Firefighters Let House Burn Down Over $75.00

**pman5595**

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/tn-state-news/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Basically, residents of a city have to pay a neighboring city $75 per year for fire protection. This guy didn't pay, so when a fire started, the firefighters wouldn't even come out to his house. They only came out when the neighbor, who had payed, called and was worried about it spreading to their property. They let the original house burn to the ground.

Some things that infuriate me about this story:
• The fire didn't even start in the house, it started in some barrels outside the house, but wasn't able to be contained by garden hoses. if the firefighters had intervened originally they could have stopped it from spreading to the house.
• The homeowner offered to pay whatever it took to get the firefighters out there to save his house, but they wouldn't accept anything.
• Supposedly (I haven't read this in every news story about this but I have read it in some) 2 dogs and a cat were killed in this fire.

What does Scorehero think?
_________________

Proud Social Liberal. What are you? Post your result in your signature. Genius, genius, and genius.

**Yewb** · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 3020 Location: Plymouth, UK

While it's petty that the firefighters saved the neighbouring property but not the original one, firefighting is not cheap and this guy knew what he was risking when he incredibly irresponsibly chose not to pay the insurance fee. My sympathy is very limited. Incidentally, I completely agree with the state when it comes to their point against allowing him to pay on the spot - set a precedent for that and suddenly you've got nobody paying for the insurance at all, forcing the on-the-spot fee sky-high.
_________________

expertwin wrote:

ShadoWolf wrote:

expertwin wrote:

I just want to, you know, get my name out there. BTW, it updates every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Was just the first two, decided to do Saturdays as well.

Serious advice now: No-one likes indecision in their work, so find what you like that you're even remotely good at, and stick with it. Don't flit from one thing to another, because that just smacks of a large lack of determination and drive. And people don't like you for that, and won't remember you for it. I mean, I get that you have a plucky spirit and a willingness to try new things, but there's a limit, man.

I might knock it down to just Thursday and Friday.

JOE2210 wrote:

Leave me alone, I have been drinking and your made up words mean nothing to me.

**Sarg338** · Joined: 07 Feb 2008 Posts: 5143

The guy didn't pay, so he didn't get the service.

**Pacific** · Joined: 04 Jul 2010 Posts: 188 Location: Hampshire, England

But surely saving someones life or possessions isn't something that should be payed for up front.

Ugh... They way things work these days!
_________________

Do come visit my accomplishments thread, lots of good stuff here (sometimes!)
A wise man once said "A wise man once said". And please remember to host your own banners!
First person to ever FC 'Flight of the Bumblebee' on all 3 main GH custom engines (FoFiX, GH3 and GH2)

**CCARaven4** · Joined: 30 Sep 2008 Posts: 371

If I were in that situation and had my house burn down, I'd burn down the fire station, then the mayor's house. You can't call yourself a firefighter and then watch a house burn to the ground while you have the equipment to stop it from happening. Policy or no, the firefighters should have done what was right and fought the fire, and then haggled over the money after the fire was out.
_________________

XBOX 360 Gamertag: CCARaven4

Georgia Tech Class of 2014!

**Pacific** · Joined: 04 Jul 2010 Posts: 188 Location: Hampshire, England

**Yewb** · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 3020 Location: Plymouth, UK

Unless, as is very probable, they were threatened with legal action if they made any move to put out the fire.

Also, burning down a fire station? You'd really try to do that? Really?
_________________

expertwin wrote:

ShadoWolf wrote:

expertwin wrote:

I just want to, you know, get my name out there. BTW, it updates every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Was just the first two, decided to do Saturdays as well.

Serious advice now: No-one likes indecision in their work, so find what you like that you're even remotely good at, and stick with it. Don't flit from one thing to another, because that just smacks of a large lack of determination and drive. And people don't like you for that, and won't remember you for it. I mean, I get that you have a plucky spirit and a willingness to try new things, but there's a limit, man.

I might knock it down to just Thursday and Friday.

JOE2210 wrote:

Leave me alone, I have been drinking and your made up words mean nothing to me.

**cdylan13** · Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 5828 Location: Richmond, VA

Pure ridiculousness. I really don't know how to express how stupid of a situation this is. That guy was stupid for not paying, but save his god damn house from burning down.

**Olinea** · Joined: 19 Mar 2010 Posts: 651

In all honesty, I think it was the better choice.

Let's pretend that the firefighters said "Hey, we can't let this guy's house burn down" and put it out. And then a couple of people think "Hey, they put his fire out and he didn't have to pay, so why should we?" And the firefighters have to put out their fires too, because they feel obligated to do so, or because they know someone in the house. And soon, nobody's paying for firefighting because, frankly, you don't need to.

It's not like these guys just had to click a button and the fire would go whooosh and disappear. They'd be risking their lives over someone who decided that their services weren't important enough to pay for. You get what you put in. If I don't buy insurance and then go and crash my car, I can't just say "Hey, man, cut me some slack, my car just got totaled".
_________________

ShadoWolf wrote:

TheGreatDave wrote:

When you think about it, charting thunder as five notes is undercharting. Shit needs about, 20.

Scorehero: Where the 5-note chord is undercharted.

Grinded that second one for 18 years.

**Sarg338** · Joined: 07 Feb 2008 Posts: 5143

If they had saved his house without him paying the fee beforehand, then everyone in the neighborhood would do that. Just not pay the fee until it happens to them. That's not the law they have in place.

EDIT: Ninj'd.

**jesse0986** · Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject:

The firefighters are in a tight spot no matter what they do. They're following orders but some people are clearly gonna see it as reprehensible. On the other hand, if they do put out the fire, then what happens? Folks in the rural areas are gonna start thinking they don't need to pay the fee, so this firefighting service--the only one within like a seven-mile radius, I gather, that's already offering this service to people outside its jurisdiction--takes a huge cut in the money they need to operate. Dude was demanding a service that everyone except for him was funding.

Not only that, but a few more problems emerge. First of all, how can anyone expect a man who can't pony up $75 a year to pay a bill that's gonna cost him probably tens of thousands of dollars? How many people that get billed retroactively in similar situations actually pay that amount? I'd wager not very many. So when collections comes knocking at his door, he can turn to the courts and claim it was a contract under duress or some other nonsense, and he gets off without a scratch.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun but it almost seems to me like this guy lived in a rural area to escape paying for civil services that residents of South Fulton are obliged to pay. This FD is not a volunteer organization--they need to cover their own asses too. They offer fire protection for folks outside their jurisdiction because literally nobody else can do it. It should have been on the citizens of the county to organize a volunteer effort to ensure things like this don't happen, but obviously the rural folks thought it'd just be easier to pay the $75. That was this guy's only option for fire protection service, and he chose to ignore it.

I think the firefighters did exactly the right thing. They risk setting an unhealthy precedent otherwise. If you wanna take up arms with the law itself, then go nuts, but a case of ethics isn't going to hold up in court given how explicitly this law is known in that area.
_________________

Signatures are overrated. Like pants.

**MehPlusRawr** · Joined: 20 Jul 2009 Posts: 1389

If it hadn't been publicized that he hadn't payed, people would continue to pay. The point is that they watched the house burn and no matter how you slice it that was wrong.
_________________

i forget what goes here

**FreeXBird** · Joined: 24 Mar 2007 Posts: 2485

What if a two little kids were trapped in their room and couldn't make it out of the house? Would firefighters really just let them die? Yeah he should've paid, but holy fuck, have a heart. It's $75 fucking dollars. People today are so obsessed with money. You shouldn't have to pay extra to hope somebody capable of helping you saves your life.
Maybe it's me, but Morals > Money.

**Yewb** · Joined: 10 Jan 2008 Posts: 3020 Location: Plymouth, UK

And was it morally right to expect coverage when he hadn't paid the insurance?
_________________

expertwin wrote:

ShadoWolf wrote:

expertwin wrote:

I just want to, you know, get my name out there. BTW, it updates every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Was just the first two, decided to do Saturdays as well.

Serious advice now: No-one likes indecision in their work, so find what you like that you're even remotely good at, and stick with it. Don't flit from one thing to another, because that just smacks of a large lack of determination and drive. And people don't like you for that, and won't remember you for it. I mean, I get that you have a plucky spirit and a willingness to try new things, but there's a limit, man.

I might knock it down to just Thursday and Friday.

JOE2210 wrote:

Leave me alone, I have been drinking and your made up words mean nothing to me.

**jesse0986** · Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject:

I think the "watched the house burn" thing is overblown. It's not like they stood there slapping high-fives and toasting marshmallows. I'm sure they were just as upset that they couldn't do anything about it.

As for children inside the burning home, I don't really buy that either, because that didn't happen in this case and we can't know for certain what would've happened. The service this man denied was fire protection, and although I don't know the exact legal definition of "fire protection," I imagine that it wouldn't have precluded firefighters from going into the house to rescue people trapped inside, because there's a difference between letting a house burn down and letting a house burn down while people are still trapped inside. Okay, there were some pets involved, but at that point the risk far outweighs the reward--you know how dangerous and difficult it is to rescue pets trapped in a burning house who don't know what's going on and are being pursued by some weirdo in a big scary suit breathing through an oxygen mask?

Not only that, but it again goes back to that red tape--any action that these guys had taken would have had consequences, the likes of which we'll never know for certain, but nonetheless would have existed if they had acted. Maybe the firefighters lose their jobs for insubordination. Maybe some equipment gets damaged and nobody can cover the thousands of dollars of damage because the firefighters were acting outside of their legal bindings and jurisdiction. What if a firefighter dies? What if the house was beyond reclaim when they arrived? None of this stuff would have mattered if the guy had agreed that $75 a year was worth fire protection. As it is, he chose not to, and now suddenly all of this stuff becomes relevant.

Nobody's happy that this guy's place burned to the ground. I just think it's silly that we don't hold this guy accountable for his own actions when he was very aware of the risk he was taking. I could maybe understand the outrage if this was a fire department run by the city or the county, but it wasn't--it's a private enterprise. It's business. They make their money by offering this service to people who aren't covered (which includes the people living out in this rural area). If someone doesn't want any part of their business, the enterprise has no obligation to deliver the service.

Hate on the red tape all you want, but you simply cannot throw it out while it's in place. It just doesn't work that way in this country. Somebody has to pay for the mess no matter how heroic the deed.

Just my two cents.
_________________

Signatures are overrated. Like pants.