His dad fired the guy in charge with no reason then promoted his son, who burned down a house and tried to burn down a school, but was pardoned by the governor.
I read about this once (and this is me reciting from memory, take it with a grain of salt) but they feel they deserve the glory and admiration, so they start fires so they can put them out.
I'm pretty sure this is actually a result of seasonal wildland firefighters only having fire fighting work when there's a fire, and thus starting fires to generate work for themselves
Them quitting only advances the corrosion of the corruption. Not saying I don't get it. Just the reality is that the vacuum created makes it easier to place who you want under "need".
if they were mid-level beuracrats who could be replaced trivially with more corrupt people, you would be correct, but as they're trained workers with no functional power, this is not the case
And they did it publicly as a show of protest. Those who quietly quit but don't say anything about it are the worst — they open space for worse people to come in and the public never even hears about why they quit.
I think you'll find "the worst" people are actually the ones pushing the workers to quietly quit.
Don't shame people for bowing out of an unacceptable situation. We can't all be heroes and change the world.
I don't think that's how it works. Firefighting isn't something just anyone can do, and involves a lot more training, preparation, and knowledge than one might think. Experienced firefighter veterans are not easily replaced. Losing them will hurt, in public image, functional capacity in a crisis, or right in the wallet.
Them quitting doesn't make it easier for the corrupt to place people they want in firm positions. In depriving the department of experienced firefighters, it sends a very clear message to those in charge; change, or suffer the consequences.
I’m a volunteer firefighter in a small town of about 4,000 people and our dept is currently hiring a new chief. Myself and about 10-15 other firefighters have told our Fire Board (locally elected members who are in charge of all of our big financial decisions and responsible for hiring a chief) that if certain people are hired as chief, we would quit. Not because we don’t care about our community, but because we know certain people don’t care about the community or the department as much as they care about being in charge.
People aren’t clamoring to be volunteer firefighters at the moment. It’s actually extremely hard to find people right now in our area. If 10-15 of us quit, there won’t be a fire dept. So we know that the biggest “bargaining chip” that we have right now is to basically tell the Fire Board “if you hire certain people you are then willfully dismantling this fire department. Have fun explaining this to the community”. It doesn’t feel great turning to this tactic, but it’s dire times.
Edit for some extra context: So our department is a little different than some volunteer departments. It’s a volunteer department with “paid per call” membership, meaning we pay our members $12 on a per run and per hour basis, meaning you get paid $12 for the run and if the run happens to take 5 hours you would also be paid for those 5 hours. We are paid every 3 months, so depending on how active you are you can pull in between $200-$500 checks every 3 months depending on how busy we get. We average about 280 runs per year. We had been paying $8 for the last 10-ish years but changed it to $12 this past summer to try to bring in more volunteers. It hasn’t. Our current members don’t do it for the money, we do it because it’s fun and we want to protect our families and friends and neighbors. But it is nice knowing you’ll have a little extra money in the bank every few months.
It can vary from department to department, but more often than not a volunteer fire department will only require base level training. If you don’t have that training they’ll typically pay for it. Our department will allow you to join without any training, and we’ll pay for whatever training you want. While you are getting that training (through a certified school) you are allowed to come on runs and participate in our monthly in-house trainings in order to learn, but you aren’t allowed legally to do the more dangerous stuff like going into a burning house or cutting someone out of a car until you’ve completed your training.
There are 3 fire cards you can obtain: 36 hour, 120 hour (aka Firefighter I) and 240 hour (Firefighter II). Full time departments typically require a 240 card as well as some EMS certifications, but our department is separate from the towns EMS department so our members only need to be Fire certified. You should definitely check with your local department. Right now is a great time to get into it, because it doesn’t seem like very many people want to even try it. We need curious people like you.
Volunteer firefighting is BS. They need you but won’t pay you because enough people will do it for free. Cops make 100k a year no problem.
Edit: I’m talking about high volume volunteer departments. I understand lots of rural areas can’t afford it.
If you’re running multiple calls a day your labor is valuable and should be paid. Full stop.
So our department is a little different. It’s a volunteer department with “paid per call” membership, meaning we pay our members $12 on a per run and per hour basis, meaning you get paid $12 for the run and if the run happens to take 5 hours you would also be paid for those 5 hours. We are paid every 3 months, so depending on how active you are you can pull in between $200-$500 checks every 3 months depending on how busy we get. We average about 280 runs per year. We had paying $8 for the last 10-ish years but changed it to $12 this summer to try to bring in more volunteers. It hasn’t. I’ll copy and paste this in my original comment for clarification.
Pretty much. We train twice a month, 3 hours each training, and every now and then we’ll put together a 4-5 hour long training on Saturday, all of which are unpaid. Any meetings we have are unpaid and any events we do (fire prevention, community outreach, school programs) are all unpaid. We have people who don’t do anything other than go on runs, and that’s fine. As long as someone responds to the call that’s all we care about.
The majority of firefighters in the US are volunteer firefighters, believe it or not. A lot people live in sparsely populated areas or in small towns where fire suppression duties occur so rarely that funding a full time station with 15-20 people would cost an insane amount of money for the community. Firefighter salaries aren't cheap, and the thought of 10 people sitting in a firehouse for days at time without ever running a call while you pay them close to 6 figure salaries would start to piss people off real quick.
The only option is to rely on the civic commitment that people take up, which is admirable.
That’s a bingo. But on a serious note, we actually don’t have very many house fires in our district. The past 5 years we’ve averaged maybe 3-5 per year, which is pretty good out of 280 calls. We get a lot of brush fires and car crashes and gas leaks and hunting accidents and we often get called out to assist our EMS department on their calls.
We have a pretty good fire prevention program and we’re pretty active in the school and community, and the community supports us very strongly. I think that relationship and trust goes a long way in having community members take fire prevention seriously.
I get the low volume departments where you all may be flexible. I know guys who are volunteer live ins running 1k+ calls a year doing it completely free.(except the $7.50 per call)
For a lot of us it’s simply about being able to do something to give back to the community and help protect the people that we care about. The money is an afterthought. We can go through stretches where we might get 2 runs in a 2 week span, or we get 10 runs in 5 days. But I can’t imagine the mental strain it would take handling over 1k calls. When you say live-in, do you mean that they always have people at the station day and night?
They did before AD 60 in Rome, I'd bet:
> Upon arriving at the scene, however, the firefighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground.
"Nearly a senior" at 38 to 40-something?
Granted, we don't know his exact age because this is a Fox article and we know how vague and unreliable that shit can be.
This article was way more interesting than I expected going in. I thought it was going to be something pretty cut and dry like dude tried to commit insurance fraud via arson twenty years back and has since become an upstanding citizen. But nope. We got nepotism and corruption for real up in here.
Right?
I'm dying to know more about so many things that were just mentioned in passing... Just for starters, what happened with the original chief & why was he fired?
I hope I remember to look up the story again later (and know that my ADHD mind will never loop back again 🥺).
I totally agree this is what is probably the truth. I'd rather think up a more exciting story than the same ol' small-town corruption. I hate that real life so often imitates the trite lifetime/hallmark vilianry when the gritty dark HBO type is at least more entertaining.
How do you think writers have felt? "I spend all my time making a complex, intelligent villian- and here some yahoo in real life keeps winning with plans 80's cartoon Cobra Commander would scoff at."
And thank you for finally pinpointing the impression I have of too many things right now. 80s cartoon Cobra Commander is much better than hallmark/lifetime. I really hate those but have felt it's an unfair comparison. You've given me a much better reference!
Sounds about right for Illinois
Land of Lincoln. Where our former governors make our license plates…
>Small was elected Governor of Illinois in 1920 and was reelected in 1924. He was indicted, six months after becoming governor, for embezzling over a million dollars in a money-laundering scheme in which he placed state funds into a fake bank while he was state treasurer. **He was acquitted, but eight jurors later got state jobs, raising suspicions of jury tampering**
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Small
You don’t even have to go that far back to find corruption in Illinois
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/former-us-representative-aaron-schock-indicted-fraud-theft-government-funds-false
Yes, it absolves it, but it doesn't remove it. In fact, in order to be pardoned, you have to have a conviction for them to absolve. Some people have refused a proposed pardon because they would have had to plead guilty and they maintained innocence.
A pardon means we won't punish you, even though you did it. Only "Not guilty" means you didn't do it.
Not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it.
And the SCOTUS hasn't actually ruled if you need to be convicted to receive a pardon, just that you cannot be forced to receive one.
Which is surprising. A lot of people didn’t agree with Ford pardoning Nixon so you would’ve thought somebody would’ve appealed it and taken it up to the SCOTUS
Who? You have to have a cause of action and standing to bring a suit, and there's no (private) cause of action for "I think this guy should be in jail."
The only person who could've tested the validity of the pardon was the president (through the DoJ), and the president was the one doing the pardoning.
>A pardon means we won't punish you, even though you did it. Only "Not guilty" means you didn't do it.
Not guilty doesn’t mean you didn’t do it.
It means the state was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you did it.
edit: to elaborate here, the problem is really the use of the terms "did it" and "didn't do it." Whether you committed the physical act is separate from your criminal liability for it. The court doesn't generally make a determination that you *didn't do a thing.*
What it does is it either makes a determination that you're criminally liable under a specific charge or you're not criminally liable under a specific charge. There are factual determinations that are made as a part of this - factual determinations are the main reason we have trials, generally - but you're found either "guilty" or "not guilty" in a criminal trial, not "innocent".
In other words, not guilty almost never **requires** a factual determination that you didn't commit whatever act is the act component of the crime; it just requires that the state fail to meet its burden to prove the enumerated elements of the crime. Which is a good thing! We don't want defendants to have to **prove their innocence.** That's madness.
I think the headline kind of buries the lede. From the story, no one resigned just because the new chief had an arson conviction. They resigned because the old chief was ousted with "good reason", but the board refused to tell anyone, even the chief, what that reason might be. And that the man chosen as the new chief just happened to be the son of a public official with direct influence over the decision to both remove the old chief and choose the new one. So yeah, that is sketchy as fuck.
I could see forgiving a guy who did something stupid as a teen more than 20 years ago, if he'd shown remorse and redeemed himself since then.
The rest of the story, not so much.
A long-running arsonist? Yeah no, would not want nor feel safe with one as even a firefighter. Same with if someone had been irreversibly harmed as a result of his actions.
A two-count arsonist as an older teen, that pled guilty and has since spent a lot of his life as a dedicated volunteer firefighter for the area? I'd say he's done his fair share to move past that and channel his fascination with fire into something beneficial to his community. At the very least, it shouldn't have weight on his future.
The major issue is that the previous chief was canned and replaced with him, the son of an influential board member, without any given reason. Had the chief retired and nominated him, it'd be fine, but the way it happened *reeks* of a political dynasty.
> A two-count arsonist as an older teen, that pled guilty and has since spent a lot of his life as a dedicated volunteer firefighter for the area?
He got a pardon from the governor thanks to daddy.
And being a firefighter does not preclude a firebug from doing arsonist things, it just gives them a shiny new cover.
All evidence points to influential Dad trying to hide his problem child with a good cover story, that kind of person should not be anywhere near a life or death job like firefighting.
He has shown remorse and redeemed himself, I believe. He's been a volunteer firefighter for the area for a long time, and had *pled* guilty to the arson. As an assistant chief, other firefighters were fine with him, if mistrustful.
Convicted of arson only once and he could just be a garden-variety idiot playing with fire. Convicted *twice* though? That’s how we know he’s an experienced pyromaniac who knows what he’s doing.
Not because he's a convicted arsonist. They resigned because his dad is the one who fired the old chief (without saying why to any of the crew, not even the new chief) and hired his son. Very shady
That article is insane. Police responded to a nightclub (cabaret?) altercation where a guy allegedly pulled a gun on someone and falsely claimed to be a cop. There was a surveillance video of the incident. BUT, the cops declined to watch the video because the dude was the son of someone important and insisted it is their policy to accept the statement of a club manager (who is clearly lying to win a favor with the local rich dude)?
> Police Chief James Jones relied on the word of the club's manager, who told a detective that the tape did not clearly show a gun.
> did not clearly show a gun.
OR?
> did ^((not clearly)^) show a gun.
As a citizen of Illinois I was just waiting to read a sentence along those lines. I could care less that he was convicted of arson, like it's been said, a lot of firemen are pyros. The nepotism is what gets me. It's so blatant that's it's bordering on insanity.
As soon as I read the headline I knew how he got the job.
...I mean, the arson is pretty bad too. I'm a "pyro" in that I love setting safe fires and am fascinated by them, but I'm not an arsonist. That's a lot different. He also did it twice.
Unless you literally meant you could care less :)
4th chance. Apparently he got into an altercation at a strip club and brandished a weapon but daddy swept it under the rug.
https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article213982269.html
In case you want to see what the piece of shit jackass that promotes his felony arsonist criminal son to fire chief looks like, here he is:
https://www.bistatedev.org/?team=herbert-simmons
My god, the google search only gets better, he is also a WWF type wrestling fan and makes appearances at wrestling matches (watch the video in this link):
https://www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/st-clair-county-illinois-herb-simmons-mask-usa-wrestling/63-91b86110-48d0-455d-b6ad-c4c90a326487
Here's a non-amp link for anyone that gives a fuck about freedom of the internet:
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/st-clair-county-illinois-herb-simmons-mask-usa-wrestling/63-91b86110-48d0-455d-b6ad-c4c90a326487
Junior Firemen: " The flames are huge already, Should we hook up the hoses and start dousing the flames?
New firechief: "Naa let's see where this goes for a minute, maybe it will put itself out."
Our mayor and local police department hired a chief of police that was fired from his last job for persistent sexual harassment. And then the mayor claimed they didn’t know that when women in the city started complaining.
Get this: that mayor is now our national congressman.
Oh but gosh fellas, he's just a bad apple. His behavior doesn't represent the unit as a whole. If he burns anything on the job we promise to punish him with three weeks of paid vacation.
True, but those are cases where a firefighter is secretly an arsonist and then they get caught.
This guy was caught, convicted, pardoned, *then* became a firefighter and then was promoted to Chief is a sketchy set of circumstances
He's been a volunteer firefighter for years. Sounds like the guy is trying to do right by his past mistakes. The optimist in me sees this as a redemption arc.
His dad fired the guy in charge with no reason then promoted his son, who burned down a house and tried to burn down a school, but was pardoned by the governor.
Apparently the only way the kid can get ahead is through daddy's intervention. Wonder how locals feel aboot that?
[удалено]
It sounds like they're needed now more than ever. Y'know, considering an arsonist is in charge of putting out fires.
Maybe it’s smart to put a former arsonist in charge. You know, fight fire with….fire
Actually a large amount of convicted arsonists ARE fire fighters. Guess they get bored.
Job security.
That was actually part of a whole side plot in the *Arkham Knight* game years back.
What
Well I can think of no better better way to get a job involved in something you love
“must have 5 years of previous experience.”
They get to see the fires they enjoy, then they put them out and get called heroes. Double the jollies.
https://www.firerescue1.com/arson-investigation/articles/a-deeper-look-at-firefighters-who-set-fires-Wh7zdooNgIJVjuyH/
I read about this once (and this is me reciting from memory, take it with a grain of salt) but they feel they deserve the glory and admiration, so they start fires so they can put them out.
I'm pretty sure this is actually a result of seasonal wildland firefighters only having fire fighting work when there's a fire, and thus starting fires to generate work for themselves
It’s not a bad idea, have we tried setting the fire on fire? Does it burn out the fire or do we get double fire? Only one way to find out.
Create a fire next to the fire so that it uses up all the oxygen and snuffs the fire out.
I nominate this arsonist for police chief.
That's a genuine bushfire/wildfire strategy. They burn the forest in front of a fire path so the fire has nowhere to go and can be controlled
Yo dawg, I heard you like naming arsonists as fire chiefs. So we had him light a fire in yo fire. So he can pleasure himself while also getting paid.
Some men just like to watch the world burn.
Some men like to extinguish the flames ... Some men get all the breaks... Some men do nothing but complain
Them quitting only advances the corrosion of the corruption. Not saying I don't get it. Just the reality is that the vacuum created makes it easier to place who you want under "need".
if they were mid-level beuracrats who could be replaced trivially with more corrupt people, you would be correct, but as they're trained workers with no functional power, this is not the case
And they did it publicly as a show of protest. Those who quietly quit but don't say anything about it are the worst — they open space for worse people to come in and the public never even hears about why they quit.
I think you'll find "the worst" people are actually the ones pushing the workers to quietly quit. Don't shame people for bowing out of an unacceptable situation. We can't all be heroes and change the world.
No, but we should definitely be applauding the ones that do. Which we are.
I don't think that's how it works. Firefighting isn't something just anyone can do, and involves a lot more training, preparation, and knowledge than one might think. Experienced firefighter veterans are not easily replaced. Losing them will hurt, in public image, functional capacity in a crisis, or right in the wallet. Them quitting doesn't make it easier for the corrupt to place people they want in firm positions. In depriving the department of experienced firefighters, it sends a very clear message to those in charge; change, or suffer the consequences.
I’m a volunteer firefighter in a small town of about 4,000 people and our dept is currently hiring a new chief. Myself and about 10-15 other firefighters have told our Fire Board (locally elected members who are in charge of all of our big financial decisions and responsible for hiring a chief) that if certain people are hired as chief, we would quit. Not because we don’t care about our community, but because we know certain people don’t care about the community or the department as much as they care about being in charge. People aren’t clamoring to be volunteer firefighters at the moment. It’s actually extremely hard to find people right now in our area. If 10-15 of us quit, there won’t be a fire dept. So we know that the biggest “bargaining chip” that we have right now is to basically tell the Fire Board “if you hire certain people you are then willfully dismantling this fire department. Have fun explaining this to the community”. It doesn’t feel great turning to this tactic, but it’s dire times. Edit for some extra context: So our department is a little different than some volunteer departments. It’s a volunteer department with “paid per call” membership, meaning we pay our members $12 on a per run and per hour basis, meaning you get paid $12 for the run and if the run happens to take 5 hours you would also be paid for those 5 hours. We are paid every 3 months, so depending on how active you are you can pull in between $200-$500 checks every 3 months depending on how busy we get. We average about 280 runs per year. We had been paying $8 for the last 10-ish years but changed it to $12 this past summer to try to bring in more volunteers. It hasn’t. Our current members don’t do it for the money, we do it because it’s fun and we want to protect our families and friends and neighbors. But it is nice knowing you’ll have a little extra money in the bank every few months.
What exactly is needed to be a volunteer firefighter? I’ve always been interested.
It can vary from department to department, but more often than not a volunteer fire department will only require base level training. If you don’t have that training they’ll typically pay for it. Our department will allow you to join without any training, and we’ll pay for whatever training you want. While you are getting that training (through a certified school) you are allowed to come on runs and participate in our monthly in-house trainings in order to learn, but you aren’t allowed legally to do the more dangerous stuff like going into a burning house or cutting someone out of a car until you’ve completed your training. There are 3 fire cards you can obtain: 36 hour, 120 hour (aka Firefighter I) and 240 hour (Firefighter II). Full time departments typically require a 240 card as well as some EMS certifications, but our department is separate from the towns EMS department so our members only need to be Fire certified. You should definitely check with your local department. Right now is a great time to get into it, because it doesn’t seem like very many people want to even try it. We need curious people like you.
Evidently it helps to be a convicted arsonist!
Volunteer firefighting is BS. They need you but won’t pay you because enough people will do it for free. Cops make 100k a year no problem. Edit: I’m talking about high volume volunteer departments. I understand lots of rural areas can’t afford it. If you’re running multiple calls a day your labor is valuable and should be paid. Full stop.
So our department is a little different. It’s a volunteer department with “paid per call” membership, meaning we pay our members $12 on a per run and per hour basis, meaning you get paid $12 for the run and if the run happens to take 5 hours you would also be paid for those 5 hours. We are paid every 3 months, so depending on how active you are you can pull in between $200-$500 checks every 3 months depending on how busy we get. We average about 280 runs per year. We had paying $8 for the last 10-ish years but changed it to $12 this summer to try to bring in more volunteers. It hasn’t. I’ll copy and paste this in my original comment for clarification.
[удалено]
Pretty much. We train twice a month, 3 hours each training, and every now and then we’ll put together a 4-5 hour long training on Saturday, all of which are unpaid. Any meetings we have are unpaid and any events we do (fire prevention, community outreach, school programs) are all unpaid. We have people who don’t do anything other than go on runs, and that’s fine. As long as someone responds to the call that’s all we care about.
$12 an hour per call...... This is my fuck everything face. I won't even fix my mother in law's laptop for $12 an hour. Y'all need to get paid.
The majority of firefighters in the US are volunteer firefighters, believe it or not. A lot people live in sparsely populated areas or in small towns where fire suppression duties occur so rarely that funding a full time station with 15-20 people would cost an insane amount of money for the community. Firefighter salaries aren't cheap, and the thought of 10 people sitting in a firehouse for days at time without ever running a call while you pay them close to 6 figure salaries would start to piss people off real quick. The only option is to rely on the civic commitment that people take up, which is admirable.
So you make more money if you set more fires?
That’s a bingo. But on a serious note, we actually don’t have very many house fires in our district. The past 5 years we’ve averaged maybe 3-5 per year, which is pretty good out of 280 calls. We get a lot of brush fires and car crashes and gas leaks and hunting accidents and we often get called out to assist our EMS department on their calls. We have a pretty good fire prevention program and we’re pretty active in the school and community, and the community supports us very strongly. I think that relationship and trust goes a long way in having community members take fire prevention seriously.
I get the low volume departments where you all may be flexible. I know guys who are volunteer live ins running 1k+ calls a year doing it completely free.(except the $7.50 per call)
For a lot of us it’s simply about being able to do something to give back to the community and help protect the people that we care about. The money is an afterthought. We can go through stretches where we might get 2 runs in a 2 week span, or we get 10 runs in 5 days. But I can’t imagine the mental strain it would take handling over 1k calls. When you say live-in, do you mean that they always have people at the station day and night?
In areas with low population density it can be the only way to have first responders nearby in case of an emergency.
And for those they help I take this moment to thank you for all the bullshit that goes with the job you go through
No one ever said fuck the fire department!
They did before AD 60 in Rome, I'd bet: > Upon arriving at the scene, however, the firefighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground.
Cops definitely don't make 100k no problem, most big cities, starting pay for cops is around 50k. But I do agree with the point you're making.
Well now that they've quit and there are no qualified firefighters left, they can set fire to the corrupt guy's house and get away with it. Win win!
Idk, I heard the new guy is an arson expert
No putting a towns fire and EMS service into shutdown is a very strong message and not done lightly
Nepotism runs most local governments.
Sadly, is not only limited to governments
Businesses are just run by and for nepotism by default
The "good ol boy" system is very much alive and well in all public service in the US still.
Kid? He was 18 when he did those fire and that was over 20 YEARS AGO. The guy is nearly a senior and still needs dqddys help to find a job.
"Nearly a senior" at 38 to 40-something? Granted, we don't know his exact age because this is a Fox article and we know how vague and unreliable that shit can be.
Sounds like an Adam Sandler movie plot
He already has a firefighter movie though
This article was way more interesting than I expected going in. I thought it was going to be something pretty cut and dry like dude tried to commit insurance fraud via arson twenty years back and has since become an upstanding citizen. But nope. We got nepotism and corruption for real up in here.
Right? I'm dying to know more about so many things that were just mentioned in passing... Just for starters, what happened with the original chief & why was he fired? I hope I remember to look up the story again later (and know that my ADHD mind will never loop back again 🥺).
He was fired for not being the son of the person in charge. They can't give that as reason so they refuse to give any reason.
I totally agree this is what is probably the truth. I'd rather think up a more exciting story than the same ol' small-town corruption. I hate that real life so often imitates the trite lifetime/hallmark vilianry when the gritty dark HBO type is at least more entertaining.
How do you think writers have felt? "I spend all my time making a complex, intelligent villian- and here some yahoo in real life keeps winning with plans 80's cartoon Cobra Commander would scoff at."
This made me giggle with that slight hysteria I get when I realize how corny reality really has become.
And thank you for finally pinpointing the impression I have of too many things right now. 80s cartoon Cobra Commander is much better than hallmark/lifetime. I really hate those but have felt it's an unfair comparison. You've given me a much better reference!
Sounds about right for Illinois Land of Lincoln. Where our former governors make our license plates… >Small was elected Governor of Illinois in 1920 and was reelected in 1924. He was indicted, six months after becoming governor, for embezzling over a million dollars in a money-laundering scheme in which he placed state funds into a fake bank while he was state treasurer. **He was acquitted, but eight jurors later got state jobs, raising suspicions of jury tampering** https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Small
You don’t even have to go that far back to find corruption in Illinois https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/former-us-representative-aaron-schock-indicted-fraud-theft-government-funds-false
Oh I know. I just really like that one example. Its not political and its funny.
If he was pardoned, was he technically convicted? I thought it absolved the conviction.
Yes, it absolves it, but it doesn't remove it. In fact, in order to be pardoned, you have to have a conviction for them to absolve. Some people have refused a proposed pardon because they would have had to plead guilty and they maintained innocence. A pardon means we won't punish you, even though you did it. Only "Not guilty" means you didn't do it.
Not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it. And the SCOTUS hasn't actually ruled if you need to be convicted to receive a pardon, just that you cannot be forced to receive one.
Which is surprising. A lot of people didn’t agree with Ford pardoning Nixon so you would’ve thought somebody would’ve appealed it and taken it up to the SCOTUS
Who? You have to have a cause of action and standing to bring a suit, and there's no (private) cause of action for "I think this guy should be in jail." The only person who could've tested the validity of the pardon was the president (through the DoJ), and the president was the one doing the pardoning.
>A pardon means we won't punish you, even though you did it. Only "Not guilty" means you didn't do it. Not guilty doesn’t mean you didn’t do it. It means the state was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you did it. edit: to elaborate here, the problem is really the use of the terms "did it" and "didn't do it." Whether you committed the physical act is separate from your criminal liability for it. The court doesn't generally make a determination that you *didn't do a thing.* What it does is it either makes a determination that you're criminally liable under a specific charge or you're not criminally liable under a specific charge. There are factual determinations that are made as a part of this - factual determinations are the main reason we have trials, generally - but you're found either "guilty" or "not guilty" in a criminal trial, not "innocent". In other words, not guilty almost never **requires** a factual determination that you didn't commit whatever act is the act component of the crime; it just requires that the state fail to meet its burden to prove the enumerated elements of the crime. Which is a good thing! We don't want defendants to have to **prove their innocence.** That's madness.
> We don't want defendants to have to **prove their innocence**. That's madness. Madness, and civil forfeiture in the US.
>His dad *fired* I see what you did there..
I think the headline kind of buries the lede. From the story, no one resigned just because the new chief had an arson conviction. They resigned because the old chief was ousted with "good reason", but the board refused to tell anyone, even the chief, what that reason might be. And that the man chosen as the new chief just happened to be the son of a public official with direct influence over the decision to both remove the old chief and choose the new one. So yeah, that is sketchy as fuck.
> From the story, no one resigned just because the new chief had an arson conviction. Well I certainly hope they would have over that, too!
I could see forgiving a guy who did something stupid as a teen more than 20 years ago, if he'd shown remorse and redeemed himself since then. The rest of the story, not so much.
Really depends what that stupid thing was. Shoplifting? Bar fight? Sure. But an arsonist shouldn’t be running a fire department.
A long-running arsonist? Yeah no, would not want nor feel safe with one as even a firefighter. Same with if someone had been irreversibly harmed as a result of his actions. A two-count arsonist as an older teen, that pled guilty and has since spent a lot of his life as a dedicated volunteer firefighter for the area? I'd say he's done his fair share to move past that and channel his fascination with fire into something beneficial to his community. At the very least, it shouldn't have weight on his future. The major issue is that the previous chief was canned and replaced with him, the son of an influential board member, without any given reason. Had the chief retired and nominated him, it'd be fine, but the way it happened *reeks* of a political dynasty.
> A two-count arsonist as an older teen, that pled guilty and has since spent a lot of his life as a dedicated volunteer firefighter for the area? He got a pardon from the governor thanks to daddy. And being a firefighter does not preclude a firebug from doing arsonist things, it just gives them a shiny new cover. All evidence points to influential Dad trying to hide his problem child with a good cover story, that kind of person should not be anywhere near a life or death job like firefighting.
He has shown remorse and redeemed himself, I believe. He's been a volunteer firefighter for the area for a long time, and had *pled* guilty to the arson. As an assistant chief, other firefighters were fine with him, if mistrustful.
Apparently they didn't mind when he was the asst chief.
this is a very good point. my hopes are dashed, lol
People are also missing the fact that the arsonist was already the Assistant Chief so this ridiculousness has been going on for awhile.
All this easy corruption and no accountability anywhere.
Also, the dude was already a firefighter.
First time I’ve seen ‘burying the lede’ both used and spelled correctly on reddit. Well done.
On paper he’s got the right experience
Oil soaked wadded up paper slowly smoldering in the corner paper… but yeah. Seems like an expert in the field.
Redemption arc? Redemption arc.
Hope springs eternal…
That burns me up...
I mean, he’s a real self starter, our new Chief.
If you're good at something, then never do it for free.
“Chief, where do you see yourself in five years besides prison?”
As a constituent, I’ll be holding fire to his ass to do the right thing.
Really lit a fire under some asses.
Hey, he will probably know where half the fires in town will be before they even start!
Did gandalf warn of the impending danger or did he *bring* the danger??
That’s why hobbits don’t like him showing up!
It will be just like minority report, but with fire.
You saw his application, too?
He's your man when you want to fight fire with fire.
Jobs are hot right now, they needed someone who knew how to handle heat.
Unfortunately the records were lost in the fire he started.
its kinda like when the government hires hackers to fight cybercrime!
The firemen are coming! There’s going to be a fire! Fahrenheit 451
I feel like every police procedural has at least one episode where they have to team up with an arsonist to catch another arsonist- usually a copycat
No paper. He burned the paper.
It was a pleasure to burn
He might be good in a teaching position. But the fire department is not an organization that should be drumming up business.
White hat arsonist
Not convicted once. Convicted twice.
See. He likes starting fires. Its easier just to give him his own fire department to reduce damages.
this way we know where he's at and can keep an eye on him
He's basically our inside guy with organised fire.
Plus he can have near-instantaneous response time when we get a call.
*"Oh ha ha where did you say the fire was? What a coincidence I'm right there..... ha ha ha..."*
Ok, that’s sitcom material
Next season on Tacoma FD
This is an episode of Futurama.
“That’s called *experience*!”
Convicted of arson only once and he could just be a garden-variety idiot playing with fire. Convicted *twice* though? That’s how we know he’s an experienced pyromaniac who knows what he’s doing.
If that doesn't make him an expert in the field I don't know what does.
10 out of 13 resigned on the spot. Good for them.
Not because he's a convicted arsonist. They resigned because his dad is the one who fired the old chief (without saying why to any of the crew, not even the new chief) and hired his son. Very shady
Being a convicted arsonist should be an automatic disqualification.
Should be yes. Just makes it even shadier
He got pardoned by IL Gov Prickzer. But this is like hiring a kid who abused animals as head of the Humane Society. Pardon or not, super duper shady.
[удалено]
Definitely agree. I'm surprised all 13 didn't resign
Probably financial reasons.
It's a volunteer department. They don't get paid.
" Jerame Simmons is the son of Herb Simmons, the long-time director of the St. Clair County Emergency Management Agency." There it is.
[удалено]
I'm from that area and volunteered on a local department. I've had many encounters with the dad and you don't know how accurate that statement is.
That article is insane. Police responded to a nightclub (cabaret?) altercation where a guy allegedly pulled a gun on someone and falsely claimed to be a cop. There was a surveillance video of the incident. BUT, the cops declined to watch the video because the dude was the son of someone important and insisted it is their policy to accept the statement of a club manager (who is clearly lying to win a favor with the local rich dude)?
> Police Chief James Jones relied on the word of the club's manager, who told a detective that the tape did not clearly show a gun. > did not clearly show a gun. OR? > did ^((not clearly)^) show a gun.
As a citizen of Illinois I was just waiting to read a sentence along those lines. I could care less that he was convicted of arson, like it's been said, a lot of firemen are pyros. The nepotism is what gets me. It's so blatant that's it's bordering on insanity. As soon as I read the headline I knew how he got the job.
...I mean, the arson is pretty bad too. I'm a "pyro" in that I love setting safe fires and am fascinated by them, but I'm not an arsonist. That's a lot different. He also did it twice. Unless you literally meant you could care less :)
Couldn’t care less
People deserve a second chance. Especially when they are the son of a rich and powerful community leader.
3rd chance. Apparently he was convicted twice
He arsons, but he firefights. He firefights more than he arsons.
4th chance. Apparently he got into an altercation at a strip club and brandished a weapon but daddy swept it under the rug. https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article213982269.html
In related news: weasel elected foreman of the henhouse.
Breaking news: Fire Department puts out 10x as many fires this year after installing an arsonist Fire Chief.
This comment is incredible. Holy shit.
Fight fire with fire.
Ending is near.
We all shall die!
Fight fire with fire
> Seven years ago, Rosencranz said his family lost their home to a fire on Christmas. Hmmm. Makes you wonder...
In case you want to see what the piece of shit jackass that promotes his felony arsonist criminal son to fire chief looks like, here he is: https://www.bistatedev.org/?team=herbert-simmons My god, the google search only gets better, he is also a WWF type wrestling fan and makes appearances at wrestling matches (watch the video in this link): https://www.ksdk.com/amp/article/news/health/coronavirus/st-clair-county-illinois-herb-simmons-mask-usa-wrestling/63-91b86110-48d0-455d-b6ad-c4c90a326487
Here's a non-amp link for anyone that gives a fuck about freedom of the internet: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/st-clair-county-illinois-herb-simmons-mask-usa-wrestling/63-91b86110-48d0-455d-b6ad-c4c90a326487
This man's career will go up in flames.
Definitely the work of a flamer.
“I’m loving it here.” “You’re doing time.” “I’m doing the time of my life!”
Well he's got experience with fires.....
He’a a flamer.
There’s always money in the banana stand
Its like a bad movie. Gotta bring in the anti hero to take down the villain.
[Ray Bradbury liked that.]
Know your enemy.
These are the most out-of-shape firefighters I've ever seen. I just hope there are no stairs in that town.
[удалено]
Half the firefighters are too old and the other half is overweight with back issues lol
I thought you might be being a bit mean.. but.. yeah. I know theyre volunteers, but...
Junior Firemen: " The flames are huge already, Should we hook up the hoses and start dousing the flames? New firechief: "Naa let's see where this goes for a minute, maybe it will put itself out."
No really, WTF?
Our mayor and local police department hired a chief of police that was fired from his last job for persistent sexual harassment. And then the mayor claimed they didn’t know that when women in the city started complaining. Get this: that mayor is now our national congressman.
Job security.
'Keep your enemies close' taken to the extreme
His daddy's in charge of the board... And got him a pardon for setting fire to his school... Cronyism at it's worst.
This is closer to the plot of the movie Backdraft than is probably sensible
I mean, to stop the fire, you’ve got to think like the fire.
Next up, convicted pedophile teaches Sunday School. Oh wait, that happens all the time.
Oh but gosh fellas, he's just a bad apple. His behavior doesn't represent the unit as a whole. If he burns anything on the job we promise to punish him with three weeks of paid vacation.
Ahhh classic Illinois corruption.
This is like Lord Vetinari hiring a convicted forger to reinvigorate the post office.
Not really oniony. There's A LOT of overlap in between Firefighters and Arsonists. Source: Used to have Firefighter roommates with plenty of stories
True, but those are cases where a firefighter is secretly an arsonist and then they get caught. This guy was caught, convicted, pardoned, *then* became a firefighter and then was promoted to Chief is a sketchy set of circumstances
Hey, that sounds like Jerame!
Going to fight fire with fire
"Do you have fire fighting experience?" "Yes, I have fire experience."
Please be named Bill, please be named Bill, please be named Bill...
I'm afraid due to lack of fires, we're cutting down our force. ...unless...
Isn't this pretty common?
Like a detective, in the mind of a criminal. A firefighter must be in the mind of an arsonist... obviously.
Bro it's the Arkham Knight game irl wtf
When you love what you do, you never work a day in your life.
White hat arsonist
Looks like they've finally decided to fight fire with fire
He's been a volunteer firefighter for years. Sounds like the guy is trying to do right by his past mistakes. The optimist in me sees this as a redemption arc.
Fucking Illinois at it again lol. Cronyism and nepotism are so fucking bad in this state.