The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Tennessee Firefighters Let Home Burn Over Subscription Issue
JASON HIBBS
WPSD
Reprinted with Permission
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
Related
- WPSD: Firefighters Watch as Home Burns to the Ground
- WPSD: More Fallout Following House Fire
- USAToday: Firefighters watch house burn because owner hadn't paid $...
- MSNBC: No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn
FireEMSBlogs.com Updates
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
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.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.
Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
"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.
Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.
They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
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.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.
"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."
To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by andrew shapiro on
-
wonder what decisions would have been made if someone's life was at risk? what if that person at risk was a neighbor visiting the house on fire and that neighbor had paid the fee on their property, do they then qualify for "saving" and the homeowner does not? what if I was visiting (an unpaid visitor of course) is it tough luck on me?
Man, talk about a can of worms!!! we can go back and forth all day long, somebody in charge with some sense just FIX THIS!!!
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
sorry Jack....its not freelancing......JUST CRIMINAL
No, it is freelancing especially when ordered NOT to respond. The firefighters were on scene to protect the property (exposures) of the neighbor who DID pay.
There is no obligation here of the firefighters to put the fire out, it isn't criminal, there was no crime involved by the FD. Their duty to act is to those citizens who have paid for their level of service, whether it is by taxes or subscription, this person didn't pay either. The politics is not the FD responsibility but the elected officials who are the boss. It was deemed by those officials the FD would not extinguish the fire, that is following orders, whether agree with the decision or not. Ignoring said orders IS freelancing.
But please explain to me, why I as a taxpayer in the city, who pays to receive services, should have said services go to another community to someone who doesn't pay for the services, and receives it for free? It is their choice to live where they do and their choice to carry insurance or not.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Marchino on
-
I think the firefighters should of put the fire out . They are there to put the fire out. After the fire is out settle your account.
-
Permalink Reply by Avery Dale on
-
I just saw a video about this story & unless I looked at it wrong, it looks like the town Mayor is one of the firefighter's. Talk about pressure!
-
Permalink Reply by Kahn Guest on
-
Anyone remember when they first joined the Service and was given the talk : " It's one of the most rewarding jobs on earth and the proudest tradition of Community Service" .. why has this being forgotten
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Stewart on
-
Listen mate, at the risk of sounding anti american, this is what the american way is all about... look after those who have money/can look after themselves, forget those who can't. Maybe he had money to pay, maybe he didn't. The same thing happens with health care in you country... but that isn't what we are talking about so let me get to my point. The Fire fighters let the house burn and only provided action when the other house which did pay was threatened...not only that, watched it burn even though the owner offered to pay what ever they wanted!! Two things come to mind, first I would sue the department for emotional suffering as watching my house burn would have caused mental suffering (even though the "Chief" ordered the owner off HIS OWN property and called the police to escort him off which they did not show, most likely they knew that the Fire Fighters were in the wrong and didn't want anything to do with it) Second, as the owner of the property that did pay his Fire levy, I would also sue. They did put out the fire that had started on their property due to the house fire but if they would have put out the house fire as a "precaution" to "prevent further damage to other properties" by fire, none of the damage no matter how small would have occurred. I include all Fire fighters, regardless of rank, paid or volunteer because you just don't do things like that. These people give Fire fighters a bad name. What if there was someone in the house, would they have just watched?? What if there is a car crash in town? Do you know who paid for the service?? Do you walk away? If you see a young child in the street and is all alone and it's late,.... do you leave the child alone... it's not your job to look after it! WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE???? Get a clue and act like a Human beings people!......
Spleen vented!
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Cool, all that and without the use of a single fact. No worries mate, you're in good stead with a number of others that have no need for facts.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
That and I believe he also is the owner of an insurance company.
I read that somewhere. Don't quote me on it.
Oh, what the heck.
-
-
Tell me I'm wrong, they watched a house burn while owner stood there asking for help... that's enough "FACT" for me! Over here, if it's burning, we put it out! Who cares who paid what!
-
Permalink Reply by H.W."Butch" Clor on
-
Like it or not the fire department is constrained by law. They are a city department that contracts with rural residents. By common and most states law, if something happens in your own district and you are helping outside your district without a mutual aid or contractual agreement you are liable both personally and professionally. If you are injured or killed your department's insurance most likely not cover you.
Morality and an ethos to serve should not overwhelm taking care of our own first.
The resident made a conscious decision to not suscribe for service. He made a choice, a seriously bad one but his choice.
-
-
Butch:
That makes too much sense.
You have to understand that the moral minority is churning up their moral outrage on an issue that they only have internet knowledge of.
If we don't agree with their point of view, then we are bad people and are not fit to be firefighters.
However; if we allowed their moral compass to guide fire departments, can you imagine how much chaos would result and how deeply in debt they would be from giving away their services. Trucks will run on faith and fires will be fought with sheer will.
But don't worry; the community will appreciate "the effort" I'm sure.
-
-
look after those who have money/can look after themselves, forget those who can't.
Not that simple mate. It was decided by the community in which this person resides that fire protection will fall on the shoulders of the individual vs by being paid by taxes. The vast majority of depts in this country are tax base supported and will respond irregardless of an individual's financial state. Subscription type services are a very small number for a way of providing service.
Unlike even universal healthcare, which is provided by taxes from all, this area had no tax base going to fire protection. A subscription is just like an insurance policy, if one decided they don't want the policy, then the responsibilty falls on them when something happens.
even though the owner offered to pay what ever they wanted!
The firefighters don't make policy, elected officials do. Secondly, am I to surmise that in your country one can get insurance while the event is occurring? One can get flood insurance while the flood is happening? On can get hurricane insurance while the storm is coming ashore? On can get collision insurance after the accident occurred? Not the case.
I would sue the department for emotional suffering as watching my house burn would have caused mental suffering
Sue all you want, the fire dept had no legal duty to act. The community decided that subscriptions would be used vs a tax based fire dept. Suing for mental suffering in this case would be like suing for emotional stress after watching your vehicle get smashed by a tree limb and you never had comprehensive coverage on it. The responsibility lies solely with the homeowner here.
Second, as the owner of the property that did pay his Fire levy, I would also sue. They did put out the fire that had started on their property due to the house fire but if they would have put out the house fire as a "precaution" to "prevent further damage to other properties"
Where is the case there? The FD showed up BECAUSE that owner called. With the fire dept there, they were protecting the exposures. In such a sense, what occurred is no different than a training burn in a neighborhood. Sure there is a chance the fire can cause spread, but by protecting the exposures, the home on fire was allowed to burn itself out.
What if there was someone in the house, would they have just watched??
Now the game of "what ifs"....well first and foremost, there was nobody inside so the what if doesn't apply. However, if the fire was reported as someone trapped, then there is a duty to act to try and save a savable life, but that didn't happen, now did it?
What if there is a car crash in town?
The issue with a vehicle crash, much like the person in the house, goes towards saving a life. With a car crash, I have yet to see a dept that is concerned about trying to save the car. I have yet to see a dept worried about scratching a paint job while using the jaws of life, etc. Apples and oranges here.
If you see a young child in the street and is all alone and it's late,.... do you leave the child alone... it's not your job to look after it!
Last time I checked a child was a human life and not property. Difficult to lump saving lives in the same catagory as watching property burn.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
