Firefighters Let Home Burn Over Unpaid Fee

[Hog1]

And that is the problem inherent when common sense has left the equation, and stupidity prevails........

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

And that is the problem inherent when common sense has left the equation, and stupidity prevails........

Is that the common sense that tells you "those who paid get service" or "put it out even if someone hasn't paid?"

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Is that the common sense that tells you "those who paid get service" or "put it out even if someone hasn't paid?"

Except - per the article you sited - the victim offerred to pay for the cost of the fire company's expense. Not just the missed $75 fee.

I get the whole "gotta pay the fee, dude" but, as Schneed said, they are just sitting there watching burn while the owner is offering to pay the full cost of the expense. If he is willing to obligate himself to that - fine.

I am conflicted. On one hand I get the hard line - if the fireman break the rules and start putting out the fire, all sorts of liability issues not to mention the potential economic pitfalls (many opt out with the thought they can pay if needed, etc.). On the other, there is just a wrongness to watching something burn when the means to put it out are at hand and absolutely available.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Except - per the article you sited - the victim offerred to pay for the cost of the fire company's expense. Not just the missed $75 fee.

I get the whole "gotta pay the fee, dude" but, as Schneed said, they are just sitting there watching burn while the owner is offering to pay the full cost of the expense. If he is willing to obligate himself to that - fine.

I am conflicted. On one hand I get the hard line - if the fireman break the rules and start putting out the fire, all sorts of liability issues not to mention the potential economic pitfalls (many opt out with the thought they can pay if needed, etc.). On the other, there is just a wrongness to watching something burn when the means to put it out are at hand and absolutely available.

Per the article the offer to pay the fee was after the the fact. Suppose I were to offer my home insurance company my annual fee after my house burned down? As a business would you take my offer? No. Now the guy did offer to pay wherever it costs to put out the fire but what assurances do I have the guy is going to pay? His only know collateral is on fire. Not worth the risk.

If everyone offered to pay the expense of putting out the fire after their house is on fire you wouldn't have a fire department.

We are free to choose and the Fire Fighters made the right business choice. This is a teachable moment.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Is that the common sense that tells you "those who paid get service" or "put it out even if someone hasn't paid?"

Because Cranick hadn't paid his fee, firefighters doused the border of his neighbor's property to protect that house in case the flames spread, but wouldn't help him. He lost all his possessions, plus three dogs and a cat.

I would have to ask...what was saved by the FD? What was gained by the FD? They still made the trip, incurred all the expense. Recieved nothing positive in return. Instead of being heros and saving these peoples pets and possessions, dwelling, etc.
They are the worthless heartless SOB's that stood there and watched it burn, killed the pets and are responsible for them being on the street.
AND in the aftermath, I am confident, had they put it out the owner would have paid their bill.
I hoped that helped to clarify what apparently was....a cloudy issue?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Because Cranick hadn't paid his fee, firefighters doused the border of his neighbor's property to protect that house in case the flames spread, but wouldn't help him. He lost all his possessions, plus three dogs and a cat.

I would have to ask...what was saved by the FD? What was gained by the FD? They still made the trip, incurred all the expense. Recieved nothing positive in return. Instead of being heros and saving these peoples pets and possessions, dwelling, etc.
They are the worthless heartless SOB's that stood there and watched it burn, killed the pets and are responsible for them being on the street.
AND in the aftermath, I am confident, had they put it out the owner would have paid their bill.
I hoped that helped to clarify what apparently was....a cloudy issue?

So they should put out the fire because they are already there and it feels right? What's will you say next? A doctor should see me because I showed up his clinic? The Pharmacy should give me free drugs because it's in my grocery store?


What happened to personal responsibility in this country? When men use to be men.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Because Cranick hadn't paid his fee, firefighters doused the border of his neighbor's property to protect that house in case the flames spread, but wouldn't help him. He lost all his possessions, plus three dogs and a cat.

I would have to ask...what was saved by the FD? What was gained by the FD? They still made the trip, incurred all the expense. Recieved nothing positive in return. Instead of being heros and saving these peoples pets and possessions, dwelling, etc.
They are the worthless heartless SOB's that stood there and watched it burn, killed the pets and are responsible for them being on the street.
AND in the aftermath, I am confident, had they put it out the owner would have paid their bill.
I hoped that helped to clarify what apparently was....a cloudy issue?

Id second that...if it was my dog, you'd probably be reading about how I guy killed the fire chief after letting his house burn down