Firefighters let man's home burn down over $75 fee.

[Guest clownsdd]

How 'bout this one: Everybody wants to get all bent out of shape about the Mexicans sneaking in, not paying taxes, then expecting various public services to take care of 'em any way...

How is that really different from the guy not paying his "fire tax" but expecting the FD to provide service any way?

Do y'all think the illegals should be denied service and run the hell out of here or not?

If so, shouldn't that same measure be applied to anyone else here, legal or not?

+10000

[Good_Steward]

Wow. This has devolved into comparing the man to an illegal alien.

Here's the thing: They stood and watched it burn. THEY STOOD AND WATCHED IT BURN. I don't give a damn who you are, and fellas, I'm as conservative as they get, but if you would stand and watch another family's house burn to the ground, while not even attempting to help, you are as bad as the liberal free loaders you all hate. Probably even worse.

I hear all this talk about people using their firearms to protect someone else's life, but you think it's ok to stand and watch a man's house burn to the ground, and chastise him for not ponying up $75????

Pitiful.

Says it in your sig line Jamie, what's right ain't always legal, and what's legal ain't always right. This may have been legal, but it damn sure wasn't right.

[vontar]

Wow. This has devolved into comparing the man to an illegal alien.

Yup, I am not going down that road.

BTW, when I first heard about this kind of Fire protection service, It kinda sounded like Mafia Protection money.

I think this thread has enough directions already.

Yup, dunno if that is true either. One can get sued and possibly lose big for the simple act of being a good Samaritan at the side of the road. Supposedly (and strangely enough) more a risk for a professional such as a doctor or nurse than an ordinary citizen.

I don't have it with me, but in my First Aid/CPR book, there is a section the Good Samaritan law. There are times when it is OK to move a victim if they are in more danger by not moving them. I know we discussed this in detail when I took my CPR/first aid class. In general, you don't move a victim but sometimes they may be in more danger by not being moved, due to fire or other dangers. If the person is awake of course you have to get consent to help. If they are unconscious it is implied consent.

Articles - TNTLaw.Net - Nashville TN Attorneys

The Good Samaritan Law applies to anyone who voluntarily gives aid in an emergency, not just physicians. The law applies in any setting where someone might need emergency aid: the roadside, a restaurant, a concert hall, a church. The law grants immunity so long as:

1. The person acts voluntarily — the person must act without being legally required to act. That is because the purpose of the statute is to induce aid by volunteers, not by those already under a duty to render aid.
   
2. The person renders emergency care — the victim must have a condition that requires immediate medical care, and the care rendered must be necessary to treat the condition.
   
3. The person acts in good faith — the person must act intending to provide emergency care to the victim, as opposed to some other bad purpose.
   
4. The person does not commit gross negligence — gross negligence is negligence (the failure to act as an ordinary reasonable person would under the circumstances) plus a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
   

I continued to read and they had some examples on this site, that physician in the example was horrible.

I think this may be the current TN Law

TENNESSEE GOOD SAMARITAN LAW

Tennessee Code Annotated

63-6-218.

(a) This section shall be known and cited as the "Good Samaritan Law."

( Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine and surgery and including any person licensed or certified to render service ancillary thereto, or any member of a volunteer first aid, rescue or emergency squad that provides emergency public first aid and rescue services, who in good faith:

Renders emergency care at the scene of an accident, medical emergency and/or disaster, while en route from such scene to a medical facility and while assisting medical personnel at the receiving medical facility, including use of an automated external defibrillator, to the victim or victims thereof without making any direct charge for the emergency care; or

Participates or assists in rendering emergency care, including use of an automated external defibrillator, to persons attending or participating in performances, exhibitions, banquets, sporting events, religious or other gatherings open to the general public, with or without an admission charge, whether or not such emergency care is made available as a service, planned in advance by the promoter of the event and/or any other person or association, shall not be liable to such victims or persons receiving emergency care for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission by such person in rendering the emergency care, or as a result of any act or failure to act to provide or arrange for further medical treatment or care for the injured person, except such damages as may result from the gross negligence of the person rendering such emergency care.

© A receiving medical facility shall not be liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission on the part of any member of a volunteer first aid, rescue or emergency squad that provides emergency public first aid and rescue services while such person is assisting medical personnel at the receiving medical facility.

(d) If:

A volunteer fire squad is organized by a private company for the protection of the plant and grounds of such company;

Such squad is willing to respond and does respond to calls to provide fire protection for residents living within a six (6) mile radius of the county surrounding such plant; and

The plant is located in a county that does not otherwise provide fire protection to such residents;

then the members of such volunteer fire squad, while providing fire protection within such area outside the plant, shall be liable to suit under the provisions of the Governmental Tort Liability Act, compiled in title 29, chapter 20, part 2.

Edited October 7, 2010 by vontar

[Guest Jamie]

Wow. This has devolved into comparing the man to an illegal alien.

Nope. It's de/evolved, hopefully, into people stopping for a second and actually thinking about how they view some things, and why.

Here's the thing: They stood and watched it burn. THEY STOOD AND WATCHED IT BURN. I don't give a damn who you are, and fellas, I'm as conservative as they get, but if you would stand and watch another family's house burn to the ground, while not even attempting to help, you are as bad as the liberal free loaders you all hate. Probably even worse.

Well, the firemen didn't start the fire, the home owner did. During a time when there's a burn ban in place, and without making sure he'd taken all the proper precautions, obviously.

I dunno about you folks, but I've actually turned around and gone back home, after getting a mile or so down the road, all because I remembered leaving a lit cigarette in an ashtray. So, no, I don't have any sympathy for the bonehead burning his own house down, given what I've heard so far.

And I sure don't like the idea of someone expecting others to cover for their mistakes for free.

I hear all this talk about people using their firearms to protect someone else's life, but you think it's ok to stand and watch a man's house burn to the ground, and chastise him for not ponying up $75????

You won't hear any such nonsense from me. I've said many times before, I am no "sheepdog".

And no, it's not just the money I would chastise him for, as I hope I've made clear by now.

Pitiful.

Yep, the way some folks think these days certainly is.

Says it in your sig line Jamie, what's right ain't always legal, and what's legal ain't always right. This may have been legal, but it damn sure wasn't right.

Yep. And sometimes what's right or fair is uncomfortable, hard to look at, and also necessary, for some people to learn what they need to know.

But even for that, some people still won't learn the lessons they should, and will insist it's someone else's fault that they have problems or misery.

If Mr. Cranick were out of work, disabled, or otherwise couldn't pay the fee, and lightning started the fire, or a faulty heater, etc., then it would be a different matter. But as things stand right this minute, I have no problem with what happened.

[vontar]

safeandsecure

I know what you are saying, right they are following orders and can't risk losing their jobs.

[RobertNashville]

Wow. This has devolved into comparing the man to an illegal alien.

Here's the thing: They stood and watched it burn. THEY STOOD AND WATCHED IT BURN. I don't give a damn who you are, and fellas, I'm as conservative as they get, but if you would stand and watch another family's house burn to the ground, while not even attempting to help, you are as bad as the liberal free loaders you all hate. Probably even worse.

I hear all this talk about people using their firearms to protect someone else's life, but you think it's ok to stand and watch a man's house burn to the ground, and chastise him for not ponying up $75????

Pitiful.

Says it in your sig line Jamie, what's right ain't always legal, and what's legal ain't always right. This may have been legal, but it damn sure wasn't right.

I don't have the Constitution memorized but I am pretty sure that there isn't anything in it that says a person is entitled to anything without paying for it.

This man freely chose not to participate in the opportunity to have fire protection (perhaps for as long as a couple of decades based on some recent information) so why in hell is he entitled to to the protection anyway? What right does anyone have, especially people who don't live there, to berate that fire department for not acting when they had zero obligation to act?

I wonder if this man had homeowner's insurance or if expected to be able to take out a policy after the fire happened...is the insurance company he didn't buy a policy from obligated to replace his home anyway?

I think a lot of people are letting their emotions cloud their judgment...had I been there and could have helped I would like to think I would have done so but I would have had no obligation to help and that FD didn't have any more obligation to act than I would have had.

[vontar]

He did have home owners insurance, he said that in one of the interviews.

This man freely chose not to participate in the opportunity to have fire protection (perhaps for as long as a couple of decades based on some recent information)

As far as not paying, he had paid last year and other years. He said he forgot this year.

[deerslayer]

I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread and don't plan on it. If the FD didn't put out the fire due to their belief that nobody will pay the fee if they do and eventually no one will have their sevices as a result, etc., then I understand where they are coming from. However, they are being hypocritical if they go ahead and put out the fire only if someone's life is in danger. Whatever the case, if the FD watched my house burn down for any reason, I probably wouldn't buy Fireman's ball tickets or donate to their causes any more.

[Guest m&pc9]

He didnt pay for protection, So he didnt get any.

Why do so many have a problem with that?

Go to walmart and try not to pay for something. Walmart is the demon because they wont give me a gallon of milk.

[Guest Jamie]

He didnt pay for protection, So he didnt get any.

At least the firemen didn't send anybody around to break his knees.

[strickj]

I'm thankful that no one here was in charge when I needed help after I crashed my bike.

I would have been left for dead laying on the side of the ****ing road because I didn't pay the firemen, ambulance, and life force upfront.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Edited October 7, 2010 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

He did have home owners insurance, he said that in one of the interviews.

As far as not paying, he had paid last year and other years. He said he forgot this year.

Actually...his story about paying, not paying, why he didn't pay, fee getting waived, etc., etc. has changed more than once and it really isn't the point - "forget" to pay for your car for very long and you won't likely won't have it (nor are you entitled to it).

[Guest Jamie]

You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Well I'm not.

As for your crash, I've cleaned up more than a few of those... been involved in one or two as well. That's one of the reasons I make sure my insurance is paid up, and try to drive like I have good sense, as well as wear a seat belt whenever I'm in a moving vehicle.

Too bad Mr. Cranick didn't apply the same thinking and diligence... then maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Jamie

[RobertNashville]

I'm thankful that no one here was in charge when I needed help after I crashed my bike.

I would have been left for dead laying on the side of the ****ing road because I didn't pay the firemen, ambulance, and life force upfront.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'll never be ashamed of myself for believing that people should be responsible for themselves.

In any case, your example is an "apples and oranges" comparison...this man knew his responsibilities and consciously chose to ignore them.

Edited October 7, 2010 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

An "apples and oranges" comparison...this man knew his responsibilities and consciously chose to ignore them.

HOW is that apples to oranges?

I ****ed up and needed help from firemen.

this guy ****ed up and need help from firemen.

I crashed in the middle of BFE, in an unincorporated area. Had they done to me what was done to this guy, I would be dead. All because I didn't pay for 'protection'.

We are not talking about calling Geico after a fender bender here. We are talking about a family loosing their home because of a few dollars. We are talking about "firemen" standing by and watching a family loose everything. We are talking about "firemen" standing by and watching two dogs and a cat die all because of a few dollars.

I am not for someone getting something for nothing and that's not what this is about. This is about some so called "first responders" not doing their job.

I think it's pretty ****ing ironic that so many here are saying that "they were just following orders so don't blame them"....when the exact opposite is said when it's a cop not doing his job because of orders.

This whole thread is just disgusting and I am truly sickened by some of the attitudes here. Pray to your God, that none of you never need help

Edited October 7, 2010 by strickj

[Guest Jamie]

We are not talking about calling Geico after a fender bender here. We are talking about a family loosing their home because of a few dollars. We are talking about "firemen" standing by and watching a family loose everything. We are talking about "firemen" standing by and watching two dogs and a cat die all because of a few dollars.

You see that pic there? It was taken out my front window, ‎Thursday, ‎February ‎08, ‎2007, at ‏‎1:28:06 AM. That's the modular home/double-wide trailer that used to be on the ridge across the road from me, maybe 125 yards from the window I took the pic from. ( One of our dogs woke me up, letting us know something very wrong was going on. )

Those lights down on the road are our volunteer fire department, doing what they could. End result was the house burnt to the foundation despite their best efforts.

So in the end, Mr. Cranick's house was likely doomed from the start, and your statement I've quoted is invalid.

All we're doing here is arguing over who is or is not to blame for it.

PS - I do have to wonder why the Cranicks didn't make some effort to save their own pets. They should have been able to accomplish that on their own, before the FD even got there.

ETA - The fire station is exactly 3 miles from here. If it had been during daylight hours, the firemen could have seen the smoke from the station.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Jamie
should'a been yards, not feet. Oops.

[strickj]

You think that I can't google "firefighters save house" to rebut your post, Jamie?

I know that firefights often hold back on lost causes.

We are not talking about that here. We are talking about them refusing to even try....because of a few dollars.

[Guest Jamie]

You think that I can't google "firefighters save house" to rebut your post, Jamie?

Good luck with that, with a modular/double-wide, with anything but a very small kitchen fire.

I've been living in one of these bastards for nearly 20 years now, and I can tell you for a fact that if you catch the outside of 'em, especially under the eaves and into the roof on fire, they're gone.

And the guys you see in the picture I posted only made sure the people were all out, and that the fire was contained. They probably got there within 5 minutes of being called by the home owner.

[raydog1]

Actually...his story about paying, not paying, why he didn't pay, fee getting waived, etc., etc. has changed more than once and it really isn't the point - "forget" to pay for your car for very long and you won't likely won't have it (nor are you entitled to it).

I've not seen a single interview where his story (that he just forgot) has changed. The initial reports did vary. Wildly, as they so often do. It's also an important point. Because he's being portrayed by many as a deadbeat, resource-sucking whining liberal SOB and those same people use that characterization to justify their opinions.

Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk Pro

[RobertNashville]

HOW is that apples to oranges?

I ****ed up and needed help from firemen.

this guy ****ed up and need help from firemen.

I crashed in the middle of BFE, in an unincorporated area. Had they done to me what was done to this guy, I would be dead. All because I didn't pay for 'protection'.

Saving a person’s life by providing emergency medical care is not the equivalent to saving a piece of property - that's the apple to the orange. And at least in some cases, the person who got the medical care will be billed for it.

We are not talking about calling Geico after a fender bender here. We are talking about a family loosing their home because of a few dollars. We are talking about "firemen" standing by and watching a family loose everything. We are talking about "firemen" standing by and watching two dogs and a cat die all because of a few dollars.

I am not for someone getting something for nothing and that's not what this is about. This is about some so called "first responders" not doing their job.

I think it's pretty ****ing ironic that so many here are saying that "they were just following orders so don't blame them"....when the exact opposite is said when it's a cop not doing his job because of orders.

This whole thread is just disgusting and I am truly sickened by some of the attitudes here. Pray to your God, that none of you never need help

It wasn't the fire fighter's job to respond outside of the city limits to a home unless the homeowner had paid for that service.

Those first responders work for a city and they are able to work for that city only because the city collects taxes from residents so that they have a fire department - in that sense they are no different from Geico or any other company. With some of the logic being presented in this thread we could hold any of the close-by Kentucky based fire departments responsible for not responding as well as South Fulton FD because the Kentucky based FDs had as much obligation to respond as Sough Fulton did (which is none).

I live in a community that has a fire department and part of my rather hefty property taxes goes to pay for the existence of that fire department so yes, if my home catches fire I expect them to respond and try to put it out - that's what I pay them for. If I lived in an area where I was not paying for that service than I would not expect them to respond.

Mr. Cranick knew, up front, that he had to pay the fee and, by all accounts, the fee wasn't paid...whether he forget to pay or decided not to pay; if the fee wasn’t paid he wasn’t entitled to the protection. I feel badly that Mr. Cranick lost his home and his animals but not paying the fee, for whatever reason, was irresponsible and when when people are irresponsible; unpleasant things sometimes happen. It's fine to feel sad or even angry about that but the fire department is not where the anger should be directed.

Edited October 7, 2010 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I've not seen a single interview where his story (that he just forgot) has changed. The initial reports did vary. Wildly, as they so often do. It's also an important point. Because he's being portrayed by many as a deadbeat, resource-sucking whining liberal SOB and those same people use that characterization to justify their opinions.

Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk Pro

I've heard different things from different sources so I don't know what is or isn't true - it would certainly be a more tragic event if he did simply "forget" to pay the fee but the salient point is whether or not the fee was paid.

[DaveTN]

I think a lot of people are letting their emotions cloud their judgment...had I been there and could have helped I would like to think I would have done so but I would have had no obligation to help and that FD didn't have any more obligation to act than I would have had.

If you dressed out and drove a freaking fire truck to the scene you had a duty to act.

I don’t think people are letting emotions cloud their judgment; I know I’m crystal clear. It’s about morals and ethics. And I couldn’t care less what anyone’s opinion is on what should have been done. I’m judging the Fire Fighters that were there for what they didn’t do. If a Fire Fighter can even try to justify what happened that is moral turpitude. They don’t have the character or moral fiber to be a Fireman.

We all know the guy did wrong. Firemen and cops risk their lives every day to protect citizens; even the ones that are doing wrong. Thankfully most of them are not like these clowns. These losers need to be fired (if they even had a job to begin with) they have proven that are unworthy of being first responders.

[Guest 1010011010]

We are talking about them refusing to even try....because of a few dollars.

Well, why don't we talk about those heartless firefighting bastards in Clarksville, Nashville, or Memphis? They didn't (and wouldn't) send out their crews to respond to this fire, either. They'd tell him he was outside their coverage area, exactly like South Fulton.

[daddyo]

I'm thankful that no one here was in charge when I needed help after I crashed my bike.

I would have been left for dead laying on the side of the ****ing road because I didn't pay the firemen, ambulance, and life force upfront.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

The man's life was not in danger. You're talking about something completely different when you bring someone's life into it.

Until you check your emotions, you won't see the truth.

[daddyo]

We are talking about a family loosing their home because of a few dollars

That's exactly correct. The man who refused to pay the $75 lost his home because of a few dollars. It was HIS decision.