Jamie_B Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1286474885' post='927792'] I think sometimes you and I see more eye to eye than you think... and I think that gets lost on a message board instead of a real human conversation.... [/quote] Noooooooooooooo LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1286476690' post='927801'] Noooooooooooooo LOL [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRaskxVjkXc[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 7, 2010 Report Share Posted October 7, 2010 After seeing the interview with this guy, yeah I can believe he forgot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1286462171' post='927723'] No I didnt. [/quote] I was half joking. I do understand what you meant in this context. The funny thing is, is that sentence sums up what I say in this forum most of the time, that you disagree so strongly with. You are using it in a specific instance, and I use it more generally... but the idea is the same. Didnt really want to hijack this thread... I would consider this one of the more informative threads thanks to Tigers. Glad I've followed along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 [quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1286498872' post='927901'] I was half joking. I do understand what you meant in this context. The funny thing is, is that sentence sums up what I say in this forum most of the time, that you disagree so strongly with. You are using it in a specific instance, and I use it more generally... but the idea is the same. Didnt really want to hijack this thread... I would consider this one of the more informative threads thanks to Tigers. Glad I've followed along. [/quote] I strongly disagree with the notion that we shouldnt be helping people, thats what I strongly disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 Looks to me like everyone involved was wrong on some level. They shouldn't have let the guy's house burn down though. And why wouldn't he have gotten his animals out, if it took so long to reach his house? But I am sure he will get a much nicer trailer with all of this publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 8, 2010 Report Share Posted October 8, 2010 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1286388245' post='927341'] [b]Not anywhere in that Chiefs statements did he say he encountered a situation like this....[/b][/quote] Are you sure you actually read the statement from the fire chief? Here, I will bold the relevant part for you... [quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1286387759' post='927332'] As a recently retired Fire Rescue Chief this flat peeves me off. I started my career two decades ago as a volunteer Firefighter/EMT and ended my career with the Honor of answering to the title of Chief (for those it matters to it was Career over a combination department) and not once during my career did I ever respond and fail to do my duty nor refuse to respond to call. When a call came in we went and did our job and duty. [size="6"][b]An this includes during the days I was with departments and districts that did not receive any tax funding, very little money from the state annually and lived mostly off of membership dues. The way it works is you respond to the call, do your duty and then when the flames are out you find out if the property owner is a dues paid member, if they are not you give them five business days to get into the office and pay their dues and if they did not you sent them a bill for services (for us it started at $350 for the first truck $150 for each additional truck and if over 4 hours was spent on the call it was an extra $100 per truck per hour),(hum might their insurance pay it) and if they did not pay the bill in six months after legally required notices were sent you sued them and/or got the state A.G. to collect it for you (which they always did even if it was in payments).[/b][/size] Now the Authority that the Fire Chief answers to needs removed from office and the Chief Officers of the department need relieved of duty, the SOG’s/SOP’s and administrative policies need reworked and the rank and file firefighters need retrained on duty, ethics and morals. They had a professional duty, ethical, moral and legal responsibility to disobey unlawful orders and fulfill their duty to their community and thy neighbor. In my entire career I have never seen a basic firefighting manual that did not have the following in its first chapter if not in the first couples of pages (straight from the National Fire Protection Association)“The Goals of Firefighting are (in order of priority) personal safety, saving victims’ lives, saving property and protecting the environment” no where do I see anything about dues or money. The rank and file firefighter and line officers are suppose to worry about their duty and maintaining the oath of service they took. The Chief Officers and the authority that the Chief answers to are suppose to worry about the money and that concern should NEVER stop a department from performing its duties to the community in times of emergency calls. Sincerely, Timothy F. Griepp Fire Chief (Ret.) MS FEM, CEM [/quote] It seems to me someone was trying to prove a point... In a very fucked up way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1286573267' post='928132'] Are you sure you actually read the statement from the fire chief? Here, I will bold the relevant part for you... It seems to me someone was trying to prove a point... In a very fucked up way. [/quote] I will admit I saw red when he completely disrespected me as a firefighter and went off.....and I obviously glossed over that article.... I can see both sides of the coin.... but if those volunteers disobeyed a direct order... went in and got hurt they would not have received workers compensation. Have you read all of my posts in the thread? Like I have said before in this thread... This was not on the first responders... The system needs fixed. Are you willing to chance sacrificing your ability to make a living to save someone else's property? Is anyone's life or well being worth any amount of property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1286588909' post='928230'] I will admit I saw red when he completely disrespected me as a firefighter and went off..... Have you read all of my posts in the thread? [/quote] I have... But it seems to me that firefighters and police share the great honor of protectors of the people and selfless heroes of those unfortunates in need.. The burden falls on their shoulders to serve and protect those who are unable to do so for themselves.. It's why we hold them in the highest regard as first responders and champions of the helpless. It saddens me that these brave men (and possibly women) were put in the position to compromise their commitment to this endeavor in the name of money. IMO, it is important, not only for the sake of those in need, but just as importantly for the preservation of the proud tradition of the service in which they have dedicated themselves that this sacred trust between these public servants and those that they protect not be clouded by something as trivial as not paying a fee. You have stated that it would "kill" you to have to sit idly by while being prevented from saving those in need whom you have committed to protecting. Does this seem like a situation that those like you should be put in... In the name of $75? I feel where you are coming from.. I understand the problems that these institutions suffer in terms of funding, and it makes sense that you would want to come to the defense of your fellow firefighters in this instance. As I see it, these volunteers who sacrifice a substantial part of their lives in service of their fellow citizens were victims as well in what was obviously a "bean counter" decision. The real villain in this situation is the person who decided that the sacred trust between the protector and the helpless was worth less than a $75 fee. Doesn't it make sense to you that the best decision in this situation was to honor this sacred trust, save that which could not be reconciled later and [i]then[/i] worry about financial particulars? If there is something about the system that makes it untenable for the firefighters financially, does it make sense to simply let peoples home burn while it is sorted out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1286593043' post='928237'] I have... But it seems to me that firefighters and police share the great honor of protectors of the people and selfless heroes of those unfortunates in need.. The burden falls on their shoulders to serve and protect those who are unable to do so for themselves.. It's why we hold them in the highest regard as first responders and champions of the helpless. [b]It saddens me that these brave men (and possibly women) were put in the position to compromise their commitment to this endeavor in the name of money.[/b] [b]IMO, it is important, not only for the sake of those in need, but just as importantly for the preservation of the proud tradition of the service in which they have dedicated themselves that this sacred trust between these public servants and those that they protect not be clouded by something as trivial as not paying a fee.[/b] You have stated that it would "kill" you to have to sit idly by while being prevented from saving those in need whom you have committed to protecting. Does this seem like a situation that those like you should be put in... In the name of $75? I feel where you are coming from.. I understand the problems that these institutions suffer in terms of funding, and it makes sense that you would want to come to the defense of your fellow firefighters in this instance. As I see it, these volunteers who sacrifice a substantial part of their lives in service of their fellow citizens were victims as well in what was obviously a "bean counter" decision. The real villain in this situation is the person who decided that the sacred trust between the protector and the helpless was worth less than a $75 fee. Doesn't it make sense to you that the best decision in this situation was to honor this sacred trust, save that which could not be reconciled later and [i]then[/i] worry about financial particulars? If there is something about the system that makes it untenable for the firefighters financially, does it make sense to simply let peoples home burn while it is sorted out? [/quote] I agree with everything you just said.... Especially the bolded parts.... The system needs fixed. Period. First responders should be worried about one thing and that is mitigating the emergency with the least possible loss to life and property....not who has paid and who has not. There is already enough stress in these situations. I can tell you with 100% certainty that had there been a life safety issue that any firefighter worth his salt would have been in that house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1286593465' post='928239'] I agree with everything you just said.... Especially the bolded parts.... The system needs fixed. Period. First responders should be worried about one thing and that is mitigating the emergency with the least possible loss to life and property....not who has paid and who has not. There is already enough stress in these situations. [b]I can tell you with 100% certainty that had there been a life safety issue that any firefighter worth his salt would have been in that house.[/b] [/quote] I have no doubt... It is part of the nature of those willing to put themselves between danger and those in need. It's what makes this whole situation doubly frustrating and incredibly sad. Hopefully this terrible situation will help to prevent things like this from happening again. Both for the sake of those committed to protect as well as those in need. Honestly I don't think anyone really blames the firefighters in this situation.. I think the vitriol in this thread stems from well founded frustration on both sides.. It seems to me there was somewhat of a disconnect between the sides in this discussion... The issue was clouded by emotion on both sides and rightfully so... There in nothing about it that isn't appalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 I think that the real point is if you compare this to health care its the exact reason that they are making it an element of the law that EVERYONE must get coverage of some sort so people do not free load on the system. They guy was told if he needed coverage he could pay and get coverage. He did not pay, so why would he get coverage? You have to mandate coverage for everyone because IDIOTS like this guy will try to play the system. Those firefighters did exactly what they should have done. You don't think the funding goes up in that area now that everyone knows that they will not get their houses saved if they don't pay? And with greater funding should come more lives saved. One house for future lives saved, I am all for that. In healthcare its a necessity to outlaw denial for pre-existing conditions and then its a necessity to outlaw persons not buying into a system so that ASSHOLES don't try to cheat the system and be unpatriotic to their fellow Americans by not paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1286596209' post='928245'] I think that the real point is if you compare this to health care its the exact reason that they are making it an element of the law that EVERYONE must get coverage of some sort so people do not free load on the system. They guy was told if he needed coverage he could pay and get coverage. He did not pay, so why would he get coverage? You have to mandate coverage for everyone because IDIOTS like this guy will try to play the system. Those firefighters did exactly what they should have done. You don't think the funding goes up in that area now that everyone knows that they will not get their houses saved if they don't pay? And with greater funding should come more lives saved. One house for future lives saved, I am all for that. In healthcare its a necessity to outlaw denial for pre-existing conditions and then its a necessity to outlaw persons not buying into a system so that ASSHOLES don't try to cheat the system and be unpatriotic to their fellow Americans by not paying. [/quote] You can achieve the same thing by charging him a penalty for not having coverage, on top of the cost for fighting the fire, and then a family is not out of a home. Everyone is all for a sacrificial lamb, as long as they are not the ones on the chopping block. Everyone keeps trying to compare this to insurance which is fucking stupid... If I don't have health insurance, the hospital doesn't refuse to treat me even if I offer to pay for the services "Sorry sir, you are having a heart attack.... But since you don't have health insurance we can't treat you"... "But I am willing to pay the ER bill and whatever it costs in medicine to save my life.... I'm good for it" "Sorry, sir, but you are just going to have to ride it out... To bad you didn't think of this when you decided against getting insurance" How fucking retarded is that? Obviously something needs to change in the way this area has fire fighting coverage.... Letting this guys home burn was not necessary in achieving those changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted October 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1286621327' post='928259'] You can achieve the same thing by charging him a penalty for not having coverage, on top of the cost for fighting the fire, and then a family is not out of a home. Everyone is all for a sacrificial lamb, as long as they are not the ones on the chopping block. Everyone keeps trying to compare this to insurance which is fucking stupid... If I don't have health insurance, the hospital doesn't refuse to treat me even if I offer to pay for the services [b]"Sorry sir, you are having a heart attack.... But since you don't have health insurance we can't treat you"... "But I am willing to pay the ER bill and whatever it costs in medicine to save my life.... I'm good for it" "Sorry, sir, but you are just going to have to ride it out... To bad you didn't think of this when you decided against getting insurance" How fucking retarded is that?[/b] Obviously something needs to change in the way this area has fire fighting coverage.... Letting this guys home burn was not necessary in achieving those changes. [/quote] Great analogy. My position the whole time is that they let the man's house burn down to prove a point. They could have helped, they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1286631312' post='928285'] Great analogy. My position the whole time is that they let the man's house burn down to prove a point. They could have helped, they didn't. [/quote] I get what he is saying. But I don't think it is a great analogy. One instance has to do with life, the other has to do with property. Like I said, I think everyone in this case was wrong on some level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1286636110' post='928299'] I get what he is saying. But I don't think it is a great analogy. One instance has to do with life, the other has to do with property. Like I said, I think everyone in this case was wrong on some level. [/quote] Whether it's a life saving procedure or not the point remains the same. People keep trying to equate this to not having insurance and then expecting to simply pay the premium when they get into trouble. That isn't what is being discussed here... Fully paying for the service is... How about this then... You get into a car accident, but don't have car insurance... You have the money to pay for damages but all the mechanics in the city refuse to fix your car because you don't have collision insurance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1286638746' post='928311'] Whether it's a life saving procedure or not the point remains the same. [/quote] No it doesn't. And surely you don't think it does. [quote]People keep trying to equate this to not having insurance and then expecting to simply pay the premium when they get into trouble. That isn't what is being discussed here... Fully paying for the service is... How about this then... You get into a car accident, but don't have car insurance... You have the money to pay for damages but all the mechanics in the city refuse to fix your car because you don't have collision insurance... [/quote] Still doesn't work for me. We are talking about preventing what happened. Not fixing it after the fact. Like I said, I think everyone involved is wrong on some level. The guy not buying into the protection is where it started. So he has to share in the blame. If he had bought into it, this is a non-story. Now everyone is acting like he is some innocent victim. He's not. I think the fire department should have tried to save his trailer. But they were following guidelines that were in place for 20 years. So it isn't like it was something new. And like I said before, the guy let his pets die. How can he justify not getting them out, when it took so long for the fire to reach his home? Also, I am sure he will have an even nicer place than he did before, from all the publicity. But he is as much to blame for what happened as anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted October 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1286639690' post='928312'] No it doesn't. And surely you don't think it does. Still doesn't work for me. We are talking about preventing what happened. Not fixing it after the fact. Like I said, I think everyone involved is wrong on some level. The guy not buying into the protection is where it started. So he has to share in the blame. If he had bought into it, this is a non-story. Now everyone is acting like he is some innocent victim. He's not. I think the fire department should have tried to save his trailer. But they were following guidelines that were in place for 20 years. So it isn't like it was something new. And like I said before, the guy let his pets die. How can he justify not getting them out, when it took so long for the fire to reach his home? Also, I am sure he will have an even nicer place than he did before, from all the publicity. But he is as much to blame for what happened as anyone. [/quote] Old, Lucid has twice given you correct analogies. You may choose not to accept them, but they are correct. Additionally, I don't think anyone who sees this as being a moral and ethical outrage like myself, believes that Mr Cranick was without fault. What most of the people that think somewhat like me feel, is that the powers that be in that community allowed the man's house to burn down, even though he was willing to cover the cost, not the premium, but the cost to keep this from being a total loss. I even understand some of tiger's viewpoint, when it comes to the actual firefighters themselves, because they were in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation because their supervision told them no. I also agree that it is a problem with the system, and the system needs to be fixed. This, however, does not absolve the people at the top who followed the system from blame, because one of the reasons we put people in these positions is to make appropriate decisions from both a financial as well as ethical standpoint. They proved a point, but at what cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1286639690' post='928312'] And like I said before, the guy let his pets die. How can he justify not getting them out, when it took so long for the fire to reach his home? [/quote] He should be on death row for letting that happen. Fuck him, I'm glad his shitty house burned down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1286640881' post='928313'] Old, Lucid has twice given you correct analogies. You may choose not to accept them, but they are correct. Additionally, I don't think anyone who sees this as being a moral and ethical outrage like myself, believes that Mr Cranick was without fault. What most of the people that think somewhat like me feel, is that the powers that be in that community allowed the man's house to burn down, even though he was willing to cover the cost, not the premium, but the cost to keep this from being a total loss. I even understand some of tiger's viewpoint, when it comes to the actual firefighters themselves, because they were in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation because their supervision told them no. I also agree that it is a problem with the system, and the system needs to be fixed. This, however, does not absolve the people at the top who followed the system from blame, because one of the reasons we put people in these positions is to make appropriate decisions from both a financial as well as ethical standpoint. They proved a point, but at what cost? [/quote] I just don't think life and property equate. And I don't think trying to fix something after the fact equates to preventing something from happening. So no, those aren't correct analogies. But whatever. Not important. I never said anything about the powers that be being absolved from blame. They should have put his fire out. But the fact is, if the dude paid like he was supposed to, this is a non story. And I think the powers that be are getting blamed a hell of a lot more than than they should. Except for losing some pets that can't really be replaced, I guarangotdamntee you that this guy will be better off than he was before this incedent. So it seems to me that the Fire Department is really the only one that is "paying the price". And this dude is being portrayed as a victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Where the comparison works with insurance is the fact that he tried to game the system. He didnt pay until he needed it. Thats where the comparison with the insurance begins and ends IMO. The fire department is non profit and probably could not function if it had to rely on persons to pay for fires only when they needed assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 Again he shouldnt have a choice it should be a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 i'd say afix a cost per fire put out...if you dont pay the $75, you pay the cost of fighting the fire, and a lein can be put on your property if you dont pay it... this of course only fixes future issues... not this one.. it would be tough to be next door, putting a fire out.. and NOT simply spray the water on the burning house... to be a human being with water in my hand and not put it on the fire in front of me seems impossible.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enon Bengal Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Call it insurance, call it a contribution, call it extortion, call it piece of mind. Who doesn't pay their $75 and then cries about it when his house burns down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.