# Arsonist .... Smarsinest  We aint skeered !



## forensics (Apr 6, 2012)

Tom Scholtens, Charleston's chief building official, says a sprinkler system is a worthwhile investment, especially in residences ... The cost is comparable to installing granite countertops or hardwood floors, and for new construction, he estimates that the impact on a homeowner's mortgage payment is roughly equal to the price of a Big Mac every month.

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/hosing-down-the-arsonist/Content?oid=4048853

OK Now Incog and the rest of the NHBA croonies can start pounding on us again !


----------



## forensics (Apr 7, 2012)

When the TV News saw the above paper story they came calling for more information.

SC is for sprinklers BY CHOICE because the consumers are starting to get it.

I pitty the poor builder/designer or architect who is the first to be implicated in a law suit claiming sub-standard construction because the JURY is not buying the old tired NHBA arguments!

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/17354227/mans-mission-sprinklers-in-homes


----------



## incognito (Apr 8, 2012)

Yawn, and the same old lies by the fire cartel. And good old Charlie has been living on food stamps the last four years because of his dedication to fire sprinklers. LOL. Funnier yet--people actually thinking anyone will get sued for not installing sprinklers. ROFLMAO. SHEESH what part of Oz do these people live in.


----------



## forensics (Apr 8, 2012)

HeHe See I told ya ... Sheesh!


----------



## fatboy (Apr 8, 2012)

Not really wanting to add fuel to the fire, but sorry incog, if you don't think there will be lawsuits filed, regardless of their merit? Guess again, in this litigating country we live in? You amended a "life safety" section of code out? Someone dies? Someone will get sued.......just sayin......

Now let the games begin............ opcorn


----------



## forensics (Apr 8, 2012)

Some people don't realize that any lawsuit, with or without merit, will only serve to enlighten the public to the easy and affordable option of multipurpose sprinkler in the plumbing domestic water lines.

Sooo while a lawsuit may or may not end in a judgement the pandora's box of truthful information is already starting to open

From that standpoint the "sprinkler cartel" (got some paranoia going there Incog) can not loose in a suit because its not about a verdict...Hmmm unless of course the lies published by the homebuilders asso. prove to be malicious and that could bring the NHBA into the suit.....Hmm how does the ole saying go in Hollywood ... There is NO BAD publicity !

Lets see

1 Too Expensive ....Really?!? a couple of happy meals a month  CHECK

2 Too difficult ... Naww just another afternoon for a couple of plumbers CHECK

3 Not enough water supply..... This one is to dumb to address - Just remember it works off the regular water tap CHECK

4 No Installers.....Every plumbing contractor and every building inspector who has ICC IRC certification is capable CHECK

5 .................OH WHAT THE HECK YALL ALREADY KNOW (well except some of us who would rather spew insults rather than promote REAL CHOICE

They are sooo scared of letting the consumers choose because they know that in just a few years nobody will want a home without this cheap (yeah cheap) but yet absolutly dependable life safety system

I don't care if they like it or not Sprinklers are inevitable and it is FUTILE to resist LOL!

Maybe you can be right next time Incog  SHEESH?!?!


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 8, 2012)

Consumers do have a choice. Whether it is a building code requirement or not, they may choose to have a residential sprinkler system installed in their home. There is nothing the NAHB can do about that, no laws or regulations they can get passed to stop it. It is a free market and consumers decide what they want. Now that said ....

As a residential designer I always explain the value of having a sprinkler system installed. I explain the savings in insurance premiums, and how after about 7 years the system will start putting money in their pockets. I spent 15 years in the fire service as a firefighter as well as a fire inspector. When I was the with the department we had a sprinkler trailer and would give demo's anytime we could get two people together to view it in operation. I know the value of one and have stressed the need especially in areas that are rural where it will take awhile before the fire is discovered by someone outside of the home and for the FD to arrive. I show them the NFPA data, the lives that can be saved. I explain the risk to their families' lives and property. I explain how "Hollywood" sprinkler systems shown in movies or TV is not the way they work in real life. Not all heads opens, and how the FD will pump more water into their homes than the sprinkler will and how if the fire spreads it will do more damage than the sprinklers.

So far no one has opted to install the system in the 20 something years I've been designing homes after I started work at the fire department.

Where I'm located we have a uniform state building code. Locals are not allowed to modify the code (with one exception, energy compliance, but that's another story for another time). The state opted out of the requirement when they added the 2009 IRC as our base code for residential construction. As a designer I cannot force my clients to spend money they do not want to spend.

After explaining the value and need for a sprinkler system, if people are not willing to spend the money of a couple of Big Macs a month who's to blame?

People want to spend their money on things they "see" and "use daily". I have had issues with client over steel beams on renovation project because they don't want to spend the money on something they cannot see or use. They want an open floor plan, but want you to do it less costly. Can be frustrating sometimes. Ask them do you want granite counter tops and you get "of course!"

It's like the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him do the backstroke."

I guess one way of correcting people's unwillingness to do what they should is to treat them like "children" and make them take their medicine by shoving it down their throats. After all, it's good for them, and someone else always knows better. Look at all the new regulations the government has given us "children."

Remember we are in a free society (or at least were at one time) and people have the ability of making informed decisions. Do I like it when I cannot "talk" someone into installing a sprinkler system into their new home, of course not, but it is their "free choice."

Everyone have a wonderful and enjoyable Easter and remember its meaning.


----------



## incognito (Apr 9, 2012)

Forensics

It was a matter of choice until the fire cartel rammed it up everyone's SSS in Minneapolis. There was never an issue until it was removed from the IRC Appendix. Now since virtually every state has amended it out, the fire cartel wants to portray it as an issue of consumer choice being infringed on by NAHB. Wow, talk about revisionist history. Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Fatboy

Maybe. How many lawsuits have been filed since 2009 when the 2009 IRC was published? None that i am aware of. So either a). lawyers know they can't win, or b) sprinklers are pretty much useless since a fire resulting in loss of life has not occurred in a house built since the 2009 IRC was published. Every year that goes by just illustrates how marginal sprinklers are and the cost is not warranted.

GBrackins

How many of the customers that you have tried to convince to install fire sprinklers in the last 20+ years have perished in their homes due to a fire?


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 9, 2012)

incognito,

I do not know the answer to your question. point I was trying to make people always have choices no matter what the code says


----------



## fatboy (Apr 9, 2012)

And all I was saying, is sooner or later, it will happen, and lawsuits will follow.


----------



## incognito (Apr 10, 2012)

GBrackins said:
			
		

> incognito,I do not know the answer to your question. point I was trying to make people always have choices no matter what the code says


So if a jurisdiction adopts the IRC and does not amend out the sprinkler provisions, what are the consumers choices if they do not want sprinklers in their new home?


----------



## GBrackins (Apr 10, 2012)

forensics said:
			
		

> They are sooo scared of letting the consumers choose


this was the comment my post was for ..... consumers in state that have opted out of the requirement do have a choice, they can install one if they want to. 2nd point I was trying to make that in my years of designing new homes, with all my experience as a firefighter and fire inspectors, with my knowledge in the fact they do what they are suppose to do, I have yet to get a client to install one, even at only the cost of a couple of Big Macs a month. Not a priority with consumers.

now to your comments ... I have not tracked former clients over the years to see if any died in a house fire, so I replied that "I do not have an answer to your question."

as to what consumers can do if the do not want a sprinkler system in states where they are required:

1. move to another state that does not require them

2. do not build a new home

3. do not buy a home that has one installed

4. if they buy a home that has a system, hire someone to remove it

5. shut off the os&y valve and drain the system

6. file an appeal with the state board of appeals if one exists

7. file an appeal in state court

8. do not obtain a CO

basically the same thing people seem to do when they don't want something that the codes require. See there are choices ....


----------



## cda (Apr 10, 2012)

arsonist love fire sprinklers::::

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A 33-year-old man who was rescued by Las Vegas firefighters from a smoke-choked hotel room is facing arson and attempted murder charges in a fire last month that caused minor damage on an unfinished floor but forced the evacuation of dozens of guests from upper floors at the Golden Nugget casino, a fire official said Monday.

Jerod Pressnell was in custody under guard at a Las Vegas hospital, but fire spokesman Tim Szymanski said he will face charges that could get him decades in state prison.

"It was definitely intentional," Szymanski said of the March 15 fire that caused only $1,000 worth of damage.

A motive and method for starting the fire wasn't disclosed. However, Szymanski said arson investigators determined that a hotel safety system had been tampered with before the fire.

Automatic sprinklers snuffed out flames minutes before Pressnell was rescued by firefighters in a locked room filled with boxes of soggy and smoldering linen and bedding on the unoccupied 22nd floor of the casino's 25-story Rush Tower.

No one else was hurt.

Szymanski said Pressnell was from California and had been homeless. Charges were lodged against him after his condition was recently upgraded at the University Medical Center burn unit, Szymanski said.

Pressnell has not yet appeared before a judge, and it was not immediately clear if he had a lawyer.

Golden Nugget spokeswoman Tiffany Hauck said hotel officials would not comment about the charges.

Officials previously identified the man rescued from the fire as a hotel guest who was in a part of the hotel where he was not supposed to be. Hauck on Monday confirmed that Pressnell was a registered guest before the fire.

After initial on-and-off alarms, sprinklers activated and dozens of firefighters arrived at the 2,345-room hotel in the center of the downtown Fremont Street casino district.

Hotels in Las Vegas and Clark County are required to install fire sprinklers by tough fire codes instituted following the deadly MGM Grand hotel blaze in November 1980 that killed 87 people and an arson fire three months later that killed eight people at the Las Vegas Hilton.


----------

