The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Why the TN home allowed to burn to the ground was an embarrassment to the Fire Service.
A lot has been said about the events that unfolded regarding a home that was allowed to burn to the ground in TN. One of the main arguments (in fact, the only valid argument) criticizing the homeowner was that he didn't pay the $75 Fee required by the fire department prior to the fire, as the response was outside of the regular district boundary required payment. Folks living outside of the boundary don't pay taxes that support the fire department, so a fee was implemented to offset the response. They all knew it too. OK Let's take a look at that...............
First....How does $75 dollars pay for an engine crew, let alone multiple crews to respond to a fire? Ans: It doesn't. But since they can't levy the true costs of a single response on to a homeowner (did you know that trying to charge for suppression efforts AFTER the incident is next to impossible based on the law?), they have to utilize a reasonable fee structure that requires some "skin" in the game, yet collectively, it covers expenses associated with fire suppression.
This is a basic insurance method of covering costs, in that, $75 won't pay for a response, but if 100 homeowners pay, and say there's only 2 fire calls per year in the area, the department receives $7500 for the two calls. (The 2 calls is just an example, for all you fact freaks, since I don't know how many times this particular FD responded out of district, nor do I know how many have paid the fee)
The way car insurance works (in case you forgot) is that if you wreck your car, and don't have insurance, you have to pay your own expenses. Sounds good so far? And you can't pay AFTER the fact to get coverage...YEAH. In fact, in some states, it's ILLEGAL to NOT have CAR insurance to protect other drivers... (stay with me here).................but if that uninsured car is on fire in the middle of the road, outside or inside the district boundary........the FD puts it out....right?
Now, if someone is in the car...well, that makes all the sense in the world. But if I didn't pay my fire taxes (say I live out of state and I'm sightseeing in beautiful TN), nor did I pay my car insurance (yeah...I'm a risk taker), but the car is on fire, they put it out...pat each other on the back, and then go have a cold one at the local watering hole and talk about the look on the guys face when his house burned to the ground.
But wait.....If my car's leaking gas as a result of an accident................here comes Haz Mat. Maybe I had some chemicals in the trunk (yeah...I moon light for a company trying to take over UPS's business..LOL), and it creates a cloud of methyl-ethyl bad stuff, and traffic has to be shut down, an area evacuated, detection gear, decontamination, the works... (that dang MSDS wasn't handy, and the bump on my head made my memory of what chemicals I had fuzzy), and you've got yourself a real honest to goodness S%#T-fest on your hands. How much does that cost tax payers? (I'm sure the FACTS Geeks will have a reasonable answer for this one).
So, let me get this straight...........you can cause one heck of an incident, costing tax payers a boat-load of money, shutting down a road, endangering residents, if it involves your car. But if your house catches on fire, spewing embers, causing spot fires, igniting stuff on fire that has to be extinguished, the "seat of the fire" is allowed to burn, with the potential to create more devastation, (and you've set a president by allowing a homeowner to pay a fee AFTER the fire was put out on prior incidents to prevent the aforementioned issues), but you say....naw....not this time.....you just let the home burn?
Now answer me this: If I was a neighbor, and I paid my $75, and I live a few houses away, how am I protected exactly? The unpaid homeowners home is going up in smoke, spewing a column of smoke and fire, and the engine crew arrives and breaks out the popcorn. The next thing I know, my wood shingle roof has gone..poof...and is on fire. They put the popcorn down, spray some water on my house. But dang... one of the embers got into the attic....and poof...their goes my house. Is there any MORAL responsibility on behalf of the department to have put the original fire out?
Of course, this particular department has allowed folks to pay AFTER THE FACT. It had something to to with not letting one structure fire turn into a whole neighborhood disaster (former fire chief's thinking at the time, but he's long gone). But can you honestly tell me, if that house on fire was surrounded by homes on three sides, that it wouldn't have been tactically prudent to put out the main fire if it was a eminent threat to the paid subscribers? So this poor guy's home burns down because they could AFFORD to let it burn based on geography?
So let me get this straight; You can pay the fee before the home burns and get protection. You can buy it after the home burns to the ground and get protection (rekindle anyone). But for the time it's on fire........NO DEAL?
Well boys and girls, there's the LETTER of the law, and the SPIRIT of the law. There's MORALITY, COMPASSION, ETHICS and PROFESSIONALISM. Regardless if the fee was paid was one second prior, or one second after the fire, it should have been extinguished, because its a THREAT to the paying customers (But not in this case...right FACT Geeks?)It's an area they had to respond to protect other homes. Put out the first fire to prevent anything else form happening. If you can come close to a moral argument as to why I'm wrong, well....I'm sure you'll tell me. A sad day indeed.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Karr Quintero on
-
medical and fire are two different things, watch the interview with the chief on msnbc
-
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
Ben,
We need guys like you to remind us the folly of not using good sound judgement in the face of someone's misfortune, versus following the rules. Again.....the FF's followed orders, and were video taped for the whole world to see, just standing around, until the Chief figured out that maybe things were going to look badly.
So you be a good boy and follow that voice of righteousness in your head, while those with courage lead the fight to change a bad policy. That's what were talking about...right?
Both following the rules, and letting the house burn down created big problems. Can you even admit that neither situation was the best outcome?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew Albertson on
-
But yet it is pertinent to this discussion. The situation is universal to all Emergency services. Think about it: you call 911 cause you are hurt, they send an ambulance, ambulance takes you to the hospital, ambulance sends you BIG bill. Same issue for most every subscription fire department in the state of TN that I know of. You don't pay the subscription, they still come out, they still fight the fire, but now YOU get a BIG bill.Yes, the homeowner should have paid the fire subscription. Yes, I suppose the fire department was within their LEGAL right to not fight the fire. I do not dispute those facts.
However, I cannot fathom a situation that resolves them of a MORAL or ETHICAL duty to act. While it is NOT a LEGAL duty to act and cannot be held against them in a court of law, it is still a moral and ethical duty.
Let me pose another "hypothetical" situation here to better clarify my point:
Jim, who lives in a rural farm community, likes to smoke.It has been real dry lately, and Jim is out at his barn doing some repairs. He discards a finished cigarette and climbs off his ladder to go back inside and get a glass of tea. Ten minutes later, he comes back out, and his barn is a towering inferno.
Well, Bob is Jim's neighbor. Jim and Bob don't get along to well on a personal level, but Bob knows Jim is a hard worker and respects that. So, Bob goes down to the General Store and is talking to some of the residents of the area and they get to the subject of Jim's barn. Bob lets it be known that he doesn't like Jim, but that he respects him, and thinks that something should be done. So what happens? The community bands together and has a barn-raising. No subscription fee was ever paid. No compensation was asked for. They came together to help.
This is not a hypothetical situation, but names have been changed. I will say that I was one of the people who took my tools over to "Jim's" place to raise the barn.
Just a thought folks. We are here to help other people. If you got into this profession for the pay and not because of a true desire to help people, then it is time to find another job.
-
-
-
Yes, Medical and Fire are two different things, but ask yourself this Karr....how different can they be when you have FF/Medics on most departments nowadays....
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Herb,
"We need guys like you to remind us the folly of not using good sound judgement in the face of someone's misfortune, versus following the rules."
That's an ad hominem attack - another of those logical fallacies that you seem to love so much, since you use them so consistently. Do you even understand the concept of logical debate?
The one who didn't use "good sound judgement" was the homeowner.
The one who didn't follow the rules was the homeowner.
What you advocate is rewarding the cheaters and the rulebreakers and punishing those who follow the rules. Let me put it plainly for you; that's unethical and it's counterproductive.
"So you be a good boy and follow that voice of righteousness in your head, while those with courage lead the fight to change a bad policy." That's unbelievable arrogant and patronizing.
You don't have the right to force the citizens of Obion County to use a tax-based system that they believe they can't afford, but that's exactly what you're advocating here.
"Both following the rules, and letting the house burn down created big problems."
No, what created the problem was the homeowner being stupid and NOT following the rules.
All he had to do was to follow the rules exactly like his neighbors did, and there would never have been a problem.
I don't understand why you continue to defend someone who is so blatantly irresponsible; and to misplace blame onto the city and the fire department instead of where it belongs - on the person that caused both the fire and the "big problems".
Then there's his irresposiblity in not controlling his outside burn and letting the fire start in the first place. That didn't just burn his house down, it risked his neighbors property as well.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
Hey Herb, I have decided not to buy a car, so I'll be stopping by your place to borrow yours when I need one. Yeah, yeah, I know I can buy a car, or maybe rent one, but I really need to make a trip. I'm sure you won't mind.
-
-
-
Herb,
That's B.S. and your jaywalker question clinches it.
I have directly responded to you while you have inserted hypotheticals, avoided the facts, and misplaced the blame. Jack, FETC, and others have called you out for it, too.
I'll directly refute your position - again. Your position is based on an appalling lack of consideration of the facts of the case. It is based on rewarding a cheater and creating a disincentive for everyone else in Obion County to play by the rules.
Your position is based on arrogance. YOU don't get to decide what the "right" policy is - the locals do. Just because you disagree gives no credence to your claim that it's morally wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. It is unethical to reward misbehavior by providing free fire protection to a rulebreaker while his neighbors play by the rules and pay the fee.
And Herb, your ability to cut and paste the definition of a straw man argument without unjderstanding it is lame, lame, lame.
Your imagined moral high ground is just that - imaginary.
Rewarding rulebreakers is immoral, but that's exactly the result of what you espouse here.
-
-
-
The blame rests on the politicians and Fire Chief. Can I spell it out any more clearly. The politicians made bad policy. The Chief used poor judgement. But it's the FF's that were filmed in front of a burning home doing nothing that are paying the price. How is that GOOD in any way? How is the ridicule they are receiving good for Fulton, or the Fire Service? It was a TWO bad Moral Decisions that led to this debacle; The homeowner not paying, and the FD not spraying.
When I was a B/C of a small district with a few paid FF's and volunteers, I used rules as a guide and enforced them, but at times was forced to improvise when the situation called for it.
We had a rule that a certified EMT had to drive the rescue during a transport.....but when a citizen was seriously injured, and the only person available was a capable first responder to drive to an LZ....what choice do you think I made? I broke the rules, and made a moral decision Ben. Nobody turned me in Ben....but then again I didn't work with you.
-
-
-
Hey you Socialist, you can borrow my car anytime...I have insurance.....LOL
-
-
-
Ben, you're like an Energizer Bunny, you keep going whether you need to or not. BTW, an ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. And for the record............your reliance on Wikipedia is pathetic.......but you seem to want to respond in kind....LOL
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
