Firefighters watch home burn to ground...

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by v6sonoma

On one hand I understand why they didn't but on the other this is america. If you were having a heart attack and hadn't paid your last bill for a flu shot yet should I let you die? No. It's F'd up. Not only that but I'm sure they are screwed with insurance due to not paying the fire charge. It could have just been an oversight and not an outright refusal. I was raised to protect those in need regardless of weather or not they deserve it. It's just wrong. Everyone is quick to point fingers till they are in that situation.

um, a heart attack and a flu shot have nothing in common. And that's besides the point, no one was in any danger.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

I could tell some Vikings jokes to lighten the mood.

Q. What do you call a Viking with a Super Bowl ring?
A. A thief

In all fairness, I'm a Lions fan...so...yeah.

Or an aquired free agent.........

[Scrappy Doo]

Originally Posted by ColdCamaroSS

I could tell some Vikings jokes to lighten the mood.

Q. What do you call a Viking with a Super Bowl ring?
A. A thief

In all fairness, I'm a Lions fan...so...yeah.

Lions fan?

[Scrappy Doo]

Originally Posted by PQ

Or an aquired free agent.........

How about those bills from '90 to 93'?


Hmmmmmmmmmm.

[CamaroScotty]

But his taxes prolly paid for the firetrucks.

Since we don't raise taxes, people in government create fee's. A "fee" for fire protection is dirty politics.

What if someone sets a fire to cover up a crime, or someone "forgets" someone is still in the house.....? Having BEEN a firefighter, I find it hard to let anyone's property "just burn".

[3 SS's]

Bottom line....put the damn fire out and lien the house if the guy doesn't pay.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by FFPM73

Being a Firefighter/Paramedic I know my department has to respond and fight any fire or treat any emergency no matter what the tax situation is. Granted I work for a large city so maybe that is a difference. My best friend works for a Township in Ohio and they rely on tax levies to get equip, personell, fire gear ect. If their levies don't pass every 5 years, layoffs and stations start to close which in turn could make tax payers wait longer for a fire truck or paramedic unit. But to show up and just watch it burn.....I think that is an ethical violation and that resident could sue that dept/city and win big bucks!!!!

I have to agree. It very unethical and morally wrong to knowingly and intentionally show up and watch the guy's house burn. So he didn't pay his $75, is that worth it to all those firefighters to have to sleep with what they done. What should have happen is they should have put the fire out because it's the right thing to do , and then they should have billed him for it since he didn't pay his $75 to the city. In fact there should be some type of contract that is signed stating this type of agreement in advance. Then people that don't pay still get the service ,but it's going to cost them a lot more money for them provide if it's needed.

I can't believe there are people that agree with what that fire department has done. I guess the country is doomed with that kind of thinking.

[Rogue Leader]

Wow 5 pages and I haven't put my word in here.

As a firefighter I've reviewed this story over and over and in the end I agree with the decision to let their house burn. Here is why:

Firstly, he didn't pay the fee. Realize that taxes from ANOTHER town are paying to run that firehouse, not his taxes. Other people are paying for their budget and all he has to do is pay an (as you can see) VERY reasonable fee that he didn't pay. Now he may say ohh he forgot, well if your house is important to you, you remember to do that. Plus if its anything like my firehouse when we ask for donations we send THREE mailings. Yet people still say they "never got it" (we used to go door to door, thank God we don't anymore). Its simple, pay, you get service, don't pay you don't. And as many have said here if you set the precedent of not paying and still providing it, nobody will pay. Sad but THATS what society has become. Sometimes things like this need to happen because THIS is whats right, not bailing people out after they make mistakes. People NEED to be accountable for their actions and stupidity.

Secondly, I am SURE if they were trapped in the house the firefighters would have helped them orders or not. I know if I was one of them there is no way you'd stop me. I feel bad about the dogs and cats, I really do, but this is a tough spot. In the end they aren't a human life, I've been a firefighter for 13 years and I know the dangers of whats going on in there far better than some of the "experts" here (and by my sarcastic experts I don't mean my fellow FF's who have posted in this thread). Thats a big risk for a dog or a cat. They were ordered not to fight the fire, should they have done that to save a dog or a cat, then they possibly could have lost their jobs. Plus as I said the risks are great. If I am fighting a fire surely I will do my best to save fido, but putting my neck out there for him, sometimes you have to think about number one.

And Finally if they had fought this fire you can GUARANTEE that the owners of the previous 2 properties they refused service to would sue the crap out of them (because thats what you do here in America). And they are opening all sorts of other legal cans of worms. All over a guy too lazy about his family's safety to pay a $75 fee.

Does it suck? Absolutely. But this is the way it has to be, and screw you tot he media for painting the FD in such a crappy light by putting how the fire chief was out on a golf course. He IS allowed to have a day off and have a hobby outside of the firehouse, and these idiots writing the story probably don't have to be available by cellphone to make life or death decisions 24/7.

As an aside, hes in a sticky issue with his homeowners. As a former Insurance man I can tell you, insurance DOES cover stupidity, so the fact he burnt his house down burning trash in his yard or whatever is covered (you should have seen some of the dumb shit we paid for). But the fact that he didn't pay his Fire service bill may void his coverage depending on the policy. Very likely that was a stipulation. I'm interested to find the outcome but we probably won't.

[jdenotter]

Agree

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Rogue Leader

Wow 5 pages and I haven't put my word in here.

As a firefighter I've reviewed this story over and over and in the end I agree with the decision to let their house burn. Here is why:

Firstly, he didn't pay the fee. Realize that taxes from ANOTHER town are paying to run that firehouse, not his taxes. Other people are paying for their budget and all he has to do is pay an (as you can see) VERY reasonable fee that he didn't pay. Now he may say ohh he forgot, well if your house is important to you, you remember to do that. Plus if its anything like my firehouse when we ask for donations we send THREE mailings. Yet people still say they "never got it" (we used to go door to door, thank God we don't anymore). Its simple, pay, you get service, don't pay you don't. And as many have said here if you set the precedent of not paying and still providing it, nobody will pay. Sad but THATS what society has become. Sometimes things like this need to happen because THIS is whats right, not bailing people out after they make mistakes. People NEED to be accountable for their actions and stupidity.

Secondly, I am SURE if they were trapped in the house the firefighters would have helped them orders or not. I know if I was one of them there is no way you'd stop me. I feel bad about the dogs and cats, I really do, but this is a tough spot. In the end they aren't a human life, I've been a firefighter for 13 years and I know the dangers of whats going on in there far better than some of the "experts" here (and by my sarcastic experts I don't mean my fellow FF's who have posted in this thread). Thats a big risk for a dog or a cat. They were ordered not to fight the fire, should they have done that to save a dog or a cat, then they possibly could have lost their jobs. Plus as I said the risks are great. If I am fighting a fire surely I will do my best to save fido, but putting my neck out there for him, sometimes you have to think about number one.

And Finally if they had fought this fire you can GUARANTEE that the owners of the previous 2 properties they refused service to would sue the crap out of them (because thats what you do here in America). And they are opening all sorts of other legal cans of worms. All over a guy too lazy about his family's safety to pay a $75 fee.

Does it suck? Absolutely. But this is the way it has to be, and screw you tot he media for painting the FD in such a crappy light by putting how the fire chief was out on a golf course. He IS allowed to have a day off and have a hobby outside of the firehouse, and these idiots writing the story probably don't have to be available by cellphone to make life or death decisions 24/7.

As an aside, hes in a sticky issue with his homeowners. As a former Insurance man I can tell you, insurance DOES cover stupidity, so the fact he burnt his house down burning trash in his yard or whatever is covered (you should have seen some of the dumb shit we paid for). But the fact that he didn't pay his Fire service bill may void his coverage depending on the policy. Very likely that was a stipulation. I'm interested to find the outcome but we probably won't.

Nothing anybody writes will ever explain away or validate not helping someone when you can. It's just morally wrong. Besides, Like I said in my earlier post. If they had a contract signed that said pay $75 a year or if you don't pay the yearly and do you have a fire, then you will be billed for the entire cost for any fire service needed. Seems pretty simple to me. Then we have no moral dilemmas and every one get's paid. Also they should set up some kind of fund to help low income folk out that just don't have $75 to spend.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by CamaroScotty

I can't believe there are people that agree with what that fire department has done. I guess the country is doomed with that kind of thinking.

NO. Quite the opposite. The CITY TAXES pay for the fire department. The COUNTY HAS NO fire department.

The country is doomed with THAT way of thinking. One group should be FORCED to pay, while the other group keeps their money and gets the benefit.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by motorhead

If they had a contract signed that said pay $75 a year or if you don't pay the yearly and do you have a fire, then you will be billed for the entire cost for any fire service needed. Seems pretty simple to me.

Then the fire department sits around and HOPES there is a fire soon, because they are running out of money to be able to service the county.

If I were the fire department at this point (of the city) I'd tell the county to go find someone else.

I'm sure the city FD is sick and freakin' tired of not getting paid the money they need.

[Tallboy]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Nothing anybody writes will ever explain away or validate not helping someone when you can. It's just morally wrong. Besides, Like I said in my earlier post. If they had a contract signed that said pay $75 a year or if you don't pay the yearly and do you have a fire, then you will be billed for the entire cost for any fire service needed. Seems pretty simple to me. Then we have no moral dilemmas and every one get's paid. Also they should set up some kind of fund to help low income folk out that just don't have $75 to spend.

If you can't afford a lousy $75 bucks, you sure as hell can't afford a house. This guy had the money, and chose not to pay. He rolled the dice. He lost. F him.

[CuteQueen]

People need to have compassion! What if the family was going through a hard time and could not afford $75 dollars for the bill. Someone could have got hurt and now a family is without a home they should have take them up on their offer to pay the bill after