Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 79

Thread: Smart Move

  1. #41
    Permanently Removed CALFFBOU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    6,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFD1067 View Post
    At least they could then claim to be progressive.
    If California had their say, it would be "NYFD".


  2. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    It had to be approved by the county Sheriff first though.

    It must be nice to live in a place Dickey where you don't have to work with other agencies.
    Hey Ding Dong,

    It IS nice to work in a place where all the agencies work together. Here, the Sheriff takes care of law enforcement issues and the fire chief takes care of fire related issues. Both support each other whenever and wherever they need to.

    We don't have a micromanaging Sheriff that we have to ask first before the FD does anything. What does the Sheriff have to do with fire stuff anyways? It's a backwards set up.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  3. #43
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9 View Post
    We are so "progressive" that it isn't even progressive to call yourself progressive anymore. We've achieved such a high state of progressivicationess that we have been able to shed the mortal coil and remove all physical trappings such as PPE, apparatus, and hose. We're able to guarantee 100% success with nothing more then a notepad and, for the real tough jobs, a safety vest.

    wow you guys sound like you have your stuff together but I have a really important question for you guys....














    ....whats your favorite kind of lightbar?

  4. #44
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    ....whats your favorite kind of lightbar?
    And can your Explorers put them on their POVs?
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    When we arrive opn the scene of a homeowner burning property, including his home, the sheriff department does not decide if we are going to put it out or not.

    The law does.

    The state law here is simple. If you own it, you can destroy it. Burn it. Bulldoze it. Blow it up. Break it apart with a sledgehammer. As long as it does not endanger another's property. If it is, we control it. We have no legal right to extinguish it. None.

    If the owner says he wants his building to burn we have no legal right to put it out. None. And if we did, and he took us to civil court, we would lose.

    That is the law. I'm sorry you have a problem with that but those are the rules we follow. And the sheriff's department has to follow the law as well. They confirm ownership for us.

    The sheriff department confirms ownership since they ahve access via the computer in the cruiser to parish property records and they have the legal authority to arrest them if something isn't right.

    However, once they confirm ownership, we have to let it burn. It's the law.

    But they don't make the decision. if the legal owner is the one that says he wants to burn it, the law dictates what we do.

    We talked this to death in another thread. I really don't know why this concept is so tough to understand. We have no choice but to follow the law.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-05-2009 at 07:33 AM.

  6. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    When we arrive opn the scene of a homeowner burning property, including his home, the sheriff department does not decide if we are going to put it out or not.

    The law does.

    The state law here is simple. If you own it, you can destroy it. Burn it. Bulldoze it. Blow it up. Break it apart with a sledgehammer. As long as it does not endanger another's property. If it is, we control it. We have no legal right to extinguish it. None.

    If the owner says he wants his building to burn we have no legal right to put it out. None. And if we did, and he took us to civil court, we would lose.

    That is the law. I'm sorry you have a problem with that but those are the rules we follow. And the sheriff's department has to follow the law as well. They confirm ownership for us.

    The sheriff department confirms ownership since they ahve access via the computer in the cruiser to parish property records and they have the legal authority to arrest them if something isn't right.

    However, once they confirm ownership, we have to let it burn. It's the law.

    But they don't make the decision. if the legal owner is the one that says he wants to burn it, the law dictates what we do.

    We talked this to death in another thread. I really don't know why this concept is so tough to understand. We have no choice but to follow the law.
    If he files an insurance claim, and the insurance co. finds out you let his property burn down, the insurance co. has every reason to come after your FD for the bulk of the damages. I would love to be involved in that case.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  7. #47
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    No they don't George.

    Maybe that's the case in Jersey, but not here.

    There has never been a case in the state where that has happened. The attorney general has stated that fire departments cannot extinguish a fire where the owner has stated he does not want it extinguished unless there is a city or parish burn ordiance. That is the ruling of the top legal person in the state.

    And the courts have affirmed it.

    Let me explain this realllllllllllly slow.

    The state of Louisiana has no statewide burning ordinances. None. You can burn, according to state law, anything you own anytime you want, unless there is a city or parish ordinance prohibiting it.

    The fire districts do have the legal right to enact temporary burning bans due to weather and fire conditions.

    Our parish, like the majority of the parishes in the state have decided not to prohibit burning. Some require that you call the FD and inform them that you are burning, but that's basically a required courtesy. You can still burn whatever you please. The fire department cannot interfere unless your burning poses a threat to another persons property. That is the only time we are allowed by law to intervene. Period. And even then, we are only legally allowed to act in a manner to prevent extension. We cannot extinguish it.

    This property ownership right has been confirmed in the courts. If there is no parish ordinance prohibiting burning, we have no legal power to stop it unless it poses a threat to adjoining property. There for we have no duty to act. Really very simple.

    This policy is followed by every rural FD in the state where there are no burning ordinances. It has been legally tested. There are no problems with this procedure as it follows the law. In fact, the fire departments have no choice but to allow citizens to burn their homes, if they wish, because it is the law.

    There are penalties for attempting to collect on insurance if they burn thier own property. If the insurance company asks for our report, we provide it. it will clearly state that the homeowner refused our assistance. We also get a signed release. The courts have ruled that the release releases the department from any liability. We are simply following the law.

    I know you think you are the forum's legal expert, but the laws down here are very different from the other 49 states. it's based on Napoleonic code, not English law.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 02-05-2009 at 08:24 AM.

  8. #48
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    When we arrive opn the scene of a homeowner burning property, including his home, the sheriff department does not decide if we are going to put it out or not.

    The law does.

    The state law here is simple. If you own it, you can destroy it. Burn it. Bulldoze it. Blow it up. Break it apart with a sledgehammer. As long as it does not endanger another's property. If it is, we control it. We have no legal right to extinguish it. None.

    If the owner says he wants his building to burn we have no legal right to put it out. None. And if we did, and he took us to civil court, we would lose.

    That is the law. I'm sorry you have a problem with that but those are the rules we follow. And the sheriff's department has to follow the law as well. They confirm ownership for us.

    The sheriff department confirms ownership since they ahve access via the computer in the cruiser to parish property records and they have the legal authority to arrest them if something isn't right.

    However, once they confirm ownership, we have to let it burn. It's the law.

    But they don't make the decision. if the legal owner is the one that says he wants to burn it, the law dictates what we do.

    We talked this to death in another thread. I really don't know why this concept is so tough to understand. We have no choice but to follow the law.

    You should start "educating" your local, parish and state officials before coming on this forum and lecturing to the rest of the world...

    I know you think you are the forum's legal expert, but the laws down here are very different from the other 49 states. it's based on Napoleonic code, not English law.
    It's time for your personal Waterloo.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  9. #49
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,383

    Default

    Gonzo ...

    Property rights are king down here.

    There is a strong feeling among the population that their property is their property and nobody should be able to tell them what they can or cannot do with it. This is especially true in the areas outside of the cities.

    Most parishes have no building ordinances for private property. Most parishes do not require any type of permits to build or add on to private property. Most parishes have no zoning whatsoever. Most parishes have very few ordinances about anything property related.

    In the parishes, only public buildings or commercial buildings are required to be inspected for occupancy.

    It's simply the nature of the people down here.

    And the politicians on both the local and state level understand that.

    They want to be able to have 15 dead cars in the driveway or 25 dogs. They want to be able to burn what they want when they want how they want.

    And the politicians on the local level feel the same way.

    It's folks like me that want to limit burning that are in the VAST minority.

  10. #50
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No they don't George.

    Maybe that's the case in Jersey, but not here.

    There has never been a case in the state where that has happened. The attorney general has stated that fire departments cannot extinguish a fire where the owner has stated he does not want it extinguished unless there is a city or parish burn ordiance. That is the ruling of the top legal person in the state.

    And the courts have affirmed it.

    Let me explain this realllllllllllly slow.

    The state of Louisiana has no statewide burning ordinances. None. You can burn, according to state law, anything you own anytime you want, unless there is a city or parish ordinance prohibiting it.

    The fire districts do have the legal right to enact temporary burning bans due to weather and fire conditions.

    Our parish, like the majority of the parishes in the state have decided not to prohibit burning. Some require that you call the FD and inform them that you are burning, but that's basically a required courtesy. You can still burn whatever you please. The fire department cannot interfere unless your burning poses a threat to another persons property. That is the only time we are allowed by law to intervene. Period. And even then, we are only legally allowed to act in a manner to prevent extension. We cannot extinguish it.

    This property ownership right has been confirmed in the courts. If there is no parish ordinance prohibiting burning, we have no legal power to stop it unless it poses a threat to adjoining property. There for we have no duty to act. Really very simple.

    This policy is followed by every rural FD in the state where there are no burning ordinances. It has been legally tested. There are no problems with this procedure as it follows the law. In fact, the fire departments have no choice but to allow citizens to burn their homes, if they wish, because it is the law.

    There are penalties for attempting to collect on insurance if they burn thier own property. If the insurance company asks for our report, we provide it. it will clearly state that the homeowner refused our assistance. We also get a signed release. The courts have ruled that the release releases the department from any liability. We are simply following the law.

    I know you think you are the forum's legal expert, but the laws down here are very different from the other 49 states. it's based on Napoleonic code, not English law.
    Let me explain THIS to you really slow...

    There are federal court cases (supercedes the state courts) that allow in an insurer to recover their damages from parties responsible for the damages. These cases are cut and dry and are the foundation for subrogation litigation today.

    If an insured property burns to the ground, the chance that the exact origin and cause of the loss diminshes greatly. The insurer may not be able to prove the culpability of the insured in court. But that does not preclude them from going after other parties.

    If the investigation revealed that the FD stood by and watched the insured property burned to the ground, there are very ffew insurance cos. who are not going to explore the possibility of subrogation against the party responsible for the increase in damages between what would have happened if the FD did their job and what happened when they were gutless and sttod by and watched. I know of several insurance cos. who would go after this case in a heartbeat.

    There would be some mitigating factors in that the FD didn't cause the fire, but it would be easy to meet the standard-gross negligence-to prove responsibility.

    And yes, it would be a case opened under federal jurisdiction if the insurance co. operates in more than one state. My estimate is that this would include about 99.999% of all insurance cos.

    So, you keep on working under the **** poor legal advice you have been given. l would think that if your FD members had any self-respect, that when they were faced with this situation, they would put the fire out and dare the property owner to sue them. In order to succesfully pursue litigation, he would have to prove damages. Please enlighten us as to how he would prove damages in a case such as this?

    I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice. I merely post in areas where I have knowledge of the legal area when I have been involved in the situations. I would welcome the input of any attorneys we may have on the forum as to my interpretation of the litigation prospects.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  11. #51
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Probably a poor time to bring it up but: I'm PRETTY sure there were several(many) Fire Departments operating here on the East coast LONG before there even was a FD on the left coast.Or the State of California. I'm also reasonably certain we would be able to manage our incidents just fine WITHOUT all those fabulous ideas that were "invented" on the west Coast. Have we gotten some good stuff from out West? Of course but no more than they have "stolen" from us. How many turnout gear mfgs are in Ca? Now one more question,How is it that New Orleans has vagrants/transients but Bossier parrish has none? Geographically is it that much travel distance? T.C.

  12. #52
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    Let me explain THIS to you really slow...

    There are federal court cases (supercedes the state courts) that allow in an insurer to recover their damages from parties responsible for the damages. These cases are cut and dry and are the foundation for subrogation litigation today.

    If an insured property burns to the ground, the chance that the exact origin and cause of the loss diminshes greatly. The insurer may not be able to prove the culpability of the insured in court. But that does not preclude them from going after other parties.

    If the investigation revealed that the FD stood by and watched the insured property burned to the ground, there are very ffew insurance cos. who are not going to explore the possibility of subrogation against the party responsible for the increase in damages between what would have happened if the FD did their job and what happened when they were gutless and sttod by and watched. I know of several insurance cos. who would go after this case in a heartbeat.

    There would be some mitigating factors in that the FD didn't cause the fire, but it would be easy to meet the standard-gross negligence-to prove responsibility.

    And yes, it would be a case opened under federal jurisdiction if the insurance co. operates in more than one state. My estimate is that this would include about 99.999% of all insurance cos.

    So, you keep on working under the **** poor legal advice you have been given. l would think that if your FD members had any self-respect, that when they were faced with this situation, they would put the fire out and dare the property owner to sue them. In order to succesfully pursue litigation, he would have to prove damages. Please enlighten us as to how he would prove damages in a case such as this?

    I am not a lawyer and I do not give legal advice. I merely post in areas where I have knowledge of the legal area when I have been involved in the situations. I would welcome the input of any attorneys we may have on the forum as to my interpretation of the litigation prospects.
    George
    I'm sure you are correct in your facts, but wouldn't that only be the case if the insurance company paid out? I kinda think that if some clown did try to file an insurance claim after burning down his barn or whatever, the first insurance adjuster on scene would probably pull out the release that the guy signed for the FD and laugh in the guys face.
    Another thing to consider is that Louisiana is quite a lot like Texas in that the property owner is just as likely to pull out a gun and start shooting FF who did try to put the fire out.

  13. #53
    Early Adopter cozmosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    If he files an insurance claim, and the insurance co. finds out you let his property burn down, the insurance co. has every reason to come after your FD for the bulk of the damages. I would love to be involved in that case.
    If he burned his own house and then filed a claim... The insurance wouldn't pay, eh? Wouldn't it be some sort of fraud at that point? Isn't there some sort of "you can't burn your own stuff and have us pay for it" clause in most policies?

  14. #54
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    George
    I'm sure you are correct in your facts, but wouldn't that only be the case if the insurance company paid out? I kinda think that if some clown did try to file an insurance claim after burning down his barn or whatever, the first insurance adjuster on scene would probably pull out the release that the guy signed for the FD and laugh in the guys face.
    Another thing to consider is that Louisiana is quite a lot like Texas in that the property owner is just as likely to pull out a gun and start shooting FF who did try to put the fire out.
    That may not be the case. The insurance co. can only deny the claim if one of the policy provisions is expressly violated. Unless "convincing the gutless fire fighters not to fight the fire" is expressly mentioned in the policy, a denial may not be possible.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  15. #55
    Early Adopter cozmosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    How is it that New Orleans has vagrants/transients but Bossier parrish has none? Geographically is it that much travel distance?
    The two are about 300 miles apart. Google Maps says that it would take 104 hours to walk from one to the other.

  16. #56
    Permanently Removed CALFFBOU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    6,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    Probably a poor time to bring it up but: I'm PRETTY sure there were several(many) Fire Departments operating here on the East coast LONG before there even was a FD on the left coast.Or the State of California. I'm also reasonably certain we would be able to manage our incidents just fine WITHOUT all those fabulous ideas that were "invented" on the west Coast. Have we gotten some good stuff from out West? Of course but no more than they have "stolen" from us. How many turnout gear mfgs are in Ca? Now one more question,How is it that New Orleans has vagrants/transients but Bossier parrish has none? Geographically is it that much travel distance? T.C.
    Itís always best to type a post when sober, seriously.

  17. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    That may not be the case. The insurance co. can only deny the claim if one of the policy provisions is expressly violated. Unless "convincing the gutless fire fighters not to fight the fire" is expressly mentioned in the policy, a denial may not be possible.
    I'm certainly no legal expert George, but wouldn't purposely burning down property be a violation of any insurance policy? Also, your derogatory statement about the level of courage on those firefighters, while safely ensconced behind your keyboard certainly says alot about your level of courage as well as class.

  18. #58
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLoader View Post
    I'm certainly no legal expert George, but wouldn't purposely burning down property be a violation of any insurance policy? Also, your derogatory statement about the level of courage on those firefighters, while safely ensconced behind your keyboard certainly says alot about your level of courage as well as class.
    I'm sorry. I temporarily made an error. I actually thought you wanted to engage in an intelligent discussion. As in the past, you have proven yourself incapable and ill-equipped.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  19. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canuck Expat May be anywhere
    Posts
    2,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I'm sorry. I temporarily made an error. I actually thought you wanted to engage in an intelligent discussion. As in the past, you have proven yourself incapable and ill-equipped.
    Not going to get into another crap throwing contest with you George. I've vowed never to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

  20. #60
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Cozmo,and if one hitchhikes?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. wouldnt it be smart....
    By nnjfire in forum Hurricane Katrina & Rita Forums
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-22-2005, 06:14 PM
  2. Are you as smart as you think you are?
    By backdraft663 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-13-2005, 02:57 PM
  3. to move or not to move that is the question
    By Brian787 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-24-2004, 07:51 PM
  4. Nobody said he was smart
    By Steamer in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-28-2003, 04:28 PM
  5. This ole' boy is a smart one, he is...
    By Engine2medic2 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2003, 02:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts