Chris Kangas Petition

We all agree that the death of Chris Kangas was tragic. We all agree that he should be recognized and remembered for his contributions to his fire department as a member of the Explorer program. So, erect a monument in his honor, put black bunting over his photo at the stationhouse, honor him every year with a memorial service, lobby the state legislature for recognition, but don't ask the DOJ to change the rules for PSOB.
There are too many exceptions becoming the rules. It needs to stop.
Chris Kangas was enroute to the fire station when he was killed. Car, bike, go cart; it doesn't matter. What does matter is, that, had he reached the station, he was STILL an Explorer junior firefighter. See; Chris was still reaching for his dream to become a firefighter some day. Unfortunately, at the time of his death, he wasn't there, yet. He was 14 years old, could not participate in all facits of firefighting and under DOJ criteria, could not "fit" the definition of "firefighter". That's a fact. So, we all make emotional pleas to CHANGE it. But, it shouldn't be. If anything, create a new category away from the DOJ PSOB program for "support" personnel. Whatever.
The analogy of overweight, out of shape, no nothings as hard as it is to say it ARE firefighters under the rules and if departments are willing to put them on their active rosters regardless of their physical shape, criminal background, etc., then unfortunately, they fit the definition of "firefighter". That doesn't make it right, but they are the rules.
The problem with some of you is that you believe a wrong has occurred and it hasn't. The right decision was made under the law and people are wanting an exception made in this case. I admire Chris Kangas and appreciate his service to his fire department, but unfortunately, the parameters under which he conducted activities for his fire department do not meet the parameters of the DOJ PSOBs program.
He deserves to be honored and remembered forever.
But as an Explorer junior firefighter who died while responding to a call.
No more; no less.
Rest in peace, Chris Kangas.
CR

Quote:

---

The bottom line is that neither your opinion or my opinion counts.

---

and yet people keep creating and signing petitions and appealing the Courts ruling. Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingKiwi

Down here to work as a Qualified Fire Fighter you MUST BE 18.

No exceptions.

To even get in the truck when tones drop, you must be a QFF.

No exceptions.

Some places do run Cadet Schemes for 16 to 18 year olds, but they never attend incidents.

No exceptions.

---

Same here...I agree with what many others have said here, that while this is a tragic story and I feel bad for all involved, he was not a firefighter.

This sort of hits close to home. Back in the eary '90s, one of DCs died shortley after getting off duty from a brain anyurism. I was one his last call, and he was Ill then. This was around 0430 and he was found dead at home around 0800.

Long story short, his death was not given LODD status. He was a 20 year vet and certainly would be considered a firefighter by anyone. Didnt matter. He didnt die "on-duty". We accepted it and moved on. Chris's family, friends and department should as well.

I, for one, will not sign the petition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bones42

and yet people keep creating and signing petitions and appealing the Courts ruling. Interesting.

---

I was under the impression that it was the government who appealed the court’s decision on the matter.

Well said Art (ChiefReason).

I don't believe I've ever weighed in on this issue since I could never articulate my thoughts as clearly and balanced as I wanted to -- the way your post just did.

Matt

Quote:

---

A refutation of my analogy would go thus:

---

How about this: He was a CHILD. Children are NOT be firefighters. He had not even come close to being what it takes to be a firefighter at the age of fourteen.

Quote:

---

Thank you, I'll be here all weekend.

---

It's a good thing you will be; at your rate of comprehension, you probably ought to take the entire month off.
This must be fought to prevent the justification for using child labor in dangerous environments by fire departments in the future. I ask again...where are the parallels to other occupations? More evidence proving we are our own worst enemies.

Quote:

---

I can do your job for you, but I'd much rather you make the effort to present somethign resembling debate in the future.

---

I'm not here to "debate" the issue. It's clear on the face of it.
Children are NOT firefighters. Got it? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chief310

I was under the impression that it was the government who appealed the court’s decision on the matter.

---

No. Check the first post. The government decided. Family, friends, other firefighters, and Weldon (?) petitioned for appeals. Now there are more petitions to "If the Department of Justice or anyone else in the government reads this with as many signatures as possible they have to do something about it." The current decision/appeal is because people petitioned their government leaders. The government did not start this appeal process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave1983

Long story short, his death was not given LODD status. He was a 20 year vet and certainly would be considered a firefighter by anyone. Didnt matter. He didnt die "on-duty". We accepted it and moved on. Chris's family, friends and department should as well.

---

With all due to respect to your former D/C, but he didn't die on duty. he didn't die when at an incident. he also didn't die while responding to an incident. He was a FF, who died. Sucks, but it had nothing to do with the fire service, and as such, shouldn't be a LODD.

The issue at hand is Chris's age. Or that is what everyone is saying. How well he is trained, what he does on a fire scene, or had the exact same situation occurred to a person who was 18 year old, we wouldn't be having this discussion/argument, is all irrelevant. People who are saying no are focusing only on chris's age, and that is where I think much of the argument is. I think one should look the whole picture, and give him the recognition that he deserves.

out of curiosity, if he had been on the apparatus, going to a fire, and it crashed, killing him and the officer, would it be considered one LODD or two? and why or why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrParasite

With all due to respect to your former D/C, but he didn't die on duty. he didn't die when at an incident. he also didn't die while responding to an incident. He was a FF, who died. Sucks, but it had nothing to do with the fire service, and as such, shouldn't be a LODD.

---

Seems you didn't know what happen really. He died while responding to his station when they got a station stand by for a dwelling in a town over. So he did die while responding to an incident.

He herd sirens from the town over that had the actual dwelling, but his station got hit for a stand by for it, so even if he didn't know that those sirens wern't his trucks but he did get tapped out for a stand by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NuclearDoctor

Seems you didn't know what happen really. He died while responding to his station when they got a station stand by for a dwelling in a town over. So he did die while responding to an incident.

He herd sirens from the town over that had the actual dwelling, but his station got hit for a stand by for it, so even if he didn't know that those sirens wern't his trucks but he did get tapped out for a stand by.

---

I believe you are referencing the wrong thing. The quote you are referring to was my response to Dave1983's situation. Chris absolutely did die when responding to an incident.

just out of curiosity, from what you are saying, he didn't have a pager. was he supposed to be responding to the station for a call? Or was he just being a wacker (nothing disrespectful intended I have done the same thing myself) and wanted to hear what was happening, so he headed down where they have all the radios? and the fact that his station just happened to get hit out for the standby was a coincidence? again, I don't know, but you seem to have some information than I do about what happened.

After re-reading much of the information here and elsewhere..I have one question..

Is it the cash, or is it just getting his name of the wall?

I was origionally kinda split on my decision, but after reading a lot of posts, in perticular, CR's, I do not feal he was a firefighter.

While only 14, he was not able to do everything needed to be a firefighter.

Personally, I am a probationary member right now. Im 21. I am in the process of my FF II class. I am allowed at the scene, and can do anything but go in the building. I have work normal shifts for our station, and have a pager and all that jazz, and Im not even sure that I would be awarded it, let alone Chris.

My deepest sympathy for him and his family, but he was a good kid, not a firefighter.

Quote:

---

The issue at hand is Chris's age.

---

Not for me. The issue to me is whether he is/was a firefighter. He was not allowed to enter an IDLH and attack a fire. He was not allowed to enter an IDLH and perform a search and/or rescue. He was not allowed to ventilate a building in an IDLH. He could not drive a firetruck nor operate one.

It's not about his age, it's about what he was/was not allowed to do that are a big part of being a firefighter. JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PureAdrenalin

After re-reading much of the information here and elsewhere..I have one question..

Is it the cash, or is it just getting his name of the wall?

---

I can't speak for his family, or anyone else for that matter, but to me it's about the name on the memorial. The way the system was set up, you can't have one without the other.

I have to agree with everyone that's posted who said that it doen't make sense to give the cash to the family, because Chris was not supporting the family when he was killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chief310

I can't speak for his family, or anyone else for that matter, but to me it's about the name on the memorial. The way the system was set up, you can't have one without the other.

I have to agree with everyone that's posted who said that it doen't make sense to give the cash to the family, because Chris was not supporting the family when he was killed.

---

So, would it be beyond logic to think that a compromise could be found of putting his name on the wall as a Jr. FF, perhaps in a special section or something, and not give the monetary benefits? The family has already gotten the state benefit, do they really need the federal? My point on the whole issue has always just to have his name on the wall...nothing further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PureAdrenalin

So, would it be beyond logic to think that a compromise could be found of putting his name on the wall as a Jr. FF, perhaps in a special section or something, and not give the monetary benefits? The family has already gotten the state benefit, do they really need the federal? My point on the whole issue has always just to have his name on the wall...nothing further.

---

No, not beyond logic at all, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrParasite

With all due to respect to your former D/C, but he didn't die on duty. he didn't die when at an incident. he also didn't die while responding to an incident. He was a FF, who died. Sucks, but it had nothing to do with the fire service, and as such, shouldn't be a LODD.

---

Well, yes and no. It was ruled that it was work related, as he had hypertension, which under Fla's firefighter heart and lung bill is considered job related. And like I said, he was ill at 0430 while on duty. If it had happened two hours earlier, he would have passed at the station. So it was alot closer to a LODD then Chris's situation, IMHO.

But thats not the point I was trying to make.

The point is we all accepted the ruleing and moved on. There were no lawsuits, no petitions, no national coverage. Thoese involved with Chris need to move on as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThNozzleman

How about this: He was a CHILD. Children are NOT be firefighters. He had not even come close to being what it takes to be a firefighter at the age of fourteen.

---

I like mine better. It actually uses logic and made me think I might want to reconsider my position. Your statement seems rooted in an insecurity about your own abilities. I am willing to entertain that there may be 14 years olds who owuld run circles around "adult" firefighters, given the proper training. In our culture (modern America,) I would from anecdotal experience think this to be fairly rare.

What is universally inherent to the 14 year old that they cannot be firefighters? Do you believe childhood is an objective reality. Immutable, in other words?

I didn't realize you knew him personally.

Quote:

---

It's a good thing you will be; at your rate of comprehension, you probably ought to take the entire month off.
This must be fought to prevent the justification for using child labor in dangerous environments by fire departments in the future. I ask again...where are the parallels to other occupations? More evidence proving we are our own worst enemies.

---

You think I'm misunderstanding your argument, or the nature of junior firefighters?

Your argument: 14 year olds cannot be firefighters (there's no why offered, though you have alluded to legal issues.)

I've given you a nice way to refute me. Just cut and paste. We'll pretend you made it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThNozzleman

I'm not here to "debate" the issue. It's clear on the face of it.
Children are NOT firefighters. Got it? :rolleyes:

---

Yet you claim to have defeated my argument. That would require debate, not empty statements.

You have made nothing but assertions. Oh, and insults, but not creative ones.