quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: It's just the way the world is.
Great post, DDDaysh. When you live out in the country, you have to expect these things. If you don't like it, you move into town.
We're not feudal serfs tied to the land and unable to leave it. It's a great big country, and there's something perfect for everyone out there somewhere.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:first, thats not a valid answer/argument because there is no proof that any such moral obligation exist. unless of course you want to claim one originates from a divine source.
Not at all. It has been repeatedly shown that such cooperation has an evolutionary benefit.
quote: I don't know how he could claim he just "forgot" when he was clearly reported as saying that he thought they department would come even if he hadn't paid.
Yes, he said that after his house burned down. Prior to that he offered to pay "whatever it would take" to put out the grass fire before it reached his house. And before that he called 911 and they told him he hadn't paid the bill. He claims he forgot. Maybe he did, maybe he actually thought he did pay the bill (as I did in my previous example) but said "I must have forgotten" rather than saying "I did pay it!" because he knew that being argumentative wouldn't get him any favors. Here's a good one: Maybe he DID pay it, and the fire department failed to properly record the payment. These things certainly happen, they've certainly happened to me. Given the time constraints of a moving fire, it doesn't make any difference which is the case, it simply isn't reasonable to argue the point. Even if he did intentionally fail to pay the fee. He can always be sued afterwards.
quote:No, I am not. As someone who has actually been in the field, and who knows many, many volunteer firefighters, I'd say I have a very good basis for making this decision. You may choose to disagree, but that doesn't mean my opinion is invalid. In fact, it's probably several time better than yours.
On what basis are you making this evaluation of my opinion? What do you know about me? Are you a firefighter? Does your acquaintance with firefighters make you an expert? Do you know how many firefighters I am acquainted with? Your whole argument is based on making assumptions about things that you cannot know.
quote:He could be sued by the people who's resources were damaged, the people who paid for the service. He would be sued for any water damage or any damage he failed to prevent, because any contract signed under those conditions would fail in court for the simple reason that it would be considered signed "under duress". If he was a Cpt. and ordered his men in, and one got injured, they could sue him for giving an illegal order. If one died, he could be sued for wrongful death, as they were not allowed to be in there by law. If equipment failed or was damaged, the fire companies insurance would refuse to pay to fix or replace it, as it wasn't being used in a legal manner.
First: if it was a structure fire, yes there is a considerable difference in the danger between fighting a grass fire and fighting a structure fire. Which is precisely why they should have put out the fire before it reached his house, or spread to the neighbor's property.
But the possibilities you are citing are remote for fighting a grass fire. They need not have involved themselves with any structures. From what I understand of your argument, you are actually claiming that Cranick could have sued them for water damage after he requested that they save his house. Or that the neighbors could have sued them for using their money to put out his house. Both claims are ridiculous.
Given that they had a 911 recording of Cranick offering to pay whatever it takes, any reasonable person would simply send him a bill, which undoubtedly would have run at least an order of magnitude greater than $75. Lawsuits would only follow if he failed to pay the bill.
As to the danger presented to the firefighters, there is a whole spectrum of possible decisions that could be made in this case, the least of which would be to stand at the extreme distance that the hoses can spray and see if that's enough to stop it from reaching the house. The Cranicks were apparently already doing that with garden hoses, so if the firefighters lives would have been threatened, the Cranicks' already were.
Actually, with regard to my personal experience:
I arrived home from school one day to find my house threatened by a fire that had spread from a brush pile where the neighboring apple orchard was burning prunings from the apple trees (they did this every year). The fire department was nowhere in sight, but migrant orchard workers were fighting the fire by swatting it with their coats, hats, shovels and such. We called the fire department and went out and tried to help, but the orchard workers didn't want a couple of kids involved, so they shooed us away. At no time did I feel that getting near the fire would endanger me, but I could certainly see how the fire could spread faster than the workers could put it out.
As it turned out, the brush pile fire was being watched by a volunteer firefighter who was sitting in his truck on the opposite side of the brush fire, unaware that the fire had spread from the opposite side. When we called the fire department, he heard a report on the scanner that there was a fire near where he was, and he left to fire to go find it. Other volunteers eventually showed up, but by then the orchard workers had it under control. I'm sure the orchard workers would have stopped if they felt they were in danger, but they weren't.
And neither were these firefighters in danger as they sat by and watched the fire approach the Cranick house. What is the difference between watching from a distance, and spraying from a distance?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
this sort of indirectly references a point I've stuck to, which is that firefighters' needing to go through an extra step of litigiousness protection and vetting before, you know, putting fires out is kind of like doctors standing around twiddling their thumbs for a gunshot victim in the e.r. while billing makes sure they would get paid if they save his leg.
universal fire coverage pl0x, pleased to be removing superfluous steps between incident and response
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to disagree with that. Less than 3 years ago I was involved in fighting a brush fire that started in an empty dairy field behind our "neighborhood" (two dead end streets that form an L, houses along the roads, field in the space between the legs of the L behind the houses.)
It started almost exactly at midnight when some idiot a few streets over was shooting off bottle rockets in the middle of a drought. We were very lucky. My aunt who lives on the far side of the field (about a mile and a half away) routinely sits on her roof on New Years Eve to watch over her own land, and saw that fire ignite. She immediately called 911, but as I've mentioned before, we only have a volunteer force with not-great response times. Couple this with the fact that the only road access to the field that was on fire was actually about 5 miles in the opposite direction from the houses (all those five miles across open field with no road), well... the fire department was going to take a while.
My aunt called us, and all of our neighbors that she knew. We then sent my littlest brother running around the neighborhood to knock on the rest of the doors, and set out to try to keep the fire from the houses with nothing but garden hoses and buckets of pool water. It was insane, but we thought we could handle it. We figured, at any rate, that if we stayed far enough back from the flames we should be safe, and could create a damp barrier between the houses and the fire.
In the end, it worked. We were able to wet down all the roofs, so no structures caught from flying sparks, and we even managed to wet the grass sufficiently that it slowed the fire until the fire department could come at it with foam from the opposite side. However, there were at least two times I remember when my dad and the other man that was closest to the flames thought they were in safe territory only to have sparks jump over our dampened barrier and ignite behind them. Luckily no one got more than singed, but I definitely wouldn't say there was "no danger" in fighting a brush fire by hand. Any number of things can go wrong!
Mostly though, I think many of you really don't understand the mindset of many people who live in very rural areas. You keep saying that letting this one guy pay "after the fact" would not have impacted the ability to fund the service, but that's just not true. The places around here that are covered by fire service often have people thoroughly pissed at having to be taxed for the service who would gladly stop paying for it if they could, and would gladly take the risk of paying out the nose if there ever was a fire. We see it already in other services, like road surfacing and brush management. People don't pay the county fees for the service because they figure that if the grating truck is already traveling down the road, he'll go ahead and pave their personal part because it's easier than checking his map to see who he should and should not pave. The same goes with roadside brush control, pest control, all sorts of things. Farmers, in general, have learned to work the system for all it's worth because that's how most of them manage to survive. You can keep saying that people would have continued to pay even if they helped, and MAYBE you're right about those particular people in Tennessee, but I have to doubt it, because I actually KNOW the people right here in Texas, and they most certainly wouldn't pay.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: ... The places around here that are covered by fire service often have people thoroughly pissed at having to be taxed for the service ... Farmers, in general, have learned to work the system for all it's worth because that's how most of them manage to survive.
Heh. These two points bring up a possible enforcement mechanism, don't pay for fire protection? No farm subsidies. Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright Mucus! That's a solution that might actually work! I don't dislike farmers, but they have to survive in a world that doesn't really value them (or, rather, their product) anymore. Unfortunately, that has made subsidies a way of life for them.
I am curious though, I wonder how states like Wyoming manage this problem. It's so easy in areas like mine for there to be a one or even two hour response time for emergency personnel, and we're densely populated compared to some of those areas.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have to disagree with that.... ...Luckily no one got more than singed, but I definitely wouldn't say there was "no danger" in fighting a brush fire by hand. Any number of things can go wrong!
You didn't state what you disagree with. You disagree that watching from a distance put the firefighters in the same jeopardy as spraying water from the same distance? Or that the firefighters lives would have been threatened in the same way that the Cranicks' lives already were, since they were fighting the fire with garden hoses?
quote:Mostly though, I think many of you really don't understand the mindset of many people who live in very rural areas.
The house I lived in when the fire broke out was a half mile from our nearest neighbor. Is that rural enough for you? Maybe not. On one side was an apple orchard, the other side woods and swamp followed by cornfields and cow pasture. Our driveway was 1/3 of a mile long.
But really, I'm getting confounded by people who think they can read the minds of those involved in this case. You can't. You're arguing from a position of ignorance, and claiming you can make judgments based on your suppositions.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:its absurd to hold Person A responsible for Person B's wellbeing if or because person B doesnt care enough to take care of his/herself.
First of all, this can't be a hard and fast rule. What if A is B's parent, and B is a young or mentally disabled child?
Second, your rule doesn't seem to apply to the situation. It's not that the real-life "person B" didn't care. They just forgot. Some people are more forgetful than others. Once I mailed an application to renew my passport to the office in Chicago, without including the passport. Did I not care enough? Of course I cared, I was taking a trip to France later that month. I was just being an absent-minded moron.
If you prefer societies where the absent-minded are harshly punished, fair enough. To me that sounds like a weird standard to hold people to, and I certainly feel lucky I personally don't live in such a community.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm arguing from no more a place of ignorance than you, since you weren't there either and do not know the people in question. I have admitted that, but have given the reasons that I believe the way I do, based on the experience I have.
And, yes, I am saying that the firefighters would have been in more danger trying to fight the fire than they were in watching the fire. If they needed to move back out of the way, it is easier to do if they are not already in the process of fighting the fire. Whether or not they were in more danger than the homeowners is a moot point, since the homeowners made their own decision to fight the fire.
And no, I don't consider half a mile from neighbor to neighbor to be "very rural". It is rural, but we have places considered to be "in town" that are that far from neighbors.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But really, I'm getting confounded by people who think they can read the minds of those involved in this case. You can't. You're arguing from a position of ignorance, and claiming you can make judgments based on your suppositions.
wow. this from you? most of what youve said so far is unrestrained speculation and reckless suppositions unless of course you have numerous and detailed reports and eyewitness accounts you arent sharing with the forum. if you review what youve posted you will notice "your whole argument is based on making assumptions about things that you cannot know." those of us with a view that differs from yours have made an effort to go with the known facts and avoid guessing at what the homeowner 'maybe' did or didnt do. and, with regards to this discussion, your orchard fire anecdote was interesting but inconsequential; you cant transpose your experience with this event and expect increased credibility or proficiency when analyzing firefighting and emergency response services. i cant read minds but i can read news reports, laws and regulations and historical accounts where the benevolent actions of good people ended up costing them.
again, as others have said, this is a very unfortunate circumstance for the homeowner but hopefully it will go to illustrate the cost of negligence in such a system. the negligence on the homeowners part is what needs to be addressed, not the system that the residents of Obion county, the county in which the homeowner lives, have deemed acceptable. i dont want obion county residents forcing laws and taxes upon my county, half a country away.
and "such cooperation has an evolutionary benefit" doesnt equal a moral obligation. cooperation doesnt stem from moral obligation. and 'evolutionary benefit' is a big idea and deserves a thread unto itself.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:its absurd to hold Person A responsible for Person B's wellbeing if or because person B doesnt care enough to take care of his/herself.
First of all, this can't be a hard and fast rule. What if A is B's parent, and B is a young or mentally disabled child?
Second, your rule doesn't seem to apply to the situation. It's not that the real-life "person B" didn't care. They just forgot. Some people are more forgetful than others. Once I mailed an application to renew my passport to the office in Chicago, without including the passport. Did I not care enough? Of course I cared, I was taking a trip to France later that month. I was just being an absent-minded moron.
If you prefer societies where the absent-minded are harshly punished, fair enough. To me that sounds like a weird standard to hold people to, and I certainly feel lucky I personally don't live in such a community.
no, its not a hard and fast rule. What if A is B's parent, and B is a young or mentally disabled child? then A is the legal guardian of the child and is accountable for all that such a position entails. i would love to elaborate but this is irrelevant to the discussion as we have no indication that the homeowner is mentally disabled.
it would be wonderful if our legal system could function on a per case basis but law has never thrived in grey areas. probably because dishonesty is found all to often in mans nature.
i dont prefer a society where the absent-minded are harshly punished but what kind of precedent is set when citizens feel they can forget, intentionally or unintentional, things of great consequence and expect no negative repercussions? your absent-mindedness could have cost you a trip to france, which would have been a pity, by the way, as its a very beautiful place, and the only person you could have justifiably blamed was yourself. you could have felt angry or dismayed that others didnt make accommodations for your forgetfulness but that wouldnt have removed the burden of responsibility from yourself.
freedom is found in the justice of law and safety is found in the order. by going against the laws of the land as they had been established and accepted by the people, the fire fighters would have jeopardized the functionality of the fire department, and therefore their jobs, and their actions would have cast a blow to the integrity of the entire system.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was an EMT for about 8 years, and I volunteered with 3 local fire stations in rural MA for years. I've treated the injuries caused by fires, but have never fought one myself. I can't claim any fire experience of my own for that reason....I was always outside of the fire zone, treating people. Sometimes the firefighters themselves.
So yeah, I think my experience....that of being at well over 40 fire scenes myself, and knowing many firefighters in a professional situation rather than just social ones....lets me have some insight to the risks of what you are talking about.
As I said, it is because of this type of situation that firefighters overwhelmingly prefer universal, taxed based fire coverage.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm arguing from no more a place of ignorance than you, since you weren't there either and do not know the people in question.
If you follow my posts, you'll see that I am arguing in cases, specifically to avoid the kind of suppositions you have made, and now accuse me of. Cranick has been accused of "refusing to pay" (not supported), "opting out" (not supported), "choosing not to pay" (not supported). This is sheer mind reading. And I was responding specifically to the idea that "knowing the mindset of people in rural areas" makes someone more capable of judging the situation better than me. The very idea that you can use "knowing the mindset" of a people to judge them is the very definition of prejudice.
I have not made any statement of what people were thinking, only what they did or said. I give Cranick the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty, as they say), and I think that morality demands that in a situation that serious, not giving him the benefit of the doubt is morally wrong.
quote:Whether or not they were in more danger than the homeowners is a moot point, since the homeowners made their own decision to fight the fire.
Not true, according to the fire departments own website:
quote:The municipalities believe they must agree to this plan or cut all rural residents off from fire service—except in a case where a HUMAN life is endangered. The municipal fire departments and firefighters realize that the rural subscription program is not the best fire service delivery method, but the county leaders have left them with no other option for the rural property owners to pay their fair share of the cost and expense associated with operating and maintaining the municipal fire departments.
Note that their entire argument comes down to funding. You guys have added this whole aspect of lawsuits and safety, none of which has been so much as mentioned in the statements made by the county.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is safety, but neither was cited by the fire department as a reason why they didn't fight the fire. Only that he hadn't paid his $75. You guys want to throw in red herrings, fine, but expect to be called on it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
