Fire Department lets house burn

[tunes]

What do you guys think of this story?

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

It's all over the radio stations out here. People are just amazed they just stood there and did absolutely nothing.

What if there had been someone in that house? What if a child, an elderly person, or even a pet had been trapped? Would they still have just stood there and watched it burn?

What would have happened if it continued to spread and took out an entire neighborhood?

Why couldn't they put the fire out and charge the guy for their services? Obviously they don't draw a salary, since it's a volunteer fire department, but he could have paid the travel time, the foam used, etc. He offered to pay them anything to save their house and they told him no. They just stood there and watched this guy's house burn to the ground.

I am just stunned. When I lived in Ohio, we had a rural ambulance service. You had the opportunity to pay $100.00 a year, like a type of insurance, for if you ever needed their services since a lot of insurance companies won't pay the ambulance fees. If you chose not to pay, then you paid the full price if you ever needed an ambulance. But they would never have considered not taking you because you didn't buy their service!

Watch the video. They just stood there. I am stunned.

What do you guys think? I think they were dead wrong and it's a pretty crappy thing to do to someone. He obviously offered to pay anything it would take to save his house, and they could have simply said fine, you pay everything and put the fire out.

 

[Maia]

Wow. I would think that since he offered to pay anything to save his house they should have gone ahead and put out the fire and charged him later. The 'too bad, so sad' mentality of this county is sickening. Money is tight nowadays and I don't blame him for not wanting to pay a fee for something he didn't think was necessary. It seems a logical assumption that if you didn't pay, you could make up the fees later if the service was needed.

 

[Sandi]

There was another video as a follow-up to all the fallout where they discuss that if there was a matter of life in the house that they would have gone in but would they have gone in if it was a matter of a "pets" life, I don't know. But I do know that I would go in in that instance and yell and scream and try to save my pets. Then what? Now they have to go in and save me, I just don't know. Still, it upsets me that the owner offered to pay and they still refused to help. I don't care that he didn't pay when the "bureaucracy" says you "have" to pay, seriously I don't.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

 

[mercynursie]

I don't know details, but I know that wouldn't happen in our community.We have a county wide fire tax that helps support our volunteer fire department,but that wouldn't stop our guys if the tax wasn't paid.My husband has been involved with volunteer fire and rescue for over twenty years in our county with different departments.The only time an interior fire is not fought is when it is obviously unsafe for the firemen to enter. Even then everything possible is done to save the structure even if it is just a tiny part.I myself have witnessed these guys hauling out hope chests/storage cabinets,anything that might hold personal irreplaceable items like pictures,family bible etc. They have even gone so far as to put the family up in a motel room(always done anonymously-the guys will quietly drop whatever cash they have on them into the hat per say)because Red Cross couldn't respond.They have risked injury to themselves to rescue pets too!It tears these guys up when there is any loss of life.I really hope this fiasco gets fixed before it smears the reputation of thousands of volunteer fire and rescue folks.:impatient:

 

[CTChin]

What the heck ever happened to common decency and protecting your neighbors??? To stand by and watch people's heart break and all their possessions lost over a lousy $75??? I swear our country is going to ****.

 

[AZChins]

They charge people extra for fire service out here, too. As far as I know that just means that if you need their services and you pay for it, then you don't need to pay the full cost after they put out the fire. That's crazy and it seems like they may be able to sue over that.

Wouldn't this be something like organized crime? You have to pay for protection or they let your house burn down? That doesn't seem right...

 

[CJR]

Wouldn't this be something like organized crime? You have to pay for protection or they let your house burn down? That doesn't seem right...

That's called racketeering, and I would say that this is a form of that. Ridiculous.

 

[cindyv3737]

That is complete insanity! The fire department should have helped.

 

[GorillaJTA]

This reminds me of the first fire brigades in ancient Rome. They started out charging homeowner for fire protection then resorted to lighting fires so they could charge.
Most volunteer depts operate off of the $75 but also get state funding. There really is no excuse for this. I could see a lawsuit if proof of state or county funding can be found under equal protection laws.

 

[caiti]

That is awful. Although, like the follow up article stated, it has nothing to do with the firefighters. They were probably legally bound not to act. The flaw is in the politics and it's is the fault of one or more politicians. I would even have trouble putting any blame on the chief. Someone made this business arrangement which outsourced the fire department since the county in which the fire happened did not have a fire department. So basically it turns people who save lives and protect communities into subcontractors.

The real problem is this county doesn't have it's own fire department.

 

[~SG~]

It seems they were legally bond not to respond by the way the laws are set up. Also the home owner probably had no clue just how much that would have cost and no way to prove he could pay it. Anyone can stand and say I'll pay but unless you got the cash in hand you just can't trust people these days. If it is a law you have to pay the $75 in the area where you live and you refuse to pay, it's your gamble. Sadly he lost that bet.

 

[3CsMommy]

It's a **** policy that hurts all the public faces of the incident. The family lost their home; the fire fighters now look like @$$#*!#$ because the rules of their job (the one they're contracted for) meant they couldn't do the job as they probably want to (run into the house, put the fire out or get the pets/people to safety).

I've thought this since I got my pharmacy job a few years ago; we're all completely up the creek when saving lives turns into a for profit business venture.

 

[Siylvat]

That is just ridiculous. That should not be a law. Maybe that if you don't pay the 75 and something your house catches on fire, you get a much heftier fine, but the way I see it fire department is like police department, it is their duty to respond.

That would be like you calling the police department because someone broke into your house, and them saying that they will not come or let you file a report because you didn't pay them.

 

[tunes]

I don't think money would be an issue. It can't costs $10,000.00 to put out a house fire, when there are no salaries involved. He could have easily paid them from any insurance proceeds. I can't think of a single person who actually claims the exact amount of the cost of their contents. We all guesstimate. They could have easily paid them back.

And politics or not, these are VOLUNTEER positions. These are not paid for by the city, county, or state. If those fireman had even a shred of human kindness, they would have tried to put that fire out. What were they going to do, fire them? This makes them all look completely inhumane.

 

[Nancy]

I was telling my husband about this. He used to be a volunteer firefighter both at work and for the township. He said that legally, once you are trained and part of a crew, legally, you cannot refuse the service or you can be sued. Don't know if it's like that there but they could be in trouble.

I see both sides of it though. If people don't pay and they still come and fight the fire anyways, then nobody is going to bother to pay. The chance of your house burning down is remote so if they have to fight the fire whether you pay ahead of time or not, then why bother wasting the money.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

 

[~SG~]

I don't think money would be an issue. It can't costs $10,000.00 to put out a house fire, when there are no salaries involved. He could have easily paid them from any insurance proceeds. I can't think of a single person who actually claims the exact amount of the cost of their contents. We all guesstimate. They could have easily paid them back.

And politics or not, these are VOLUNTEER positions. These are not paid for by the city, county, or state. If those fireman had even a shred of human kindness, they would have tried to put that fire out. What were they going to do, fire them? This makes them all look completely inhumane.

Some volunteer firemen are paid on a per fire basis from the state. My father used to be a volunteer until it got to be WAY to much politics involved and he left the department. He does however still drive the fire plow for forest fires through the forestry department when needed. The laws he has to abide by when on a call are just nuts and he will tell you that.

When he was a member of the local FD they were on the way back from a fire and saw a small brush fire and stopped to put it out and the home owner told them they couldn't cause she couldn't pay, dad talked the crew into putting it out 'off the books' and without the county equipment and put it out anyway. Some firefighters have a heart and when they can help, they do.

It sounds to me the fire fighters here hands were tied by red tape. They may have been willing to work but probably could not have done so with the equipment.

 

[AZChins]

It's just frightening if that's what it's coming to in this country. I was thinking about this when I was cleaning cages...and it isn't right. Pay up or we'll let your house burn, geez...

 

[greychins]

My god. This is ridiculous. I can sort of understand the town wanting to fund the fire department, by making each home pay the fee, but that's ridiculous that just because some people don't pay that they don't get the service. I think of the fire department and the police department (and related) as a service that the community sort of provides. I like to think that if I called the cops, they would come (though, from law school, I have been informed that they have no duty to come to your aid if they do not want to, at least in Indiana) and same for the firefighters. What is the freakin point of having firefighters and the like if they're going to stand there and watch the house burn?

And I agree with Peggy, for all they know, someone could have been in the house. The fire could have spread and become unmanageable. What maybe could have been put out at the beginning could have become so widespread that they may not have been able to put it out later.

And especially since he offered to pay when the firefighters came out. They could have technically used that as his $75 and put out the fire.

Utterly ridiculous.

 

[Melissa]

oK What about this, those fees pay for insurance for the firefighters lives. What if a firefighter went in to put the fire out (no live at risk) and was injured or killed. What if their insurance policy only allows them to protect covered homes. Then what? The VOLUNTEER and their family are SOL? And the negligent family sitting pretty in their house that was protected?

The fact of the matter is they ARE Volunteer. They technically didnt even have to show up. But they did for any LIFE threatening issues and to protect the property of those who had paid.

As humans we think our fellow humans should want to help. But not only can they be released from their jobs, it can be ensured that they can not get another job in that field for disobeying orders. Also the men and departement could have been sued for entering the home and attempting to put out the fire. If they can be sued for saving your life(which people have done) they can be sued for saving your house.

If anything the City/County should be held responsible and receive the backlash for this not the firefighters.

As for firefighters going in for animals, if a firefighter can safely go in then yes they will go and get a pet but if the structure is not stable they cannot go in. That goes for human life too. There have been several incidenes where PAID firefighters were put on suspension/terminated for going against their orders to not enter a house for animal and human life.

ETA: Salaries aside... The cost of a house fire is about a $1 million response.

 

[Melissa]

missed the edit.. But.. Sad thing is this guy probably wont beable to claim this on his insurance. They will probably tell him he shouldve paid for the fire tax.

The statement here is the most ignorant.

"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.

He had no intention of paying for anything and thought they would put it out anyways. Which is probably how the whole city thinks. Which is probably why they Mayor and the Fire Cheif made the decision they did.