WCBM - Firefighter Segment

Nov 24, 2025, 12:37 PM

WCBM - Firefighter Segment

(0:06) All right, so we were just listening to the timeline and whatever was transpiring on January (0:13) 24th, 2022. (0:15) And that was really a recap of the morning that we lost three heroes in Baltimore City. (0:21) And it's a day that many people remember as yesterday.

(0:25) And it is very unfortunate not just to think about the tragedy itself, but also what's happened since the tragedy. (0:32) And for many of us, it's hard to understand why we haven't seen more. (0:38) OK, and I'm not talking about, you know, just from the officials in the city and how they treat our fire department, our (0:45) firefighters.

But also, I thought I was going to see more as far as the arrests made, as far as what the families would (0:53) receive, because clearly, clearly there were many things that happened that led to the tragedy. (1:00) And I do not believe it was the fault of the firefighters. (1:03) So here we are today speaking with Rachel Buttram.

(1:07) And Rachel Buttram lost the love of her life on January 24th, 2022, Lieutenant Paul Buttram. (1:15) And on that day, we also lost Lieutenant Kelsey Sadler and firefighter Kenny Lacayo. (1:21) Rachel's here.

Also, I want to introduce who's with her today. (1:24) So, Matt, if you could also introduce yourself as well. (1:27) I'm Matthew Costa, the president of Baltimore Firefighters IAFF Local 734.

(1:32) We appreciate you being here also. (1:35) Kevin Stern, one of the attorneys on behalf of the families. (1:39) All right.

And then on the line, we have. (1:41) Kevin Berman, co-counsel for the families. (1:45) All right.

Well, thank you all for being here, Rachel. (1:47) I want to start with you, if I could. (1:49) How are you doing today? (1:50) I'm OK.

(1:56) Try to get there as best as possible. (1:59) Yeah. Yeah.

I'm sure every day is tough and difficult. (2:02) We did learn that you brought a beautiful daughter into this world. (2:06) I did.

Tell us a little bit about her. (2:07) I did. Her name is Paisley.

(2:10) I always called my husband PJ. (2:13) So it was fitting to call her Paisley June so that I could shorten it to PJ when I see fit. (2:21) Yeah.

Yeah. (2:22) Well, she's a beautiful little girl. (2:24) And I know that you are dealing with a lot since everything transpired.

(2:29) And again, thank you for allowing me to be there with you at the ceremony. (2:32) We were at the convention center and then we went to Delaney Valley. (2:36) And that was so heart wrenching.

(2:39) I've never experienced anything like that. (2:40) And I tell people all the time that completely changed my life that day. (2:43) And I appreciate you being able to invite me, because, of course, even on January 24th, I was there that day as I saw you.

(2:51) But we didn't know each other at the time as you were waiting and trying to find out if there was a miracle that was going to happen. (2:58) That morning of January 24th, 2022, did you receive a call? (3:04) Let us know what happened for you. (3:05) What was that timeline like for you? (3:07) Good Lord.

I got up that morning and Paul and I, when we went to work, we always said, I love you. (3:15) Goodbye. Kiss goodbye.

(3:16) He kissed me before he left. (3:18) And then he went to work and he texted me when he got there to let me know he was there. (3:23) I got up that morning and started to get ready.

(3:25) And I kept seeing the messages or the post on Facebook and stuff about the fire. (3:30) And I wasn't exactly sure if he was on it, but I kind of figured he was because he didn't answer me. (3:36) I went to work and kind of just kept tabs on Facebook and I never heard from him.

(3:43) So then I started making some calls because I was seeing like the post about the media and things like that and made some calls to some friends that, you know, would have been at the firehouse with him. (3:55) And a friend of mine called me and essentially told me that they couldn't find him. (4:02) So I left work, went to my house.

(4:05) Matt actually came and picked me up and then took me down. (4:10) And I stayed on the fire ground all day. (4:14) So, yeah.

(4:14) And I know you were there for hours. (4:16) Yes. I believe the report said it took about 10 hours to find Lieutenant Paul Butcher that day.

(4:22) And I am so sorry that you are dealing with any of this. (4:25) Obviously, recently here we saw that there was an arrest made. (4:29) Your initial reaction to the arrest of James Barnett? (4:31) I am happy that they were able to finally secure evidence and do what they had to do to bring this individual to justice.

(4:41) But now they have to follow through and successfully prosecute. (4:44) So hopefully that happens. (4:48) Yeah.

Yeah. And I guess I'll turn to legal counsel on this one. (4:51) Now there are obviously there's charges that have been brought.

(4:55) We saw these being held without bail. (4:57) I guess is it without bond? Is that how they. (4:59) Correct.

Yeah. So so what happens next here? (5:03) And I guess I should also ask, are you satisfied with the charges? (5:07) So I practice mainly in the civil arena. (5:10) So this is the criminal proceeding.

(5:12) Okay. You know, my understanding of everything that's gone on and the effort that was put forth to get to where they are was substantial. (5:20) You know, I for the most part, my limited understanding.

(5:23) Yes, I agree with the charges and how they've they've acted and what they've done. (5:27) And the efforts amongst multiple entities is pretty incredible. (5:32) Okay.

Now, it seemed like there was some kind of stalling, some kind of delay here, because this happened back in 2022. (5:39) Right. We're looking at we're looking at charges today.

(5:41) We're looking at an arrest today. (5:43) But I believe James Barnett, he was the individual that was on the cameras, the video surveillance that you had quite some time ago. (5:51) Is that is that correct? (5:53) Yeah.

So, you know, I think a lot of the information that they had that they had accumulated required a lot of testing. (6:01) So I think in order to pursue charges at the level that they did and are currently proceeding with, the effort to do that is significant. (6:10) So the the evidence that was gathered, the testing that was done, the testing over and over again to get to the conclusions they did to find enough evidence for probable cause to charge and then move forward.

(6:21) That takes a lot of time. (6:22) So I know they were doing that. (6:24) Okay.

In addition, the science has improved dramatically and the state attorney's office should be commended as to them staying with the science and keeping abreast of the latest scientific methods so that they can prove a case. (6:42) Unfortunately, neither Kevin or I could say the same thing with regards to how the mayor's office has handled the civil aspect of this. (6:52) Yeah.

And that's been a very unfortunate part. (6:54) I saw was it about a year ago where the civil case was dismissed? (6:57) If you could tell us a little bit about that. (7:00) Sure.

And pretty much at every corner, we've been railroaded to get our case dismissed. (7:07) And rather than actually having communication and sitting down, just like we are right now, having a conversation that has yet to happen. (7:14) We've invited it.

We've tried. (7:16) I think it would be good for everyone involved to do that. (7:20) I'm sure the families have a lot of demands and things of that nature that they'd love to discuss with our city officials, the mayor.

(7:26) And it just hasn't occurred. (7:27) So we got dismissed once and we're not going away. (7:31) We refiled.

We gathered additional evidence. (7:34) We have some very good documentation to support our claim. (7:38) So we refiled.

(7:38) And now they have again filed a motion to dismiss that's pending in the federal district court of Maryland that we haven't gotten a ruling on yet. (7:45) But regardless, we're not going anywhere. (7:47) So the outcome, we're going to continue and our efforts aren't going to go away.

(7:52) OK, well, I'm happy to hear that. (7:54) Matthew Koster, I will ask you if I could. (7:57) After all of this transpired, there was a 300 page report.

(8:01) Obviously, there were some action items there to take care of with the Baltimore City Fire Department. (8:05) We saw where at that point, I guess, Chief Ford stepped down. (8:09) He resigned.

I guess what was the conversations within the fire department as far as his resignation? (8:17) And then also with that 300 page report, were you shocked at what you found in that report? (8:23) No, I wasn't shocked. (8:25) Every NIOSH or line of duty death report or internal report usually has a lot of the same recommendations. (8:33) And the fire department chief Ford was a cancer to our department.

(8:37) He should have never been there. (8:39) That's how I feel. (8:40) That's how a lot of people feel.

(8:41) I'm glad he's gone. (8:42) No love lost there. (8:43) OK, but a lot of recommendations that they did implement after Stricker Street are not in the budget currently.

(8:53) So that's a problem. (8:54) Yeah, we have we implemented them, but it's being staffed with overtime and things like that. (9:00) And it's not in the budget.

(9:01) And that's why you see a lot on the news that our overtime budget is through the roof because we're staffing with battalion techs, extra safety officers, things like that. (9:13) That were recommendations within the report, but they're not in the budget. (9:17) Wow.

So here you have a situation where you guys are following protocol. (9:23) The report report comes out. (9:24) Obviously, you have a new chief now.

(9:26) You guys are doing what is, you know, added as far as the action items. (9:30) But you're not getting the support from the city as far as in my view, like you said, the budget. (9:36) But I mean, are you any closer? (9:38) Because I know we spoke not too long ago.

(9:39) Do you guys think you're any closer and I guess convincing the mayor at this point that you guys need help? (9:45) I mean, we saw you guys at the Inner Harbor. (9:47) The dive team was out there. (9:48) You rescued this woman that was submerged in her car for 30 minutes.

(9:52) God knows how you did that. (9:53) You've got all these major fires breaking out, whether it's in Hamden, whether it's in West Baltimore. (9:57) Every single day there's something.

(9:59) Is he any closer into understanding the assistance that you guys need? (10:04) I wish I could answer that. (10:06) We've had a few meetings with the mayor. (10:08) I've heard nothing.

(10:09) Come from those meetings. (10:11) I have another meeting today right after this. (10:13) I'm hoping that I can convince him to help us out.

(10:18) The it's just sad that we have to justify our jobs being here and what we actually do. (10:26) It's it's just sad that, you know, like you said, every day we have an incident. (10:32) It's not always on the news.

(10:33) The stuff that makes the news is extraordinary incidents. (10:37) Majority of the time when either somebody is injured or killed, things like that. (10:41) But my members day in and day out, EMS suppression.

(10:47) Everyone does the job with less. (10:50) Yeah. Every day.

(10:52) Wow. And you are first responders first on the scene. (10:57) We, the taxpayers, we're calling you.

(11:00) We're not calling the mayor. (11:01) We're not calling city council. (11:02) We're calling you.

(11:03) And yet you're not getting what you need. (11:06) And that's why we pay taxes to make sure you have what you need. (11:09) So it's disheartening all around.

(11:11) I do want to ask the mayor or anybody ever share why that particular building was still standing. (11:17) Do we know why? (11:18) Because it had a fire previously. (11:21) And I was never told why it was still there.

(11:24) Just the fact that, you know, the owners, it's difficult for administrations to tear buildings down, stuff like that at the time. (11:33) Because of their own regulations. (11:34) Exactly.

(11:36) Okay. So let me ask, you know, as far as, because I know, obviously, is this outlying your civil case? (11:41) You know, I would love to know an answer to that question. (11:46) Well, the data, the history, all that information is there.

(11:50) You could go back to 2015, 2016, the two prior fires, the vacant was condemned. (11:55) There was a hole in the roof. (11:57) Everything was there.

(11:58) This information was present. (11:59) And rather than taking action and doing things, nothing happened. (12:03) Right.

So now we have the situation that we're in now, which was totally preventable. (12:07) The fact that you had injured firefighters in a previous fire in 2015, and now we're fast forwarding to the incident that happened. (12:14) It's foreseeable.

(12:16) These types of things don't need to occur. (12:18) And what's crazy is I'm listening to Matt talk and I'm just getting, you know, even more infuriated listening to the fact that things still are not going our way for first responders, which are the first people that everyone's calling. (12:29) And then literally as state's attorney Bates is announcing the charges, not even a block away, there's a vacant fire going on behind the scenes.

(12:36) You can see the smoke billowing out. (12:38) So, you know, it's it's just it's crazy to me that this is still happening. (12:42) Yeah.

Kid, did you want to weigh in? (12:44) Yeah, I did. I just want to know the background for this and the basis of the case. (12:50) In 2010, they did a they instituted a code X-ray program to prevent this from happening.

(12:56) In 2011, the city disbanded it, but affirmatively told the firefighters that that was still in place. (13:05) So the firefighters believing that they had the safest possible means to enter fires were misled. (13:14) So this went on for years.

(13:16) And we attached them and we filed the new complaint after statements from firefighters indicating that they were affirmatively told that this system was still in place. (13:29) And the administration made a comment a couple of days ago that it is an inherently dangerous job. (13:37) Every firefighter I've represented and I've represented firefighters for over 43 years.

(13:42) Every one of them is aware that it is inherently dangerous. (13:47) However, they expect the administration in the city to back them up and provide the safest environment that they possibly can, given those dangers, not to make it into a death trap. (14:01) And that's what literally shocks the conscience, the deliberate indifference that the city has shown here.

(14:08) And that is what this simple complaint is about. (14:11) And that is why there is bewilderment on behalf of the family that the mayor not only will not acknowledge it, won't sit down with the families, won't give the explanations such as the questions that you're asking or give any answers or seek any resolution to this, but rather making the families go through protracted litigation. (14:34) Yeah, you're nice about that, Ken.

(14:36) You're making they're making the families go through hell, in my opinion. (14:40) Yes. And as Kevin said, we are in this for the long run.

(14:44) If we need to appeal, we will continue. (14:47) We will do so. (14:48) We think our case is solid.

(14:50) We're hoping the court rules in our favor and allows this case to proceed. (14:55) But even if they do, the families should not have to seek redress and seek the changes that they want made in the fire department that not discussed by way of litigation. (15:09) This could be done in a much more informal and a much more caring way for all involved.

(15:15) And the families have continuously expressed their desire to have that meeting and have been rebuffed. (15:22) Yeah. Well, Ken, I appreciate that.

(15:24) I know that you're going to have to go here soon. (15:26) And I had you guys until about 10 20. (15:28) I hope that's OK.

Rachel, when we come back, I do want to ask you a little more about Paul and how he felt things were on the job as far as safety concerns. (15:36) But before you go, Matt, I do want to ask, because as we were listening to the timeline that was laid out there from the WMAR audio clip, there were problems with the radio that morning. (15:46) Number one, did you guys know that those problems existed? (15:49) And number two, have they been addressed? (15:51) Well, I mean, every incident, each firefighter, because of the safety standards today with NFPA standards, every firefighter has to have a radio.

(16:01) So that becomes an issue when everybody's trying to talk over each other and things and a lot of transmissions get missed or you can't hear them, things like that. (16:11) I wouldn't say there was an actual problem with the radio. (16:14) It was probably just a mistransmission with people talking over each other.

(16:17) OK, so it was everybody chiming in at once and then that's why there was that disconnect. (16:23) OK, that makes sense. (16:24) Yeah.

OK. (16:25) And so I guess because we did hear there were one of the firefighters on the scene. (16:30) He said he then had to walk around to the front of the building, I believe is what he said to speak.

(16:36) A lot of times, you know, members will instead of trying to get through on the radio, it's just easier to do a face to face with the chief or the incident commander or anyone just to let them know what's going on. (16:46) OK, well, let me ask you this again before you go. (16:49) Is there is there a system out there that exists where you wouldn't have those issues if you had the money for a new system? (16:57) I mean, there's everything that safety costs, a lot of money.

(17:01) So I would say there may be a system out there. (17:04) But as soon as you key up on the radio to try to talk and somebody else has already keyed up, it'll it'll block you out. (17:11) So you have to wait until that person's finished talking before you can you can actually key up the radio and start speaking.

(17:18) All right. You would think with times of A.I. (17:21) that we could get past something like this. (17:23) But I don't know.

I don't know. (17:25) Well, Matthew Custer, thank you so much for joining us today. (17:27) Will remain if you guys don't mind.

(17:29) Just got a couple more questions for the both of you. (17:31) And also you can on the line. (17:32) So stay right there.

(17:35) Your morning expresso starts right here. (17:39) Steven Sterns, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, it's hard with it's hard with the headphones. (17:48) I know.

I know. (17:50) And then we have Ken Berman on the line. (17:51) And Matthew Custer was just in the studio with us.

(17:54) We are still talking about what happened on January 24th, 2022. (17:58) We get back from our 10 o'clock break. (18:00) We are going to talk more about the civil case.

(18:03) And then also I want to fill in kind of some of the blanks here with the arrest of Kevin Barnett. (18:07) But I did want to ask you, Rachel, if I could, I know this is very difficult. (18:11) I wanted to ask you, did did Paul have any concerns as far as safety going out of the job every morning? (18:18) Obviously, there's there's concerns as a firefighter as it's right.

(18:21) He's a first responder. (18:22) But were there other concerns as far as issues that I guess that just weren't being taken care of? (18:30) I will say he journaled a lot in years prior to him promoting to lieutenant. (18:36) And after he passed, I went back and I've read them over and over, more so so that I could feel more connected with him again.

(18:45) And, you know, because I can hear him. (18:47) He would he would journal, but he would also come home and tell me these things and, you know, release and then and everything else. (18:55) But, yes, there were definitely comments in those journals that stated like, you know, word for word, like somebody is going to get killed out here.

(19:05) Like, you know, this is not this should not be happening. (19:10) Yeah. So and I mean, those were back in probably 2015, 2016.

(19:17) OK, right. Before that, it's before that. (19:21) OK.

But yeah, so they were definitely concerns of his. (19:29) And like I said, there was numerous times that he had stated that in different pages throughout those journals. (19:36) Yeah, I would assume.

(19:38) But I don't you know, this is just my assumption. (19:40) I would assume being a firefighter in a different state, in a different city where you get more support from a city would be a lot different than being a firefighter in Baltimore. (19:49) I also noted, you know, we were down to about 13000 vacant homes, like the numbers back up to 15000.

(19:55) So we now have even more vacant homes since that fire. (19:59) So there's a lot here. (20:00) We get back.

I kind of wanted to ask. (20:02) Of course, I had some other people send their questions over. (20:05) Of course, I emailed in and they texted some questions in.

(20:08) And if you if you can't comment on that because of the case, I understand. (20:12) Right. But we are going to ask some of these questions.

(20:14) One being Rachel. (20:16) Somebody wants to know how they can support you in any way, especially here through the holiday. (20:19) So we'll be right back with Rachel Buttram, Kevin Stearns and also Ken Beerman, who's on the line with us.

(20:26) And we'll continue to talk about the Stricker Street fire and what this looks like going forward. (20:32) If anyone can read about what occurred, understand what's going on in the city of Baltimore and that change needs occurring. (20:40) I mean, obviously, we know that the vacant home crisis is still continuing.

(20:43) It's getting worse. And that's something that needs to be fixed. (20:46) So I think that the best thing for for people to do, whether it's in the state of Maryland or Baltimore City residents, (20:52) which they have done, is support the family, support our cause, continue to want change in the city and force our politicians (20:58) and elected officials to do what they say they're going to do.

(21:01) It's one thing to say it's another thing to walk the walk. (21:03) They have to do that. And that's our responsibility.

(21:07) Yeah. Yeah. And Ken, I will ask you if I could.

(21:10) You know, in this case, it says that you believe constitutional rights were violated. (21:15) Of course, you know, we need to be schooled on the situation. (21:18) Which constitutional rights are we talking about? (21:21) And what's been, I guess, you know, the key points of this civil case? (21:25) OK, and I will gladly answer that.

(21:28) But before I do, I want to add on to one thing that Kevin said, and it is that and I echo everything he said. (21:36) But I would add that people should contact the mayor's office because it is solely in the mayor's hands to resolve this (21:43) with the families to even urge them to sit down and have a meeting for resolution, which they've refused to do. (21:50) So everything that Kevin said is (21:55) 100 percent correct.

(21:57) But there's an additional step and that is urge the mayor. (22:00) We know politicians who listen to their constituents. (22:04) It not only affects the families, but as you have heard over the last half hour or so, this is a danger to all citizens in Baltimore City.

(22:15) So this needs to be resolved. (22:17) With regards to the constitutional claims, there are two. (22:20) There's one, the federal constitution, which has what's called a Section 1983 Act, and that allows people not to be harmed by state created dangers.

(22:34) In other words, the state or the city or the federal government cannot create a dangerous situation that puts a municipal employee or any individual, for that matter, in harm's way. (22:47) And they've done that by their deliberate indifference and by their affirmative actions. (22:53) So that's the federal part of it.

(22:55) The state part of it, there's Article 19 of the Maryland Constitution, which says that and guarantees every citizen in the state of Maryland should have a remedy. (23:07) And so what the families did was they brought suit for this and the city has said, no, they have to try to show that they intent that we intentionally tried to kill them, which is crazy as it sounds when I say it. (23:24) But that's what they claim the standard is.

(23:26) And under their interpretation, these families are left without a remedy under Article 19 of the Maryland Constitution. (23:35) And we believe that's a violation of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland State Constitution. (23:40) So there are two tracks that this train is going down.

(23:44) One is the federal constitutional law claim and the second is the state constitutional law claim. (23:50) OK, well, thank you. (23:51) I hope I didn't lose all the discussion of constitutional law.

(23:57) Oh, no. These listeners, they know their constitution and they don't trust me. (24:01) Trust me, I know.

(24:03) I appreciate you explaining that because I was confused as to which which rights were violated. (24:07) But that makes a lot of sense there. (24:09) I guess, you know, and I can ask all three of you, do we ever find out that this question comes from the text line? (24:15) Robert, since it's over, do we ever find out why James Barnett set the fire and whether or not he has a history of pyromania? (24:23) Sure, I can I can address that.

(24:25) So I don't have an answer to it. (24:27) And anytime there's an ongoing criminal investigation when it has to do with details regarding mental intent or mens rea, which is the term legal term of art used to describe someone's intentions on why they do certain acts or motive. (24:42) That's something that would have to be from the state's attorney's office.

(24:45) OK, OK. (24:46) So you don't know exactly there. (24:48) And then just so we understand, because some people might not be following this day to day when it comes to James Barnett.

(24:54) Which what has he been charged with? (24:56) So I don't have all the counts in front of me. (24:58) I believe it was 12 in total. (25:01) But, you know, that's readily available.

(25:02) There's a charging document that you can read about. (25:05) But I believe it was 12 counts in total arson, obviously being on their second degree murder. (25:12) I believe.

Correct. (25:14) Can you remember when I can try to look that up as well? (25:17) I know it's different from the civil case in which you guys are working on. (25:20) And then I also wanted to ask Rachel if I could, because I know that you are still obviously the fire department.

(25:25) Those the fire department are a family to you. (25:28) You know, now that we're here, you know, here we are approaching 2026. (25:33) But now that we're here, do you know whether or not the firefighters that are out there today, if they feel as though things are a bit safer since that day in January of 2022? (25:48) Honestly, I don't know.

(25:50) I. I can't really answer that. (25:55) I. OK, I look at the 300 page report we heard from Matthew Koster, and he said that they have been trying to follow the action items. (26:06) And so I was hoping that there was a sense of safety.

(26:08) I also want to just ask, you know, on a personal level, because, of course, after that, I did end up visiting some firehouses. (26:14) And I saw that there was asbestos in the one that I visited. (26:18) Gosh, I think.

Yeah, that's where I was. (26:22) Do we know? And I know that had to go. (26:23) Do we know if any of those issues have been addressed? (26:27) I can't confirm or deny.

(26:29) Yeah, I'm going to probably say no. (26:31) But OK, because that was another concern for me, like even the living conditions were not up to par. (26:37) Yeah.

And I just to think that they were dealing with all this and then we're expecting them to get up. (26:44) Jump up and handle fires. (26:46) It's just it's a lot to think about, number one.

(26:49) But then also when you see people on city council bring bills to the table requiring, you know, those the fire department, they want them to wear like the body cam videos as they're walking into fires. (27:01) And I'm thinking, really, you want them to spend money on this, but you don't you don't want to hand them the check. (27:09) I guess, you know, in your view, Kevin or Ken, in your view, do you think, you know, just by working the civil case, do you think that the conditions have gotten anybody better for our firefighters in Baltimore? (27:21) You know, so one thing I would say to you before I answer that, what you just hit on was was important because the number one priority for a first responder should be safety.

(27:29) Yeah. Right. And how do we give them what they need, whether it's in the form of apparatus, equipment, whatever it is to make sure that they are maintaining the most safe environment (27:37) to protect the citizens of Baltimore? (27:39) I do not believe that has occurred.

(27:42) And I think listening to Matt sitting here, he would echo that there are so many additional things that could be done to add to the safety measures to help protect them. (27:51) Right. And that that goes for firefighters.

(27:52) It goes for police officers, any of our first responders. (27:54) And you can look to other cities to see how they do things. (27:57) You can look at the technology they use and see where we're missing items that would have helped a great deal in stricter.

(28:04) And some of which is mentioned in our complaint. (28:07) But, you know, as far as changes and things, I think there has been some improvement. (28:11) Obviously, we saw the revamping of the code X-ray program, which I am a firm believer it shouldn't take tragedy to put in a policy and implement the code X-ray program that should have been around and being implemented from day one.

(28:25) Well, real quick before the audience might not know what that was there. (28:29) Sure. So the code X-ray program were placards that would be used to put on the exterior of a vacant home that was deemed to be a risk or a danger to firefighters.

(28:41) And it would tell them, hey, this is a code X-ray dwelling. (28:44) You need to know that going in. (28:45) It could have been because there could have been a prior collapse in that dwelling.

(28:48) But to alert our first responders, this is a dangerous situation before you even go in. (28:54) Yeah, yeah. (28:55) And go ahead.

(28:57) There are municipalities and this goes to a separate debate beyond the time limits that we have. (29:04) But there are municipalities around the country that actually prohibit firefighters from entering vacant buildings. (29:12) The theory being that property damage is not worth the risk of a firefighter's life.

(29:20) But if you are not going to abide by that policy, then you need to make sure that your vacant buildings, should they exist, be off limits or be told what is a dangerous vacant building or that it is a code X-ray building that has had a previous collapse and is a dangerous condition. (29:42) No firefighter should ever lose their life over property damage or a vacant building. (29:49) That is one of the things we want to stress and that is so aggravating to us.

(29:56) Yeah, well, you know what? (29:57) I appreciate you guys being here today.