Firefighters have figured prominently in the news in recent days, locally and elsewhere. Some of the recent headlines have been tragic while others have been questionable.

In the worst scenario, nine firefighters were killed battling a furniture store fire in Charleston, S.C. It was the worst loss of emergency personnel since the 9/11 attacks. The men had gone into a flaming building to find two employees who reportedly were trapped. One made it out. Another banged with a hammer hoping someone would find him and a firefighter eventually was able to pull him out.

But nine lives were lost when flames blew out windows and collapsed the roof. The victims ranged in age from 27 to 56 and had a combined 131 years of experience with the Charleston department. It is difficult to fathom the loss of people who perform so bravely on behalf of others.

The loss in South Carolina points up the risks firefighters face when they respond to a call, never knowing just how treacherous it might prove to be. Yet they go and do the best they can and often perform heroically. They are not perfect and they have their faults but they serve, often above and beyond the call of duty.

Why, then, would a local judge while sentencing the man convicted in a 2005 fire that killed three people include implied criticism of Lawrence firefighters? The judge questioned firefighters’ response time to the fire and suggested that losses of property and perhaps lives might not have been as great if the local firefighters had responded more quickly. Although the judge said otherwise, his comments seemed to lessen the convicted man’s responsibility for the tragedy.

The Lawrence fire chief and his people have come forth, as they should, defending their response time of 4.41 minutes to the blaze at Boardwalk Apartments. The first crews found a fire that already was raging out of control and had to focus on containment rather than extinguishing the blaze.

It seems unfair for the judge to raise questions about the work of firefighters without offering specific evidence about how firefighters could and should have acted differently. Firefighters were hurt in the local conflagration, and there is every evidence the department did as well as anyone could, given the circumstances. So why did the judge choose to indicate things should have gone better?

The crux of the matter is that a young man started a fire that had devastating effects. From the look of things, the onus should be on the perpetrator, his behavior and his penalty rather than on local firefighters who, like those in Charleston, responded and risked their lives.