Some interesting info about that house that burned in Tennessee:

[hedgehog]

The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

State forestry officials are also imposing outdoor burning restrictions - effective Monday - in West Tennessee due to a heightened danger of wildfire from the dry conditions, the state Department of Agriculture announced today.

As of Monday, citizens west of the Tennessee River must obtain a burning permit from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture's Division of Forestry before any outdoor open burning of debris within 500 feet of woodlands, grasslands or forestlands.

Permits are available by calling local forestry offices, listed in telephone direct

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/01/memphis-shelby-county-fire-departments-ban-open-bu/

HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MEMPHIS TN
811 AM CDT TUE OCT 5 2010

ARZ008-009-017-018-026>028-035-036-048-049-058-MOZ113-115-
MSZ001>017-020>024-TNZ001>004-019>021-048>055-088>092-061515-
ALCORN-BENTON MS-CALHOUN-CARROLL-CHESTER-CHICKASAW-CLAY-COAHOMA-
CRAIGHEAD-CRITTENDEN-CROCKETT-CROSS-DESOTO-DECATUR-DUNKLIN-DYER-
FAYETTE-GIBSON-GREENE-HARDEMAN-HARDIN-HAYWOOD-HENDERSON-HENRY-
ITAWAMBA-LAFAYETTE-LAKE-LAUDERDALE-LAWRENCE-LEE AR-LEE MS-MADISON-
MARSHALL-MCNAIRY-MISSISSIPPI-MONROE-OBION-PANOLA-PEMISCOT-
PHILLIPS-POINSETT-PONTOTOC-PRENTISS-QUITMAN-RANDOLPH-SHELBY-
ST. FRANCIS-TALLAHATCHIE-TATE-TIPPAH-TIPTON-TISHOMINGO-TUNICA-
UNION-WEAKLEY-YALOBUSHA-
811 AM CDT TUE OCT 5 2010

THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR PORTIONS OF EAST ARKANSAS...
THE MISSOURI BOOTHEEL...NORTH MISSISSIPPI...AND WEST TENNESSEE.

.DAY ONE...TODAY AND TONIGHT

ELEVATED FIRE DANGER WILL CONTINUE THIS AFTERNOON DUE TO LOW
RELATIVE HUMIDITY VALUES AND DRY FUELS.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/wwamap/wwatxtget.php?cwa=hun&wwa=all


Dry, hot conditions prompt county-wide grass fires

“The lack of rain, low humidity and high temperatures are creating extremely dry conditions that are really not right for anyone to be burning anything. If you plan on burning, please make sure you have a water source nearby. Surprisingly, there is not a burn ban in place, but I urge you to be very careful,” MFD Lt. Jamie Summers said.

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46617

This family's home burned because they started an outdoor fire against common sense and possibly local regulation.

[babylonsister]

1. Fire happened Sept 29 per your first link. Do you still want to

wag your finger at this family?

[Fresh_Start]

3. we can't make a law against every possible stupid thing

human beings can think of or do...some common sense is in order.

When its dry as tinder outside, you don't set a fire outside.

[Rex]

65. You mean common sense like not letting a house burn down right

in front of you when you CAN TRY to prevent it. :eyes:

FAIL.

[hedgehog]

4. I suspect that if conditions are so hazardous this week, they were pretty

bad last week as well.

I live in a rural area and am very familiar with seasonal bans on open burning. I also know that when we burn actual "trash", i.e. fallen tree limbs, my husband does it on a quiet day and keeps the fire small enough to control.

Trash is agricultural waste, not household garbage.

[Obamanaut]

29. I agree with you. I live in N. Fla. When it has been dry for a reasonable

period of time, everyone I know holds off on burning the typw of "trash" you describe without even checking to see whether/not a ban is in place. It is common sense.

[Pithlet]

52. These conditions have been ongoing for sometime. I'm in one of the counties listed.

But really, this is about the county. Pointing the finger at this one individual really isn't the point. The fire department had to stop fighting the fires no charge. They simply couldn't afford it anymore. And showing up and fighting them anyway was only making the problem worse.

[LoZoccolo]

2. I wonder how many wild animals could have potentially died because of this

reckless and potentially dangerous action.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Each year, there is a period of restricted and permit only burns

This year, that date is early by 2 full weeks. Common sense would say they were in a safe season. It seems the State dragged on alerting residents of the unusually early dangers if you ask me.

[hedgehog]

9. Still, other stories indicate the family has lived there for 40 years.

City folk learn not to go through certain areas after dark. Country folk learn not to build too close to that charming little creek (that floods every spring) and not to burn during the dry season.

[napi21]

6. I blame the State Forestry Dept. for not issuing this ban

earlier. It's obvious that the dryness didn't just happen today! I live in N. Ga. & the authorities are ery quick at issuing burning bans. Sometimes the ban here is such that you can't even GET a burning permit.

Personally I HATE IT when people burn. The damn smoke ALWAYS finds it's way right into MY back door!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

8. As do I. This year, the fire danger season is very early there

At least 2 weeks early. People should have been alerted.

[Obamanaut]

35. If it is obvious that dryness didn't just happen today, where is the common

sense that tells one not to start a fire - why wait until the forestry service places a ban and then have an epiphany "Ooh, it must have been dry recently."

[napi21]

55. When was the last time you've seen anyone use common sense?

I bitch about that all the time, about neighbors, people in my State, people nationally & worldwide! I think something happened to the common sense gene mny years ago because NOBODY uses any!

[rurallib]

7. Seems to make it even worse that the fire fighters didn't put it out immediately

in conditions like that it could have spread like - well - wildfire.
Ok the family was at fault.
Still not a good reason for firefighters to watch the house burn completely down.

[PA Democrat]

13. Bingo. It was reckless behavior to let that fire burn and

risk surrounding homes and environment.

[fasttense]

24. I agree, and why does it have to be pre-paid?

Why not charge every time they have to go put out a fire? Or just add $75 to everyone's property taxes? Or charge a $75 fine for failing to pay?

It is pure mean spirited nastiness and now they have another homeless family with their belongings all destroyed.

It was just wrong, cruel and immoral to have just sat there and watch his house burn to the ground and all his pets burned alive.

This is the America RepubliCONS want for us.

[hedgehog]

27. Following the stories, there was a plan in place to bring the

county under city fire protection and several options for paying for it, but the county turned the city down. So much for adding $75 to the property taxes.

The problems with charging people once their home is burning include:

- it costs way more than $75 to put out a fire. I pay a small fraction of the cost of putting out every fire in my district so I don't get the full bill should I ever have a fire, myself.

- you don't take $75 and run out and buy a functioning fire department. The budget has to be in place year round so the fire department is there when a fire starts.

- the $75 fine sounds good, but it doesn't pay for the fire Department.

[Iterate]

59. It reminds me of a bit of history.

from accounts of early prairie settlers who were very cautious about who moved in nearby and were judgmental about the newcomer's level of competence. The danger of prairie fires was such that every family in the area was at risk from carelessness, so they made sure everyone was aware. You can imagine a German who had just learned English from a Kentuckian explaining things to a newly arrived Norwegian. Once a person was established though, the community would spare no effort to save another's barn or crop. And the tradition of volunteer fire departments still persists.

There's a cemetery N. of Ames off I-35 with an entire family who died in one of those early fires.

(I saw your post RE:Supreme court retention in Iowa this morning)

[DefenseLawyer]

10. I can't believe how many cranks we have among us

It just shocks me that anyone could be a Democrat and not support a public fire department. What is this 1880? We are seriously having a discussion about the merits of a public fire department on Democratic Underground? I don't care if the dumb bastard set his house on fire roasting marshmallows with a acetylene torch.

[joeybee12]

12. Agreed...this is just despicable...

what is this...freeperville now?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[handmade34]

14. +1

[hedgehog]

17. I do support a public fire department. It's jsut that I see this as a situation

of someone unwilling to support a public fire department demanding the benefit of a public fire department other people support.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. You unfortunately seem to have no clue what a public fire department is

That might be your first step in a long journey to having a clue, but everyone needs to start somewhere

[JustAmused]

50. Amazing

So you are a lawyer and didn't bother to even read the article? This is a public fire department, it just isn't his.

The Fire Department is in South Fulton, TN. This town has 2500 residents with a median family income of $35,680 and a per capita income of $15, 983.
The county on the other hand has roughly 33,000 residents, including the 2500 in the city. The county median income for a family is $40, 533 and the per capita income is $17,409. The county encompasses 555 sq. miles.

What you are advocating is that the poorer 2500 residents of the city who are taxed to provide this fire department, provide and maintain the equipment, train and staff personnel, and deliver this service for free to the 30,000 more well off residents of the 555 sq. mile county.

The trip from South Fulton to Trimble, which is roughly where this occurred, over rural roads, is about 40 minutes. I see you live in Indianapolis. Do you think you should be able to call Noblesville or Cloverdale for fire services, and have them come to your home some thirty miles away, for free?

If I tell my neighbor for three weeks that he has a low front tire and may have a wreck, should I pay for his car if he doesn't get it fixed and has a wreck? Hardly. The county refused to assess a property tax to have the city provide this service.The city offered the service, which they had no obligation to do, to individuals on a subscription basis with a nominal fee. Mr. Cranick, like the county as a whole, decided they did not want to pay for this. I am certain you can find something in contract law that will explain the fire departments lack of liability here. That is, if you read your law books better than you read this article.

[DefenseLawyer]

57. Public services are "free", but they're not.

I'm not advocating that public services ought to be provided for "free". In this situation there is no question that the "system" these folks set up worked as they set it up. What I would say is the system is ridiculous and ultimately serves no one. Nothing is free, in the sense that there should be an apparatus in place to collect taxes from the citizens to pay for services. That being said, once the apparatus is in place, public services are provided to everyone, without checking to see if the individual needing the services actually paid "his fair share". You are welcome to want to live in a pay as you go, I've got mine fuck everyone else society. I don't. Your conservative mindset that everyone should look out for himself and heaven forbid one actually pay into a system more than he personally gets out of it is just not one I share. Sorry. If my taxes need to be raised so someone else's house doesn't burn down, so be it. If I am in a community that comes up with a crackpot libertarian plan for fire protection by "subscription", I will work to assure that we have a fair system in place that raises sufficient revenue to cover everyone. It is of value to me not to see my neighbor's children die in a fire. It is of value to me not to live on a block littered with burned out buildings from people who couldn't pay or even people that wouldn't pay. It's called living in a community as opposed to living in a jungle.

[handmade34]

23. this situation

... a public utility or service is there for the good of the whole (even those that are not always the most responsible) in the end we all benefit by these services. Also, this man didn't demand; he said that he would pay and they refused his offer. Also, I don't necessarily know about TN but I was driving through AL and NC during that time and we had torrential rains... just saying :shrug:

[TonyMontana]

22. +99999999999999999999999999999

[petronius]

25. Everybody here supports a public fire department - I've not seen one post say otherwise

The discussion that so many are misconstruing is whether the fire department did the legally required thing given the circumstance they were placed in - I say they did.

That the county should have a publicly-supported (i.e. tax-paid-for) FD is a no-brainer...

[EFerrari]

39. I can be pretty cranky but, oh man. n/t

[Dappleganger]

61. +100000

[CBGLuthier]

11. So, I guess your point is, Fuck em. Correct?

[hedgehog]

15. My point is that these people had a big hand in bringing about their problems,

and that they ignored their responsibility to the community by setting a fire outside when it was common knowledge that the risk for wildfire was high.

[DURHAM D]

21. Following is my post from another thread:

Yep - everyone is feeling sorry for someone who I think doesn't give a shit about his neighbors.

If he did he would not be burning or he would have a more controlled burn.

A burn that gets out of control is not well accepted in any neighborhood/township. I can list every out of control burn and the last name of the person who started it in my township for the past century. Neighbors don't forget this sort of thing and they deeply resent it.

[Dappleganger]

63. It really doesn't matter WHY.

Most fires begin for STUPID reasons.

[fasttense]

16. The fire Department easily spent more than $75 to deal with the fire.

First the back neighbor had to ensure there was a fire break to prevent the fire from burning the entire back field and starting a wildfire. So, now, everyone needs to have a fire break between neighbors on the off chance they forgot to pay their fire department put out fee.

2nd the fire department had to come out anyway and put out his neighbor's yard. The fuel and time for putting out the neighbor's yard alone would have easily cost more than $75. So exactly where was the savings in letting this family's house burn down and allowing their 3 pets get burned alive?

3rd if conditions were so horribly dry that wildfires could catch easily, shouldn't the fire department have been even more vigilant and take preventive action by putting out a fire and charging the guy $75 just to keep a wildfire from developing?

4th exactly who does the fire department charge if a fire starts on public land? They charge the public. So, in order to prevent wildfires, the public has to pay to get the fire department to put out fires. Might as well pay them to put out all fires.

This is pure stupidity. They spent more than they saved in dealing with the results of an out of control fire all simply out of spite. This is typical RepubliCON nastiness.

[hedgehog]

18. I still think this case is analogous to the burglar suing the homeowner

because he cut his hand on a broken window pane.

[handmade34]

26. who is the burglar?

[hedgehog]

34. In this case, the family whose house burned down. They were told

what they had to pay for fire protection, they didn't pay, and now they are complaining because they didn't get fire protection.

[handmade34]

40. oh

I understand that this rule has been in place for many years... I understand that the homeowner had not paid his $75. From the interview, I understand that the former Fire Chief didn't strictly adhere to the rule.

(I am opposed to a privatized FD) ...but that is their choice and what I don't understand is if the homeowner offered to pay for services (even if after the fact) why couldn't they have put out the fire and billed the man? seems the humane thing to do

[tkmorris]

20. Every single thing in the OP is irrelevant to me

Because all of the information you give boils down to some version of "He should have known better, it's his fault the fire happened". In the interest of expediency I'll concede that you are correct about that. Here's the thing though. I DON'T CARE WHOSE FAULT IT WAS. It's also his fault he didn't pay the protection fee, knowing as he did the situation with fire departments in his area. The man did just about everything wrong. Fine.

I don't care. What I have a problem with is that there was an agency that had the ability to provide assistance, but chose not to. A fire is not a circumstance where that is an acceptable reaction, just as a car accident is not, or a crime in progress. The road which starts with the privatization of such basic protective services leads to some very evil places. Are you sure you want to go there?

[handmade34]

28. my partner suggested

that the fire dept could have put out the fire and fined the man for every month he had neglected to pay... not that I advocate a privatized FD but that is one way they could have rationalized putting out the fire. still, it sounds like good Christian punishment inflicted on someone for the sin of not paying his due

[DURHAM D]

30. They don't have the capacity to fine them. nt

[fasttense]

32. What about all the stupid people who get lost? How about all those people who need to get rescued

in national forests and parks? How about the Mountain rescues or the rescues of people traveling during blizzards and floods. We don't just stand around and do nothing to help them. At some point each of them made a stupid mistake. Yet we help them despite them not having paid a protection fee.

The next time a rich guys jet crashes or their private plane goes down, lets just let him find his own way out.

[hedgehog]

37. It's a problem that's been discussed in the rescue community

http://www.i-world.net/oma/news/rescue/oregonian-2002-06.html

You have cases like the family a few years back that took a wrong turn and ended up stranded in mountain snow out in Oregon. Then you have cases of people willfully ignoring warnings and getting caught out in the weather with the wrong equipment. In many cases, it's not a mere matter of money but of good people risking their lives for jackasses.

[Poll_Blind]

45. I agree.

Good to see you still posting, tkmorris.

PB

[SargeUNN]

31. This is saying one wrong plus another wrong equals right

The fact that I think is the most important is how the fire dept. allowed the house to burn when it clearly could have stopped it. Certainly if the guy was at fault and punishment was in order the punishment chosen in this case was unreasonably harsh and beyond any proper means. I feel that it was against the Constitution that such an act of punishment took place and anyone who can possible think it is justified needs some serious self evaluation. If we condone such as this what is next, someone speeding have their right leg cut off since it was the one pressing the pedal? No there is no justification for their acts and I have to worry that anyone trying to justify is sick and needs help.

[handmade34]

36. interesting situation

the man on KO said that the fire dept has let other homes burn in the past (guess this situation has been in place for approx 20 years). ...although he did say that the recently former Fire Chief let a lot of this slip and didn't pay mind to it... more to this than any of us know. Generally, I just don't understand not helping someone in distress when the means to help is there.?????

[hedgehog]

38. I wonder how much we don't know about the background on this.

For example, the family had a previous fire put out by the same fire department. They claim to have forgotten the fee because they were away, but I would think if you've faced a fire once, you go overboard protecting yourself. I wonder if this guy went around town boasting about not paying.

[DURHAM D]

44. Plus they apparently received both a second notice and a followup phone call.

The guy made a rational decision and now everyone feels sorry for him.

I just don't get it. I think the guy is probably a total jackass and his neighbors don't like him because he (and his family) starts fire and puts others in danger.

[DeschutesRiver]

58. Something else he said was that a relative of his didn't pay last year, had a fire, & it was put out

anyway. And then he said the opposite happened with a horse barn that was allowed to burn, killing the horses.

I live in a small town. There is something going on locally such that if we knew the background, things would be more clear. The guy knows way more about the small town politics that were behind what happened than he was willing to detail in that interview. I'd like to know more after hearing what little I did in the KO interview.

[DURHAM D]

42. "against the Constitution"

Could you point out that article?

Boy are you cobbling together some random reasoning?

(1) You don't know the condition of the house when the department arrived. It could have been beyond saving so your use of "clearly" is just made up.

(2) The "guy" made a rational decision regarding the fire department payment probably because his house is covered by insurance.

(3) What in the world is "proper means" in your mind?

(4) That constitutional issue... Question asked above.

(5) Re: self-evaluation. I think you need some work on cognitive reasoning.

(6) It is not your situation to condone or condemn. It is what it is as determined by the citizens of that county. Do you want to remove their (county residents) ability to be self-determinant and place all matters at the federal level?

(7) "No justification for their acts..." Are you referring to the fire department, the city government, the county government, the citizens of the county, or the guy who let his grandson burn his house down? Who is "their".

[SargeUNN]

46. go look

protection against cruel and inhuman punishment is clearly stated in the constitution. It is so plainly stated I understood it at age 7.

[DURHAM D]

49. nonsense

doesn't fit the facts

[SargeUNN]

51. nice reply

now impress me.

[DURHAM D]

56. Do you own homework.

I am neither your teach nor your tutor.

[JustAmused]

53. Afraid not

Cruel and unusual punishment would involve the government in some form issuing a punishment to hjim, perhaps a fine or jail time. Something you do to yourself is not usually considered "punishment" in the way you mean it.

[JVS]

62. That line is directed at the justice system.

So unless this fire was a result of him being sentenced to having his house burned by a court of law, it doesn't apply.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[aka-chmeee]

67. Absolutely Agree!

I was chief of small volunteer fire department for both a small town and the surrounding fire district. Any fire with a 40 minute head start amounts to a lost structure. And I guarantee I would NOT have allowed any of my (unpaid) firemen to enter a burning house to attempt to save anything less than a human being. We worked outside of our district only in event of mutual aid agreement in force at the time of a fire or request from chief of the relevant district.
But even when the fire was within just a few miles, the logistics involved moving water and equipment, there's no hydrant out there in the sticks, usually resulted in one more case in the "never lost a foundation" tongue in cheek boast.
I also question the value of a partially burnt house to the owner or anyone else except the insurance provider.

[pacalo]

41. A lot of accidents requiring community service assistance are caused by lack of common sense.

[Crunchy Frog]

43. Damned nanny state! Telling people when they can burn their own trash.

[DURHAM D]

48. Where I come from you don't need the government to tell you when to burn.

If you don't use common sense a neighbor will come rolling into the field or farm yard on a tractor pulling a water tank or carrying a fire extinguisher and put it out. Period.

Then you get in a verbal disagreement and the next time you see each other up at the church or the elevator the person who started the fire apologizes and acknowledges that they were just plain stupid.

[HughMoran]

47. No hope for this one

I can't stand your desire to blame the victim and rub salt on this wound. Bye. :hi:

[Karenina]

54. If you come across a dangerous fire, do what is within your means to put it out.

When LIVES are at stake hearken back to that old canard, "Choose Life" and put the fucking fire out. Ideological discussions can come later... :eyes: This shit is NUTZ! :freak:

[Bluerthanblue]

64. it doesn't really matter how foolish it was to burn or not-

the fact is, the Fire Dept was ABLE to respond and didn't.

People who drink and drive or who drive recklessly still deserve to be treated by EMT's regardless of how 'sensible' they were in regards to how they got hurt.

:shrug:

[Rex]

66. Today I've learned that a lot of DUrs are common sense challenged.

Your post just drives the point home. That example is flawless.

[Canuckistanian]

68. Still no excuse for firefighters WATCHING a house burn down.

In fact, your post STRENGTHENS the argument against private, for-profit fire protection services.

it was a reckless endangerment of the the WHOLE WESTERN TENNESSEE area to allow a fire to burn unhindered - just to make a fucking point about 75 fucking dollars.

On edit:

UNREC with extreme prejudice.