Firefighters refuse to put out housefire

[AngusJS]

...because the owners didn't pay a $75 fee.

http://www.wsmv.com/video/25290103/index.html

http://thenewsoftoday.com/south-fult...use-fire/3265/

Ignoring repeated 911 calls, the morons finally did respond to a neighbor's call asking them to protect his house. There, they stood and watched as the other house burnt to the ground, in a fire that also killed three dogs and a cat. But hey, what's the prevention or alleviation of suffering to these heroes?

They wouldn't take the $75 when the homeowner offered it to them on the spot.

They apparently couldn't act like human beings and try save the house, and then bill them the 75 bucks later, either.

What if the neighbor hadn't been home? That house might have been damaged or destroyed as well, and these morons wouldn't have done anything about it.

I for one look forward to living in the libertarian utopia where all emergency services will be privatized and pay to play - and emergencies will become much more severe, as "responders" will not respond immediately, when the situation can be controlled, but only when a customer makes a call.



*edit*

What if someone had been in the neighbor's house, but was a child or incapacitated, and thus unable to call the fire department? They might have been injured or killed while the firefighters did nothing.

[Skybird]

I read it in the German news today, too.

I'm divided on this story.

On the one hand, there could have been danger to innocent third parties.

On the other hand, the "victim", if one can call him so, repeatedly refused to pay the yearly fee of 75 dollars that is mandatory for fireprotection outsiode the city parameter, something like this. At least that is how nthe German news repoirted it to be: a yealry, mandatory fee for getting firefighter's support even when being outside their official engagement zone

If you do not sign in to a fire insurrance, you hardly can sue any insurrance company for compensating you if you do not have a contract with them.

If you do not pay your taxes for stateservics like road maintenance, police protection and emergency service, you have noit call to m ake that they owe you to come to your service for free.

And if the rules were known to this man (and they were, since he was asked for the payment) that there is a yearly fee for getting protection by the fire brigade while staying outside their official engagement zone, then he has no call against them when he does not pay that fee and thus they did not come to his rescue.

Many people are in perfect knoweldge about theikr rights, and what they can legally claim. They are always the first ijn the line to gain beenefits from these rights. But when it is about them to give back in return, they mysteriuously are gone , all of a sudden.

If you want protection by a public service, you have to give back - for exampel by paying according fees, taxes, etc, money that is needed to maintain suchz services. It's not for free, it does not maintain itself. If you ive outside ther tax district, and want to benefitr from said services nevertheless, and when you therefore get asdked to pay a certain fee for that, I wondfer how anybody can demand said services if he needs them - when he has not payed for them, as was asked of him. It was my understanbding from the German report that the man was not so poor that he could not afford to pay taxes or said fee.

[Takeda Shingen]

I can understand requiring a service fee for an emergency service, espeically if not a volunteer service. I can also understand being irritated at those that will not contribute an emergency service fund. At the same time, arriving on the scene only to watch the fire burn in an act of reciprocity is about as low as you can get if your calling in life is to serve those in danger.

Extinguish the fire, then collect the fee. Give them citations, order them into court, but put the fire out.

EDIT: It is not as though any money was saved by not acting. The fire department arrived on the scene, and the department staff would then be paid accordingly. The trucks were used, fuel was burned. This was just spite.

[mookiemookie]

Conflicted on this one. The bleeding heart in me says "put the fire out you heartless bastards!" but then again, the owner made the bet that he wouldn't need fire protection by not paying for it and lost.

It doesn't really work to put the fire out and collect the fee then, because then everyone would stop paying knowing that they could pay only if they actually used the service.

I find it more appalling that the county has outsourced basic services needed for the public good, like fire protection.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Extinguish the fire, then collect the fee. Give them citations, order them into court, but put the fire out.

^^This.

Suppose the fire had spread to the property of someone who'd paid the fee, or even worse, human lives were lost. I realize pets were lost, but I don't think that would carry the same weight legally if someone, say, sued for damages and/or negligence. Which I could totally see happening.

[razark]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It doesn't really work to put the fire out and collect the fee then, because then everyone would stop paying knowing that they could pay only if they actually used the service.

Yeah, that's the basic problem I see with putting out the fire and then billing the $75.

Perhaps they should have put the fire out and billed them $750, or even more.

[SteamWake]

Put out the fire and not only make them pay the fee but make them pay a substantial surcharge on top of it.

It is a shame that they have to result to vield threats but I'll bet alot of those service fees showed up all of a sudden.

Keep in mind that this was in a rural area and dident even have ANY fire support prior to the fee being inacted. In fact that is exacly what the fee was for.

Too bad the house dident have cancer that would have been treated?

[tater]

I'm fine with it I think.

Most people are forced to pay property taxes to support fire departments—there is no opting out allowed. If people are allowed to otp out, they need to face the consequences.

You need a system where you either force people to pay, or let stuff burn. That or as has been suggested, you put the fire out, then send them a bill for the actual cost of putting out the fire—and put a lien on it if they don't pony up.

[RickC Sniper]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Extinguish the fire, then collect the fee. Give them citations, order them into court, but put the fire out.

I agree, but collect the fee, plus the cost of responding to the call.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by tater

I'm fine with it I think.

Most people are forced to pay property taxes to support fire departments—there is no opting out allowed. If people are allowed to otp out, they need to face the consequences.

You need a system where you either force people to pay, or let stuff burn. That or as has been suggested, you put the fire out, then send them a bill for the actual cost of putting out the fire—and put a lien on it if they don't pony up.

Again, what if the fire had spread to the paying neighbor's house while he wasn't there - or worse, while he was asleep?

Sad day for him, I guess?

[Task Force]

Hmm, would really sucked if it would have spread to the next house.

[Bilge_Rat]

the linked story says the homeowner "forgot" to pay the $75 fee, not refused to pay it.

Here the perceived remedy, namely letting the house burn and the owner suffering ten of thousands of dollars of damages is totally out of proportion to the $75 fee.

I smell a huge lawsuit...

[GoldenRivet]

I think so far everyone's comments have been dead on accurate.

1. it was chickenchit of the fire department to protect one home and watch another burn.

2. The guy should have paid the $75. For God's sake is only $75! I know of a lot of people out there who say they cant afford to pay the ____ bill and then they go get a $60 manicure and pedicure or they go and finance new $2400 wheels for their car or whatever. this guy should have known better.

Im thankful for Volunteer Fire Departments here in the rural areas of Texas such as where i grew up.

We have about 2 all volunteer fire departments within 3-5 miles of my childhood home.

they have responded to our home twice on false alarms when i was a kid.

both times i took notice of the fact that they were:

polite and courteous

every bit as well equipped as a city funded fire department

every bit as professional and quick to respond as a city funded fire department

As many of you know i had a real house fire in '09. It is a very frightening thing to experience, and if the fire department had been delayed by another 3 to 5 minutes... i probably would have lost nearly everything. When you have a house fire... the feeling is indescribable - its the most powerless and probably the most confused i have ever felt in my life.

Powerless because there is really little you can do about a house fire once it grows past a certain point - even if you have a good fire extinguisher.

confused - as in my case - because you wake up at 4 or 5 am and wonder why your house is on fire.

sadly for the guy now he is pretty much homeless. but i promise you he has learned not to take fire protection for granted.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I can understand requiring a service fee for an emergency service, espeically if not a volunteer service. I can also understand being irritated at those that will not contribute an emergency service fund. At the same time, arriving on the scene only to watch the fire burn in an act of reciprocity is about as low as you can get if your calling in life is to serve those in danger.

Extinguish the fire, then collect the fee. Give them citations, order them into court, but put the fire out.

EDIT: It is not as though any money was saved by not acting. The fire department arrived on the scene, and the department staff would then be paid accordingly. The trucks were used, fuel was burned. This was just spite.

Precisely....so much for protection of life and property. I'd never have believed it if somebody told me about this without seeing the video

[razark]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

the linked story says the homeowner "forgot" to pay the $75 fee, not refused to pay it.

If it was me, I'd be saying I "forgot" as well...

It's horrible what happened, but if I forget to pay my insurance, or my electric bill, or my rent, there are consequences.

There should be some recourse for a situation like this. However, that solution shouldn't encourage people to not pay until their house is actually on fire.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

EDIT: It is not as though any money was saved by not acting. The fire department arrived on the scene, and the department staff would then be paid accordingly. The trucks were used, fuel was burned. This was just spite.

It seems the fire department did not respond until a paying customer called. So if the second call had not come in, the trucks and fuel would have been unused.