Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[MikeK]

Well OF COURSE it was asinine to withhold the $75, del. It was MORE asinine to allow this as an option. BTW, there's a tort recovery theory in common law called "duty to rescue". You have a boat, it leaks, you are about to drown. I motor over, others are discouraged from saving you (or you are discouraged from saving yourself) and then I change my mind and leave you to drown. I am guilty of wrongful death on those facts. I would have had no liability for your death if I had done nothing, but when I undertake a rescue and don't complete it, I am liable.

Look for the county and city governments to urp up 100% of the cost of the house and furnishings because they withheld a fire rescue that prolly would have cost almost nothing, seeing as the fire truck and firefighters were on the scene and remained, and eventually did put out the fire.

This is Three Stooges Government.

Good (and valid) point.

To stand there and let the house burn was maliciously spiteful. I think the appropriate way to deal with such a situation is to put the fire out and bill the homeowner for the full cost of the service, which could be considerable if itemized pro rata (risk of death and injury), and putting a lein on the property to ensure payment.

Such a policy would virtually guarantee 100% compliance with the $75 annual payment policy.

 

[boedicca]

Yeah, I have. Nearly every post is someone attacking the guy for not paying the fee.. And not even giving a shit that the guy lost his whole house.. And what if someone had been inside the house? Would they've still let it burn down?

And I get it, THE MAN DIDN'T PAY THE FEE. I'm sure he regrets that decision 100%.. But it's a hateful mentality that says "let's just let it burn down.. Let his children suffer without a home anymore.. Because he didn't pay a fee!" Conservatives are heartless people.

Why even have the fee if you're just going to put the fires out whether they get paid or not?

There shouldn't be a yearly fee. What's his tax $ paying for?

He doesn't pay taxes to the municipality - he lives in the county area. What he expected is that the city tax payers provide him with fire protection for free.

 

[California Girl]

I love the responses.. They prove the point of this OP.
In my mind, any person who would stand by, and watch a house burn to the ground, knowing they could prevent it, is fucking heartless.
What happened to helping people and not worrying about cost/or profit?
This is what all of America would look like with Conservatives in charge. Your house is on fire? Hold on.. Did you pay your yearly fee?
Wait, you're being raped? Did you pay the yearly fee?
Wow. Just wow.

Got to give you credit for being a cretin, until this post, we could assume being naive. With this, well you own it. Have you read the thread? Your thread?

Yeah, I have. Nearly every post is someone attacking the guy for not paying the fee.. And not even giving a shit that the guy lost his whole house.. And what if someone had been inside the house? Would they've still let it burn down?

And I get it, THE MAN DIDN'T PAY THE FEE. I'm sure he regrets that decision 100%.. But it's a hateful mentality that says "let's just let it burn down.. Let his children suffer without a home anymore.. Because he didn't pay a fee!" Conservatives are heartless people.

Can you stop with the hysterical hypotheticals? No one died.

And, how old are these 'children'? Because one of them got arrested for punching the Fire Officer attending.... so hardly little kids are they?

It's nothing to do with being heartless, it's about being fair. His neighbors paid. He did not. His choice. Explain to me why it is fair for someone to get something they have not paid for, when everyone else has paid.

What would happen if no one paid? There would be no money to provide the service. Is that fair? No. So, if they want the service, they pay for it. He chose not to. Why is that so hard to see?

 

[Paulie]

Yeah, I have. Nearly every post is someone attacking the guy for not paying the fee.. And not even giving a shit that the guy lost his whole house.. And what if someone had been inside the house? Would they've still let it burn down?

And I get it, THE MAN DIDN'T PAY THE FEE. I'm sure he regrets that decision 100%.. But it's a hateful mentality that says "let's just let it burn down.. Let his children suffer without a home anymore.. Because he didn't pay a fee!" Conservatives are heartless people.

Why even have the fee if you're just going to put the fires out whether they get paid or not?

There you go again, confusing 'em by being all logical like.

You know, I understand the kid's feelings on the matter.

There was a time I thought like him. But then you grow up and learn how the real world works.

Listen kid, it's not about proving a point, or a principle of the matter, or conservatives being cold hearted.

There's only so much fucking money to go around. When you can't afford to perform the services beyond a certain capacity, you need to be PAID if you are going to be able to physically provide more than that.

The people are asked to pay $75 so that the fire department can AFFORD to come out that way and put out a fire. If they let everyone get away with it, no one will pay, and then the department will not be able to afford to do it at all.

There are a lot of costs involved. If trucks go that far out of district, another company's truck typically needs to come in and cover the station during the length of the call in case there happens to be ANOTHER fire call somewhere in the vicinity.

Who the hell do you think is going to pay for all of that?

 

[syrenn]

Why even have the fee if you're just going to put the fires out whether they get paid or not?

There shouldn't be a yearly fee. What's his tax $ paying for?

He doesn't pay taxes to the municipality - he lives in the county area. What he expected is that the city tax payers provide him with fire protection for free.

Like every other pig on the teet.

 

[California Girl]

Yeah, I have. Nearly every post is someone attacking the guy for not paying the fee.. And not even giving a shit that the guy lost his whole house.. And what if someone had been inside the house? Would they've still let it burn down?

And I get it, THE MAN DIDN'T PAY THE FEE. I'm sure he regrets that decision 100%.. But it's a hateful mentality that says "let's just let it burn down.. Let his children suffer without a home anymore.. Because he didn't pay a fee!" Conservatives are heartless people.

Why even have the fee if you're just going to put the fires out whether they get paid or not?

There shouldn't be a yearly fee. What's his tax $ paying for?

His taxes don't cover the fire department. Can you please read the fucking article and understand how that area runs.

It is not for you to decide how other people run their areas. This is the problem with liberals - y'all think you get to decide what EVERYONE else should do. Mind your own business.

 

[boedicca]

Why even have the fee if you're just going to put the fires out whether they get paid or not?

There you go again, confusing 'em by being all logical like.

You know, I understand the kid's feelings on the matter.

There was a time I thought like him. But then you grow up and learn how the real world works.

Listen kid, it's not about proving a point, or a principle of the matter, or conservatives being cold hearted.

There's only so much fucking money to go around. When you can't afford to perform the services beyond a certain capacity, you need to be PAID if you are going to be able to physically provide more than that.

The people are asked to pay $75 so that the fire department can AFFORD to come out that way and put out a fire. If they let everyone get away with it, no one will pay, and then the department will not be able to afford to do it at all.

There are a lot of costs involved. If trucks go that far out of district, another company's truck typically needs to come in and cover the station during the length of the call in case there happens to be ANOTHER fire call somewhere in the vicinity.

Who the hell do you think is going to pay for all of that?

That's why the "Farce Of Somebody Else Should Pay For It" always ends up as a "Tragedy Of The Commons".

 

[Zoom-boing]

I love the responses.. They prove the point of this OP.
In my mind, any person who would stand by, and watch a house burn to the ground, knowing they could prevent it, is fucking heartless.
What happened to helping people and not worrying about cost/or profit?
This is what all of America would look like with Conservatives in charge. Your house is on fire? Hold on.. Did you pay your yearly fee?
Wait, you're being raped? Did you pay the yearly fee?
Wow. Just wow.

Got to give you credit for being a cretin, until this post, we could assume being naive. With this, well you own it. Have you read the thread? Your thread?

Yeah, I have. Nearly every post is someone attacking the guy for not paying the fee.. And not even giving a shit that the guy lost his whole house.. And what if someone had been inside the house? Would they've still let it burn down?

And I get it, THE MAN DIDN'T PAY THE FEE. I'm sure he regrets that decision 100%.. But it's a hateful mentality that says "let's just let it burn down.. Let his children suffer without a home anymore.. Because he didn't pay a fee!" Conservatives are heartless people.

No we're not, we just believe in personal responsibility.

If this guy didn't pay the fee but still got the house fire put out . . . then why the hell should anyone pay a fee? Make an exception for him and you better make an exception for everyone. And where will that get you?

Yeah, it sucks to be that guy and now he's without a house. But he had a choice: pay the fee and get firemen service; don't pay and don't get the service. He gambled and lost but it was his choice.

 

[Paulie]

Yeah, I have. Nearly every post is someone attacking the guy for not paying the fee.. And not even giving a shit that the guy lost his whole house.. And what if someone had been inside the house? Would they've still let it burn down?

And I get it, THE MAN DIDN'T PAY THE FEE. I'm sure he regrets that decision 100%.. But it's a hateful mentality that says "let's just let it burn down.. Let his children suffer without a home anymore.. Because he didn't pay a fee!" Conservatives are heartless people.

Why even have the fee if you're just going to put the fires out whether they get paid or not?

There shouldn't be a yearly fee. What's his tax $ paying for?

See, this proves that you aren't even informed enough about your own topic to be debating it.

The guy lived outside the taxed district. The services were offered by the taxed district as per an agreement made between both areas, with the caveat of a $75 fee to cover costs.

 

[Ravi]

Why even have the fee if you're just going to put the fires out whether they get paid or not?

There shouldn't be a yearly fee. What's his tax $ paying for?

He doesn't pay taxes to the municipality - he lives in the county area. What he expected is that the city tax payers provide him with fire protection for free.

Perhaps because some of his tax money goes to the municipality.

In my county, at least the following benefits ever citizen in the county:

What services are provided by the countywide portion of my property tax bill?
Example of services include:

• Operate detention facilities and the 911 dispatcher center
• Provide paratransit transportation system
• Maintain traffic signals and roads
• Operate transit buses
• Operate Countywide library and park systems
• Operate human service programs and substance abuse facilities

I agree with the poster above...this seems to have been done maliciously.

But hey, they are probably all Republicans so does it really matter?

 

[Sunni Man]

The guy gambled and lost.

Case closed.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Life in a Libertarian World

Thats about right, in the future you will have to pay for services that wont be there when you need them.
Thats progressivism.

 

[syrenn]

There shouldn't be a yearly fee. What's his tax $ paying for?

He doesn't pay taxes to the municipality - he lives in the county area. What he expected is that the city tax payers provide him with fire protection for free.

Perhaps because some of his tax money goes to the municipality.

In my county, at least the following benefits ever citizen in the county:

What services are provided by the countywide portion of my property tax bill?
Example of services include:

• Operate detention facilities and the 911 dispatcher center
• Provide paratransit transportation system
• Maintain traffic signals and roads
• Operate transit buses
• Operate Countywide library and park systems
• Operate human service programs and substance abuse facilities

I agree with the poster above...this seems to have been done maliciously.

But hey, they are probably all Republicans so does it really matter?

I don't see anything about fire department response ravi. And that is your county. What this guys county provides with tax may be different.

Also the guy knew he wasn't covered which is why he said he was willing to pay what ever it cost...once his house was burning.

 

[Cal]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

 

[Charles_Main]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it.

No what you support is Forcing the Municipality to PAY to cover someone who does not pay taxes to them.

You may think it is the right thing to do, but all it does is encourage more people not to pay, and force the People who do pay taxes to flip the bill for all the people who live outside of the area and get services anyways.

And what the hell do you mean regardless of whether they can or not. Are you really implying this guy could not afford to pay the fee? He simply chose to be cheap and not pay it.

The problem with you is you approach ever situation as a way to prove how your side is the truth and the light, and everyone else are just heartless assholes. I understand you are very young. I was just as naive and ignorant as you are when I was your age.

I grew up, you will to someday.

 

[WillowTree]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

So answer us this. What would a librul do if NOBODY paid the fee?

 

[boedicca]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

Then where were all the volunteer liberals in the neighborhood with their bucket brigades to help the dead beat?

 

[California Girl]

I guess this is a fundamental difference in the way a liberal thinks, and the way a conservative thinks.
Liberals support doing the right thing - regardless if someone had payed for it. Asking somone if they paid the fee while their house is burning down, is almost as retarded as asking someone if they have health insurance while they're dying.
Conservatives are all about people fending for themselves - regardless if they can or not.
This policy is incredibly stupid to begin with. And I think it was neglect on the part of the home owner to decide not to pay the fee, but I don't think a family should ever be punished with their house being burned down. Just as I don't think someone should ever be denied medical treatment because they don't have health insurance.

Who is gonna pay for it? Nothing is free. So you tell me, who pays? His neighbors are supposed to carry his ass?

You keep on doing this typical lefty thing by changing the argument. It is not about rape, or little babies dying, or health care, or whether they should or should not have been paying taxes for the service or anything else. It is about one thing.... a man chose not to pay for a service that he knew he should pay for. That was his decision. It is not rocket science.

 

[boedicca]

C'mon CG.

Grokking Personal Responsibility is Rocket Science to many on the left.

 

[saveliberty]

just like a demonRat. won't pay for a service, wants the service, expects it for free, and expects conservatives to pay for their service. Thanks for posting basementdweller. It's typical of demonRat behavior.

You're exactly what is wrong with America. If you woulda read the fucking article, you would see he offered to pay if they would put the fire out.. But they basically said tough luck, and it wasn't until it spread to the neighbours (who has the "coverage") that they put it out.
What happened to helping people, and not worrying about cost or profit? Imagine if this had been the mayor of this town.. Gu-ran-tee they woulda put that fire out, regardless if he'd have payed the fee.

Imagine if the homeowner had taken personal responsibility and paid when he was suppose to. Imagine the risk he put his neighbors under by not paying. Would there have even been a fire department if more people were like this man? Nope.

See, that was probably the problem back 1990. No funds to keep the fire department running. So, a fee was established to cover the expense. How to get people to comply? I know, limit service to those that pay. A reasonable person would see the advantages and pay. The rest, well they would lose property.

P.S. This is exactly what young people will do with Obamacare. Until they get sick or hurt. Then watch the sad appeals to get help.