Why did fireman just watch as this fire burn a house down

In this instance, the fire department came anyway and nobody paid because the higher ups didn't want to accept payment. While they didn't put out the fire and put themselves at risk, they did use up time and resources. It seems like not paying after service has been provided is not the problem. It is getting their $75 upfront that the department is worried about. An idiotic position in my opinion.

 

It doesn't matter. When life or property are in peril it is your duty to render aid if you are on the scene and are able to do so. The fact that you normally provide the service for money doesn't give you an out.

The situation is analogous to a ship in distress at sea where other ships are required by law to render aid. It is also like the situation where you are the first to come up on an automobile accident. You can't just ignore it if someone is injured. The case is NOT like insurance with an unpaid premium. The difference is that immediate action has to be taken in the event of a fire to prevent loss. That is not at all the same as compensating for a loss (as insurance).

Is there a statute protecting the fire department in this case? I don't know. What case law applies? (It varies from place to place so you can't assume). I am guessing that the fire department could end up paying for the man's house. I think it is quite likely that the the court could have compelled the homeowner to pay for services rendered by the FD had they put the fire out.

(None of the above should be considered legal advice).

All of this is beside the point anyhow. Both the Old and New Testaments teach us to love our neighbors and not money. This sure looks like a love of money situation to me.

A.F.

 

I'll tell you how we did it in the Coast Guard Salty. We didn't assume that there was no danger to life. We checked it out. If they were sinking or running aground we helped. If they were just out of gas we called the salvage company (at the boater's expense).

If they can make a law that the FD doesn't have to help then they can certainly make a law that the homeowner has to pay. I seriously doubt this is the first time it came up.

A.F.

 

I am surprised that so few seem to believe that this is an issue for the local voters.

If this is the system that the local voters have settled on - what do our opinions matter?

To want to force a different fire fighting system on them because we know better than they what is good for them is somewhat akin to Obama forcing a different healthcare system on the country.

 

Then you take them to court, and if necessary, attach a lien to their assets. It's done all the time.

But again, remember, the guy said he would pay.

 

Looks like to many folks want to be democrats and make the rules and laws for all, because they know better. Never trust the folks who are casting the vote. I don't care for our president's polices but they seem to be just like his past if one took the time to read. The majority wanted him as president so he is our president until he is voted out or serves two terms.

Please let the people vote on what they want.

 

Well, it was only a while before they go there because they didn't go. Furthermore, he probably has bank accounts, future income, the insurance settlement, not to mention the land itself. So I am quite positive he has assets.

As for voting, I don't see how that is relevant here since the guy was willing to pay. But should we really let public safety be decided for the voters? What happens if the voters decide to provide coverage for every street but yours? You okay with the vote in that case? Probably not.

So I don't see how any legitimate case can be made for voting on public safety issues.

 

Like it or not, this is one of the things our American society is built on. Each person gets a vote.

 

As individuals, I would. But I think what people aren't understanding is that the $75 fee is what made it possible for the fire company to come out in the first place and it's important to note that before the fee was instituted, they didn't have fire service in that area at all.

It might seem cruel at first glance for the firefighters to stand by and let his house burn, but if they did, then it sets the precedent that people don't have to pay the $75 fee.

If that were to happen, it would bankrupt the fire company.

Not to get off the subject, but this is similar to what Obama is trying to do to insurance companies in his Socialized healthcare bill. Insurance companies make their money from people who pay in case they get sick, but (thank God) end up not needing their services. Because they don't have to spend money on those people, they're able to help the people who actually do get sick and need them to help pay.

While the firefighters may appear on the surface to have been heartless, they were actually doing what was best for the community as a whole.

And, for the record, they did put out the fire next door at the guy's house who did pay the fee.

 

Well, no. Not in everything. No one gets a vote about whether or not I go to a restaurant and get served, or whether I choose to have my car fixed, or a lot of other stuff.

Voting is really irrelevant in this case because the guy offered to pay whatever it cost. You don't vote about how someone spends their money.

 

And the fire department decided to not accept the payment after the fact. You want to defend this guy's right to choose whether to pay ahead of time or "whatever it cost" after the fact. What about the fire department's right to choose whether or not to deal with people that didn't pay on their terms?

You say "You don't vote about how someone spends their money", yet you seem to want to vote how the fire department accepts money!

 

Not at all, because this guy would have received a bill for thousands. The precedent is "Either pay the $75 now or pay thousands later." All the rest of the neighbors, having seen this guy get billed $10,000 now are extra careful to pay their $75.

Not at all. You are missing the point. Someone who doesn't buy health insurance is not prevented from having health care. They simply have to pay for it. The idea of insurance is pay small amounts as a guard against paying large amounts.

Your analogy only holds true if the guy is able to buy fire protection after the fact for $75. But that is not the case here. Here, the guy is paying for a service and he is paying more than the "insurance" fee.

Think of it this way: Guy in my church had open heart surgery today. His insurance paid for it. If he had not had insurance, he would still have been able to get the surgery (or the fire coverage). He simply would have paid thousands for it out of his own pocket.

So again, by thinking about the actual facts of the case, your insurance argument is easily dispelled, as is the idea that people wouldn't pay their $75 if the FD had done their job..

No, that's absurd, quite frankly. No community is well-served by allowing a fire to risk homes and property. No community is served "best" by such irresponsible negligence. Fire and water are the two most powerful forces on nature. To let either go unchecked is irresponsible.

Which again points out the absurdity. If I were that neighbor, I would be furious because my house should have never been jeopardized. Only irresponsible decision making allowed the neighbor's house to even come into play.

And think about it ... This fire department said, "You didn't pay $75 so we are not showing up," and then they had to show up anyway, so they didn't actually save anything. In fact, they gave up the chance to get thousands of dollars in the coffers.

Bottom line, no one here has yet to make any reasonable argument in favor of this fire department. And with good reason. There isn't one. There is no rational argument for allowing a home to burn to the ground, endangering neighbors and forests around it, all because the guy offered to pay thousands rather than $75. It is, as I have argued, both financially and morally irresponsible.

 

The fire department is a public service. They do not have the moral right (and probably not the legal right) to refuse service to someone. Public services operate differently than private businesses in this respect.

No, it's not a vote. I never suggested a vote, although the voters would be wise to vote out of office the buffoons who made this decision. It endangered their whole neighborhood and cost them money. And "spending" and "accepting" are two different things.

 

Not if it is a fee based service

Yes they do have the legal right and in many areas the fire fighters can be charged criminally if they attempt to put out a fire for a NON member!

Many of your claims and attempts at reasoning glaringly show your lack of understanding of life in rural and unincorporate areas. Rant all you want but the reality is that people choose to live with a fee based fire service - no pay, no service. This is reality and likely will not change.

The argument that the homeowner offered to pay after the fact is a straw man. The point is that the homeowner knew about the fire fee and neglected to pay the fee. He can say he forgot, but if it was important to him, he would have remembered to pay the fee. The homeowner is the IRRESPONSIBLE one here, not the fire fighters. :BangHead:

 

Having been both a paramedic and an officer in a big city fire department, do you know how long a fire company can operate on "thousands"? I'll give you a hint: it ain't very long!

If that were true, then everybody would buy insurance.

That's what I just said. And if the people who are supposed to pay the small amounts don't, then there's no money to pay the large amounts when somebody does get sick.

And if he didn't have thousands?

Not really. But I understand that, as a liberal, it's your job to just contradict everything anybody says and then proclaim victory.

Straw man. Oh, wait, I forgot: you're a liberal.

So are they better served by no fire coverage at all?

How is it irresponsible negligence when they put out the fire of the guy who did pay?

Which is why they were there to protect the house next door.

Yeah, how dare that house catch on fire!

I agree. The homeowner in the story was negligent.

...at the expense of tens of thousands.

Actually, I did. And the fact that the only two arguments you had were strawmen and "nuh uh" shows that it was a reasonable argument.

Yeah, how dare we expect people to take responsibility for their actions and not for big momma government to take care of us!

 

Actually, had you bothered to read the story, you would have seen that in this case, they were not acting as a public service, but were a private service.

Again, are you saying that the people were better off with no fire coverage?

 

A lot longer than $75.

Not necessarily. A lot of people have enough money saved that they can pay cash for things rather than insurance. I do that on a lot of things, as do others. One of the reasons I have health insurance is because I don't want to be bankrupted by an emergency, even though it is unlikely. One of the reason I don't have appliance insurance is because I have enough cash to pay that out of my pocket because it is unlikely.

Perhaps you didn't follow the point. A person who is uninsured is supposed to pay the large amounts himself. Their payments do not come out of the pool of small amounts. So I don't think that was what you said. "The money to pay the large amounts when someone gets sick" comes out of that someone's bank account. It doesn't come out of the insurance money of people who have paid in.

Then you put a lien on his assets. It's done all the time.

If that's what you as a liberal believe, then fine. I am simply making some arguments that aren't really being addressed. No one has shown how it is morally responsible to expose a whole community to fire destruction for the lack of a $75 payment. No one has shown how it is financially responsible for a (probably underfunded) fire department to turn down the offer of thousands of dollars that would have been much more than the $75 that they did not get.

You probably have me confused with someone else. I have been accused of a lot of stuff, but being liberal is not one of them that I recall.

No.

It's not. But that's not the point. They exposed a whole community to an out of control fire by not putting out a small fire. As you know as a firemen, fire can change very quickly, and you don't always get warning of it. You always want to deal with fire when it is small, not big. The "guy who did pay" was only in danger because of prior acts of negligence.

Which would have been much easier had they put out the fire when it was smaller. That would have protected the house much better. The house next door is better protected by not letting the fire get near.

That house was endangered only because of prior acts. If the FD acts appropriately earlier, then the second house is not in danger.

No, you don't agree. The homeowner was negligent, but that wasn't my point there. So don't distort things by pretending you agree with me and then changing what I actually said.

Not in anyway I can see.

I am surely at least as big a proponent of personal responsibility as you are, if not more. So that argument won't fly with me.

No, fire protection is a public service, not a private one. And I read the story numerous times and have gone back to it numerous times.

No, you can read what I said in order to see what I am saying.