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 Herb Genelly III on
-
Wait.........the Cranic's offered to pay...Bribery. The Neighbors offered...non pertinent.............to who Ben? So you're saying that the neighbors, afraid that their property was at risk, and wanting to help the Cranic's, has no place in the debate? I'm surprised you see it that way.
Ben....isn't it 1:26 a.m. where you are? Impressive that I can get you to stay up so late, since I have so little to offer you, that you could even concede a point. I know you watched the video of the Union city chief, where it was stated that the neighbor offered to pay too. Well, it's 10:30 p.m. here, so it's bed time for me....or is it Ben????
Here's a website I found for you that I thought you may enjoy: Enjoy:http://www.pointandcase.com/debate/
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Good link, even though it's another opinion blog.
A key comment in that blog was "However, if elected officials don't want to fund a FD, the citizens need to speak up, vote, join up, or never forget to subscribe." (emphasis supplied)
That exactly agrees with what Art, FETC, Jack/dt, I, and others have been saying here. If the subscriber had kept his subscription current, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The link also comments that this issue is nothing new, that subscription fire departments have been around for a long time, and that this isn't the first non-subscriber house that has burned down.
Thanks for posting it.
-
-
Herb,
Apparently you still don't understand the concept of "context".
We were discussing whether or not Mr. Cranic's offer was bribery.
You said that he didn't make the offer, when he clearly did, according the the top-line post that is the topic of this discussion. My point was that your claim wasn't accurate. It was not.
What the Cranic's neighbors did, and whether or not it was bribery is a seperate issue.
And Herb, when you say "So you're saying that the neighbors, afraid that their property was at risk, and wanting to help the Cranic's, has no place in the debate?" That's another Straw Man logical fallacy. I didn't say that at all. YOU did, Herb. Dude, you really need to learn that it is dishonest to keep making things up as if I had said them when I clearly did not.
And Herb, you really have a hugely overblown sense of yourself.
You aren't getting me to stay up late at all. That's just your arrogance showing. No wonder that you posted that link - you found it first.
-
Permalink Reply by Fireslayer960 on
-
There has never been a dispute about whether it should have been paid or not Ben. I have repeatedly said the homeowner was an idiot for taking that kind of risk by not paying it. The dispute has been about extinguishing the fire. I made a comment that the majority agree that it should have been extinguished. You said, Prove it. I have given you links to various threads, I have shown you numbers, I can go on and on, one website even has a pie chart dedicated to it, and that chart is at 75% who feel it should have been extinguished, but you simply stand behind your "Let it burn" logic. Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as I or the majority of people make think that it is, it is still your opinion. I am just glad that none of my brothers in our department share your view. Because frankly, it opens a whole can of worms.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Lilly on
-
What i'm saying to you ben. Is just becuase you think it's bribry dont mean it is. Second heres a question for you. You say it woudnt be fair if a house in the town burned. And him not paying his fee. But say a house in the town is burning . And a house in the county is burning . The homeowner payed his $75 fee to have his house protected. His house burns down becuase they are fighting the fire in the town. Is it fair there house burned down. After they payed there fee. Heres another thing what if a subscriber pays for 20 years. They never have to call the Fire deaprtment. Isnt the town actuALLY Benefitting from that money. So actually now the town is extorting the county out of money. I mean these subscribers are paying to help fight fires in the town.
-
-
-
–noun
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.
-
-
collude pica sough coprolite extortion - 4 dictionary results
Extortion
Free Legal Information & Resources on Extortion Laws & Attorneys.
www.FindLaw.com
Business extortion
Extortion/coercion/threats. Worldwide insurance solutions.
www.Gaprotection.com
Extortion Definition
Find Definitions For Any Word.Get Your Free Dictionary.com Toolbar.
Dictionary.com
ex·tor·tion /ɪkˈstɔrʃən/ Show Spelled
[ik-stawr-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. an act or instance of extorting.
2. Law . the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.
3. oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. anything extorted.
Use extortion in a Sentence
See images of extortion
Search extortion on the Web
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1250–1300; ME extorcion < LL extortiōn- (s. of extortiō ). See extort, -ion
—Related forms
non·ex·tor·tion, noun
—Can be confused: bribery, extortion .
—Synonyms
1, 4. blackmail.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source | Link To extortion
World English Dictionary
extortion (ɪkˈstɔːʃən)
— n
the act of securing money, favours, etc by intimidation or violence; blackmail
extortioner
— n
extortionist
— n
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
Word Origin & History
extortion
c.1300, from L. extorquere "wrench out, wrest away," from ex- "out" + torquere "to twist" (see thwart).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: ex·tor·tion
Pronunciation: ik-'stor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or practice of extorting esp. money or other property; specifically : the act or practice of extorting by a public official acting under color of office
2 : the crime of extorting — ex·tor·tion·ate /-sh&-n&t/ adjective — ex·tor·tion·er noun — ex·tor·tion·ist /-sh&-nist/ noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Might I make a suggestion to the
combatantsparticipants here?
Instead of spending so much time trying to prove each other wrong, why not focus your considerable attention to looking at ways to reducing the likelihood of a South Fulton every happening again?
We all know that there was a complete and total failure and that the worst possible outcome occurred, but I have watched this discussion degenerate into a very personal war of words.
This issue is bigger than any of us, it is a situation that cries out for our collective efforts to resolve and instead; we want to argue semantics?
When I first broke this story over here, I knew that there would be a broad range of opinions, which I think is very important to any discussion, but I never in a hundred years, thought that I would witness the vigorous personal back and forth that has taken this very relevant and valuable discussion back to the playground.
I see very intelligent people here wasting their energy in proving each other wrong.
If you don't think that this story and that these discussions don't have reach, then please explain to me why almost two weeks after the incident, it is still lighting up the comment sections on a hundred websites?
I don't care who has the bigger....helmet.
Oh and you may want to check out my blog:
http://www.firefighternation.com/profiles/blogs/commitment-free-of-...
Let's be "nice" to one another.
TCSS.
-
-
Art,
Thanks for the Words of Wisdom............you are right.
I actually PM'd some folks to get a feel for why anyone would be so twisted in knots by my argument. Honestly, I spend very little time on blogs, as I usually lurk, see two sides of a story, hopefully learn something or get a good laugh, and move on.
My POV: even though I know in some states it's legal to witness a crime, and not report it or help, I think it's Immoral. Same goes for not stopping to help an accident victim (any one can dial 911 I think). And lastly, I guess I'll always feel that if you're less than an Attack Line's length away from a burning home, you put it out. It doesn't make me right or wrong, it just makes it ME!
But I'm retired. My opinion means nothing to the folks of Olbion. It can't be forced anywhere. Hell, my opinion can't be justified, in the sense that it's predicated on Human Behavior and beliefs, all of which are individually formed over each individuals lifetime by their unique experiences.
My point: I don't even have a helmet to compare size, because I hung mine up, giving me extra time to engage in banter (helmet-less so to speak), some of which has now adversely folks I respect, so I will now "shut down" the computer. Sorry to those having to witness my diatribes, but I just couldn't help myself based on my beliefs.
-
Permalink Reply by WestPhilly on
-
Guess Herb won't be giving me an answer to my question.
-
-
Billy,
The 1st-due will respond to the first fire, and they'll use mutual aid to respond to the second fire.
Unless one of the fires is a delayed alarm, neither house will burn down.
As to the 20-year subscriber, a contract that is voluntary and freely signed by both parties (the SFFD and the subscriber) is a business agreement, not extortion. The only benefit the town gets from the money is that the subscribers offset some of the costs of the city responding to fires in the county as well as in the town.
The city taxpayers pay taxes to "help fight fires in the town". This is a situation where everyone except for county non-subscribers benefit from both the city fire taxes and the county subscription.
And let's not forget that we're talking about a city department with a $8,000 annual operating budget.
Frankly, I don't know how they stay in business with that level of funding. My hat is off to SFFD and their members, who have stayed in business for over 20 years with minimal city and subscriber funding and none at all from the county.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
