? I suppose when you have a fire, you'll have to provide the fuel for the truck before they can respond. Nothing is free except when you're a liberal.
Alice Moore| 10.8.10 @ 8:50AM
You make some good points, Lawrence. However, like one poster had said; this Fire Dept. should have put out the flames and then sent an invoice with the force of law behind it.
In Chesterfield County, I don't know if it was public or private, there was a program that if you paid $100 per year, your ambulance ride to an emergency room was paid for by this. If there was an injured person needing their services, but, had not enrolled, they would get the services with the full fee tacked on to the legal invoice. This is how this incident should have been handled by the VFD in Fulton.
As it is this event will be used by Liberals to show the drawbacks of privatized of government services.
Vern Crisler| 10.8.10 @ 12:58PM
I disagree. We live in a society where no one wants to take responsibility. Here is a man who did not pay his bill. Utility companies have no difficulty at all in cutting you off if you don't pay. That's why people do everything they can to pay their bills.
The fire department is no different. If people refuse to pay for their services, then they get none. End of story. I bet from now on, everyone around that town will pay their bill.
It's a lot like illegals coming to this country and getting access to our social welfare system. They don't pay anything but get the benefits that rightly belong only to those who do pay.
This issue will tell you whether you're really a conservative or not, or just a cautious liberal.
Arnold Ahlert| 10.8.10 @ 8:11AM
Anyone who thinks it's OK to let a man's house burn to the ground for any reason--especially those who cite "liability" concerns--are beyond reach.
It's called common decency--which is apparently far less common than I imagined.
juandos| 10.8.10 @ 8:56AM
"It's called common decency--which is apparently far less common than I imagined"...
Apparently 'Common Sense' is even rarer than common decency...
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 10.9.10 @ 2:05PM
Sometimes principle demands one do the right thing, even if that entails some sort of potential liability risk.
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 8:41AM
You put out the fire, then attach a mechanics lien on the home for the total cost to be paid when the Homeowners Insurance compensates for the loss. If the person is a total freakin deadbeat & has also not paid the HO premium, then it's just another free ride in entitlement land. The people who play by the rules & bust their ass to do the right thing get screwed again paying for the slackers. Anyone who refuses to scrape up $75 for the fee & elects to gamble takes their chances. I have little sympathy for these people, although I still would put it out & bust my butt to help if I was on scene because it is the right thing to do.
JENNIFER ZORDAN| 10.9.10 @ 8:42AM
It seems that everybody is losing touch with what the wife said. They didn't REFUSE to pay the $75. They forgot about it. Haven't you ever forgotten to do something important? I have. I have had my water shut off because I misplaced my bill and didn't pay it, I have brought my kids to the bus stop on no-school holidays... we all do stupid $hit sometimes. They paid the bill in the past. I agree that their negligence should have cost them the full amount of the fire call; not their entire life's work. It cost them 3 dogs and a cat. What if there were toddlers in there? Would it have cost them that, too? Conservatism is about personal responsibility, but we are also about community-based help. The neighbor, obviously a good conservative, offered to write a check for the full amount to save the family's house. That was private charity, neighbor helping neighbor, that good conservatives advocate for. The Big Government saying no was the finest form of Big Brother Liberalism not allowing private charity to get in the way of government handout outs and take aways.
Please don't call yourself a conservative and then say this family got what was coming to them. It demeans what it means to be conservative, and makes us all look like what the Libtards call us.
Cheeseburger in Paradise| 10.8.10 @ 8:44AM
Arnold-anyone who thinks it's OK to allow your neighbors to foot the bill and try to piggyback off their services is a disgrace. You are responsible for the security and safety of your dwelling, not the gov't. If it costs 75.00 to make sure your house won't burn down you pay it. I just moved back to Florida, I have selected a homesite very distant from any flooding area, but I still have flood insurance. I'm also prepared for just about any emergency/continingency that could happen. It is a man's duty to secure his property. I don't live in a world of fairy tales and unicorns, sometimes bad things happen to good people, and a man has to be ready. This guy took a risk and he paid the consequences
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 8:45AM
What if a fireman had been killed fighting that fire?
Would the "math be settled in the aftermath" then?
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 9:00AM
Another thing: By refusing to pay the fee, is the Homeowner not basically displaying his middle finger to the firefighter who risks his life to protect the life & property of the Homeowner. He is telling the firefighter, in effect, "FU, I aint payin for you to feed your family," "but if it goes bad for me, you had better step up anyway." Then, when it does go bad & the firefighter responds accordingly, he gets punched in the face by the Homeowner & called cruel by the populace. The deadbeat Homeowner gets all the sympathy, pats on the back & probably a new doublewide from habitat for humanity. The more I think about it, screw it, let it burn, so long as no people or pets at risk.
Jedi Clampett| 10.8.10 @ 9:01AM
I live in an area where fire protection is by membership. I don't have to worry about this situation happening to me because I PAY THE FEE! How many insurance companies pay claims to people who don't buy insurance? There is no
"gray area" here. Man up!
Radioman777| 10.8.10 @ 1:00PM
Standing by while someone else's property is destroyed is simply unacceptable, regardless of whether there is a fee involved or not. What if someone had been trapped inside (luckily, there wasn't)? Would it still be okay to stand and watch while someone perished in the blaze? Do they have the same policy for automobile accidents or heart attacks? You, and those that think like you, are ignorant, inhuman sons of bitches.
Harry the Horrible| 10.8.10 @ 2:17PM
Its not in this article, but in other article where the policy is explained, they stated that they would rescue individuals in danger.
Radioman777| 10.8.10 @ 6:06PM
I could not stand by while someone else's house burned down, whether they paid a fee or not. That someone else could do that is beyond my comprehension. It strikes me as callous beyond belief. Believe me, these same individuals who stood by while the guy's house burned wouldn't readily render aid to anyone whose life was in danger either, not unless they saw some reward in it.
Sam Vaughn| 10.8.10 @ 9:05AM
There may be more to this than meets the eye, local politics, locals scores to settle, etc. I'd be curious to see some good reporting as a follow-up. The lesson may be that when politicians are allowed to decide the fate of their constituents, the winners and losers if you will government loses legitimacy.
Take it to the absolute and consider now that the government, through healthcare waivers, now get's to decide who the winners and losers are in life. Ask McDonald's how much it's going to cost them to have gotten their healthcare waiver? Who pay's the price, so long Wendy's............
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.8.10 @ 9:12AM
If you don't care enough to pay a $75 fee, then you got what you deserved.
Curly Smith| 10.8.10 @ 9:16AM
Based on the article and comments I can safely predict that ObamaCare will not be repealed and that there is zero chance that the Country will be returned to its Constitutional basis.
The case boils down to a simple question - are citizens responsible for their actions? A number of folks here say "No, society is responsible for the actions of each individual". This case is no different than allowing people to buy homeowners insurance when their house is on fire, health insurance while they're having a heart attack, or auto insurance after they're wrecked their car.
There's an old saying that "Hard cases makes bad law" because the circumstances cause the decisions to be made on emotional rather than a rational, logical basis. Some argue that "well, it was only $75, they should have waived the fee". If it had be $1000, would have it be OK to let the house burn? Mr. Cranick took a chance. He either thought the risk of fire to be so low that the $75 fee was excessive or that they'd put the fire out regardless of whether he paid or not. He was wrong.
You either believe in personal responsibility or you don't. Mr. Cranick exemplifies those who don't - their lives end up in ashes. Mr. Cranick can serve as an example of what happens when you don't follow the rules - it's up to you to decide what type of example he should be. Is he an example that leads to more government that continually bails out the irresponsible and protects them from the consequences of their idiotic behavior, or does he demonstrate why it's important to follow the rules of responsible society?
Sam Vaughn| 10.8.10 @ 9:24AM
I have to agree. Too many people don't man up to their own decisions..............
PolishKnight| 10.8.10 @ 12:58PM
Curly Smith, you have a point. This is an issue that demonstrates why liberalism is so popular with the masses precisely because conservatives appear so simplistic and heartless. Rather than come up with a fair solution, give the poor person who makes a mistake the middle finger or allow robber barons to bill him to the max under duress.
There is a happy medium here. Find one or they will find one for you.
KyMouse| 10.8.10 @ 9:41AM
Refuse to help someone whose house is burning? The Talmud says that what is hateful to oneself, one should not do to others.
Messiah Jesus put it in positive terms, in Matthew 7:12 -- "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Neighbors should help neighbors. When my neighbors needed to use my hose to put out a small fire in their yard, I was happy to let them. I didn't figure up how much the water cost, or ponder the insurance angle. They needed water, so I was glad to let them have some of mine.
"But he, willing to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'" The answer is in Luke 10:29-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan.
"Which, now, of these three, do you think was neighbor to him who fell among thieves?"
"And the man answered, 'He who showed mercy on him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'"
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 10:11AM
KyMouse, As a neighbor, absolutely you would & should help. The firefighters in question WOULD NOT EXIST were it not but for the fees paid & are in no way obligated to act here.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 10:14AM
"As you sow, so shall ye reap."
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 10:42AM
Spare me. You "sow" by displaying your middle finger to the firefighter & his quest to earn a living & feed his family by telling him, in effect, to stick his wage where the sun don't shine. You "reap" the cosequence of your action when he does not respond.
Bob K.| 10.8.10 @ 1:30PM
The fire fighters here were paid by the neighboring municipality of South Fulton from taxes paid by the citizens of South Fulton. The fees charged to the farmers in the neighboring municipality should be going to South Fulton, not to the fire department. If the city fathers ordered their fire department not to take action then they are at fault. The populace surrounding South Fulton should boycott the town until this situation is resolved.
Have the city fathers ordered their fire department not to take action even if there are people trapped in a fire?
Think about it!
Is the price of a life in the suburbs of South Fulton valued at $75.00 by the Politicians who run South Fulton?
Harry the Horrible | 10.8.10 @ 2:19PM
That is a "straw man" argument. It is stated in other articles that the FD would rescue people threatened by the fire.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 9:56AM
The house was burning because this man let his teenaged son burn garbage unsupervised close to the domicile.
This wasn't an act of nature.
Caitlin| 10.8.10 @ 10:26AM
Okay. But had he been paid up, would they have refused to help on those grounds?
Besides, I keep hearing that Cranick wanted to pay then and so did a neighbor.
That fire dept. will reap all right.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 10:32AM
1. It was outside their jurisdiction.
2. They were only there to protect a neighbor inside their jurisdiction.
3. There was a nonzero chance of a firefighter getting injured/killed fighting this fire outside their jurisdiction.
4. There were no other lives at stake.
So no, they weren't obligated to do anything.
Why didn't the homeowner form a bucket brigade instead of threatening the firefighters?
And why should his property---which he didn't even value at $75 prior to this---outweigh the lives of the firefighters?
Firefighters under less obligation, btw, than the homeowner or his neighbors, whom you and others let off the hook entirely.
caitlin| 10.8.10 @ 10:47AM
Not letting the guy off the hook. They could charge him the $75.00 plus any other fees they deem appropriate. Small claims court is a possible solution or garnishing his property tax or wages.
Firefighters know the risk they take. They aren't forced.
But if he wanted to pay then and a neighbor did as well, why didn't they take it?
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 10:53AM
Because it isn't about the money. It wasn't their jurisdiction.
Perhaps you'd feel differently were it your rear end on the line.
You'd certainly value it more than $75.
Em in York| 10.8.10 @ 10:15AM
I only noticed a few posters mentioning the neighbor who offered to pay. Plus, the recorded local news that Glen Beck played on his radio show had the man offering to pay the fee on the spot. Why should the FD care where the money came from? All those issues about liability would be moot. Also, how do any of us know what the family's economic situation is. We have a volunteer pay for our FD and there have been several times in the past 20 years that I've had to put that "bill" on the bottom of the pile. I paid it eventually but never had to worry about a situation like this. I agree with the posters who say, bill them later.
Also, and I'm ignorant of this, but a coworker mentioned something about local fire companies across the country being recipients of govt. money in the wake of 9-11. Does anybody know about this?
One more thing. Glen Beck and his sidekick (especially) were absolutely horrible about the way they smeared this man in the wake of such a tradgedy. I've lost respect for Beck in the light of that broadcast.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 10:38AM
"Plus, the recorded local news that Glen Beck played on his radio show had the man offering to pay the fee on the spot. Why should the FD care where the money came from? All those issues about liability would be moot."
1. They wouldn't be moot at all. There is usually a time period of coverage and rules around processing it.
2. Letting people pay when their house is on fire is exactly like letting people pay for health insurance only when they come down with life-threatening illness: it creates the incentive for EVERYONE to do this. Then how do you pay for the system during the long stretches between fires?
Bottom line is this area was NOT under their jurisdiction. They allowed for some exceptions to be made based on homeowners' willingness to pay a nominal fee for the service. $75 obviously doesn't even cover the gas and water for responding.
There is one person--and one person only---at fault for this: the homeowner. He not only didn't pay the fee, but he let his son burn garbage near his home unsupervised. That's what caused this fire.
If you feel badly about it, by all means send the man some money so they can rebuild.
John Navratil| 10.8.10 @ 11:40AM
Teflon93,
My reading of the story was not the he was willing to pay the $75, but the entire cost of the fire fight, yet the firefighters refused.
Additionally, no one disputes that the owner hadn't paid the $75, but apparently he had in the past. That mitigates to some degree the moral hazard argument.
The time to sort all of the niceties out is AFTER the emergency has passed, not during. A firefighter who puts political and financial issues ahead of the task at hand is more a politician than a firefighter, don't you think? I'd hate to have the police responding to an emergency looking to see if the property taxes were current.
Finally, I've got two kids, and four cars which are, for reasons which escape me, required to be on two policies. Got a bill for one policy and my wife paid it to the other. My daughter's insurance was cancelled and we didn't find out by letter until after she got a ticket for a burned out headlight. The accounting was sorted out and insurance was immediately reinstated, but not for the night in question. The court didn't press it, but it could have been really ugly. I've a bit more sympathy for human frailty than is being given this homeowner.
John Navratil| 10.8.10 @ 12:19PM
If as reported below, the $75 fee hadn't been paid in twenty years, I retract my point on human frailty and fall into the wilful conduct category. I stand by my other points, however.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 12:19PM
"Paid in the past" was 1990---that's 20 years ago.
He didn't lose his check in the mail.
Radioman777| 10.9.10 @ 9:37AM
I never had any respect for the drunken bastard.
Capes Crusader| 10.8.10 @ 10:31AM
From local TN TV source, a little more complicated than reported in the slobbering media. Actually have NOT paid fire fee since 1990. Tough to watch but where did all our cohort trumpeting personal resposibility go in comment section. There is such a thing as the object lesson and I will predict many unpaid fees are now being brought up to date and the UNPAID VOLUNTEER firemen risking their own lives may just be able to buy more and better equipment. Think about it!
Caped Crusader| 10.8.10 @ 10:39AM
Make that Caped Crusader
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 10:41AM
And since when is it conservative to value property over lives? Why should we ask firefighters in this case to risk life and limb for this man's property alone?
Aren't their lives worth more than $75?
The homeowner ought to be thanking God no one was killed.
Having been through Hurricane Opal myself, such things usually put the relative value of life and material possessions in proper perspective. Not so for this man, apparently.
Bob K.| 10.8.10 @ 1:38PM
What did they go out there for if not to protect lives?
Should they have refused to take action even if people were trapped in the fire? Do their orders also include that possibility?
Let them die because they didn't pay $75.00 but make sure the neighboring property doesn't catch fire because they paid $75.00.
Sounds like a Criminal Protection Racket if you ask me!
Caped Crusader| 10.8.10 @ 10:45AM
ALSO, due to the extremely dry conditions there is a burn ban in effect in the entire area. Totally irresponsible people that would burn down their house and all in area if fire got out of control.
caitlin| 10.8.10 @ 10:51AM
There was a burn ban in effect and the fire dept. let a whole house burn?
Like I said before, if Cranick had been paid up, should the dept. have refused to help if they knew how the fire started?
Tim| 10.8.10 @ 10:49AM
I don't agree with the decision not to put out the fire. On the otheer hand I'd bet a lot of delinquent fees were paid the next day.
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 11:09AM
Tim, Is one man "entitled" to another man's labor, on demand, at no cost??
Tim| 10.8.10 @ 11:14AM
No, I'm on the hook as a Christian-not a socialist. It's what I would have done-but you're right it would set up the free rider problem by demonstrating that the only time you have to pay is after the fire starts.
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 11:24AM
Yup. If I were this guy's neighbor, I would have done anything I could to help regardless of if I liked him or not but the firefighter is a different story.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 11:03AM
Here's an analogy for those who think fire service is an entitlement:
Mexican territory just across the border from a U.S. army base is invaded by a power with whom we are not at war. We have no treaty with Mexico obligating us to do anything. The mayor of the invaded town rings up the base and declares his intent to make the town part of the United States.
Is the Army commander under any obligation to help the Mexican mayor repel the invasion?
Of course not. His job is to defend America and deploying resources in other territory when not specifically authorized by Congress to do so would result in his court martial.
And for good reason---his duty is to America.
Likewise, these firefighters' duty is to the town they protect and those outside of it who have paid to be within their jurisdiction.
They have an obligation to devote their resources to those within their jurisdiction.
David| 10.9.10 @ 9:32AM
Good point. Take health care. If health care is a human right, shouldn't the United States be providing free health care to all the world's inhabitants? Why should health care be given to those within our borders and not those in a Mexican town two miles from out borders?
At some point, we all agree that we can say we will help him but not him. Where that line is drawn is a matter of opinion. But all on one side of this invisible line are charitable and the others are ogres. And, it is possible to be both charitable and an ogre at the same time given two opinions on where to draw the line.
Bruce Thompson| 10.8.10 @ 11:16AM
This comment from an oral history seems relevant
"Q: Do you remember the first fire you fought?
CL: I don't remember the first one. I remember the first big one was Plandome Country Club.
I got in in November, and it was the--about two or three days before Christmas, around
the 22nd of December that year, was Plandome Country Club. It wasn't in our district,
but we went "mutual aid," and actually--we actually went over there, fought the fire,
because they don't have--got the trucks, and it was about three in the afternoon, and they
didn't have all their members home from the City yet. So, we fought that fire, and that
was--that was a big--we were there for about eight hours. And it kind of burned down
pretty good."
"Mutual Aid" is a core value of volunteer firefighters. They don't get paid for mutual aid, they do it for the honor of doing the right thing.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 11:21AM
"Mutual aid" involves two or more jurisdictions, not unincorporated areas outside of any jurisdiction, as this man's home was.
The whole point is there are fires too big for one jurisdiction's complement of firefighters. It makes sense to help other jurisdictions in this case because there is some expectation your own will have a fire too big for you to fight yourself.
That is simply not the case with unincorporated areas outside of any jurisdiction.
Houston Rao| 10.8.10 @ 11:18AM
It seems like the heartless fire department is being blamed for the lack of individual morality and courage in this case. While the fire department has the obligation to marshal its resources for its paying customers, there was nothing to stop people, as individuals, from helping to put out the fire. I may not respect someone for not paying their freight, but I would not stand around watching their house burn.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 11:22AM
Fight it with WHAT? The trucks and equipment don't belong to them but to their town. Moreover, it was needed to protect the neighboring property. Sparks do fly, you know.
Good to know you wouldn't stand around. Why didn't the homeowner form a bucket brigade with his neighbors?
Fipper| 10.8.10 @ 11:54AM
The neighbors did try to put it out with their garden hoses, it wasn't enough.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 12:20PM
Fair enough; I hadn't seen that in the coverage.
Bob K.| 10.8.10 @ 1:43PM
Once again. What should they have done if there were people trapped in that fire? Nothing; because they had not paid $75.00? Were they there just to protect the neighbors property because he paid $75.00.
Life must be cheap there!
Teflon93| 10.9.10 @ 12:09AM
Are the firefighters' lives worth nothing, Bob?
Bob K.| 10.9.10 @ 10:20AM
YOU are the one measuring the value of life here. It is up to YOU put these values on their respective lives! Then YOU weigh the balances between the firemen and any potential victim and see what YOU come up with. OK?
Then, after you have completed your analysis, go one step further and tell us when it is permissible for Firemen to risk their lives to save a life and when it is not.
Thomas| 10.8.10 @ 11:22AM
This whole argument is stupid. The county does not provide fire protection for its residents. Town residents pay for fire protection in through their taxes. The resident living outside the town has an option of being included in the town;s fire protection plan if they pay a small fee. This is a courtesy from the town, as the town has no obligation to provide fire services outside its corporate limits and fighting fires is dangerous and exposes the town to significant liability for injuries sustained in that activity.
Now, the service that the town offers to non-residents residing outside the corporate limits is akin to an insurance policy. Residents outside the town can purchase a policy that will provide certain services for a fee. Just like any other insurance policy. The consumer then has the choice of purchasing that insurance of not, as they see fit. These people chose not to purchase the fire insurance and, therefor, an not entitled to the service. What is so hard to understand?
If you don't choose to purchase windstorm insurance and you house is damaged by hurricane or tornado, should your neighbor's insurance company be forced to cover your loss?
And, what insurance company is required to write a policy on property after or during a covered act? You have to buy the coverage before the damage occurs, not after. If you are advocating that a company can be forced to write coverage for an incident that is underway or has already occurred, then you must be a big supporter of Obamacare.
This is a simple insurance case and, if a government entity [the town] was not involved, we would not even be having this discussion.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 11:31AM
It's funny how people opposed to Obamacare are letting the homeowner off the hook here and demanding a government bailout.
The principle is the same: you have no right to be part of a system you didn't follow the rules to join. And if those who belong and those who do not belong get the same benefits in the same priority, what incentive is there to pay to belong to the system?
C'mon----conservatives are supposed to understand economic incentives and not engage in such sentimental claptrap!
Bob K.| 10.8.10 @ 1:46PM
Does this reasoning apply if people are trapped in a house not "insured" by the neighboring town?
Teflon93| 10.9.10 @ 12:11AM
No, although the firefighters wouldn't have been on scene at all had a covered neighbor not called them.
And the obligation is on the neighbors as well---we have a human obligation to save each other when we can. Moot point in this case; no human lives were at stake beyond the firefighters had they gone in.
You seem to value property over the firefighters' lives, Bob.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 11:33AM
Repeat after me, brothers and sisters:
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
John Navratil| 10.8.10 @ 11:49AM
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch!
... but there is credit.
This is a bit like the waitress delivering lunch to a patron who announced that he has no cash discarding the food rather than opting to have to patron leave his ID an return to pay the bill. That's what a property lien would do.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 12:21PM
No, this would be like that lunch counter having a sign saying "No service without cash" then letting the customer off the hook.
The policy would be useless from that moment forward, wouldn't it?
John Navratil| 10.8.10 @ 3:30PM
And the food is still lost, never to be paid for.
NYRight| 10.9.10 @ 12:41AM
No, for the analogy to be relevent, you would have to expect the waitress to risk her life to bring the lunch to the deadbeat. After all, the firemen would be risking their lives for stuff that was not worth $75 per year to it's owner to protect.
John Navratil| 10.9.10 @ 10:00AM
Did you miss the point where the firefighters were offered, not $75, but the entire cost of fighting the fire? What line of work are they in? Perhaps they should go into accounting.
2Anglico| 10.8.10 @ 11:47AM
"Tax the rich, feed the poor 'til there are no rich no more".
John Navratil| 10.8.10 @ 11:51AM
I'd love to change the world....
26 days.
John Navratil| 10.8.10 @ 11:53AM
I'm living in the past.
25 days.
Fipper| 10.8.10 @ 11:52AM
all of this comes down to this one question: what if it was your house?
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 12:03PM
Well there Flipper then I would have paid the freakin bill. & if I had not paid the bill, I certainly would have paid my Homeowners Insurance Bill & got me a new, fully furnished, doublewide.
Chief Mardel| 10.8.10 @ 11:56AM
I am the chief of a rural volunteer fire department and I would NEVER standby and let a house burn if I had the the means to safely fight the fire. Money is a constant challange for all fire departments especially rural volunteer departments. We beg, borrow and steal to get the money for equipment, maintenance, and training but to willingly allow someones home to burn because they failed to pay a subsription fee is a disgrace.
We fight fires outside our fire district often, we don't ask who is going to pay for the fuel, or who is going to do the maintenance afterward...we simply do our best to protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens.
Should the homeowners have paid the subscription...yes. Does the homeowner bare the untimate responsibility for protecting his property...yes. Did the homeowner act carelessly and irresponsibily...it seems so. In my view none of that changes my responsibility as a firefighter to fulfill the obligation and duty I volunteered to do.
As long as I am chief this department will continue to respond when called to anyone in need, be it a fire, automobile accident, medical emergency, or a cat in a tree.
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 12:22PM
Hi Chief, I respect everything you have stated. The bottom line is that if everyone acted like this particular homeowner & told you to basically take a hike & live without a paycheck, you aint a fireman no more there, pal. This guy is not entitled to demand your labor, at will, bearing no cost & shove the expense to the rest of responsible society. You are employed, specifically, by those who pay your costs either thru fees, taxes & donations. If you wish to volunteer your time, labor, & pay out of your own pocket for your equipment & run around & hose down fires for people who could care less if you have the $$ to buy your kids a cheeseburger, then have at it. You have no right or duty to spend the resources I have legitimately paid for to perpetuate & reward irresponsible behavior.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 12:28PM
Chief, educate us a bit here:
1. What would happen if one of your men were injured or killed on a fire outside of any jurisdiction, as in this case? Would the men generally be covered for medical care/life insurance as if they'd been on a fire within your jurisdiction? (Would this be "line of duty"?)
2. Would you get any heat for using the equipment to fight fires outside of your jurisdiction in a non-mutual assistance scenario?
Thanks for your service.
Bob K.| 10.8.10 @ 1:50PM
Educate us all here. Would you have let the place burn down if people were trapped in it? Whether you knew this or did not know it. Pretend you are the Fire Chief here. What would you do then?
Be glad
Bob K.| 10.8.10 @ 1:54PM
(continued)
Be glad you have a Fire Chief who is a professional and takes his job seriously, same as if you had a Chief of Police who did so when your wife or daughter or sister is getting raped! Whether or not you have paid your taxes or protection money as appears to be the case here.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 2:00PM
There weren't any people's lives at stake here but the firefighters, if they chose to fight the fire. Do their lives not matter to you?
If the homeowner had been trapped in the building of course there is a human obligation to make a reasonable effort to save his life. The neighbors have that same obligation, btw, not just the firefighters.
But do the firefighters have an obligation to lay down their lives to salvage more of his property? I don't think they do.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 10.9.10 @ 2:14PM
Well said, Chief.
Senor Mick| 10.8.10 @ 12:41PM
Gee, I hope my sister doesn't travel to another twon and gets raped in full view of the local cops who decide not to do anything because she doesn't happen to live there--and didn't pay the local taxes.
Steve A| 10.8.10 @ 12:49PM
Mick, I thought I had heard some idiotic analogies in my time but your's wins the blue ribbon. Congratulations.
Senor Mick| 10.8.10 @ 4:32PM
Touche, sir! Gracias for your razor-sharp skewing of my analogy--such powers of logic, dios mio!
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 10.9.10 @ 2:15PM
The analogy, while imprecise, is far from without value.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 12:51PM
Especially when you offer to pay them $75 to arrest the offenders.
PolishKnight| 10.8.10 @ 1:04PM
I'm amused at how this dark analogy is similar to the way that local police are more than happy to enforce traffic laws against out-of-towners in order to make money. Indeed, try to get a cop to find a stolen car and they'll laugh and say they have better things to do like write tickets against normal people because that's what gets them paid.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 1:10PM
It all comes down to jurisdiction.
Out-of-towners aren't pulled over in their own towns by out-of-town cops; they bring themselves within these ticket-issuing policemen.
In this case, the home was plainly outside the fire department's jurisdiction. They have no legal duty to respond; the question is really about moral obligation. I don't believe they have a moral obligation to risk their lives to protect someone's property outside of their jurisdiction, but others beg to differ.
PolishKnight| 10.9.10 @ 10:04AM
Teflon, did you ever see "Hostel?" It's an extreme example of what police could do with people who bring themselves inside their jurisdiction...
Fire District Vice President| 10.8.10 @ 12:58PM
PEOPLE PEOPLE… you must understand JURISDICTION to understand this case.
I support the decision of the fire department to let this damn numbskull’s house burn down! This fire department had no jurisdiction to be on this property, it was OUTSIDE the legal jurisdiction of their response area, and the owner of the property did not have a mutual aid agreement with that FD.
I live in California… what right do I have to call this SAME fire department that does not service my area, and bitch them out for not fighting my fire? My property is outside their district or response area. IN my case my house is thousands of miles outside their district… but what if it was only inches? LAW IS NOT MORALITY! Outside the district is outside the district. If you applied the “it’s only inches” argument, every citizen in the whole country can demand a response from this 1 fire department; because my house is only inches from my neighbors, who is only inches from that neighbor who is only inches from that districts boundary. Remember LAW IS NOT MORALITY!
This homeowner has fire insurance, right? That is exactly what fire insurance is for… and obviously the fire insurance company knows this is an ISO 9 rating area… in other words, the insurance company figured the house would be 100% lost if a fire occurred, and based it’s premium on that possibility.
People have a right to contract… and there are major negative ramifications if you opt out of a contract for that service… or any service. This begs the question… can I sue an insurance company that I NEVER had a policy with after x occurred to me, because I COULD have obtained a policy before X occurred? THEN demanding a price that was in effect before X actually occurred?
Does the FD have a right to sue the home owner for willfully building a house outside the city’s limits? This homeowner in FACT knowingly and willfully built a house outside the jurisdiction of the City and its Fire Department.
In the USA a government agency CANNOT attach a lien on property outside the jurisdiction of that agency for a service that was rendered on the property as though it was within the jurisdiction of that agency; this is called an unlawful lien. It could sue the person, but it cannot lien the property, the owner of the property can motion a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the property, and possibly even over the person… Because the guy and his house is… well, OUTSIDE the fire district, where the FD had no legal requirement or authority to go!
All mutual aid agreements are legal contracts that were put in place BEFORE a response occurs. Many mutual aid agreements have a repayment option in them between political jurisdictions for expenses rendered.
Fire District Vice President| 10.8.10 @ 1:39PM
As a follow up question to ponder… let’s say you lived in rural Illinois 9 miles from the Indiana Border. Can the state of Indiana place a lien on your house in Illinois because a fire truck from Indiana crossed a political boundary to fight a fire, where no authorization exist for the Indiana Department to proceed in such a manner? NO the State of Indiana is without jurisdiction inside IL to fight fire or to lien houses…where no mutual aid agreement pre-exists… and even if Indiana had prior authorization in a mutual aid agreement to fight fire, a lien on the damaged house cannot be made by Indiana or any agency or instrumentality of that state BECAUSE they are without jurisdiction inside of Illinois.
This same concept often applies within states between sub-political divisions… A city cannot usurp properly outside the city, a county cannot usurp property outside the county, a township cannot usurp property outside the township and a fire district cannot usurp property outside the fire district. They may have a agreement, but that does not give them “jurisdiction” For I cannot conspire with Indiana to fall under their jurisdiction when in FACT I live 9 miles within Illinois… Illinois HAS JURISDICTION in all cases whatsoever in regard to the questioned property regardless of any agreement to the contrary or any action that I as the home owner, or the State of Indiana take might mutually agree to take.
Final thought… It saddens me to see that so many people here have confused MORALITY as a basis to proceed under the law. Obama and his healthcare law are gonna gut you like dead fishes… As soon as you argue morality the law dies!
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 1:57PM
This is also the problem with the "bill me later" option some folks have posited. The homeowner isn't under the jurisdiction of the town the fire department supports so how would they get their money? Wouldn't he be able to say, "Sorry" and not be on the hook? After all, they left their jurisdiction; he never entered theirs.
They could hand him a $20,000 invoice and he could just tell them to go stuff it, couldn't he?
CJohnson| 10.8.10 @ 1:01PM
The fire originated from owners possibly illegal activity (owner burning trash?). If fire department personnel had lost or damaged apparatus, lost a life or caused harm they would be hung out to dry. Take this whole mess up with your lawyers, not the firemen. No person is compelled to risk their life (job) to save private or public property. Were a person in the building they would have acted to save life as per the fire fighter code of conduct. Amen to Firemen who recognize a fools errand.
Teflon93| 10.8.10 @ 1:27PM
Following the principle articulated above, I'm going to drop my children off at the exclusive private school up the road today. Sure, we're not enrolled, and we don't pay or anything, but they've gotta educate my kids, right?
Joe| 10.8.10 @ 1:54PM
This homeowner may yet find himself still homeless if his insurance company required him to pay the fee to have fire protection. What if that is in his policy? Should the insurance company then pay him for his loss? I don't think so.
Either we are going to have folks be responsible for their actions or not. He made a choice and he knew the potential outcomes. Additionally, what if there wasn't a neighbor close by? Would he have called these guys anyway expecting them to show up?
The firefighters would be at fault if a life was in danger, and most firefighters would do all they could to save a life. That is what they do and they are to be commended for it. To save this guys house is not the same thing.
Also, the Christian argument appears on the surface to be that one should do whatever to help. Really though, that example applies to a person suffering and the obligation to help relieve suffering.
Bottom line: The guy should have paid the $75. If he were really poor and truly couldn't afford it, I am sure there would have been a charity source or a church that would have paid it for him. He is at fault and the loss he incurs is do to his own choice.
Othewrwise, let's disband the Tea Party and all sign up for the New World Order Euro-Socialist Utopia the elites want to implement.
Joe| 10.8.10 @ 1:57PM
Correction: the loss he incurs is DUE to his own choice.
cats1cowboy| 10.8.10 @ 2:05PM
This is an example of justice at its best. You can choose which rules to obey but you cannot choose the consequenses.
UsualGuy| 10.8.10 @ 3:44PM
This situation displays some of the real problems that face our society. We have had so many decades of policy and education that tells us that we should reley on others to do the right thing and not ourselves. The fire dept was correct in how they handled the situation. For an annual $75 dollar fee the homeowner could have been covered. Think about this $75and he refused to pay. The previous posters, who stated that paying after the fact leads to others doing the same, are correct. I am foremost a man and I accept the outcome of my actions. I don’t look to anybody else to provide for me or my family. I pay roughly $4,224 a year for medical insurance for me and my family. I do it now because I know in the event we need it paying latter would be too late. It cost $569 dollars for a termite bond for my property which will cover damage made by these bugs. I didn’t want to pay this but I had to in the event termites eat up a portion of my house. I could have refused to pay it and spent the money on other things. The fire department did what they should have done. They would have rescued anybody in danger. The people who think they should respond outside tier jurisdiction without a prior agreement are not thinking this through. I attribute this to a failure of our system to educate people that there are consequences for your actions or lack of inaction.
Viktor | 10.8.10 @ 5:19PM
One thing seems to be lacking throughout the comments (with a few exceptions) and that lack is any sense of Christian charity.
Those commenters who would not have come to the aid of the homeowner are not just faux Christians or faux conservatives; they also show a depraved indifference to human suffering.
And as for the pretentious and legalistic rationalizing of their opinions: all I can say is that, over the years, I have had my belly full of barrack room lawyering.
Christian Conservatives are charitable. When it comes to government wefare programs, it is not the sentiment of charity that we object to; it is the compulsion.
As a Christian Conservative I feel called upon to perform charity just as I am called upon to administer justice. And you hard cases here are damn lucky that you are not within an arms length of me.
2Anglico| 10.8.10 @ 6:06PM
Charity is VOLUNTARY, government is COERCIVE! The favorite tactic of TYRANTS, COERSION!
PolishKnight| 10.9.10 @ 3:25PM
This is a wonderful allegory for the Conservative/Liberal dichotomy. Let's try this:
What if this wasn't a house burning down but rather an unwed mother and her child that she cannot support?
We can argue that's on a different human scale than a burning house, but it can be said that his makes it more important to resolve the issue. Does society offer unconditional support to the woman and her child and encourage further irresponsibility? We've already seen the results!
In addition, conservatives have helped make the problem worse by using the financial resources of a "deadbeat dad" to pick up the check for their own chivalrous tendencies. Do these fathers have equal access to "their" children they are expected to pay for? Is abortion illegal so that the women cannot decide one sidedly to have children they cannot afford?
Caped Crusader| 10.8.10 @ 6:49PM
Viktor, you are a victim of being duped by the sick perverse sense of Christian charity so rampant in most churches today, As Christians we are called as INDIVIDUALS to help the sick, the lame , the halt, the blind, the widow and the orphan; not every deadbeat who REFUSES to meet his obligation to family and fellow man but instead lives off the labors of others. St. Paul made it clear that those able bodies who will not work shall not eat. Your philosophy is the reason church pews are so empty today. And pardon me for saying but beating up those within arms length who disagree does not sound especially Christian to me! Also I believe that Jesus and his followers helped others themselves. Or, did I miss a verse where Jesus said, "take this boy over to Caesar's palace and sign him up for a welfare program."
Teflon93| 10.9.10 @ 12:13AM
Oh, nonsense!
Is it not Christian to worry about the firefighters' lives?
Lives are more important than stuff---that's a very Christian view!
Dr. Risk| 10.8.10 @ 5:57PM
This entire story is suspect, unless there is no mortgage on the house. If there is a mortgage, the lender would REQUIRE fire insurance as a condition of making the mortgage. And the fire insurance company would require payment of the $75.00 annual fee, meaning it would be factored into the PITI payment, to the tune of $6.25 a month.
The house has to be worth at least $150,000. If it was uninsured then he got just what he bargained for. So, either the story is a fabrication or there is no cause for sympathy.
CalMark| 10.8.10 @ 6:02PM
Actions have consequences.
Failing to pay for fire service means not getting any. Period.
We live in an age of "maybe I won't get around to it, but I can make it up later." Sorry, but things don't work that way. People have mentioned homeowners' insurance--that seems like a perfect parallel. No pay, no coverage.
Too many times, we are forced to bail people out for their own stupidity and carelessness. People want a free lunch or "do over," and too often get them.
As unpleasant as this is to read about, the fire department--to protect itself, itse people, and yes, the RULE OF LAW--did right.
Enough is enough.
1FreeMan| 10.10.10 @ 12:25PM
Thank God our founding fathers turned their back on the "rule of law" and stood for what was right. When rule of law stands opposed to decency then the rule of law must be overturned... by force if necessary. To stand by and let people suffer is disgusting, as I said above. True conservatives still care about our fellow man regardless of politics. No free ride but no neglect of our humanity either. Should we build him a new home? NO! Should we have tried to save the one he had? YES. Get a friggin clue people... this EXACT debate is why we lost the house and senate. INTELLIGENT compassion!!! Any of you jerks go to church?
Tell me, CalMark, EXACTLY what did you pay Jesus Christ for your salvation. OK, then you can charge the same amount from your fellow man for your compassionate support.
I agree: Enough is Enough.
mark| 10.8.10 @ 11:27PM
You people do understand that it was a double wide trailer and that even if he had paid the money all they would have been able to do is stand there while it burned and tried to make sure it did not spread.The things burn to fast once they get started to have a chance of putting them out.
Teflon93| 10.9.10 @ 12:15AM
I had the opportunity to witness the local volunteer fire department burn a double wide trailer as a training exercise. It was nothing but ash and the odd piece of would in about 30 min.
Teflon93| 10.9.10 @ 12:15AM
That would be "wood"---it's late.
David| 10.9.10 @ 9:16AM
From a conservative's standpoint, aiding others should be a duty. However, there are two issues. First, government should not be the primary source of aid. Direct aid from family, friends, and neighbors should be primary. Voluntary aid to charities should be second. Last should be aid from the government that was confiscated from one and given to another.
Second, aid should be as temporary as possible. It should be a vehicle for one to get back on one's feet. It should not be a permanent transfer to the able bodied.
Government is not able to make the subtle judgment calls necessary to determine how much aid, what type of aid, and for how long the aid is needed. As a result, too much aid is given, of the wrong type, for too long. In the process, we destroy the souls of those we try to help.
Among the Jews, the greatest level of charity is enabling the recipient to become self-reliant. Government aid is the antithesis of this level of charity.
John Gaunt| 10.9.10 @ 2:26PM
If that fire department got one cent in county, state, or federal money, then forget the $75.oo. Unless the city pays for them entirely with city money, then they all need to be fired and charged for the neglect of their duty. Anything less makes them mercenaries for the local government.
cats1cowboy| 10.9.10 @ 2:55PM
There, there, John. Take your meds and go back to sleep.
JimP| 10.9.10 @ 4:39PM
"That is when the mind must rule."
Not just the mind, but the heart as well. Firefighters typically are not souless bureaucrats, which is how they acted in this case, IMHO. I wonder what influenced them to behave so in this matter.
gearjammer| 10.9.10 @ 8:32PM
They are Rush fans and understand the golden rule of Limbaugh conservatism=I am NOT my brother's keeper.
Negro X| 10.9.10 @ 11:55PM
This moron knew the risks, he gambled and lost. It's called personal responsibilty. I guess there are more RINOS here than meets the eye.
T1Brit| 10.10.10 @ 11:53AM
They had very right to refuse to take the call.
BUT - Once they were on the scene it was criminal to stand and do nothing.