Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground: owner had not paid annual firefighting fees - Boing Boing
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Didn't Pay Annual Firefighter's Fees? Burn, Baby, Burn!
- Thread starter ThatNickGuy
- Start date
- Status
Hey, Dats a nice house you have there. Would be a shame if "something" were to happen to it, kapice? /cracksknuckles.
M
Matt²
That's a lawsuit.
Pfft. Of course not. That $75 coulda paid for the fire station's dalmation's puppy chow for a year!
That's some cheap puppy chow. Or an anorexic puppy.
Actually, yes, the fire department would have rescued any people trapped inside.
Welcome to the Libertarian Paradise.
Yeah, well...your FACE is an anorexic puppy.
Well, perhaps the residents will vote for a tax increase to pay for fire services for all, right?
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
On the other hand, it merely points out the need for a private fire company that will accept a larger one-time fee. Then people will at least have the choice of the $75/year "insurance" or pay $$$ when they actually do have a fire.
The insinuation that fire protection is a human right, though, is face-palmingly stupid. Fire rescue (ie, saving people from burning structures) yes - but to pretend that there's a human right for one's possessions to be protected is silly.
Yeah, well...your FACE is an anorexic puppy.[/QUOTE]
Ohhhh Burn!!!!!
Not really feeling too bad for the guy whose house burnt down.
1) For 20 years, this fee has been in place.
ii) Prior to that, there was none, zip, zero, nada fire coverage for the area he lived in.
Tres) He lived outside of the township so he didn't pay taxes towards the fire department either.
100) The fee was introduced so that people living in the county would have some kind of fire protection versus none.
V) 3 years earlier, his son had a brushfire and the fire department responded. He still hadn't paid the $75 but as a kindness, they allowed him to pay the fee after the fact.
Sex) Despite the previous brushfire, despite being asked repeatedly to pay $75 to support fire services on his house, he still refused.
7) His house burned down, which it would have before the fee was introduced.
8) You can't buy car insurance after a crash.
NEIN!) If people can pay after a fire, people will only pay after a fire - thus making fire protection services economically unviable.
10) No fire protection services means his house burns down regardless.
1) For 20 years, this fee has been in place.
ii) Prior to that, there was none, zip, zero, nada fire coverage for the area he lived in.
Tres) He lived outside of the township so he didn't pay taxes towards the fire department either.
100) The fee was introduced so that people living in the county would have some kind of fire protection versus none.
V) 3 years earlier, his son had a brushfire and the fire department responded. He still hadn't paid the $75 but as a kindness, they allowed him to pay the fee after the fact.
Sex) Despite the previous brushfire, despite being asked repeatedly to pay $75 to support fire services on his house, he still refused.
7) His house burned down, which it would have before the fee was introduced.
8) You can't buy car insurance after a crash.
NEIN!) If people can pay after a fire, people will only pay after a fire - thus making fire protection services economically unviable.
10) No fire protection services means his house burns down regardless.
Not a right, but a basic governmental function.
That is where I get a little nervous living as far out in the country as I do. If there is ever a fire in my home, I'll have to call 911 and fight it myself for 30 or so minutes for the volunteers to show up to fight the fire. By time they would get there they will basically be doing a containment drill to be sure the fire does not spread to the neighbors.
The problem I see is that, even with supervision from the fire department, they run the risk of the fire spreading out of control and potentially causing a lot more damage. You never know what flammable materials people could be storing in their house. They were there, just put it out and send them a bill for the whole expense of fighting the fire. Do the police sit and watch a burglery go on as long as no one is in danger?
When I was a kid we got to spend nearly an hour trying to fight the neighbors brush fire that got out of control before firefighters showed up. Trying to put it out with wet gunny sacks and sprayers didn't work real well. Lucky for us it never made it over to our house.
It's not
figmentPez
Staff member
By the neighbor, who did pay, whose house caught fire because they didn't act sooner.
C
Chibibar
By the neighbor, who did pay, whose house caught fire because they didn't act sooner.[/QUOTE]
heh, this is what I was thinking.
still pretty crummy that the firefighters let the guy house burn
They could just bill the guy full price since he didn't pay.
figmentPez
Staff member
You don't have to pre-pay to get care. If someone comes into an emergency room (or calls for an ambulance, I think) they get treatment. They'll have to pay afterwards, often more than they can afford, but emergency rooms aren't legally allowed to leave someone untreated just because they don't have health insurance (which has recently led to at least one hospital in Houston closing because they were getting too many patients who were unable to pay).
M
Mountebank
Kinda difficult to be too sympathetic towards the guy here. He chose not to pay for the fire cover, and then surprise surprise, wanted the firefighters to save his property anyway.
Then again it's difficult to imagine a situation where you're standing outside a burning building, you've got the equipment and training you need, and you're not going to put the fire out.
But I'm going to come down on the firefighter's side. It's a dangerous job, and they should be paid for the work they do and the risks they take. If the state isn't paying them, but essentially their customers do, then they are beholden only to their customers. If they're putting life in danger by not acting, thats another matter; but putting your life on the line to save the property of someone who wanted to save $75 is a bit more of a stretch. I think they should have put out the fire and charged him the full amount for the call-out, firefighter's time, equipment used etc.
I think the fire service, along with healthcare & the police, should be paid for out of the public purse, no strings attached. But as that's not the case here, the homeowner is getting what he paid for.
Then again it's difficult to imagine a situation where you're standing outside a burning building, you've got the equipment and training you need, and you're not going to put the fire out.
But I'm going to come down on the firefighter's side. It's a dangerous job, and they should be paid for the work they do and the risks they take. If the state isn't paying them, but essentially their customers do, then they are beholden only to their customers. If they're putting life in danger by not acting, thats another matter; but putting your life on the line to save the property of someone who wanted to save $75 is a bit more of a stretch. I think they should have put out the fire and charged him the full amount for the call-out, firefighter's time, equipment used etc.
I think the fire service, along with healthcare & the police, should be paid for out of the public purse, no strings attached. But as that's not the case here, the homeowner is getting what he paid for.
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?[/QUOTE]
The area is not served by any government entity. At least for fire fighting. A nearby fire department said they would add individuals to their protection for $75 a year. This guy does not pay and calls to be saved from fire, they say no.
Hypothetical question, just for clarification: If a guy robs you, should you have the right to invoke a government sponsored entity (the police department) to help you?[/QUOTE]
The area is not served by any government entity. At least for fire fighting. A nearby fire department said they would add individuals to their protection for $75 a year. This guy does not pay and calls to be saved from fire, they say no.[/QUOTE]
No, I get it for this situation. I'm just asking about the ridiculousness of it being a right to have your possessions safe.
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
It may be that his house burned down.
---------- Post added at 07:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------
is this conjecture, or is there a news story listing these happenings?
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
They've been 'forgetting' for 20 years, even though his son had a fire at his house only 3 years earlier AND they were gracious enough to allow him to pay the fee afterwards as a caution to not do this again.
This is why some people can't have nice things - they don't appreciate what they have until it's taken away.
---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------
More fallout following house fire | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | Local
http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County...tation Presented to the County Commission.pdf
House allowed to burn over $75 fee Video
Tempers flare in SF after house allowed to burn; fire chief hit on NWTNTODAY.COM
"Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”"
M
Mountebank
He didn't *choose* to. According to interviews, he just forgot. And the firefighters dishonored their calling by standing there.[/QUOTE]
People "forget" to pay bills all the time. Whether it's through their own absentmindedness or an excuse to put off/avoid payment, it's still their responsibility and they have to live with the consequences.
As for firefighters dishonouring their calling, they would only have done that if people's lives had been at risk. It's not a great situation that they and the homeowner have created through their actions/inaction, but they had no more responsibility to put out that fire than anyone else at that point.
Again, I'm not agreeing with the situation at all, as I think that the fire service should be available to all, but that's not how this area seems to run things.
C
Chazwozel
Guys you gotta pay the firefighters somehow. My area does it through taxes. This area does it via yearly fees. The firefighters were obligated only to save lives, not property.
It's pretty heartless to sit there and watch someone's house burn to the ground. I understand the firefighters not wanting to risk their lives, but at least try to contain the fire. No one was inside the building, so there was no need to enter it, just hose it down from the outside. Then, bill the guy the full amount of the operation, including the water used, firefighter's wages for the time spent, etc. Yes, the guy is an idiot for not paying the $75, but the firefighters are also wrong for doing nothing. They risked the fire getting dangerously out of control and turning into a much bigger issue. After all, this was in a rural area.
fade
Staff member
Right. When I hear things like this, my first response is, "Where is the decency here?" Was the point worth the price paid? Feel good about watching that man's life burn away to make your point? It cost you $75 and a little piece of your metaphorical heart. And this stuff usually comes from people who talk out of the other side of their mouth about charity and goodwill and virtues. Fill dem collection plates, son! Or you don't get no Heaven!
Also, let me see YOU (the general you) arbitrarily divorce yourself from your "property". It's your life as much as your arm, and you know it.
Also, let me see YOU (the general you) arbitrarily divorce yourself from your "property". It's your life as much as your arm, and you know it.
C
Chibibar
I don't think I can. It is my house. The content of the house has a ton of memories between my wife and I. I don't think I can sit back and watch it burn. If there was a membership fee, I would pay it.
The guy was stupid NOT to pay it, but I figure, since he is not "insured" the firefighter will still come and do their job BUT send you a bill later like emergency room.
- Status