So a fire fighter service let some guys home burn down destroying all he owns and killing his pets. All because the guy forgot to pay a $75 fee. I agree with his son and would have likely punch out the chief myself. What are your thoughts?
Also just to add a bit of conversation do you think this is comparable to the way US health care service is run?
(Oct. 6) -- A small rural community in western Tennessee is outraged and the fire chief is nursing a black eye after firefighters stood by and watched a mobile home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 municipal fee.
South Fulton city firefighters -- equipped with trucks, hoses and other firefighting equipment -- didn't intervene to save Gene Cranick's doublewide trailer home when it caught fire last week. But they did arrive on the scene to protect the house of a neighbor, who had paid his fire subscription fee.
"I just forgot to pay my $75," Cranick told ABC News. "I did it last year, the year before. ... It slipped my mind."
Later that day, Cranick's son Timothy went to the fire station to complain, and punched the fire chief in the face.
"He just cold-cocked him," Police Chief Andy Crocker told the Union City Daily Messenger. The younger Cranick was arrested and charged with felony aggravated assault, and South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was treated and released from a hospital, Crocker said.
Firefighters in South Fulton city are under orders to respond only to fire calls within their city limits, as well as to surrounding Obion County, but only to homes there where people have signed up for a fire subscription service.
Because Cranick hadn't paid his fee, firefighters doused the border of his neighbor's property to protect that house in case the flames spread, but wouldn't help him. He lost all his possessions, plus three dogs and a cat.
"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC.
Sponsored Links The fire began when Cranick's grandson set fire to some trash near the house, and the flames leapt up. Cranick said he told the 911 operator that he'd pay whatever fee was necessary, but it was too late.
"I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do," South Fulton City Manager Jeff Vowell told the Messenger. "It's a regrettable situation any time something like this happens."
But one firefighting expert said the fee system isn't fair to homeowners or firefighters.
"Professional, career firefighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schatisberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said in statement excerpted by MSNBC. "They get in their trucks and go."
Why the firemen didn't just save the house for the sake of saving it is beyond me. They say they only want to help and they aren't in it for money. I think they're in it for money and the chance of fame if they do something incrediblly(spelling fail?) epic.
Why the firemen didn't just save the house for the sake of saving it is beyond me. They say they only want to help and they aren't in it for money. I think they're in it for money and the chance of fame if they do something incrediblly(spelling fail?) epic.
Don't blame the firemen.
They do risk their lives for others. This time, they were just following orders from the higher-ups.
In Britain most services are payed for by tax so this kind of thing doesn't happen. This is why in my opinion socialism is better than capitalism.
This was a city owned fire department that requires a fee for people to get service. This is a bad anecdote to use against capitalism when the fire department used in question is owned by the government. This is just calling a tax a fee and making it optional. I would rather pick a private fire department that has to win my approval than a government owned one that's getting my money through force anyway and I'm just getting a fraction of it (spent on stuff) back through services. Do you know the real hero in this story?
I would rather pick a private fire department that has to win my approval than a government owned one that's getting my money through force anyway and I'm just getting a fraction of it (spent on stuff) back through services.
I can't wait for the day when fire departments refuse to put out a fire because they can't make a profit on it.
I can't wait for the day when fire departments refuse to put out a fire because they can't make a profit on it.
Wouldn't the wiser option for the fire department to put out the fire and convince the poor guy that owns the property that was on on fire that he/she is indebted to them. Major jerk move but it works.
If my car (or some other property of mine) was burning, I would not be able to pay them to save it. I have less than $100 in my bank account. I have $3,000 in credit car debt, $300 a month in prescription costs, and $10,000 in student loan debt. How could I ever pay for a private fire service? They would not make any money on me, which means they wouldn't give me any service.
Fire and police protection should be free upon demand, paid for by taxes, not by profit.
Sure but that is just you there are much more people who would be able to afford it.
Some people can, some people can't. It's bad enough that insurance companies are denying me service because they can't make a profit. I can't imagine hearing the police operator saying, "We'd love to stop that man robbing your house, but we just can't make a profit off this, so we're denying your emergency request."
Are food companies are a bad idea? In my opinion they've worked very nicely in supplying cheap, safe food to people.
If the food was being withheld in a life or death situation because of money then yes I would consider it bad. But going hungry isn't as an immediate threat to a persons life as a fire or someone acting violently. also in the case where a person is starving there are resources where they can receive free food.
