Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

How do you feel about this?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ How do you feel about this?
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:22 AM
I am not torn. aslong as there were no lives in danger (someone trapped in the house) i am ok with what they did based on the policy they have.
because if they let this guy pay last minute, why wouldnt everyone else in the town stop paying until their house caught fire?
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Really? what would be the point of paying for the service then?
Oct 5, 2010 8:22am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:28 AM
Well.... the people definitely should have paid the $75, although I would think that taxes should have paid for the fire dept.

But, since when is a fire dept. or a city government supposed to discriminate in doing their duty? I have a feeling that the fire dept. is going to have a thing or two to say about this in the future. I can't imagine being a firefighter and having my hands tied behind my back and watching somebody's home burnt down because of a technicality.

I'm actually suprised that the department didn't tell that mayor to go pound sand and put the fire out anyway. WTF?!
Oct 5, 2010 8:28am
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:33 AM
CenterBHSFan;507760 wrote:Well.... the people definitely should have paid the $75, although I would think that taxes should have paid for the fire dept.

But, since when is a fire dept. or a city government supposed to discriminate in doing their duty? I have a feeling that the fire dept. is going to have a thing or two to say about this in the future. I can't imagine being a firefighter and having my hands tied behind my back and watching somebody's home burnt down because of a technicality.

I'm actually suprised that the department didn't tell that mayor to go pound sand and put the fire out anyway. WTF?!
It sounded to me like they live outside the city and don't pay city taxes so in order to get fire protection they are required to pay the $75 and they did not...maybe I didn't read it close enough...DOH!
Oct 5, 2010 8:33am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:35 AM
GD,

because if they let this guy pay last minute, why wouldnt everyone else in the town stop paying until their house caught fire?

I understand what you're saying, but who gives a F*** when you're standing there watching somebody's life burn down right in front of your eyes? That's your friggen job!
Take the friggen money at the last minute, who gives a damn? You're still getting the money!!!
Oct 5, 2010 8:35am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:37 AM
CenterBHSFan;507760 wrote:I would think that taxes should have paid for the fire dept.

It sounds to me like they don't live in the city where the fire department is.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton.

I don't think I have a problem with this. They didn't pay for a service so they didn't get it.
Oct 5, 2010 8:37am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:37 AM
bases_loaded;507762 wrote:It sounded to me like they live outside the city and don't pay city taxes so in order to get fire protection they are required to pay the $75 and they did not...maybe I didn't read it close enough...DOH!

oops, I was too slow :)
Oct 5, 2010 8:37am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:40 AM
CenterBHSFan;507764 wrote:GD,



I understand what you're saying, but who gives a F*** when you're standing there watching somebody's life burn down right in front of your eyes? That's your friggen job!
Take the friggen money at the last minute, who gives a damn? You're still getting the money!!!
That's like saying a life insurance company should write a policy for someone on their deathbed, even though the person went without insurance for 80 years. Doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
Oct 5, 2010 8:40am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:42 AM
You are not understand what I'm saying.

Don't let a technicality force you to stand there and prohibit you from doing your job. If the man has the $75 in his hand and wants to give it to you.... take the damn money and put the friggen fire out!
Period.
You're still getting the money and to worry about WHEN you're getting the money - at a time like that - is assinine, petulant, and basically as awful as it can be.
Oct 5, 2010 8:42am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:44 AM
CenterBHSFan;507764 wrote:GD,



I understand what you're saying, but who gives a F*** when you're standing there watching somebody's life burn down right in front of your eyes? That's your friggen job!
Take the friggen money at the last minute, who gives a damn? You're still getting the money!!!
Obviously the family didn't believe their life was worth $75. I can't call and get car insurance right after I've been in a wreck, then try to file a claim. The family knew the consequences of not paying the fee, and they ignored it. The family should be held responsible for the decision they made.
Oct 5, 2010 8:44am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Oct 5, 2010 8:52 AM
CenterBHSFan;507769 wrote:You are not understand what I'm saying.
I understand what you're saying, you're simply wrong.
Don't let a technicality force you to stand there and prohibit you from doing your job.
To categorize a conscious decision not to pay the fee as a "technicality" is disingenuous.
If the man has the $75 in his hand and wants to give it to you.... take the damn money and put the friggen fire out!
Absolutely not. If you choose not to pay the fee, you assume the consequences.


There is one "bad guy" in this. It's the homeowner, period.
Oct 5, 2010 8:52am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:15 AM
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
After thinking about it some more, I think they could have put out the fire but they should have charged him a lot more than $75.
Oct 5, 2010 9:15am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:28 AM
FatHobbit;507792 wrote:After thinking about it some more, I think they could have put out the fire but they should have charged him a lot more than $75.
So he shouldn't be held responsible for his decision not to pay??
Oct 5, 2010 9:28am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:32 AM
I don't have a party with what either party did.

The homeowner that chose not to pay made a conscious decision and now has the result of that decision.

The fire department did exactly what the homeowner was told they would do.
Oct 5, 2010 9:32am
ZWICK 4 PREZ's avatar

ZWICK 4 PREZ

Senior Member

7,733 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:39 AM
Con_Alma;507798 wrote:I don't have a party with what either party did.

Why would you throw a party for that? :)
Oct 5, 2010 9:39am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:43 AM
I said I "don't" have a party!!!! ;)


It should be problem. My brain was goin' faster than my fingers.
Oct 5, 2010 9:43am
Fab4Runner's avatar

Fab4Runner

Tits McGee

6,196 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:46 AM
I am usually a stickler for following laws and dealing with the consequences but as someone whose house burnt down I can't even begin to explain how devastating it is. Should these people have paid the measly $75? Of course. But, if they were willing to pay they should have taken the money and tried to put the fire out, IMO. It may set a bed precedent...but you can sort all that out later. You can't get your home, belongings, etc back later. They are gone forever.

It's no excuse but you really never think something like this can happen to you...until it does (at least in my experience). I guess the up side may be that others who didn't want to pay the money now see what can happen and will make the right choice.
Oct 5, 2010 9:46am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:51 AM
Agreed with what Fab4 said.

Also, I never said that the homeowner should be given a free pass. My very first line said that they should have paid it. Nothing is free, in one way or another.
I'm now also very curious as to whether he was actually in city limits. The article doesn't really say. It could be read to imply both ways.
Oct 5, 2010 9:51am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:53 AM
Interesting question. This is the part that disturbs me:

"It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't."

If I was the neighbor I would have gone apeshit before this even happened. The idea that my property would be potentially damaged due to a neighbor being delinquent would infuriate me (no pun intended).

I understand the sentiment that this guy was delinquent, but two things: (1) Public services are for public safety, and (2) the state has the ability to garnish income - something private companies (like insurance companies) typically can't do.

The fact that the amout in question is only $75 makes the story more crazy.

Query: If the neighbor (who was current) offered to pay the $75, would people agree the fire department should still not put the fire out?
Oct 5, 2010 9:53am
Fab1b's avatar

Fab1b

The Bald A-Hole!!

12,949 posts
Oct 5, 2010 9:56 AM
I am really curious to know how their insurance (if they had insurance) will act upon this as well since the FD didn't take action due to non payment for service???
Oct 5, 2010 9:56am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:00 AM
Fab4Runner;507807 wrote:I am usually a stickler for following laws and dealing with the consequences but as someone whose house burnt down I can't even begin to explain how devastating it is. Should these people have paid the measly $75? Of course. But, if they were willing to pay they should have taken the money and tried to put the fire out, IMO. It may set a bed precedent...but you can sort all that out later. You can't get your home, belongings, etc back later. They are gone forever.

It's no excuse but you really never think something like this can happen to you...until it does (at least in my experience). I guess the up side may be that others who didn't want to pay the money now see what can happen and will make the right choice.
I agree with this. Obviously we don't know all of the facts (my spidey sense tells me there was a LOT more involved with both parties than the story provides), but fire is something that shouldn't be fooled around with. Just with the facts provided, the FD seems incredibly irresponsible for its inaction, regardless of payment.
Oct 5, 2010 10:00am
se-alum's avatar

se-alum

The Biggest Boss

13,948 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:02 AM
Fab4Runner;507807 wrote:I am usually a stickler for following laws and dealing with the consequences but as someone whose house burnt down I can't even begin to explain how devastating it is. Should these people have paid the measly $75? Of course. But, if they were willing to pay they should have taken the money and tried to put the fire out, IMO. It may set a bed precedent...but you can sort all that out later. You can't get your home, belongings, etc back later. They are gone forever.

It's no excuse but you really never think something like this can happen to you...until it does (at least in my experience). I guess the up side may be that others who didn't want to pay the money now see what can happen and will make the right choice.
I was in 4th grade when our home burnt down, and it was a horrible thing. There was absolutely nothing but cinder block left, but I still believe the guy deserves the consequences of his actions. This country has allowed people to believe they will be bailed out of situations they put themselves in with their decisions. I'm glad the Mayor and Fire Chief held their ground.
Oct 5, 2010 10:02am
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:05 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;507810 wrote:...
Query: If the neighbor (who was current) offered to pay the $75, would people agree the fire department should still not put the fire out?
It's my position that the fire department should be responsible to put the fire out if the neighbor was willing to pay the $75 dollars so long as it was not after the fire began.
Oct 5, 2010 10:05am
Fab4Runner's avatar

Fab4Runner

Tits McGee

6,196 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:10 AM
se-alum;507815 wrote:I was in 4th grade when our home burnt down, and it was a horrible thing. There was absolutely nothing but cinder block left, but I still believe the guy deserves the consequences of his actions. This country has allowed people to believe they will be bailed out of situations they put themselves in with their decisions. I'm glad the Mayor and Fire Chief held their ground.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I just can't say that I could stand there and watch someones house burn down over $75.
Oct 5, 2010 10:10am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 5, 2010 10:12 AM
Con_Alma;507816 wrote:It's my position that the fire department should be responsible to put the fire out if the neighbor was willing to pay the $75 dollars so long as it was not after the fire began.

Fair enough.

Second query? If the neighbor's property was damaged due to the inaction, who is liable?
Oct 5, 2010 10:12am