In Tennessee, firefighters arrived to a burning home. And then just stood there and let it burn to the ground. OK, so this may not exactly be Ray Bradbury's dystopic world, but it sure reminds me of it! I personally don't see how these firefighters could morally allow a person to suffer so much. He didn't pay $75, and they were pissed, is the impression I got. Read the full story if you want

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20 … cal-debate

I personally believe all those involved should be fired (there is NO pun intended). I always imagined firefighters working for the good of the people. Aparently to TN firefighters $75 is worth more than helping it's citizens. I think it's perfectly criminal...

edit: from their website (City of South Fulton TN): "The mission of the South Fulton Fire Department is to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and provide good public relations through fire safety education to all businesses and schools."

If the above is true, then clearly the Fire Department grossly neglected it's basic duties. Therefore they should all (at least) lose their jobs in my opinion. Unbelievable...

God, do not even get me started on fire companies. We had a problem with the one in our town about a month ago.

After a citizen donated a building to the company for nothing, they demolished it. Nothing wrong with that, that was the idea - the building was old, an eyesore and nobody wanted it there. It's what they did after they demolished it. With the building in the center of downtown, they decided to burn it (in an attempt to save money) instead of hauling the remains out of town. The problem? The building was full of asbestos, and they burned things that shouldn’t be burned like the tar paper on the roof, air conditioners and mattresses. You would think they of all people - who enter burning buildings - would realize that isn't stuff people - including the funeral service that was being held right next door - don't want to breathe in. Utterly brainless.

Oh, and I loved how they tried to pass it off as a training excerise. Uh, no... a "controlled burn" only applies to a standing structure.

Still, it all ends well. The EPA is levying fines against them. For an institution that relies on donations from the public, pissing off the public is a bad idea. I don't think the citizens are going to be very charitable in foreseeable future and well, like it was said, they're going to need the money.

I'm with the firefighters on this one. The area in question didn't have dedicated fire coverage and this fire department offered coverage as service for $75 a year. They weren't obligated to offer that service, they chose to. As for the family in question, they didn't pay and so they lost out. Sure it sucks to be them, but you get what you pay for, right? It's true that the firefighters could have intervened, but what message would that send? No one has to pay anything until there's actually a fire? Besides, in this case there weren't any lives at stake, so it was simply a matter of trying to buy insurance after the fact.

Sorry, but I'm not feeling any sympathy. Those people chose to live somewhere without dedicated fire coverage and then didn't take the fees seriously. I'd like to think that they've learned a valuable lesson, but I doubt it.

That they're decent human beings?

The firefighters acted irresponsibly, placing other people at risk.  The firefighters themselves should most certainly be disciplined, but more importantly, those who created this horrible policy in the first place should be removed from whatever offices they hold.

I can see the argument from a legal standpoint; you don't buy insurance, you take a risk. But the guy offered to pay, and that seems like a sufficient penalty. You can't put a price on compassion. As far as that setting a bad precedent...well, even if some people walk all over you for it, I think you still make the world a better place.

I don't buy this at all, they were there checking that the fire won't move onto the other buildings, and pretty sure there's a law in US which mandates them to act if there would have been lives in danger.

Well, it's not their fault that the person who's house got burned down didn't pay that $75 for annual fire protection. You can't blame firefighters doing their job as they're instructed by the policy. They would have probably been disciplined if they would have acted on that fire.

Still, policies like that are idiotic, I really can't understand why shit like that is still on US. Also kinda reminds me of Gangs of New York and the fire fighter scenes in it.

But still, this is almost in the category "Only in America", what's gonna happen next, guy without insurance starts claiming it or some other stuff where the person itself is also in fault for not paying for silly policy. Hopefully it will change after this.

Maybe whole fire department thingy in US should be goverment owned, which would mean that it would be funded by taxes. Unless it's already like that, but there's private sections also. Someone probably can chime in on this.

I loved the follow up article I saw where the firefighters say they weren't demons. Haha, don't me laugh. DEMONS!

But seriously, here's a question someone bought up in the discussion of that article. What if the house belonged to a related family member of one of the firefighters? Would they have shown more compassion - and given them a “mulligan” - or would they have still sat there and watched it burn? I think the answer is obvious, and well, to take a page from Bernhardt, people in certain professions are more apt to "look out" for their "bother" even when they've done something that is downright wrong. I mean firefighters once hid a drunk person's booze on our back porch after he crashed into our house because they knew him so he wouldn’t get a DUI. How am I suppose to have respect for an organization that would do that?

I could be mistaken, but my understanding was that these people lived in an area that didn't have a local fire station (or that wasn't a part of a larger fire district). That means they simple didn't have fire protection. The fire station in question offered fire protection for $75 year. In other words: without the fire station's generous offer, they would have been completely out of luck.

You do realize that no one was at risk, right? No one was in the house and the nearby houses were protected. Also, if someone had been in danger, they would have intervened. So how do you figure anyone was at risk? As for the firefighters, they did their job! It doesn't make sense to punish them for that. It's also not a "policy." It's a matter of fire stations costing money (and lots of it). The area in question obviously couldn't afford a dedicated station so this was the next best option. Maybe the people should have taken the $75 seriously instead of being cheap bastards.

Yes, you can. Compassion is great, but sometimes it does carry a price. It's not practical for the world to run on compassion alone. It's easy for individuals: I can give $20 to a bum and feel good about myself. But what if the government started giving $20,000 a year to anyone who was unemployed, no questions asked? That would be irresponsible and I can tell you that they'd run out of money fast. Granted, that's an extreme scenario, but the agreement these people had with the fire department was $75 in advance for a year of protection. They didn't hold up their end of the contact and that's that.

Do people really think that they just "forgot"? Their neighbors didn't. Although this is speculation on my part, I'm willing to bet that the fire department even contacted them about coverage too. That's what our local stations do for rural / uncovered areas. Our station even does that with their rattlesnake coverage (nowhere near as important as fire protection). I know people like this family and it's likely that they were cheap and careless. Perhaps they've finally learned a valuable lesson, but I doubt it.

And just for the record: if this had happened to me, I'd definitely be pretty upset myself. It wouldn't happen to me though, because I'm not stupid. I pay my bills... especially the important ones.

EDIT: Another thing to keep in mind: it's not like the payment was due the day before the fire. They chose not to pay at the beginning of the year and had all year to make it right. Sorry, but this was definitely no "accident". They were asking for trouble.

You can put a "price" on compassion, but then it wouldn't be selfless. I view true compassion as giving without concern for what it costs you. I don't give to feel good about myself, although that is always the result. Compassion also needs to be coupled with discernment, or discrimination, so that you're not just encouraging someone's unhealthy, self-jeopardizing habits. So I agree with your statements, but I never implied that we should all act out of blind, unquestioning compassion. I'm just concerned about a lack of care here. I admit this picture of sympathy is better related to the individual, but government administrations are made up of those individuals, and I feel (hope) it still applies, along with the proper judgment, of course (government doesn't work very well if it's malleable).

As far as the story is concerned then, was the judgment call they made right? Just from reading the article I felt they should have helped him, but I wasn't there. Maybe the guy was a dirtbag freeloader who's time had finally come. Maybe he was unwisely negligent and deserved an act of grace. I don't think he deserved to learn his lesson by losing his entire house, given that he could have just paid a hefty fine instead.

(But what if he couldn't afford to even pay a fine? Then I suppose he should lose his house the same as all the unwise homeowners who lose theirs to foreclosure. And now I feel like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth.)

*Sigh* Laws are conditional, humans can choose to be unconditional. There's trouble when the two clash.

By the way, just wanted to add that I don't hold a low view of living by the rules. For example, I've always reported my online purchases when filing taxes. Do any of you practice this? Whenever I've told family or friends about it they look at me like I'm crazy, like I'm duping myself. I must be in the extreme minority.

Also, aside from grandmas, I must be one of the slowest drivers on the road because nearly everyone tailgates or whizzes past me. And that's at a steady 5 over on the interstate, which technically means I'm breaking the law too. I've never gotten a ticket in 14 yrs of driving though. So, for anyone mad at the cops for pulling you over, this is a reminder that you actually deserve it. How often should they give you a "warning"?

It's not the reporting so much as recording that makes you nuts in my eyes. Keeping track of those purchases is work - I don't work for free, and I sure don't work to pay someone else

Five over is pretty slow for interstate driving. I'm not going to argue that you should drive faster than you see fit, just stay out of the left lane or move aside when I come up at a faster pace and we're cool

Well, maybe I am a little nutso with my bookkeeping. Ever since finishing high school I've kept a simple notebook with my monthly income, expenses, and charity, so it's just second nature. I also keep all major receipts in a yearly file, which I then band with my tax printouts after filing, to be kept a minimum of 5 years. Online purchase receipts are easy to pick out since they're usually on full sheets of paper. What's nuts is that a couple years ago I got a letter from the IRS claiming I'd made an additional $10,000+ of income that I hadn't reported, and they wanted to bill me almost $2000 for it. It took about 6 months and some phone calls to people of influence before it was all cleared (no idea where they got that faulty information from in the first place).

We're cool then. I rarely find myself in the left lane. What I don't get is when I'm in the right lane and somebody comes up at a faster pace behind me and then just sits on my tail. The left land is open for passing but they don't pass. It's like I'm their personal cruise control.

The firefighters didn't show up until after the *neighbors* (who had paid their $75) had called them because the fire was endangering *their* property.

As I already noted, the Fire Department acknowledges that:

"The mission of the South Fulton Fire Department is to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and provide good public relations through fire safety education to all businesses and schools."

did people miss the part where they said protect the lives AND PROPERTY of its citizens?

I did not find anywhere a statement that said "protect the lives and property of all citizens, so long as they have paid $75 to the department". Even other firefighters in TN are "outraged" by the idiocy of letting a house burn:

"We don't particularly care who's paid his dues," said Steve Wheeler, chief of the Vonore, Tenn., Fire Department. "If somebody needs help, we help and worry about everything else later."

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/oct/0 … home-burn/

Steve Wheeler's response, is exactly what a firefighter is supposed to say. Since Gene Cranick did not pay his $75, make him pay a hefty fee AFTER saving his home, but just sitting there and letting it burn... I find that monstrous.

"Cranick has said in cable television interviews that he forgot to make his payment and that he told responding firefighters he would pay their costs if they would douse the fire at his home."

Fixed the emphasis for you. The whole controversy is centered around the fact that the victims are NOT South Fulton citizens.

That said, I really do agree with you. Unfortunately, this may be the kind of choice which will continue to have to be made in a lousy economy.

Haha! You've got my number! Er, book!

Glad to hear people are actually outraged at this; I didn't think people had that kind of sense anymore.

Yeah, seriously though, with coverage like that, who NEEDS firefighters? Might as well install water spigots in your ceiling, the kind that activate when a fire erupts in your building, and other measures to cover your own ass in the case of a house fire...

I remember the last time I talked about fire safety with my parents; I told them to buy a fire extinguisher, and my mom was like, "If your house catches fire, you're DEAD!" Wow. Great survival instincts there, mom...and forget all the rest of the people in the neighborhood, whose houses a fire could spread to, as well... (-_-);

I love how liberals are taking the occasion to shots at conservative ideology, too...can't remember when letting houses burn to the ground was all part of conservative ideology, but whatever...I guess I have a bad memory...