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

[Guest Jamie]

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

Not if you were told not to.

How long would you have lasted as a cop, Dave, if you'd told your supervisor "Screw you, I'm doing what I think is RIGHT, not what you tell me"?

I think we both know your career would've been over just about the same time the last word cleared your lips. And if you'd have gone ahead and tried to do whatever it was anyway, it's entirely likely you'd have gotten arrested to boot.

... at least that's how it would've worked with the departments I'm familiar with.

[Punisher84]

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.

Yea we get the emotion thing. Everybody has emotions. While a person didn't die, 3 pets did. That's only a step down for me.

[greenego]

Insurance is an intangible asset. Most of us pay the bill when it comes and never need to use it. It's cases like this that makes someone wish they had paid the premium. I feel for the guy and his family, but it's like anything else, you have to prepare for the unexpected. I pay my Rural Metro bill, fire and ambulance every year. He should have also.

[vontar]

Myself, I don't think I have any thing else to add to this.

Emotes are part of being human,

Unless we want to use drugs to control the population,

Equilibrium (2002)

Equilibrium (2002) - IMDb

[Fallguy]

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.

No, they most surely did not have a duty to act. There only duty was to the city and to those county residents that paid the fee.

If people don't like it, change the law, start a volunteer FD in the area or pay the damn fee...otherwise they need to take their licks.

This is from a person who joined their local volunteer FD at 17 and has worked in or been a member of LE/Fire Service/EMS/Rescue Squad E-911 ever since.

[strickj]

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.

Why? Because they were not on the scene.

[Guest 1010011010]

Why? Because they were not on the scene.

It's not like South Fulton FD came out when he called and then just sat on their thumbs. By the time the subscribing neighbor called about the fire spreading to his field, it was probably already too late for the house.

[RobertNashville]

Why? Because they were not on the scene.

I guess, then, that if South Fulton FD hadn't showed up at all we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[deerslayer]

So what's next? No fire service if you're late on your property taxes or your water bill? Since Bartlett has no specific fire fee that I know of, I guess the city could use this logic.

[DaveTN]

No, they most surely did not have a duty to act. There only duty was to the city and to those county residents that paid the fee.

I didn’t mean to imply they had a legal duty to act; everything doesn’t require a written law.

[DaveTN]

So what's next? No fire service if you're late on your property taxes or your water bill? Since Bartlett has no specific fire fee that I know of, I guess the city could use this logic.

Yes. According to what I am learning here if someone was in arrears on their property taxes or water bill it would be okay if the FD showed up and told them they were just standing by for a controlled burn.

I wonder what would happen to a cop if they stood at the city/county/state line and watch a crime being committed and did nothing because they weren’t required to.

[Fallguy]

I didn’t mean to imply they had a legal duty to act; everything doesn’t require a written law.

True, but we do have written law, that from my understanding they would have been violating had they acted.

Remember it's not like they owned the trucks and equipment (unlike some volunteer departments) the city owned them.

We don't have a subscirption service in the county I live in as people in each area of the county have bound together and formed volunteer departments. I also know the mayor of the city I live in has expressly reminded (as the mayor before him I belive) the FD (volunteer also) not to respond to calls out of the city. As the insurance would not cover the vehicles, or the firefighters if something happened.

From my understanding (again) the case here is, they would only be covered responding to those residences out of the city where the fee was paid. Now as a city resident I can tell you I'd be pretty upset if my taxes went up to pay for a new $250,000 fire truck because the insurance wouldn't pay when it was damaged at a fire it shouldn't have been at. Or the cost of defending a lawsuit from a firefighter that was injured and not covered because of fighting a fire that he couldn't legally respond to.

I hate living in a crowded town, but one reason I always have is for the speed of response for EMS/LE and for garunteed fire protection. If you live in a county where there is no fire protection other than paying fee.....then that is what you have to do.

I wish every county could have a county fire department, but they don't.

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for this guy, but I also think he is in this boat by his own doing.

[vontar]

True, but we do have written law, that from my understanding they would have been violating had they acted.

Remember it's not like they owned the trucks and equipment (unlike some volunteer departments) the city owned them.

We don't have a subscirption service in the county I live in as people in each area of the county have bound together and formed volunteer departments. I also know the mayor of the city I live in has expressly reminded (as the mayor before him I belive) the FD (volunteer also) not to respond to calls out of the city. As the insurance would not cover the vehicles, or the firefighters if something happened.

From my understanding (again) the case here is, they would only be covered responding to those residences out of the city where the fee was paid. Now as a city resident I can tell you I'd be pretty upset if my taxes went up to pay for a new $250,000 fire truck because the insurance wouldn't pay when it was damaged at a fire it shouldn't have been at. Or the cost of defending a lawsuit from a firefighter that was injured and not covered because of fighting a fire that he couldn't legally respond to.

I hate living in a crowded town, but one reason I always have is for the speed of response for EMS/LE and for garunteed fire protection. If you live in a county where there is no fire protection other than paying fee.....then that is what you have to do.

I wish every county could have a county fire department, but they don't.

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for this guy, but I also think he is in this boat by his own doing.

+1

That sums it up.

[Guest Phantom6]

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.

Yup, it's a shame about the two dogs.

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.

About that, SCOTUS has ruled that that "to protect and serve" thing is nothing more than some paint on the side of a car. Cops are under no obligation to help you.

[Good_Steward]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I don't think that you understand what I am saying here, Jamie. I absolutely agree that the guy did not have a right to have this fire put out. Fine. He didn't pay the $75. What I DO have a problem with is the firefighters, and whomever gave them their orders, as they stood and watched it burn. There is legal and illegal, and right and wrong, and I'll personally be damned if I ever compromise my values and my integrity by standing idle when I have the means to help someone.

You are right, the way some people think is pitiful. I think I mentioned that before. The people that burn me up to no end are the liberal spread the wealth jokers, but by even standards, someone that agrees that it is ok for someone to stand around while someone watches their life go up in smoke and ash, while not even attempting to disguise the truth that this was a "tough crap, pay your $75" lesson is just as bad and worse.

This country used to have morals, a set of values that included helping your neighbor when you could, or giving a stranger a hand with a flat tire, or picking strickj up off the side of the road when he needed help.

Now, we have become so jaded that we think it's OK, that it's right, to stand and watch someone's life flame up, because he didn't pay up.

I reiterate, this is not about legal, illegal, required, not required. This is about the moral fiber that made this country great. We're not talking about a hand out, it's not welfare, hell, the man offered to pay up! This is about helping a fellow man in desperate need, and my brothers think it's ok to let him suffer. Obviously, not many people on here have ever needed someone else's help.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Good_Steward

[Guest Lester Weevils]

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.

...

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.

Thanks Vontar for the info on the Good Samaritan Law. Didn't know that had been passed.

The bolded part of the law above is confusing. Is it speaking about a factory's private volunteer fire department? Do factories commonly have volunteer fire depts?

Or is it legalese for a private non-govt volunteer fire dept? Maybe it doesn't apply to this case, dunno.

It appears that whoever the bolded part is talking about, are not immune from lawsuits because of the law?

[Mechanic_X]

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for this guy, but I also think he is in this boat by his own doing.

Fallguy nails it.

[RobertNashville]

The bolded part of the law above is confusing. Is it speaking about a factory's private volunteer fire department? Do factories commonly have volunteer fire depts?

I would say that most industrial operations, if they are very large at all, do have "fire fighters" on site (my company does)...I don't know that I'd call them a fire department but they do respond and do what they can until the primary responders get there.

[Guest strelcevina]

Now all of you saying that firefighters did right thing and it was old man's fault for failing to pay 75$

Go back and give some support to KWIK.

What kwik did was 100% legal and he got no support at all.

Hypocrisy 101.

[Fallguy]

Now all of you saying that firefighters did right thing and it was old man's fault for failing to pay 75$

Go back and give some support to KWIK.

What kwik did was 100% legal and he got no support at all.

Hypocrisy 101.

LMAO....

.....and your probably really belive that too.....

[vontar]

FULL CIRCLE. everything ends with KWIK

It is like the chewbacca defense

My head hurts, I should go to bed, but this is so dam entertaining now.

Edited October 8, 2010 by vontar

[Guest strelcevina]

FULL CIRCLE. everything ends with KWIK

It is like the chewbacca defense

Not at all.

It is legal/illegal. Vs. How does it feel .

Firefighters feels good .

Kwik feels bad

Both 100% legal

[Fallguy]

Not at all.

It is legal/illegal. Vs. How does it feel .

Firefighters feels good .

Kwik feels bad

Both 100% legal

It's not that what the Firefighters did was legal.....it's that if they acted it would have been illegal.

Had Kwik not done what he had done....it would still have been legal.

[dlm37015]

acording to the local county goverment charter tax dollars go to the vol. fire dept also state and fed. grants not saying either way does the man pay his taxes

over 65% of operating money came from those sources maybe the man didnt pay the 75 but he must pay taxes i think as a human being this is disgusting

just my 2 cents worth after checking where the fire dept got there money i now ask each of you would you stand by and watch someones home burn

[Fallguy]

acording to the local county goverment charter tax dollars go to the vol. fire dept also state and fed. grants not saying either way does the man pay his taxes

over 65% of operating money came from those sources maybe the man didnt pay the 75 but he must pay taxes i think as a human being this is disgusting

just my 2 cents worth after checking where the fire dept got there money i now ask each of you would you stand by and watch someones home burn

You're saying that 65% of the operating money for the city fire department comes from county taxes?

Can you cite your sources?