Sam Lucas Told To Evacuate Before Home Caught Fire

I've worked in the field of emergency management since 1983. I hear the same old refrains every single time there is a tragedy of any kind. It's a vicious cycle that emergency managers, first responders, and volunteers of any stripe are literally forced to address each and every time called the "Psych-IL-logical Emergency Management Cycle":



If, and until, this cycle can actually be broken, we're going to continue to see the same recriminations take place after every tragedy that occurs, be it a wildfire, a forest fire, an act of school violence, a hurricane, a tornado, an ice storm, whatever. It's time for people to empower themselves and get involved. Budgets are limited. By the same token, throwing money at a problem more often than not will not fix it. Hardware and software are only a possible partial solution. People are the key.

I don't know of ANY first responders or emergency managers who don't genuinely care about the people they are tasked with helping to serve and protect. Maybe, instead of sitting back and being "arm-chair quarterbacks", it's time every single one of us started looking at ways each of us can contribute to addressing these issues. Get involved! Empower yourselves! TEACH PEACE!

Thank You to all of the fire fighters.

To the people looking to place blame, you must have a miserable life living inside your messed up mind.

I just read through this read.

I don't see anyone blaming the firefighters. The firefighters did as they were instructed. It is the fire department who has to review its policies.

There are any number of homes that are not right on Kuehster or other main roads. So they all get ignored because the f.f. doesn't know how far the house is? Looks like a lawsuit to me.

And now there are so many people putting up gates because of all the lookie-loos. So what happens now that there are a whole lot more who now have gates.

The article says there was smoke, not fire. And was there only one person notifying people for such a large area?

If I were the fire dept or its representative, I wouldn't be out there giving interviews. Looks to me like the fire departments are digging their own graves.

BTW really good discussion.

akilina wrote: I just read through this read.

I don't see anyone blaming the firefighters. The firefighters did as they were instructed. It is the fire department who has to review its policies.

There are any number of homes that are not right on Kuehster or other main roads. So they all get ignored because the f.f. doesn't know how far the house is? Looks like a lawsuit to me.

And now there are so many people putting up gates because of all the lookie-loos. So what happens now that there are a whole lot more who now have gates.

The article says there was smoke, not fire. And was there only one person notifying people for such a large area?

If I were the fire dept or its representative, I wouldn't be out there giving interviews. Looks to me like the fire departments are digging their own graves.

The firefighters ARE the fire dept, and people are blaming....because they can't bear to look in the mirror.

Putting up chains to stop the looky-loos is your choice. We live in a beautiful place, people are drawn to it. If you put a chain up to keep them out, expect that same chain to also keep out people you WANT to come in. You can't have it both ways.

Nobody ignores any homes...but individual firefighters don't have detailed memories of how long driveways are. If you want to block them with a chain, you are taking the responsibility on yourself. What would we be saying today if that firefighter had gone up to the home....and was killed by a fire, because of that 3 min jog.

The article said there was smoke. Maybe I'm just extremely intelligent, but I've been taught from a young age, where there is smoke, there is fire. We aren't talking a tiny bit of smoke....it was massive. I was watching it, preparing to leave. If you looked at the pics from the blog post one of the people who lost their homes posted, you see. When you see that much smoke, you don't wait for someone to tell you to leave, you leave.

If there are lawsuits I hope they lose. I'm fine with fine tuning, or even changing how the fire depts operate, but lawsuits do nothing but enrich lawyers.

Renegade, yes the firefighters are part of the fire department. A very important part. But there are boards and rules and regs that they follow. I applaud them for doing that. Now let me say this so that it is clear - THE FIREFIGHTERS FOLLOWED THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND. IT IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE BOARDS AND CHIEF WHO MAKE DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED.

You just can't leave people hanging out there when the fire department hasn't made it clear that they are only going to help those who don't have a chain or only have a short driveway or whatever criteria they want to use. It affects insurance as has already been pointed out.

Fiduciary responsibility is absolutely accurate. I am speaking about the fire dept not the firefighters, just in case it isn't clear.

Frankly I would rather not have lawsuits because we the residents in that fire district get to pay for it. But it is incumbent on the fire dept. to do a thorough review and make it absolutely, positively known what their criteria are. They have not done that. This is not too much to ask.

RenegadeCJ wrote: The firefighters ARE the fire dept, and people are blaming....because they can't bear to look in the mirror.

Putting up chains to stop the looky-loos is your choice. We live in a beautiful place, people are drawn to it. If you put a chain up to keep them out, expect that same chain to also keep out people you WANT to come in. You can't have it both ways.

Nobody ignores any homes...but individual firefighters don't have detailed memories of how long driveways are. If you want to block them with a chain, you are taking the responsibility on yourself. What would we be saying today if that firefighter had gone up to the home....and was killed by a fire, because of that 3 min jog.

The article said there was smoke. Maybe I'm just extremely intelligent, but I've been taught from a young age, where there is smoke, there is fire. We aren't talking a tiny bit of smoke....it was massive. I was watching it, preparing to leave. If you looked at the pics from the blog post one of the people who lost their homes posted, you see. When you see that much smoke, you don't wait for someone to tell you to leave, you leave.

If there are lawsuits I hope they lose. I'm fine with fine tuning, or even changing how the fire depts operate, but lawsuits do nothing but enrich lawyers.

Fine tuning and changing operational procedure(s) are always a direct result of "lessons learned", and, as a direct result often times lives are saved and sometimes the incidents themselves can actually be prevented (mitigation). Hotwashes are, in and of themselves, standard operating procedure following any incident, particularly of this magnitude. Problem is the public doesn't always take into account "lessons learned" for themselves and apathy once again sets in - at least until the next incident where fingers of blame are pointed and fault must be found. Just sayin'. :Whistle

Akilina, you state

You just can't leave people hanging out there when the fire department hasn't made it clear that they are only going to help those who don't have a chain or only have a short driveway or whatever criteria they want to use. It affects insurance as has already been pointed out.

There is plenty of information available to homeowners through their local and/or state emergency management agency on what they might be able to do to help with fire mitigation planning and personal preparedness planning for emergency and disaster events. As is the reality with planning for any situation, it takes two to tango, so to speak - the response organizations tasked with saving lives and protecting property, and the people themselves who may be "at risk" from any number of possible hazards. First responders don't "leave people hanging out there", in my opinion - not willfully, not intentionally. Fiduciary responsibility, or no, it is also the job of the individual homeowner to work with the first response organizations to do everything they can to provide for their own well-being. Problem is, way too many times homeowners are presented with a false sense of security (as MAY have been the case with the fire victims who perished because they MAY have believed their fire suppression system would protect them), and, as a result, they do little to nothing to help themselves.

Zhawke I like your response. There is responsibility on both sides.

However if the fire dept is going to be there and is going to give directives on how they are going to handle things with some getting better treatment than others then they had better be able to justify why they are doing what they are doing and make sure that the residents know it. That fiduciary responsibility thing again.

It is a sad fact that many people just do not care. They moved up here because they don't want anyone telling them what to do or how to do it. And can you blame them, when you have the fire dept, not the firefighters, busy making all kinds of statements in public trying to relieve themselves of liability and really making it worse for themselves. When I look at what has transpired thus far, I say to myself - why bother contacting them for anything. When they screw up they try to wiggle out of it and even if they are found liable, you get nominal damages for their wrongdoing. What is the point? That's what it looks like to me. Now before you decide to jump all over me, please keep in mind that I spend more time than the average person working on mitigating and getting in touch with the fire dept. and reading blogs/websites. There are a whole host of people who are not getting the fire dept's message. It is incumbent on the fire department to make known their policies. If that means sending a notice, very precisely stated and reviewed by the dept's attorney(s), to every household then do it.

akilina wrote: Zhawke I like your response. There is responsibility on both sides.

However if the fire dept is going to be there and is going to give directives on how they are going to handle things with some getting better treatment than others then they had better be able to justify why they are doing what they are doing and make sure that the residents know it. That fiduciary responsibility thing again.

I'm honored to be able to unequivocally state that every fire department I have ever worked with is there to protect and to serve. How they accomplish that is based firmly in using practices and standards that keep evolving even as we speak. I'm confident such will be the case following this fire, as well. Does all of this mean everyone in response organizations is on top of their game? Not in the least. As it is within any organization, there are always a few who don't know what they are doing. It's up to the organization's internal procedural processes to ferret those individuals out and either bring them up to acceptable standards or get rid of them. Sometimes that works, sometimes not so much. It's a reality, though, and one that is in constant need of monitoring.

It is my understanding that fire departments do not, nor are they authorized in any way to, give "directives" to anyone (besides their own employees or volunteers), nor, in my opinion, do they favor anyone over anyone else. That is a subjective statement, and, unless you can definitively prove your posit, you may want to consider withdrawing it, or, at the very least, modifying it.

The fiduciary thingy you've mentioned is certainly something that must be taken into consideration. However, as with all things in emergency management, fiduciary responsibility is something that must be spread around to include response organizations, homeowners, and insurance companies. I do not believe it is the sole responsibility of the fire departments to shoulder this onus just because they are "there".

akilina wrote: It is a sad fact that many people just do not care. They moved up here because they don't want anyone telling them what to do or how to do it. And can you blame them, when you have the fire dept, not the firefighters, busy making all kinds of statements in public trying to relieve themselves of liability and really making it worse for themselves.

That gets back to the "apathy" thingy I mentioned in the graphic of the "Psych-IL-logical Emergency Management Cycle". When the proverbial doodoo does hit the fan, these are sometimes the most vocal of critics of the response. I fail to see the connection you try to make regarding your first point of not wanting anyone telling them what to do or how to do it and your second point of the fire department being busy making all kinds of statements trying to relieve themselves of liability. To me, one has nothing to do whatsoever with the other. It is a choice people make to not care. They aren't being forced to not care because of what someone in the fire department says or does not say in public. FYI, the Colorado Forest Service (the supposed culprit in all of this controversy) has a web page devoted entirely to fire prevention with links to resources and videos available to all of us to help us in our individual efforts in this area ( http://www.extension.colostate.edu/gilpin/natu/fire.shtml ). With resources such as these being so readily and easily accessible to each and every one of us on the Internet (with a modicum of research effort on our part), I don't see very many excuses for any of us to point fingers of blame in other directions if we haven't looked in the mirror ourselves and done everything we possibly could to help response organizations help ourselves.

akilina wrote: When I look at what has transpired thus far, I say to myself - why bother contacting them for anything. When they screw up they try to wiggle out of it and even if they are found liable, you get nominal damages for their wrongdoing. What is the point? That's what it looks like to me.

Giving up isn't an option any of us can afford to do in situations like these. The point is there is ALWAYS room for improvement. Nominal damages don't really matter in the overall scheme of things, in my opinion. I almost lost two children at Columbine. I could have sued, but didn't. I consider the EMT's who brought my daughter out of the kill zone to be heroes. Lessons learned following this tragedy have helped prevent many other similar incidents since. Have these lessons absolutely prevented them from happening again? No. Does that mean we should stop trying to improve? A resounding NO.

akilina wrote: Now before you decide to jump all over me, please keep in mind that I spend more time than the average person working on mitigating and getting in touch with the fire dept. and reading blogs/websites. There are a whole host of people who are not getting the fire dept's message. It is incumbent on the fire department to make known their policies. If that means sending a notice, very precisely stated and reviewed by the dept's attorney(s), to every household then do it.

I welcome these kinds of discussions. I would never "jump all over" you for offering your opinions and/or expertise in any effort that might help improve future response(s) to emergency and disaster events. That's what dialogue is all about. Keep it coming and, hopefully, we'll all TEACH PEACE.

Fiduciary From Wikipedia

In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.
—Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 at 18 per , Lord Millett

The residents put their confidence and trust in the fire department. If the f.d. fails to contact others for whatever reason when they have done it for some, thus favoring some, and do not let residents know in advance that they won't get contacted, they fail in their fiduciary responsibility.

Enjoying the discussion.

Now does anyone have suggestions as to how we can get more people involved in listening to the fire dept when they tell people to leave when there is a fire.

And to do fire mitigation. I was intrigued with the fire department personnel coming out to Becky's subdivision and doing mitigating. We have volunteered in our hood but we also ask that the homeowner help, if able. Some are a danger to themselves with equipment so help might be in the form of simple foods and beverages or moving slash to another location to make it easier to chip. Whatever works. I am thinking that asking the homeowner to contact the f.d. would be good to do first as it give them responsibility for taking the initiative and they can get more insight in what needs to be done and why.

mtntrekker wrote: Fiduciary From Wikipedia

In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts.

A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.
—Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 at 18 per , Lord Millett

The residents put their confidence and trust in the fire department. If the f.d. fails to contact others for whatever reason when they have done it for some, thus favoring some, and do not let residents know in advance that they won't get contacted, they fail in their fiduciary responsibility.

From the same page in Wikipedia:

Relationships which routinely attract by law a fiduciary duty between certain classes of persons include these:

Trustee/beneficiary: Keech v Sandford[4]
Conservators and legal guardians / wards
Agents, brokers and factors / principals: McKenzie v McDonald[5]
Buyer agent (real estate broker) / buyer client
Confidential advisor including financial adviser and investment advisor / advisee or client
Lawyer/client: Sims v Craig Bell & Bond[6]
Executors and administrators / legatees and heirs
Corporate partners, joint venturers, directors and officers / company and stockholders: Guth v. Loft Inc., In Plus Group Ltd v. Pyke, Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver
Board of directors / company: Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc, Woolworths Ltd v Kelly[7]
Partner/partner: Chan v Zacharia,[8] Fraser Edmiston Pty Ltd v AGT (Qld) Pty Ltd,[9] Meinhard v Salmon
Stockbroker/client: Hodgkinson v Simms[10]
Senior employee / company: Green & Clara Pty Ltd v Bestobell Industries Pty Ltd[11]
Retirement plan administrators (including 401(k) plans) / retirees and workers: Vivien v. Worldcom
Promoters / stock subscribers
Liquidator/company: Re Pantmaenog[12]
Mutual savings banks and investment corporations / their depositors and investors
Receivers, trustees in bankruptcy and assignees in insolvency / creditors
Governments / indigenous peoples: R. v. Sparrow, Seminole Nation v. United States
Doctor/patient (Canada: McInerney v. MacDonald,[13] Norberg v. Wynrib)
Guardian/ward: Paramasivam v Flynn[14]
Teacher/student: Glover v Porter-Gaud[15]
Priest / parishioner seeking counseling: Doe v Evans, 814 So.2d 370 (Fla. 2002)

Nowhere in the above list of examples is there a citation of a public agency having a fiduciary duty in the context in which it is being presented in this thread that I can see. I believe, based on personal experience with trusteeship and with what I've read in legal definitions, that your definition of "fiduciary" responsibility may have been taken out of context. It would appear most, if not all, the examples listed above refer to "fiduciary responsibility" from more of a financial perspective than anything. If one broadens one's perspective/definition of the term "fiduciary" to include individuals such as those in your definition of the term, then, yes, fiduciary responsibility could theoretically be applied to a fire department. I do not believe (and I am no legal expert by any stretch of the imagination) that a "fiduciary responsibility" applies to notifications being provided in situations such as those being discussed in this thread. If legal precedent has been established wherein an entity, such as a fire department, has a fiduciary responsibility to notify, such as in the hypothetical situation you've provided, please provide it. I'm not trying to be difficult here. All I'm trying to do is get some clarification because, again from personal experience, fire departments generally have a ton of duties, but a fiduciary duty in the context in which it is apparently being presented here is something I am not familiar with.