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 John Crabbe on
-
then why not use preventative measures and just put out the damn fire... there is a great way to justify a FF's actions... they didn't put out the fire at the non subscriber, they prevented the subscriber's home from being engulfed.
Had I been a company officer and on scene, that would be my approach. HOWEVER, orders given will trump that notion. If it is determined by the chief to let the home burn and protect exposures, then that is what I'm doing...I'm following orders. If I can protect exposures without having to extinguish the fire, then exposures are still being protected and I'm following orders.
I would risk losing my job and tell the little chief good riddance
I'm willing to bet you are talking a good game here, but faced with the reality of the situation, I doubt you would. Talk is cheap. Sure is easy to sit here and say you would risk losing your job, but a whole other thing to actually be placed in such a situation. Perhaps you should look outside the fire service then if you think such decisions are easy to make.....difficult decisions ARE absolutely part of the job....sell your garbage elsewhere.
-
-
I'm curious as to why no one can acknowledge that the policy of not putting out a fire in a Non-Subscriber's home can NOT be applied EVENLY, so it makes it a POOR policy, resulting in the situation in Olbion TN.
I answered your question before....l did you not read it, or you just didn't hear what you wanted to hear?
Here is a very quick synopsis.....anything done in the past is past and has no bearing in this matter. The only point in which there may be some relevance would be if another fire in another non-subscriber's home burns and something different is applied. Since that hasn't happened....there really is no issue here.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
If Olbion County Tax Payers don't want to fund the various departments, why do 5 departments not utilize the subscription program, and respond to all their calls? Are you saying the 5 Departments are rouge operations? Or is it that the local communities served by the 5 departments in Olbion want LOCAL control to prevail, and not the will of other county tax payers?
-
-
I respectfully disagree. One of the reason Mr. Cranic called 911, and expected Fulton to respond was that residents had been allowed to pay retroactively in the past.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Herbie Little Lad,
That was more confused than your usual...which is plenty confused
"First you say they can't put out the fire because of policy, but then you say if it's a Tactical situation, it's OK."
No, Herbie, my little boy, I said no such thing, and once again, you're just making it up. When you say something that is similar to something I said, but more extreme and/or not honest, that is another one of those Straw Man logical fallacies that seemingly hit the internet every time you touch your keyboard.
"And now you're playing LAWYER..." Wrong again, as usual, Herbie, baby boy. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that you advocated for the fire chief to take the money the non-subscriber offered him. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure out that it could be construed as a bribery attempt on the homeowner's part and as extortion on the fire chief's part if he accepted the money. Apparently you have a difficult time in determining that a lot of what you advocate as MORAL actually is not only IMMORAL, it may be downright criminal.
To quote John Crabbe in his reply to Daniel G. below, "Talk is cheap." I'd add that talk is damn near free for a retiree that doesn't have to show up and back up his talk with any actual action.
Please go hunt for your ability to discern.
-
-
"Talk is cheap." Well said.
-
-
And Herbie, daddy's little laddie,
As usual, you ducked the issue that was brought up in direct response to your posturing.
Why don't you just answer the questions and address the issues factually?
-
-
I respectfully disagree. One of the reason Mr. Cranic called 911, and expected Fulton to respond was that residents had been allowed to pay retroactively in the past.
Again, what occurred in the past bears no relevance. The policy enforced was the policy in place.....just because there may have been some cases of retro pay, doesn't make the policy any less pertinent. Bottom line is there is no duty to act by the dept, irregardless of what occurred in the past....plain and simple....despite whatever twists you want to put on it.
It doesn't matter what the homeowner expected. If he had real expectations he would have paid the damn subscription....vs expecting services for free and pay a portion later.
Consider this.....a person paying taxes or even a subscription for 20, 30 years has paid quite a large sum for such services that they have not used. Whereas some idiot who decided to freeload and then expect services to be there despite not paying and thinks they should be able to pay a small fraction of cost is not right either.
-
-
Herb, exactly. When you said "So exactly how many times did the former fire chief get arrested?" that is a Straw Man argument. At least you seem to now understand what a Straw Man actually is, even though you continue to use them.
As John Crabbe, I, and others have told you - repeatedly - what occurred or didn't occur in the past has no bearing on the current situation.
The fact that the previous chief was apparently not charged with any crime for allowing retroactive subscriptions has no bearing on whether or not it may have been a crime for the homeowner to pay retroactively or whether it was a crime for the prior chief to allow the practice.
The issue I raised is specific to the incident under discussion. That's the only one that is pertinent.
The circumstances of this one were unique, in that the homeowner offered "whatever it cost" to extinguish the fire. That very well could be construed as a bribery attempt. If the fire chief had taken the money, it could have been construed as extortion.
Herb, your attempts to divert attention from a direct question aren't working, and your claim of MORAL has been debunked.
-
-
So Benny my boy..........let me see; You DON'T agree that there is EVER a Tactical reason to extinguish a fire at a NON- Subscribers property?
"No, Herbie, my little boy, I said no such thing"
Wow.....do you just practice making parking lots and BAD decisions in S.C. besides being the Fun Police?
And you duck my assertion that you're playing lawyer, because you throw the EXTORTION word around like you've committed some yourself?
Well Ben Wa, when did you become an EXPERT on the subject of EXTORTION? Show me some FACTUAL DATA that you know about, have been trained in, or are certified in the legal field? That's right Benard, you can't.
The fact that you stay up so late, based on the time difference from sunny CA, waiting for my bait, is the funniest thing you do in life thank God.
Benny, if you are soooooo smart, why even get sucked in to the debate at all. Is that silence I hear? Plus, you start responding to post from six days ago today................because you what............got bored with your Fun Police life?
Benny's EGO at work here. Ben is going to show everyone he's always right, because Herbie pissed in his Post Toasties...........LOL
Herbie's wrong.....I'll show him...........I am Straw Man Fallacy EXPERT. Ohhhh, And Crabbe backs me too, so I am double right. Ohhh, Herbie doesn't have to show up and back up...blah...blah....blah...blah...blah.
Hey Benny............ whose you're daddy......LMAO I have SOOOO much fun jacking you up dude, you have NO idea. This whole time, you actually think I care who agrees with me or not? It's not like what I say matters AT ALL on this thread Beneneneneny. I just say my piece and watch the fur fly.
If I want real conversation Ben Wa, I post on other threads with guys who aren't so gullible. And Ben, one day you'll be retired, and won't have to show up either...LOL
-
-
Wait, since Benny is quoting you now, shouldn't you guys get on the same page? Which is it; Bribery or Extortion? You LEGAL experts..............I gotta watch out for you two....LOL
-
-
It has no relevance to you, because it doesn't fit your argument. Are you and Ben attached at the hip, because you talk exactly alike. It's scary.
And then you said this: It doesn't matter what the homeowner expected.
Now...I'm no legal expert like you and Ben, but State of Mind is a big part of establishing INTENT in the legal world. Mr. Cranic thought he could get help...............THAT's a FACT. Jezze.........There I go stating a fact again...LOL
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
