So if there were children in that fire and not pets - would you still side with the Fire Department

[LynneSin]

I mean clearly some of you don't give a rats ass if someone's pets burn in a fire but what if that person had babies in there or their spouse or a parent?

I guess it's ok to say "Burn Baby Burn" when it's just a few animals that got toasted to a crisp. Personally I find that an extremely heartless and callous attitude because I love my cats to pieces. But still, I can't believe there are progressive out there that would think "Fuck You" to the person who lost his home and pets over $75.

[AlabamaLibrul]

1. Of course they would. Shoulda paid the $75, libertarian freeloading RW freeper bitches!

:sarcasm:

[closeupready]

25. Damn straight.

:sarcasm:

[LisaM]

2. It's not that different an issue, really

People who would do that to animals are the mostly likely (note: I did not say that they all WOULD) to do it to other beings.

Children strike a more visceral chord, but what if it was an old person who couldn't walk, or a paralyzed person?

[Fumesucker]

3. If there were children in that house do you think the parents would have gotten them out

Before the fire reached the house?

[SargeUNN]

27. flaw in your logic from a very real and sad situation

I helped build a new home for a man in Pascagoula Mississippi who had lost his home in Katrina. He had a FEMA trailer on his lot and was trying to rebuild his home but unfortunately due to the disorder that was the way of things after Katrina, his electrical wiring caught fire from a power surge it couldn't handle and it burned down. His family had been in the trailer temporarily because they were going to live in the rebuilt house due to be inhabitable in a couple weeks, so when the fire ended that the man's daughter, husband, and 3 children had to get an apartment. The apartment complex caught fire and as the woman tried to get to the children it became clear she wouldn't be able to do so. A passer-by also tried but failed as did the firefighters. The 2 children (one was not home) could be heard screaming as they were consumed in the fire as the mom, grandfather, and bystanders could only watch, listen and cry.

We don't know the reasoning for not saving the animals, maybe the fire was thought to be not a threat to that part of the house and that surely the firefighters would put it out before it threatened that area (an answer we won't know since even if this was the case no attempt was made to stop the fire), so before you pass this kind of judgment maybe you should gain more facts.

[Fumesucker]

30. Eh, I'm not the one passing judgement..

Take a look at the OP, I was just really changing a term in it, I changed fire department to parents..

If you chide me why not chide the OP also?

And the fire took some time to reach the house, it was started in a burn barrel some distance away.

[SargeUNN]

38. I will let the readers decide for themselves but

I have to wonder where you are coming from, what your idea of moral responsiblity is defined as.

[Fumesucker]

39. My idea of moral responsibility is this..

The owners had ample opportunity to get their pets out of the house *before* the fire reached their home.

They rather expected someone else to to risk their life going into an actually burning building to do that which they had neglected to do when they had the chance with relative safety.

I have two dogs myself, I would risk my own life to save them but I would damn sure not expect someone else to do so.

[SargeUNN]

40. well then tell me

since you are so informed on the situation give me a fact based timeline and full view in words as the location of things such as what was considered in danger and what wasn't.

[Fumesucker]

65. I haven't seen anything to contradict what I said..

Would you expect someone else to risk their life to rescue your pet?

[SargeUNN]

77. as Ronald Reagan would say There you go again

I asked for a timeline and you didn't answer just counter with another hypothetical question. Would you please give the timeline and info I asked for instead of trying to avoid it. Thanks

[Fumesucker]

80. You can look it up yourself..

It's not like this is an obscure story..

On edit: The OP was a hypothetical, why pick on me when this entire thread is about hypothetical situations?

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. I've gone into fires to rescue people

and folks who raise this matter I am betting have NEVER EVER done that... thankfully there are idiots like me who WILL DO that...

And a few times we have had to stand by and LISTEN... those are screams you never EVAH forget.

Why idiots like me go on about crispy critters and barbecue roast... and yes, we TRY to do it AWAY from those who might have a problem with the jokes. And by the way, these two are the mild ones.

But you are not going to get this to some people who thankfully live in theory, even if they have lost all to a fire...

Those firefighters did the wrong thing... or the right thing if we were talking of 19th century US... I guess we are going back to the future now.

[Fumesucker]

68. People, yes...

I read your story the other day, I applaud your bravery and dedication..

I don't think you would require someone to go into a fire to save another person's pet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. We have too

it goes with the territory.

Now if you have a choice of human and fido, human goes out first.

[Fumesucker]

74. Would you require someone to go in after a pet though?

If a person does that voluntarily it's one thing, to require it is entirely another.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. It is part of the procedures

it goes with protecting property. Yes, pets ARE property legally speaking.

[Fumesucker]

78. You'd take the same risk for property that you will for a human life?

That seems a bit of a stretch to me.. I damn sure wouldn't expect someone to run into a burning building to save my wallet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Firefighters do all the time

I guess that is shocking to you since you'd not do it.

But if you can save property you do.

I guess that is what is so shocking to you.

[Bluerthanblue]

87. I agree completely-

and while I haven't personally entered a burning building where people were trapped, my husband did. And it haunted him forever, but it didn't stop him from doing it again and again and again. Nor does it stop my friends and neighbors.

The fire chief made a very poor decision imo. I understand that many of the firefighters were really upset that they were not allowed to do what they needed to do.

:hi:

[LanternWaste]

53. Children die in fires quite often

Children die in fires quite often; sometimes their parents are able to get them out, sometimes no... :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

69. We are talking about a specific case where the fire started some distance from the house..

But I know that you knew that..

[LanternWaste]

81. We are talking about this case with a specific hypothetical

We are talking about this case with a specific hypothetical, regardless of the goalposts being moved by others. But I will hazard you knew that too...

[DrDan]

4. I find it a bit disconcerting that the owners stayed away for fear of being struck

by the shotgun shells in the house - but have no problem asking the firefighters to enter the house to fight the fire.

[Egnever]

7. I wasn't aware of that but

it doesn't surprise me in the least. This guy is a true teabagging asshat from everything I have read of him so far.

[LynneSin]

10. So if the guy was a bleeding heart liberal our opinions would support him and not the Fire Dept?

:shrug:

btw I'm not asking this question of you but anyone who supports the Fire Department over the homeowner.

[DrDan]

19. so you support risking a life knowing the owners are protecting

themselves from the gun shells in the house?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. You really DO NOT want to know

what kind of risks I took as an EMT-P... you really do not want to know.

It comes with the job you know.

[DrDan]

59. you were saving the lives of people - I assume

do you risk the life of a firefighter to save some animals knowing gun shells are in the fire?

and knowing the owners are staying clear to protect themselves?

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Fire fighters have done that

and worst.

Yes, for kitties and doggies and birdies too.

Now if the structure is FULLY INVOLVED... no, not really, but defensive fire fighting sucks... and that is one of the reasons. I mean PEOPLE do die in fires too. We cannot save everybody... but damn it, people try.

[DrDan]

66. I know they do - my daughter married one

I am just not sure it is the wisest decision (saving an animal, not referring to marrying a firefighter - lol).

The consequence of losing a firefighter doesn't measure up to the risk involved in saving an animal in my opinion. (I know it sounds cold-hearted, but sometimes tough decisions must be made.) In addition, there was apparently ammunition in the fire - making the risk even greater. The owners stayed clear of the fire because of the ammunition.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. If you have a person and an animal, the person goes out

even if the animal dies.

If you have a pet, and you can save it... you do.

As I said, goes with the territory.

Hell, we even transported a POLICE DOG to the trauma unit one Saturday night. I wasn't qualified to start an IV on a dog, but I still did...

Hey he made it... one of our volunteers was a vet... so he did the emergency surgery... no vet hospitals open at three in the morning...

Funny thing that dog liked to play with the crew and him after that. And damn it he got REALLY PROTECTIVE of us if we happen to really get to a call later on.

And we also gave Oxygen to a cat, after a house fire. That cat was such comfort to the ten year old tugging on my sleeve to do something about it.

So I guess you'd have to be there.

But let's make this crystal, If you have a choice of a human or fido, the human goes out first.

[Politicalboi]

24. If he was a liberal

He would have paid the $75.00. And if he had extra he would pay for his neighbors too. From what I'm getting. Money wasn't the issue, it was his ego.

[TalkingDog]

26. Sort of my take on it. My reversal (parody?) of the situation

was soundly unrecced and ignored.

[Hannah Bell]

32. the character of the guy is irrelevant except as it reflects the county's anti-tax mentality.

[DrDan]

15. here

“There wasn’t anything we could do, we just had to stand and watch it, and get out of the way because there were gun shells in the house,” said Mrs. Cranick. “I got on the phone and talked to the 911 operator, and she said she was trying her best to get crews out there but she wasn’t having any luck.”


http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/955/public/news987695.html

[Fumesucker]

9. OMG!! There were GUNS in the house??

I've changed my opinion, the FD should have gone in and saved those guns no matter what..

















:sarcasm:

[seabeyond]

47. i find it disconcerting the man did let his dogs out of house before the fire got there. nt

[Egnever]

5. the department has a policy

that they will help if human life is in danger and no I don't believe the firefighters should risk their lives for animals regardless of fees.

[Orsino]

6. I'm saving my outrage for the city...

...that would not have lifted a finger to help a fireman who was injured putting out an unsanctioned fire.

It's only a matter of time, given the schmuckiness of the city council and fire chief.

[jdlh8894]

23. What the Hell is an "unsactioned fire"?

[Orsino]

37. One the fire department isn't allowed to fight. n/t

[snooper2]

8. It's a mute point,

Had a life been in danger the fire department would have acted to attempt to save said life.



Isn't this what you call a strawman?

[Bluenorthwest]

42. The word is 'moot'. You wish to say it is a moot point.

Mute means silent, unable to speak. And the point you make is less than moot. You should have remained mute on the subject. Now you try.

[snooper2]

89. Thanks for the correction! Hate it when I do that one...

still a strawman though...

I'll be nice and not sink your rubber ducky just yet. My 11 month old daughter has one just like it she loves to splash. I imagine she will grow out of that someday though :)

[Pithlet]

11. I guess no one cares about the poor city residents

who have been actually paying taxes for that department have been missing out because the county has been sucking their fire department resources away from them because they couldn't be bothered to pay taxes to pay their fair share? That their lives are possibly being endangered because they're waiting longer? Who cares about them, right? No one seems to be giving a thought to them in all this. I wonder why that is? Is it because the media really has done such a masterful job in the spin of all this that the larger point of this keeps getting missed? The city has said that they save lives. They aren't the monsters in this story. They never have been. No, they've been showing up anyway, time and time again, even though they haven't been paid. They finally say enough. We have our poorer city citizens to think about and we're drained. From now on we only show up when you pay. Then bam, the inevitable happens and our oh so liberal media pounces on it. And who do we blame? Not the stingy county who caused this mess.

[dionysus]

34. so many ppl have their heads up their asses on this issue, it isnt funny

[Bluerthanblue]

86. so, how many of the city residents who didn't have to pay for this fire

are cheering the result?

I haven't heard any.

I'm willing to bet that those who have been paying the lion's share of the cost of the FD would have chosen to have the FD help.

I have more faith in human nature than I should perhaps.

:shrug:

[Pithlet]

12. Dupe

[cbdo2007]

13. Then I would REALLY REALLY hope the guy paid the $75 to keep them safe.

[seabeyond]

46. or maybe, in the two hours took fire to reach house, tell kids to leave it.

i dunno

[TransitJohn]

14. Unrec for histrionics.

n/t

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

17. As long as we're indulging hypotheticals

What if, while engaged at the Cranick house, the department got another call to a house a mile away, a house where the owner had paid his assessment? Unable to break away, the firefighters have to let the second house burn. Should the subscribing homeowner be satisfied with, "Well, that's just tough luck." If not, what guarantees are there that in deciding to fight the Cranick fire, another fire absolutely would not break out somewhere else in the coverage area?

[HughMoran]

20. The 3 dogs and a cat didn't "hypothetically" die

Was that a good "message to send" to those who don't pay in your opinion?

[gratuitous]

31. If the Cranicks didn't value their own pets and property, why should I?

I have said over and over that the situation of pay-for-play is ridiculous, but that's the system the residents of the locality chose for themselves. It is disingenuous in the extreme for Mr. Cranick to whine about his predicament now. He's a would-be tough guy who ruggedly figured he could go bareback, living his life without paying for "unnecessary" government services and keeping "his" money in his pocket. When life inevitably bit him in the bottom, he went crying to the nearest reporter, looking for sympathy.

I do not feel obliged to extend myself for someone so hell-bent on fucking himself over. There are plenty of people actually victimized in this world that require my attention.

[HughMoran]

18. Agreed.

We can discuss the policies in a thoughtful way, but don't anybody tell me that watching animals burn to "send a message" is a reasonable position. I'm a moral person before anything else.

[pecwae]

22. +1.

[Better Today]

43. Then why aren't you made at the owners for not getting them out?

They had plenty of time. Perhaps we should start a thread suggesting that the owners be charged with animal cruelty for leaving them there while on the phone trying to get the FD to show up even though the operator kept telling them the FD wasn't going to show up.

[HughMoran]

48. Disgusting "blame the victim" mentality

:puke:

Do you advise people to run into burning buildings? Do you know the circumstances? Are you assuming in order to support your seemingly heartless position?

Apparently, No and Yes.

[seabeyond]

52. we KNOW the fire was well out into the yard. we know it took the shed first

we know, per the owner, fire "creeped" to the house.

yes

there was plenty of time to get the animals out

[KittyWampus]

76. blame the victim? That family are NOT the victims. The pets are. Victims of asshole owners

who couldn't be bothered to try and save them.

[Better Today]

82. The victims were the pets, not the owners. Oh, also a house was a victim, not the owners.

[HuckleB]

21. 76...

[Hannah Bell]

28. The department's policy is to respond when human lives are in danger. So the question is moot.

[hayu_lol]

35. Do I hear the sound of cash being put in envelopes...

to be sent to the S Fulton volunteer fire department to pay for the engines, equipment, and so on that the residents of S Fulton have been paying for?

It is cheap to be a naysayer. It is insane to criticize a city fire department who has been giving free service to people who have never paid a dime for the service over the years that it has been provided.

S Fulton should make a decision not to fight fires outside of their own small town boundries and put pressure where it belongs: The commissioners of Obion County who have failed to protect their own constituents.

The head commissioner of Obion County firmly stated that if you pay the yearly fee, you will have fire service. If you choose not to pay, you will NOT get service. In this case, the guy did not pay and as his commissioner stated, did not receive service.

[cbdo2007]

29. If they are sending you the full bill to put the fire out - would you still side with the guy?

[LynneSin]

41. I keep saying they should send the full bill to the owner

I'm not saying they should have done it for free. But if this guy came into the emergency room with no insurance they still would have treated him.

[DrDan]

50. wouldn't that put the whole department at risk?

Why should anyone pay the $75 knowing that they only need to pony-up if they need the service?

[cbdo2007]

58. Right.....so when he doesn't pay the bill. Can they send it to you and you'll pay for it??

That's what happens when someone goes into the ER and they treat them. They send them a bill that they ignore. Yours and my rates go up.

That is really what it comes down to here is two scenarios:

1. He pays $75 and gets fire service.

2. He doesn't pay $75 but has a fire that the fire department must still put out. They send him the bill which he ignores or can't afford to pay. He still doesn't buy fire service for his new house paid for by homeowners insurance. Everyone else's rates go up to $85 per year to pay for the amount he didn't pay.

[uncommon]

33. Obviously loss of human life is a different matter. I'm sorry, but a firefighter should not risk

their life to save an animal.

[WinkyDink]

36. 1. There weren't. 2. The person who said "FU" was the homeowner, to the FD.

[LTX]

44. What if there were 10 helpless babies, a handicapped 85 year old, two horses, the Mona Lisa, and

the Pope in the house, and the firefighters had gone into the house and stomped the buring babies to death, shot the 85 year old, the horses, and the Pope, stolen the Mona Lisa, then poured gasoline on the watching homeowners and set them on fire, sold the Mona Lisa to an international arms dealer, and then used the money to go to Las Vegas, where they got drunk, beat up the desk clerk in the hotel, urinated on the house-keeper, and spray-painted obscenties on a homeless shelter.

Would you still support the firefighters then? Huh? Huh? I bet you would, you heartless freaks.

[Common Sense Party]

61. One question:

Was the desk clerk a progressive?

[fishwax]

62. .

:rofl:

[Bunny]

63. ...

:spray: :rofl: :thumbsup:

[COLGATE4]

71. YEAH!!!!!! RIGHT ON!!!!!!! (You forgot the babies were in wheelchairs)

[woo me with science]

90. I like you. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. you really should post more often -

:rofl:

[seabeyond]

45. is the owner going to leave the kids in that house for two hours before the fire reaches

it

or is he going to walk over to the house and get the kids out?

[Fire1]

49. Yeah but the shithead doesn't give a rat's ass, either!!!! So,

why should I care???!!!!

[whyverne]

51. Get the lawyers on it. The Fire Department could have an

alternate agreement form. Sign it and you owe them 2% of the price of the property after the fire. Something like Lloyd's Open Form for marine salvage. I'm just amazed at how non-libertarian the action in this case was. They had the guy over a barrel, charge him big time. This action was authoritarian, follow the rules or else, are your papers in order.

What would they rather have, the $75 or a couple thousand dollars? Give the people a choice, take a chance on not paying the $75 or fork over some real cash.

[COLGATE4]

72. He would sue your ass for duress and void the contract faster

than they put the fire out. And he'd win.

[damntexdem]

54. I don't side with the fire department no matter what.

Put out the fire and then bill the costs, and sue if the bill is not paid -- but put out the damn fire!

[seabeyond]

84. so, the truth just doesnt matter to you. must be why so many can keep giving dead pets to FD

yawl dont CARE about the truth.

to blatantly say that on du really is a new one.

repugs, ya. fox news watchers, ok.

but du?

[cynatnite]

55. It's hard to believe that there are DUer's who defend the indefensible. n/t

[AngryOldDem]

60. Sure they would.

Rationale: It would have been all the more reason for the man to have paid the fee. He didn't, so it's his loss. Literally.

I've read a lot of threads on this the past few days, and I can't say I'm all that surprised by the callousness.

"I've got mine and the rest of you can go fuck yourselves" should replace "E pluribus unum" as the national motto. It would at least be closer to the truth.

[COLGATE4]

73. No, how about "I paid for mine, you didn't and now want what I paid for"?

[Bluerthanblue]

92. life isn't fair, and people recieve and take

services from each other all the time.

That's what living in community, living as a society is all about.

What the f*& is happening to us all?

Money is god/king/lord of everything? screw that. We are acting like barbarians- selfish self oriented pigs.

There is a lesson our society could learn from some of the impoverished "undeveloped" people of this world. Where sharing and compassion for others in the face of starvation and death still exists.

:shrug:

[LiberalAndProud]

83. This isn't about $75.

This is about $75 X all the unsubscribed households within the FD's coverage area.

Sure, this guy could have saved his house for $75 and so could the next guy. Multiply that $75.00 by a few humdred and you will understand the dilemma.

Narrow the scope to ONE guy and ONE house and ONE fire, sure this is the most unreasonable position in the universe. Recognize that this isn't the only guy affected by the policy, and maybe you'll have some empathy for the people who do pay the bill. (It ain't no $75.00).

[ZombieHorde]

85. What if a Koran was in the house, and Muslims all over the world were watching on their TVs? nt

[Statistical]

88. The fire dept indicated they will save lives of people regardless of coverage.

So you strawman has burned up.

[LWolf]

93. I never sided with the fire department, nor with pay-for-play fire "protection,"

to begin with. :shrug: