Firefighters let home burn
 

No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn
Tennessee house in ashes after homeowner 'forgot' to pay $75 fee


Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee.

Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat.

"They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann.

The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.

"We wasn't on their list," he said the operators told him.

Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.

Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out.

His offer wasn't accepted, he said.

The fire fee policy dates back 20 or so years.

"Anybody that's not inside the city limits of South Fulton, it's a service we offer. Either they accept it or they don't," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

Firefighters did eventually show up, but only to fight the fire on the neighboring property, whose owner had paid the fee.

"They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said.

South Fulton's mayor said that the fire department can't let homeowners pay the fee on the spot, because the only people who would pay would be those whose homes are on fire.

Cranick, who is now living in a trailer on his property, says his insurance policy will help cover some of his lost home.

"Insurance is going to pay for what money I had on the policy, looks like. But like everything else, I didn't have enough."

After the blaze, South Fulton police arrested one of Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge, according to WPSD-TV, an NBC station in Paducah, Ky.

Police told WPSD that the younger Cranick attacked Fire Chief David Wilds at the firehouse because he was upset his father's house was allowed to burn.

WPSD-TV reported that Wilds was treated and released.

© 2010 msnbc.com Reprints

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

Nice, no one had any ethics on that fire truck.

After I saw the title I thought it was Eds house. Have us unlock your door eh we will let the fugger burn.

Let's hope the Cranick the Younger knew how to fight and hung an ass whipping on the Fire Chief....if he's gonna get done for A&B anyway he should at least ensure it's worth it.

Can you imagine riding all the way out there on the fire truck....seeing the guys house burning....and then putting the fire out on the OTHER side of the fence? Over a $75 shakedown....I mean....fee?

That is a special kind of douche-baggery right there. :td:

Why is he talking to Keith Olberman? Is the fire chief Bill O'Reilly?

"Forgot" is in quotes.

Keith Olbermann reports.

I'll wait for the rest of the story.

The roof is on fire!
 

if they let it burn knowing the animals were inside, that i believe is felony negligence contributing to death of animals or some such law.

I know it's easy to blame the fire fighters here, but I question any rule-law-statute-city policy that requires them to check a "list" before responding to a call and them become de facto repo men once on scene.

It was like that a long time ago. You had to subscribe to a fire fighting service. When you paid your house was identified by a firemark on the front of it. If you didn't have them the firemen would stand there and let the house burn, while protecting your neighbors who had subscribed to their service.

You still see the marks on buildings today in older cities like lower Manhattan, Boston, Philly etc.

http://www.locohistory.org/blog/albe...fireplaque.jpg

I'm betting Einstein there didn't understand that he needed to subscribe to get fire fighting service. County government FAIL.

I'd say if he knew he "forgot" to pay, he was aware of it and assumed like so many other americans today that he'd get a free ride and they'd take care of it anyway he just ignored the letter or bill I'm sure he was sent. They probably send it out with tax statements n such.

Not saying they were right to let his place burn.

You want the service... you pay for it... I'd guess this guy "forgot" to pay for years... What's worse? This guy's house burning down, or everyone house burning down because the fire dept. cannot afford to put out fires because they gave away so many freebies?

How many houses are burning down on a regular basis? Fee or not... Are they called every week to run water from their truck?

Plus the asshole said on the phone he'd pay what he owed. I think that right there says "ok I admit I skipped your fee's but I'll pay them now put my fire out".

Fuck those firefighters I hope they burn in their sleep for letting defenseless animals die.

It's called personal responsibility. You don't pay, you don't play.

I can't say I disagree with his approach...

i'm willing to bet his taxes aren't any lower out in the boonies. :2cents:

I'm thinking....how is this much different than mob shaking down a neighborhood for "protection?"

The mob says....Don't want your business to have an accident? PAY US.

The fire department in BFE here says....Don't want your home to burn up? PAY US.

Seriously? What kind of fucking shake down is that?

And I'm with Dave...what the fuck are his property taxes buying if not fire and police service?

Hmmm

Even goomba guido mob scum would take advantage here.

Shocking he all of a sudden discovered the value in paying for firefighting service about the same time his house caught on fire. At that point what stops everyone in the community from not paying right up until their house catches on fire? I understand your hatred of the firefighters but how about spreading around some of your "die in a fire" attitude to the homeowners for being irresponsible and not paying their bills as well?

Sounds like this community needs to reevaluate their current system. Set it up to put a levy against the homeowners land for the cost of fighting the fire. Don't allow the issue of any building permits for repairs until the levy is paid. If it isn't paid after a reasonable amount of time foreclose on the land and sell it at auction. The homeowner may even be able to put in a claim for the cost against their homeowners insurance.

They need to put on the books an outrageous amount for these certain situations. You don't wanna pay dues? Well guess what you get to pay the whole counties dues for next year.

I missed the part where the fire department set the fire because he didn't pay which would make it like mob protection and the part the cops have a real problem with.

I don't know what this guy's property taxes are buying but it obviously does not include fire service.

I gotta side with the fire department. That would be like me riding around with no insurance for years, and then when I get in a wreck try to pay a one-month premium to get all my bills paid. That's not how it works.

I'm thinking this guy saw it as one more expense he could skip out on, because "what's gonna happen?"

That said, though, I do think the county needs to reconsider their policy here.

I think the firemen also had to consider their own jobs there, figure they could get fired or have some liability issue if they fought the fire.

i brought marshmellows and the captain got caught making a smore on the dude's house., that's why the dude went after him.

Good for him, maybe he'll keep on his "bills".

Maybe they should already have them paid in every other way everyone else does?

I do share my DIAF for almost EVERYONE. People who skip bills, scam others, screw the system, etc who are all responsible for my rates going up can in fact, DIAF!

But why could the firefighters not do the humane thing? I guess I can't get the answer to this question because no one's paid their fee to do so. :rolleyes:

I can't believe the people in this thread....amazing. Yeah, let a house burn down and fry four animals over 75 bucks, which the guy was willing to pay at a minimum.

How about changing your fucking laws to include police and fire in propery taxes....doesn't sound like rocket science to me.

that's a pretty good analogy and one I hadn't thought of



The poor animals though :(

If they're so adamant on payment, the Fire Department should have a published hourly cost for those who do NOT pay into the system. Then they could put the damn fire out, charge the guy, and go on their merry way.

Bringing up a good point.

You pay for it, and hope that you never have to use its service. To me paying that would be a no brainer.

I don't know how they go about services as far as EMT's and paramedics, or is it just fire service that they charge for?

I guess if they stop giving you your paycheck you will do the humane thing and just continue going in to work anyway?

There are a lot of different ways this community could have run their fire service and I'm sure they will reevaluate the way they charge for it in the future. You deleted the way I suggested they should go about doing it.

What remains is this community did not run their fire service any of those ways. They gave their residents the freedom to pay for, or opt out of, the fire department. This guy, intentionally or not, opted out. Since when are people entitled to services they don't pay for?

I'm going to bet the grandson that started the fire is the son of the man that beat up the fire chief....

do you think his dad bought him boobs?

Sure would if my job involved me saving lives of innocent animals and broken homes that have the potential to make decent contributing members to society. I mean I guess being a sales rep is the same as a civil servant and all.... :ws:

You have yet to actually come up with an excuse as to why they failed to do their job that's not related to "money".

Mikey beat me to the punch, as seen below. But my thoughts are that this is "insurance." Do you think the insurance company will let you go without paying, then suddenly pay for repairs after you decide to pay a one year premium JUST because you wrecked your car or your house burned down? No, they're going to tell you "tough cookies." This guy said he'd pay the full amount of the fire department's cost, but that's like telling your insurance company you'll pay the full amount of having your car or house fixed. What's the point, after the damage is already done?

While I don't think the animals should have died because of this, I do see the point, as mentioned above on the insurance comments. And like someone else said, if they let the guy pay the $75 only AFTER his house caught fire, then the rest of the community would stop paying their $75 and only wait for a fire, if it ever happened. Yes, maybe the community needs to change the way it's charged, but that doesn't mean the FD should have done the job anyway.

True, but what if the guy doesn't have the money to pay the hourly rate? You can't get blood from a turnip. By the time they check to figure out if he can afford the rate, the house is already burned down. If they put the fire out before checking and just send the guy a bill, he can simply not pay that one, the same as he didn't pay the $75.

Look at it this way... The fire department in that community had set forth rules that a $75 annual fee is required for them to come put out a fire. The $75 fee is an upfront fee for doing their job. Technically, he never "hired" them to do the job since he didn't pay the retainer. There was no contract in place for them to do any work and bill him later. The "contract" was that a fee needed to be paid annually in order to get the services provided. It wasn't "their job" to put out his house because he never entered into an agreement for such. They did "their job" by keeping the fire away from the neighbor's house, who had entered into the agreement and paid the required money.

In this particular case, their job isn't to just put out any fire. Their job is to put out fires for the people who have paid for the service. See the insurance analogies above.

But again, I think the structure needs to be changed so the fees are included in property taxes, but then you still have the issue of "what if someone doesn't pay their taxes?"

People pay for services rendered, in one form or another. Whether that is through actual payment, through trade, or through taxes.

If they put his fire out, even though he didn't pay the fee, the rest of the community will stop paying the fee, since it's clear they don't have to. If the community stops paying, then the fire department doesn't respond to that community at all.

Thank you Captain Morgan. You have made it unnecessary for me to say any more on the matter :dthumb:

I heard about this yesterday and was infuriated.

I agree with the policy, TO A POINT! Sure, he didn't pay, and I get that, but think about this. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it directly.

We all too often say *poor animals* when something like this happens. I hate it, and it pisses me off that pets were left to die in that house. There's a special place in hell for people that will knowingly do that.

However, what if there were a PERSON inside. Can you imagine the uproar then? Surely those firefighters would not have just let the fire burn knowing there was a person inside. Let's forget firefighter ethics and responsibilities to the community. What the hell happened to BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING?!

I can assure you the town of South Fulton would be facing lawsuit after lawsuit right now if a person had died as a result of that fire.

Something else to consider, since it appears everyone thinks that fire service is standard for where this happened and this guy had a right to services, but these firefighters had to respond outside of their service area to get to this place.

Those folks asked to pay the $75 service fee are outside of the normal service area, and the service is rendered after the fee is paid as an option only, just like the insurance analogy Capt. used.

If the fire department didnt want to, they wouldnt have to respond to fires outside their area of service. So they offer services for a fee. And $75 annually considering the fuel costs alone for driving to the back of beyond to fight a fire outside your service area is a pretty darn good deal.

Someone still should have saved the animals, but do we know that they were told there were pets in there? Or was the owner simply screaming and hollering at them to save his house? Having a few country cousins of my own, they dont give 2 shits about their pets, animals just show up and disappear at will and they just toss out some food...if it came down to it, they'd be hollering about their houses and only realize hours later that a few animals are missing. Do we know the animals were killed in the fire? Or did they run off in fear and just haven't shown back up?

The truth, however, is that animals are not humans. They are generally considered to be property under the law. Sure, they're bastards if they let pets die, but where do you draw the line?

Every now and then, on a local board, I'll butt heads with a self-professed "anarchist" who thinks that he shouldn't have to pay taxes, because he doesn't have the choice of only paying for only the services that he uses. He's one of the few members of that board I've actually met, a student at this university, so I happen to know that he's made extensive use of heavily subsidized education, government backed student loans, etc..

I agree with those who say that his house should have been saved but he should have been hit with a massive bill for it but then again, as others have also noted, how do you guarantee payment?

I also think that his insurance company would be well within their rights to deny him coverage for the incident, based on him not paying the fire department stipend.

Thank you. Very well said, guys.

Yes, it's shitty. But, it wasn't a secret. I wonder how many times this has happened in the past 20-years.

I wasn't talking about doing a credit check on the spot and then deciding to fight the fire :lol:

They charge him whatever hourly rate and then if he can't pay it, they take whatever other steps they'd need (collections, etc). People would probably still bitch about how "it's not fair that they charged him to save his house" but he'd at least have his pets and stuff.

Then they reposess his house and have a cool firefighter hang-out pad :D

Charging an "hourly rate" doesn't take into account the costs for the firefighters' down time when they have to be ready to respond, but aren't actually active.

I don't need an excuse because they didn't fail to do their job. Their job is to fight fires for residents who have chosen to take advantage of their services, which is exactly what they did. You are putting some kind of moral imperative on the firefighters that, in this case, I'm just not seeing.

There's an even easier way to look at it. The nearby town has a fire department. The county where he lives doesn't. The town's fire department contracted with SPECIFIC RESIDENTS of that county, to provide service. He didn't 'sign' the contract, so he doesn't get service.

It's not like he's within their normal service area and didn't get service.

It can when done right. Part of the reason why medical transport by helicopter is so expensive is the person being transported pays for a portion of downtime, maintenance, and all the other expenses that go along with having the helicopter. They don't just pay for the expenses related to their trip.

I already posted how I would guarantee payment. Put a lien on the property and deny building permits for repairs from the fire. If the lien isn't satisfied in a reasonable amount of time foreclose on the property.

Sure, and this is bolstered by the article Paul posted that stated residents in this area couldn't get fire service at any price until 1990 when this system was implemented.

Favorite post within that...

:panic:

I was confused on the "pay to play " aspect of this story....I've not heard of that arrangement before. Every "community" I've ever lived in has taxed the residents living there, usually based on property, and used the proceeds to provide for "common services" like a public education, police and fire departments.

I guess that wasn't the case in this community....if a fee was required to be eligible for fire service and he didn't pay I guess he's fucked..but it still just seems like an odd way to go about providing "services" to that community.

In FL where I lived in town it was considered part of property taxes. I just learned from a co worker here in GA that they dont put it in property taxes but they bill you for the cost of fighting your fire, and put a lien on your property if you fail to pay it.

Living in town is waaaaaay different than living in a rural area tho. Like in this guys case, he wasnt part of a community, he lived in the boonies outside serviced areas.

What he said.

From the sound of things this is a rural area, with a population too small to support their own emergency services. As a result individuals contract (or not) with the nearby larger town for that sort of thing. Sort of like when a town is too small for its own police force, so they contract with the State Police to cover them.

In the community it was probably part of their taxes; these people weren't IN the "community" proper, rather, they were outside the community and the fire department offered to extend these people fire protection when they had none prior, for a fee.

The insurance analogy made earlier was an accurate one.

Say we have the same scenario without the "pay to play" thing. Person's house catches fire and the fire department comes out and puts the fire out but the house is damaged in the process. Say said property owner failed to pay his home owners insurance but still tries to make a claim. Would eveyone be all upset at the insurance company who denies said claim because of lack of premium payment?

The only thing that will come of this in regards to the rest of the country is: "Dumb southern fireman let a house and 4 animals die over 75 bucks. And they call themselves "Christians"."

Negative publicity only works in Hollywood.

So if he paid 75$ yearly for the out-of-range service, the firemen should then have at least once a year training to improve response time to his address, learning the local and confusing rural roads, etc. But you know that is not the case, they simply sit there and collect the money and hope they dont have to drive out to butt-fuck egypt.

It goes both ways, and they are not an insurance company, the insurance company is his insurance company. You think that there should be more insurance companies, or that other companies or god forbid community services should adopt the disgusting, scummy practices that insurance companies love so much? fuck that, Insurance is one of the oldest scams in the book. The less , the merrier.

Obviously rural areas need to have their own FDs or be included in larger metro areas and that would solve it going forward.

Soooo, who's going to pay for that fire department in a rural area? Even volunteer firefighters have to be paid occasionally, plus all the equipment they need, plus the vehicles, and the first aid supplies, training, etc etc.

The federal govt isnt going to pay for it. The locals would have to, and if they dont have the funds, as they usually dont because they are a rural community, not a booming city, then where do they get money to run it?

How do you propose they include a rural area in the regular service area of a metropolis FD? Who's going to take care of the city fires and emergencies while the FD is off 30 miles from town fighting a ditch fire that someone set off with a cigarette?

Just asking...

Judging by some of the costs I've heard for medivac, if the fire call is in the same range, he could end up owning more than his house was worth.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about what "should" be included for the $75. What actually was included was their coming out to fight a fire if one breaks out. This guy didn't take advantage of that for whatever reason. Rural areas sometimes don't want their own fire departments because they cost a shitload for the number of residents that will be serviced and most of the time will be underutilized.

Just about all the departments in my county (pop- 1,512,224 over 2,373 sq mi ) are all volunteer. Funding is through grants and donations (I think)

True. How about this, they pay a flat $75 if they want fire service and that way they can choose to be covered for a reasonable fee.......oh, wait.:lol:

:lol

:lol:

First Tenn has no state income tax and property taxes are low, the state citizens choose this option in exchange for uncertain funding in other areas...i.e. fire services. Which is what leads to the pay for service concept. Again it is their choice!

Second you then have to "pay" for certain services that you low tax base does not cover, again it is your choice! If your choice is not to pay for the services you suffer the consiquences. Unfortunately this man learned the hard way. If you choose not to pay then you should at least make sure you are insured to cover the loss when the inevitable happens.


If you don't want to "pay" for services move somewhere where they will be provided.....my state charges approx 5% state income tax, 1% local income tax, property taxes are sky high, local millage on top of that and I still only have a volunteer fire department. But I do not have to pay a fire fee, yet.

If you want the service, then vote to pay higher taxes so the service is provided or pay your bills!

We are creating a country where no one is responsible for their own actions and everyone want something for nothing! Eventually someone has to pay for all these "services" that are provided. Nothing is a free ride! I must say I am sick of paying for the "free ride"

For example If the fire fighters provide him the service and another customer who payed for the service had a fire at the same time in a different area and they couldn't respond in time and that family who payed for the service lost their home how is that fair? Or is it fair that firemen may be job eliminated because the community will not committ to paying the fire fee, then they will not have anyone to respond? Is that fair.

I am not saying I don't feel bad for the guy and his pets...especially his pets because he was responsible for their deaths, they had no control over the situation, they are innocent.......he is not!

But if he sues and wins, no one and I repeat no one will pay the fee anymore and the fire department will fold! Then the service will not be available for anyone period!!! He will not learn to be responsible because of the "someone fixed it last time so someone will fix it next time mentality."

BUT if he is made to be responsible, and held accountable for his actions....he will never underinsure himself again, he will pay the appropriate fees and so will everyone in the area because they now know if you don't pay you won't get freebies!

As my daddy always said......its expensive to be stupid!

If he sues and wins then I could easily see that fire department eliminating ANY AND ALL service beyond their borders, in order to mitigate against liability. I wonder how many people would lose their homes?

While it's true he should have paid, there's no denying that.

I think that if I were a firefighter I'd have a hard time coming out and just watching it burn....especially knowing that there were pets inside. But sounds like their hands were tied.

That is irrelevant because then the system will be "fair".:td:

Its definitely too bad there weren't any human children in the house, that would've really taught that cheap fucking prick a lesson!

You can sensationalize it any way you please, but the bottom line remains the same...

Yes, the bottom line is that this cheap asshole totally deserved to hear his pets being burned alive. I bet he'll pay the fee next time won't he?!?!

Exactly. Sorry, but you cannot give everyone a free ride... Pay after the fact? The world doesn't work that way... Sometimes you gotta put on your big boy pants and take responsibility for YOUR decisions.

This guy didn't think it was important enough to pay for the fire service, therefore he didn't get it. Oops, sorry, forgot? Doesn't matter, it was HIS responsibility to pay it. It was HIS fault his pets died. Blaming anyone else is ridiculous.

Buy, it's not HIS fault!! It's the mean firefighters that did it!

Exactly dude. They (the firefighters) should sue this guy over the mental anguish they suffered being forced to watch his home burn down while his pets scream to their deaths.

Or maybe just rape his wife instead, that'd be even Steven.

Now you're just being retarded.

Dude, wtf? All I'm saying is that if you don't pay your tariffs you should have to offer your wife's poontang to the King. Seems plenty fair, and I bet you motherfuckers wouldn't forget to pay their tariffs anymore.

Dude, your anti-govenment satnce is occasionally right on, but you are all the way wrong on this one.

It's not the fire department's responsibility to clean up your mess or take care of your negligence, laziness, or stupidity.

This clown failed to pay for the appropriate coverages, then set his own damn house on fire and then pissed and moaned when nobody saved his ass.

As a multiple pet owner, I do feel bad for the animals. I also make sure that I take care of my animals and take steps to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen to them. It's a little thing called PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY. I have it, this guy didn't.

Hopefully he learns a very valuable lesson here about that very topic and his son learns a very valuable lesson about prison rape for assaulting someone clearly better than him.

Interesting thought, though- I wonder if his homeowner's insurance company knew about the paid fire service and required a subscription. If they have such a clause, they definitely have grounds to deny his claim here.

BTW, how 'bout these firefighters huh? These guys are some real American heroes. There they are with the knowledge, power and equipment to put the home out. Every fiber of DNA in their bodies is screaming at them, "THAT HOUSE IS BURNING DOWN, PUT THE FIRE OUT, YOU'RE A GODDAMN FIREFIGHTER!!!" yet through sheer force of willpower they are able to resist the temptation to assist another human being because they know enforcing this $75 fee will benefit society in the long run.

Guys dying of cancer after searching through the rubble at WTC for days on end? Yea, fuck those guys. These guys are the new breed of American Hero.

I'm with you man. Fuck it, they should just go ahead and rape the whole family while they're at it. Look guys, I'm on your side. The ends always justify the means when it comes to $75 firefighting fees. You can take that shit to the bank.

People who don't pay their electric/gas bill shouldn't have their service turned off either? People will die in the winter without heat. If the gas/power company set a precedent and continue service without payment, don't you think eventually everyone will soon "forget" to pay their bill in the winter?

How about people who do stupid shit and get rescued? :?:

Kaneman, you still don't get it. This is not a case of a tyrannical government oppressing its citizens.

This man had a choice. Either have the means and a plan to handle any fire-related contingencies on his property, or pay someone else a small annual fee to have those capabilities for him. He chose to handle it himself rather than pay the fee. When the shit hit the fan, he found it was beyond his capabilities and tried to get retroactive coverage.

If the firefighters had done what you seem to think was the "right thing to do", they would be undermining their entire system. The system may need revising, and after this event it no doubt will get that, but in the meantime, it has to be upheld or everybody will be SOL.

Please, save me the bleeding heart bullshit. If you want less goverment interference in your life (as you clearly seem to want), then you have to be prepared to provide for yourself as well. This man chose to have less government involvement by refusing to retain the services of a fire department. That means he's on his own here. You can't have it both ways.

That's an entirely different topic, but if they aren't breaking any laws, why charge them for their rescue? We all pay taxes for a reason.

That's the reason a lot of states have things like "Stupid Motorist Laws". If a road is flooded and you decide to be a cowboy and try to make it across anyway, you are breaking the law and are therefore responsible for any rescue-related costs.

poor dogs and cat, thats all i am going to say and that the firemen should of rescued them, i say that they are in negligence

I disagree. I think the negligence here falls solely on the homeowner. It's a sad situation, but one for which he bears sole responsibility.

Never said it was, I think it simply speaks to the quality of the firefighters who responded and did nothing. Ironically, "Big government" would probably not let something like this happen.

I'm sure they wouldn't, but then again it seems to me a lot of what "Big Government" is set up to do is protect the lowest common denominator from actually being impacted by their own mistakes and stupid decisions. Maybe "Big Government" can create a Nerf world where no matter how badly we fuck up we never get hurt.

They should've saved the house, seized it, sold it at auction, distributed the money to citizens of the city who DO pay the fee...and then raped the family to make sure they were properly punished for their mistakes and stupid decisions.

WTF is it with you and all the rape? Seriously. :skep:

It's the only way to make them pay. :lol:

Just seems like a fair punishment in this case. Letting a home worth maybe $10,000 burn down over $75 worth of fee seems like a loss to the community. We can rape the women, rape the kids and rape the men to make sure they learned their lesson AND seize the home and sell the property. While the "punishment" we use in this case doesn't even take anyone out of the workforce.

Justice served. Profit made. Everyone wins.

It has nothing to do with punishment as you sure seem to believe, it is all about consequences. I'd certainly like this story a whole lot more if the guy didn't pay and his house never caught on fire.

I say its a fine line. If the county can profit from the home burning then they should. Yet, we need to make sure enough fear is instilled into the rest of the county so that they never forget to pay their fee. My way accomplishes both these things.

Rape Burn 2012.

There is nothing fine about it. I don't care about making sure people in this community remember, forget, or decline to pay for fire service. That is still their decision and I wish none of them any ill will regardless of their choice.

I have an alternative suggestion. How about homeowners decide to pay for the services they want and not pay for the services they don't and everyone doesn't bitch and moan if those choices catch up with a homeowner. Obviously this is less than ideal but would you prefer the previous system where this part of the community had no access to fire service at any price?

I don't know what's funnier. Kaneman's suggestions or Goof2 trying to logically argue with him. :lmao:

Obvious troll is obvious. ;)

I'm bored so I'll go along.:shrug:

Obviously obvious. :lol: :lol:

Though there is a certain seriousness in the absurdity behind advocating burning a man's house down while you rape his family in front of him....as you and goof are suggesting.

For shame.

I don't remember suggesting any such thing. Unless, of course, the man "forgot" to pay his rape insurance too.

I understand the trolling aspect, but i think behind the rediculousness suggested in your posts you still believe there was a failure on the part of the fire department. I'll continue to argue that even if you obfuscate your point in the absurd.:shrug:

No, not at all. In fact, I previously suggested we award them medals for being such outstanding citizens and having the fortitude to stand there and watch the home burn.