The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Controversy After Fire Destroys Fulton Residence
There's a hot debate and a potential PR nightmare for the Fulton FD after fire destroyed a residence recently.
The property oweners were threatened with arrest if they entered the premises after the fire was extinguished to retrieve valuables. Under orders, the home was demolished immediately after, apparantly due to "hot spots".
Questions are being asked about the response times of the FD, levels of training, tactics used, etc.
See the video and read more at http://www.fultonkynews.com/firedestroys.html (Check out some of the comments below the article from local residents) but as usual, there's two sides to every story, and I don't beleive both sides have been heard yet....
The property oweners were threatened with arrest if they entered the premises after the fire was extinguished to retrieve valuables. Under orders, the home was demolished immediately after, apparantly due to "hot spots".
Questions are being asked about the response times of the FD, levels of training, tactics used, etc.
See the video and read more at http://www.fultonkynews.com/firedestroys.html (Check out some of the comments below the article from local residents) but as usual, there's two sides to every story, and I don't beleive both sides have been heard yet....
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
Without knowing both sides of the whole saga and this story, I think the FD has a real PR battle on their hands. There's no doubt that there's a lot of emotion attached to this fire (as there is in any fire, especially when all is lost, as you've said), but there's anger being aimed at not only the City Officials but also the FD and what they did, or supposedly didn't do and so on.
My company spends a bit of time dealing with business continuity issues for organisations, and harm to your reputation and regaining public confidence is one of the hardest things to build back up..... -
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Stoltz on
-
There are a lot of things to be considered here - level of staffing, 2-in, 2-out rule, origin of fire, type of construction, etc. The IC made a "lonely at the top" kind of decision, no doubt with guidance from the building inspector or code enforcement officer.
After the aerial poured tons and tons of water into a structure that a) was not built to hold such weight and b) had suffered structural damage, the decision may have been an easy one. Sending firefighters in to recover valuables at the risk of a collapse would be questionable; allowing the owners to do so would be criminal.
Regarding "Burn baby burn" - I have to agree with Siren. It only takes one time to be a first hand witness to this kind of incident - to see the anguish on the owners' faces; pick through the ruins to salvage burned out picture frames, toys, books, what have you - and after that experience you will hope and pray that there will never, ever be another fire, anywhere. -
-
Permalink Reply by Wes Anders on
-
Well not knowing all the facts its hard to comment all I can say is risk alot to save a lot, risk a little to save little and risk nothing to save nothing. The building looked like it could have been attacked from the inside for a little bit but that is a call that would have to be made on scene to many unknowns without first hand knowledge. And as far as the ladder showing up alot later well if your department is volunteer or partial vol. you should understand that sometimes you are going to be short on personal haveing the equipment doesnt mean you have enough firefighters to operate all of it. Our department has two pumpers 1000 and a 1250 but if we had a major incident I wouldnt have enough firefighters to handle operating both trucks at or near full capacity flows and mutual aid for us is 30 miles away so its at least 35 minutes from call for assitance till they arrive. I will say it looked like they took a defensive approach but whos to say that is right or wrong, not me for sure.
-
-
-
I'm trying to keep this on track here....
There are a lot of things to be considered here - level of staffing, 2-in, 2-out rule, origin of fire, type of construction, etc. The IC made a "lonely at the top" kind of decision, no doubt with guidance from the building inspector or code enforcement officer.
And unfortunately these are the decisoions that public will never have to make nor will they ever understand.
After the aerial poured tons and tons of water into a structure that a) was not built to hold such weight and b) had suffered structural damage, the decision may have been an easy one. Sending firefighters in to recover valuables at the risk of a collapse would be questionable; allowing the owners to do so would be criminal.
I'd suggets by the fire showing through the roof, this was burning pretty hard inside and was probably well and truly on it's way to being a loss for the owners.
To not aggressivley go to an interior attack was probably a good decision that potentially saved some lives. The full video would be interesting to see, to really appreicate the timeframes involved... -
-
-
Well not knowing all the facts its hard to comment all I can say is risk alot to save a lot, risk a little to save little and risk nothing to save nothing.
Again, this is the sort of stuff the public don't understand and will be hard to explain to an emotionally charged group of people- you're spot on though in what you're saying! -
-
Permalink Reply by Kimberly A Bownas on
-
Ok, as far as the "Burn Baby Burn" comment, that was just dumb. I was at a structure fire that my department was called to and the pain and loss that I felt for the family that lived there was real. I knew the family really well, it happened to be my ex mother-n-laws house. No matter what problems there were that was a horrible thing to sit and watch the house burn. Believe me there were some questions on what was not done but the department made sure that everyone was out and safe. We have a hard job as it is and even on a site like this to have someone make a comment like that is just irresponsible and unprofessional.. You need to think before you open your mouth...
-
-
-
The bad thing is there really is no good way to handle this PR nightmare. If you tried to explain yourself and told the public the reasons and conditions for you decisions they arent going to understand and the other thing that is sad about it is they already made there mind up one way or the other. Its hard to change public opinion.
-
-
-
Just reading up on the city of Fulton FD - combination career and POC volunteer, 2 pumpers, ladder truck, etc. There are and will be a lot of questions about this. Maybe it is a wake-up call in disguise for all parties involved.
-
-
-
Yes, my bad.. I was going to spell it out but I wanted to get my post in before the next salvo...
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Seargent on
-
The posts I've just read simply blow me away. I am not as much mad as disgusted. It is repulsive to think we have people among us that think of the devastation that is fire with less than reverence for the family's affected. My apologies don't go out to the family, never have. I never once started one, but my sincere heartfelt sorrow does. I don't want to think of the times I've been in a house fire and saw the Christmas tree. I can vividly remember the Menorah on a mantle that was lit as I made my way through. How many fires have been started as the result of a homeowner cooking for their family? No matter what the cause, the effect is nearly always the same. Sorrow and loss at either loved ones or loved things. Both that could never be replaced. We in the service do thrive on fire, after all, that's what we're here for, and speak with an earned bravado at times. Clearly, this is NOT one of those times. I will never be able to imagine the feeling of after watching your home burn, not be able to retrieve the possessions that might be left. My hat is off to the I.C. I hope I would be able to make a call like that if I ever have to. As far as for those who would comment, "Burn baby burn" and then reiterate the fact that they are standing by it, I am speechless. What wrong must be done to a person, what callous inconsiderate training must a person have to be able to say these things and still portray themselves as a Firefighter. t is only my hope that brass from her department has access to this forum and can see what is in the heart of a member.
-
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
