Police Seize Home Arsenal Fire Alerts Authorities to Nearly 500 (legal) Weapons

The Asbury Park Press ^ | 12-03-02 | Michael Clancy

[Iron Eagle]

Published in the Asbury Park Press 12/03/02 Fire alerts authorities to nearly 500 weapons By MICHAEL CLANCY STAFF WRITER FAIR HAVEN -- Three dump trucks removed an arsenal of live ammunition and almost 500 weapons -- all of them apparently held legally -- which police found in a home after the fire department responded to a chimney fire and the homeowner threatened the fire chief with a rifle, authorities said yesterday.

[supercat]

So your conclusion is what? That because the fire may have been under control, the firefighters had no right to enter his house? That by observing the house from the outside, they should've been able to determine the extent of the fire?

My conclusion is that I don't know enough about the particulars of what happened to definitively say who's in the right or wrong in this particular case. However, it does bring up some interesting issues.

To use a somewhat more minor example, suppose that you have a large oven in your kitchen and you have a few dozen cookies baking when you get distracted. Although the burning cookies don't pose any structural hazard whatsoever, they give off a very large amount of smoke. Suppose the neighbor sees the smoke and calls the fire department. Does that give them the right to have unfettered access to your home while you have to wait outside?

It would seem to me that in any case where an uncontrolled fire was not readily apparent, firefighters could benefit from active assistance of occupants who could tell them useful things like the locations of crawlspace hatches or access panels, as well as what knowledge they had about where a fire had been, how big, for how long, etc. Unfortunately, I suspect that adrenalin on the part of all involved makes such interaction difficult.

BTW, three real-world incidents:

• In a restaurant near my office, someone came in to report that the mulch outside was smouldering (somebody had apparently thrown a cigarette into it). An employee filled a pitcher of water, went outside, and poured the water on the fire. Should the building have been evacuated and the fire department called?
• In a bowling/gameroom/bar I frequent, someone told a bartender smoke was coming from a wastebasket, because a guest had apparently thrown a lit cigarette into it. The employee dumped a pitcher of water into the wastebasket and inspected the contents. Should the building have been evacuated and the fire department called?
• At a client's site where I working, sparks from an arc welder ignited some boxes. I ran to the boxes with a liter of soda water I had at my desk, threw it on the fire, then ran back for a couple more, which sufficed to completely douse the fire (which occurred on a concrete floor with no place the fire might have invisibly spread). Should the building have been evacuated and the fire department called after all the boxes involved had been dragged away from each other or anything else combustable?

[southern rock]

True believers of the Constitution respect the law, and are willing to take the consequences when they choose to break it.

Are you sure about that? Don't want to take a moment to reconsider? The law in America, 2002 says ALOT of things.....

[supercat]

His homeowner's insurance won't cover any damage done by the smoke and/or fire.

Was there any significant damage? Given that no damage was mentioned, I suspect all of the smoke present was from the fire that had been (deliberately) in the fireplace prior to the chimney fire. To be sure, wood smoke can be somewhat damaging but it's nowhere near as bad as the smoke from many other things.

I suspect the homeowners' primary costs at this point will be for inspection of, and repairs to (or replacement of) his chimney. He may also have to clean his walls, ceiling, and upholstry (and possibly have to live with some slight discoloration of those items) but those costs would likely be below his insurance deductable. Additionally, if he does have to put in a claim for chimney inspection/repairs, he could quite reasonably argue that his quick closing of the fireplace damper served to prevent far more severe damage to his property.

[Catspaw]

Yup, from now on, I think the fire department should be limited to polishing their trucks & folding their hoses. When they're dispatched by someone foolish enough to think they need their help, they can jump into a car, truck or SUV and drive by a scene to which they've been called at a reasonable speed--say 25 mph--and by their powers of observation decide whether they should send the equipment out or not. Before they do send out the big stuff and they see someone, perhaps a man or woman screaming frantically in the front yard with flames licking out of the roof, they should stop and ask, "sir or ma'am, do we have your express written permission to fight this fire? Do we have your express written permission to enter your home, and if so, sign here, noting which areas of your property we can enter." If no property owner is home, they cannot respond to the fire call. This can be applied to accident scenes as well. If they think the occupants of a car, if alive and if conscious, can get themselves out of the car without assistance, they don't need to stop. If the occupant or occupants are alive and unconscious, they will have to find a close relative (spouse or parent) to request written permission to remove that person or persons from the car (their property) if removal involves damage to the car, they're going to need express written permission from the car owner and lender, if any. If the occupants of the car are dead, then they'll need permission of the co-owner of the car, if any, or a close relative (spouse or parent) and lender, if any, to remove the body from the car. If the live person or dead body is thrown from the car, that person or dead body can stay there until that person or that person's relatives arrange for private medical care, if needed, or private body removal.

Or maybe fire departments just need to disband and let everyone fend for themselves.

[supercat]

How much are you willing to put on that?

Wouldn't be a wise bet. After all, you do realize that one of the cops really had his eye on this guy's collection, and thought attaching a large vacuum to his chimney to simulate a chimney fire would be a good way to get it (actually starting a chimney fire would run too much risk of the collection getting damaged).

[supercat]

Yup, from now on, I think the fire department should be limited to polishing their trucks & folding their hoses.

Very funny. Since you seem determined to suggest that any hint that fire fighters aren't needed in every case is a declaration that they're not needed in any case, perhaps I should turn that around: do you believe that fire fighters should have unfettered access to any property where they believe there might conceivably be an uncontrolled fire?

[tpaine]

Before this thread ends someone will say that the cops started the fire to get the guns.

335 posted on 12/03/2002 5:59 PM PST by Texasforever

You just did, you clown. - Whatta loon.

[Catspaw]

I've been in one small fire and was in another larger fire. Smoke damage can be extensive and he may need professional cleaning services. But there's the other issue: because he's accused of impeding the fire department, the insurance company will withhold payment until the court case is resolved. If he's convicted of any crime related to this, they'll deny the claim. He can sue them, of course, but the insurance agent in my office bldg said that standard clauses in the policy say that if the policy holder impedes law enforcement or firefighters in any way, they don't have to pay out. The insurance company will cancel him (and they find out these things in warp speed) and he will find it next to impossible, if not impossible, to find another homeowner's policy to cover his house because this is going to go on his Permanent Record. He may have a separate policy or rider to cover his gun collection, but that's going to get cancelled along with his homeowners. Of course, he may not have insurance in the first place and doesn't care if he gets insurance on his home or gun collection.

[Ben Bolt]

I understand what you are saying & I believe some of the others do also . The problem is many people dont have the hardline you have because it is human nature to sometimes let the little things slide .

After about 200 years or so of this kind of thing along come some hardliners and it seems that the language spoken is so alien & the thought process is so damn foreign the labels come forward in masse .

The Constitution is a living breathing document inside more of us than you & i might know in person but I'd rather have 5 or 10,000 solid core people than many more who are willing to be selective .

I'm a hardliner myself because it just makes sense .

[tpaine]

"His homeowner's insurance won't cover any damage done by the smoke and/or fire."

How would you know?

[Catspaw]

Read your homeowner's policy, if you have one. If you impede law enforcement or firefighters in any way, the insurance will not pay out for any claims for damage, or check with an experienced insurance agent.

[Catspaw]

Read my post #227.

[tpaine]

Any way?

Heresay...
-- You admitted as much in your previous post.
However, it is obvious that you must be the worlds foremost authority on something. Please let us all know just what that could be.

[supercat]

Read your homeowner's policy, if you have one. If you impede law enforcement or firefighters in any way, the insurance will not pay out for any claims for damage, or check with an experienced insurance agent.

Would this be true even if the damage was demonstrably unrelated to said impediment?

[wimpycat]

My post #271 explains what I'm trying to say in more detail. Even if we have a bunch of bad laws (and we do), we have Constitutionally mandated ways to remedy the situation, elections and appellate review. Perhaps I should have said "respect the rule of law" instead of "respect the law".

[Joe Hadenuf]

How do you explain that to people that think even spent brass is dangerous?

[supercat]

Read my post #227.

In post #227 you suggest that once firemen take control of a scene, they get full unfettered access for as long as they want. What is required for firemen to take control of a scene? In the three scenarios I mentioned above, should firemen have taken over the scenes and evacuated the buildings?

[wimpycat]

I didn't say I'd bet on it, he just said someone would suggest it before this thread died, and I was wondering how confident he was. But now that you mention it, I wouldn't bet the house on it, but this crowd is reliable enough to wager at least a couple of bucks.

[DAnconia55]

Is the possession of child pornography a crime? Either/Or. Choose. Now.

Is it? Yes.
Should it be? No.

The moral crime with child porn lies in the taking of the photograph, which a child cannot consent to.

[Catspaw]

Would this be true even if the damage was demonstrably unrelated to said impediment?

I'll have to ask the insurance agent in my building tomorrow, but he was very sure the insurance company wouldn't pay out if there was any impediment, no matter if it was related or unrelated. Your question sounds like the guy's argument he'll be putting forth as part of a brief in a lawsuit against the insurance company, not as part of the claim for damages he makes. In any case, this agent said that his homeowner's insurance policy will be cancelled and he wouldn't be able to find another insurer to carry him. He couldn't think of any company that would write this guy.