They run into the fire

If your a firefighter anywhere in the world your job in to run into buildings while everyone eles is running out...Think about that. These guys and girls who fight fire will never become, almost never become famous but still they willing to put their lives on the line for us!! For our saftey!! Think about how much that much take! Please show respect for thoes who run into danger so you aren't in danger!!!

Did they actually change much in the charter other than the archiac wording? We had a chance this election to make some changes and they were voted down. I can't imagine why some of the proposed changes didn't pass except that perhaps they weren't fully understood by the voters.

thank you fire dept

Yes, thankyou Rumford Fire Department...I am grateful that Med-care was able to revive our fireman en route to CMMC as well...we have first-rate services here. As for Mr. Belanger, well, it's probably best if I don't comment.

The events in Mexico are a wake up call!! These folks work hard and put themselves at risk for us. We must support them well and show them respect. Thank you to all thoes who run into to stop danger so we aren't in danger!!

Also just wanted to add that my best wishes go out to Bill Johnston...hopefully a quick recovery is made.

Every time our FD is called out this is the risk they are taking. I think it is unfair for anyone to try to devalue that. I was appalled when I watched the town meeting on channel 7 and saw how the moderater was speaking to those people who risk their lives for us. I still think Eugene Boivin overstepped his duty and owes the FD a public apology.
I wish Mr. Johnston a speedy recovery and urge others to stand in support of those people who are doing their best and often risking their life to protect our community.

Thank you, Mark. Happy to know he is doing ok! My best wishes to him for very speedy recovery, and my hat off to another brave soul.

There is a excellant story in the Boston Globe today about fire fighting. Here's an excerpt:

Playing with fire
Training under simulated conditions prepares recruits for real-life challenges
By John M. Guilfoil
Globe Correspondent, June 29, 2008

Tom Brophy loves everything about firefighting. From the time he was a kid, when his father, who just retired as acting fire chief in Salem, would drive him around the North Shore in the family station wagon watching other towns fight major fires, he knew he wanted to be just like his dad.

"I always looked up to the firefighters for being hard workers and just watching my dad go up in the ranks," said Brophy, 32. "I always wanted to do something like that."

You can read the whle article at http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/29/playing_with_fire/

T wrote:Rumford's archaic charter, enforced by Mr. Doar (as he should), has shone the RFD little respect. The citizens of Rumford can change that.

I believe that the firefighters showed little respect for our charter by violating it. I don't recall any efforts to change the rule. When you intentionally violate the charter, you might as well be spitting on the Constitution or urinating on the U.S. Flag. I take great offence to anyone doing so. I respect the fire department for the work they do, but I find much of their actions and antics to be offensive. Just my opinion.

I have no respect for ANY document that restricts or eliminates one's First Amendment rights. Mr. Saisi, I’m surprised you do considering your great respect for the United States Constitution and the U.S. Flag.

Just my opinion.

A document can be changed if it is flawed. There are thousands of state and local laws that are in conflict with the Constitution. There are some instances where Constitutional rights are restricted for good reason. Perhaps the reason there is a restriction on union members is due to the fact that the selectmen negotiate a contract with the union. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to pick the people on the other side of the table?? I don't know why it is in there, but since it is a union issue, I have nothing to do with it.

If we look at the history of Unions in our country, we see that they were initially formed to protect the worker from corporate abuses. Over time, they gained power to the point that in many cases they actually run the company. Thousands of jobs have been lost due to companies either moving overseas or closing up due to their inability to compete in their industry due to union excesses. Because of this, there have been some rules developed that protect from union abuses. I believe that the inclusion of this rule in our town documents may have been a safeguard to prevent this from happening. I have limited legal training, and certainly cannot decide what is constitutional and what is not. I do know that despite the first ammendment, I cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. The first ammendment does not provide carte-blanche rights without concern for situations. Case law over the years has proved this.

Personally, with all due respect, i wouldn't compare the Rumford charter to the Constitution, OR the U.S. flag. Get real. It's simply a set of rules to run a township, not the holy grail! And it's certainly flawed, but it's simply a document that can be changed and should be to avoid the kind of idiotic things that happen when good citizens simply try to excercise a right they should have (regardless of the charter). If everyone " followed the rules", Kevin, we'd still be part of the UK!

T wrote:I certainly hope you are not equating what Mr. Tripp and his fellow firefighters did with yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. That would be extremely inappropriate for a firefighter to do!
I could go on and on about unions and their impact on society. I won’t as most discussions become emotional and end splitting along political party lines. Unless it is determined the Rumford by-law was violated because Mr. Tripp was acting as a union representative and not a private citizen, it would be off topic.

Why must you twist things?? I was making an illustration on the limits of free speech, not equating the nature of the two scenarios. Please understand that I make every effort to say what I mean and mean what I say. Anything you read into my comments is merely your own fabrication.

I cannot imagine that there would be any question that the rule was violated. The question is whether or not the rule is valid and enforcable based upon the First Amendment. That is for the courts to figure out.

Kevin

xmashen wrote:Personally, with all due respect, i wouldn't compare the Rumford charter to the Constitution, OR the U.S. flag. Get real. It's simply a set of rules to run a township, not the holy grail! And it's certainly flawed, but it's simply a document that can be changed and should be to avoid the kind of idiotic things that happen when good citizens simply try to excercise a right they should have (regardless of the charter). If everyone " followed the rules", Kevin, we'd still be part of the UK!

Given your description, isn't the Constitution merely a set of rules to run our country? Can it not be flawed and changed as well? I believe your reference to our former status with the U.K. is not relevant. There is a difference between living within the laws our ancestors set, and that we have the power to change, and living under the rule of another country who denies us representation. If you feel as you state about our Charter, than how do you feel about our State Constitution? Is it just a piece of paper that means nothing? I respect your right to have a different opinion, but I must disagree with your stand on this issue.

The big question is- does the charter infringe on the personal rights of the fire fighters? When they "signed" their letter to the editor did they simply use their names? If so, I would think that would be a private citizen submitting it. If it was signed xxxx, chief of RFD and xxxx, RFD then it would have been a violation of the charter (however stupid and outdated).

KevinNSaisi wrote:Why must you twist things??

I was kidding. Can't you see the irony in a firefighter yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

KevinNSaisi wrote:I cannot imagine that there would be any question that the rule was violated.

You are most likely correct. But such things are open to interpretation. The intent of the law is key. Does the intent apply here? How has this law been applied in the past?

KevinNSaisi wrote:The question is whether or not the rule is valid and enforcable based upon the First Amendment. That is for the courts to figure out.

I agree.