303
should've paid us enough to fucking live (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/mop
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I'm glad nobody was hurt, he waited until after midnight to set it. But maybe someone needs to call the fire marshals on the Kimberly Clark warehouses. I can hear a fire alarm at the end, and I'm no fire safety engineer, but it doesn't look like there are signs of sprinklers or other fire suppression systems?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 80 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    Don't have the full article but there was fire suppression. Then the fire team showed up, evacuated the building, and, at the behest of the company, shut off the system to prevent further damage to the rest of the products as the fire team was handling the original fire.

    Then the dude went around and started burning other pallets in different parts of the warehouse.

    Waluigi here had a plan and executed it.

    Should have paid them enough to live.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 58 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, that's very interesting. If that's true, someone should tell Kimberly-Clark's insurers that they deliberately shut off fire suppression during a fire. Maybe this will actually cost them a few dollars?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It's standard practice to shut down a fire suppression system after the fire is extinguished: the water will cause more damage than the fire did if you don't. The owner is responsible for having someone on "fire watch" until the activated sprinkler heads are replaced and the system is put back into service -- which needs to be done by someone qualified to do so.

    It sounds like they did everything "right" in that regard, they just didn't realize the guy starting fires was still there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Can a fire really be considered watched if they don't fully confirm there aren't other fires? I get that it was a big place to watch and he was deliberately trying to destroy as much as he could, but it blows my mind a little that he succeeded that hard at executing his plan if they were doing things correctly... he annihilated a 1.2 million square feet warehouse with a single Zippo.

    Where I am, if the building alarms go off and the second-tier of our automated systems calls fire services, the fire service (not just the company's wardens) will walk through the entire complex to confirm there are no fires left. Even if it's a false alarm, even if it's the third false alarm that day (which is how we discovered one our very sensitive alarms had an electrical fault one time...). Even if you shut off the water, if there are remaining fires, our smoke / heat / IR detectors will reactivate the alarm systems.

    Either way, even if KC is somehow not at fault, their premiums surely will go up and by much more than they would have spent paying their subcontractors properly. And insurers try to avoid paying, so it will hopefully be costly just for the legal and admin side.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent