What services should you have to pay for?

[DMRick]

I wonder, by the time they got there, if there was anything to save. Those double wides must go up pretty fast. I have to say, if that was me with my firefighting equipment, I could not have stood there and watched it burn, unless it was already gone. If the homeowner didn't get his 3 dogs and a cat out, it must have been burning pretty good when he called.
The son got arrested because he went to the fire station and punched the fire chief.

 

[RitaE]

No, it was the town fire department that billed the insurance.

My health insurance paid it without a question, so I guess it is pretty common.

 

[freckles and boo]

I wonder, by the time they got there, if there was anything to save. Those double wides must go up pretty fast. I have to say, if that was me with my firefighting equipment, I could not have stood there and watched it burn, unless it was already gone. If the homeowner didn't get his 3 dogs and a cat out, it must have been burning pretty good when he called.
The son got arrested because he went to the fire station and punched the fire chief.

I was going to make the same point. This is sad all the way around. Trailers burn fast and ugly. It is especially important to have working detectors and paid up fire service if you live in one. They are often total losses even if there is a quick response. I am so sorry he lost his pets but he was fortunate that nobody lost a life, including a firefighter.

My dad spent 33 years in fire service and more than once he has told me that many fires are caused by lifestyle issues. In this case, they were burning on the property, obviously too close to the trailer. They didn't pay up the fee. It is sad but it was very preventable. I hope that this will cause a lot of people to think about their choices.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

No sane human would stand by and let a person lose their house if they had the power to stop it.

I disagree.

What if you have the power to stop it, but at great personal risk to yourself? We're talking about stopping a raging housefire, not helping some poor old woman cross the street.

Alternatively, once you work to fix something, you're generally going to be held responsible if you screw up. So, what if you have the power to stop it, but as a result of your actions you actually make matters worse and the homeowner sues you? Hopefully you have insurance, but who pays for that? Well, in this case, not the homeowner.

What if by stopping the fire on this person's house you miss a change in the winds and his neighbor's crops (and thus his livelihood) are entirely destroyed by the fire that licked his land? What makes one person's property more important than his neighbor's?

What you mean to say is that many people feel a moral imperative to help others. This is true. However, we all must weigh our moral imperatives against the potential harms to ourselves and others. Unless everyone on this board is Mother Teresa, you're not doing everything in your power to help your fellow man. Similarly, there is the concept in law that there is no duty to save. You see a child drowning, you jump in to help, you hurt the child more while trying to save it, and you are responsible. From the point you decide to lift your hand to assist you are putting your faith entirely in the good will of the parents...hoping they won't come back and try to harm you for your "good" deed.

Firefighters are brave and we hold them upon a pedestal in our society. But in the end, firefighters provide a service, and should be paid for it. Firefighters risk their lives and then go home to their families who need a roof over their own heads and food on their table. To not pay for firefighter protection is denying them property the same way a fire might deny you of your own.

 

[golfgal]

Actually thinking about this it even goes farther. This man chose to live in an area that does not have fire service period end of story. He could have picked a town with fire protection. The next town over out of the goodness of their hearts- they don't have to do this - will cover the town who chooses not to support a fire dept and the people who live there choose not to support a fire dept and all they ask is $75 to help do this. And this Man refuses to support it.

So he picked a town without fire service why should he feel entitled to it now?
in actuality he is a snowflake like those kids who get talked about on here all the time. If he picked a town without water should the neighboring town run a hose over to his property and let him use their water for free?

I am also sure the people living in the next town over that provides this service to people in this rural area for $75/year pay a heck of a lot more than $75 in their taxes for fire service too.

 

[SaraJayne]

I disagree.

What if you have the power to stop it, but at great personal risk to yourself? We're talking about stopping a raging housefire, not helping some poor old woman cross the street.

Alternatively, once you work to fix something, you're generally going to be held responsible if you screw up. So, what if you have the power to stop it, but as a result of your actions you actually make matters worse and the homeowner sues you? Hopefully you have insurance, but who pays for that? Well, in this case, not the homeowner.

What if by stopping the fire on this person's house you miss a change in the winds and his neighbor's crops (and thus his livelihood) are entirely destroyed by the fire that licked his land? What makes one person's property more important than his neighbor's?

What you mean to say is that many people feel a moral imperative to help others. This is true. However, we all must weigh our moral imperatives against the potential harms to ourselves and others. Unless everyone on this board is Mother Teresa, you're not doing everything in your power to help your fellow man. Similarly, there is the concept in law that there is no duty to save. You see a child drowning, you jump in to help, you hurt the child more while trying to save it, and you are responsible. From the point you decide to lift your hand to assist you are putting your faith entirely in the good will of the parents...hoping they won't come back and try to harm you for your "good" deed.

Firefighters are brave and we hold them upon a pedestal in our society. But in the end, firefighters provide a service, and should be paid for it. Firefighters risk their lives and then go home to their families who need a roof over their own heads and food on their table. To not pay for firefighter protection is denying them property the same way a fire might deny you of your own.

Bull puckey.

Where I live, firefighters are strictly volunteer and are not paid a dime for what they do.

Since I've had the misfortune to watch my house burn down (as a child), I am thankful to this day to the firefighters that did everything within their power to try and save our home.

What this township did to this man is shameful and disgusting...and not one of those people should be able to call themselves "firefighters".

I hope the public outcry about this will cause all the people involved to lose their jobs (and that goes for officials, also).

 

[LuvOrlando]

Normally I'm 100% behind Police and Firemen but in this case they are totally wrong. The whole event shows this particular group to be petty, spiteful and more than anything else, dangerous. What if that fire spread? How exactly are this group of firemen any different from an Arsonist who lights a fire to watch things burn, other than the fact they didn't light it themselves there is no difference. Then again, maybe one of them did do it, I think someone from the outside should look into the origins of that fire. The whole thing is very suspicious.

Could you imagine the police standing by and watching someone get attacked because they didn't make a financial contribution? So many people have no money, it's not humane, this is disgusting to me.

 

[daughtersrus]

Bull puckey.

Where I live, firefighters are strictly volunteer and are not paid a dime for what they do.

Since I've had the misfortune to watch my house burn down (as a child), I am thankful to this day to the firefighters that did everything within their power to try and save our home.

What this township did to this man is shameful and disgusting...and not one of those people should be able to call themselves "firefighters".

I hope the public outcry about this will cause all the people involved to lose their jobs (and that goes for officials, also).

I disagree. While it's shame that the man lost his house, what would have happened if one of the firefighters had been injured or lost their life?

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Where I live, firefighters are strictly volunteer and are not paid a dime for what they do.

This is sometimes the case and such people should be commended. However, if they decided not to respond to a call because they're on vacation in Disney or saving another house or are doing their hair...well, I couldn't blame them. It's not like it's their job. It's very nice of them to devote their time, and we appreciate it, but just in case we usually pay our taxes to the county or pay fees to some other local municipal fire department that will ensure that someone will be on-call 24-7. Otherwise, you're banking your house and all your worldly possessions on the promise that your townsfolk will always be nice and always do the right thing. It's good to trust others to follow their moral imperatives...to a point.

 

[mjkacmom]

Bull puckey.

Where I live, firefighters are strictly volunteer and are not paid a dime for what they do.

Since I've had the misfortune to watch my house burn down (as a child), I am thankful to this day to the firefighters that did everything within their power to try and save our home.

What this township did to this man is shameful and disgusting...and not one of those people should be able to call themselves "firefighters".

I hope the public outcry about this will cause all the people involved to lose their jobs (and that goes for officials, also).

Not all firefighters are volunteer. I'm guessing more people in this county will pony up the $75...

 

[HelenePA]

I disagree. While it's shame that the man lost his house, what would have happened if one of the firefighters had been injured or lost their life?

they take that chance every time they go out on call. Not only to those who haven't paid the $. I'm so glad our firefighters aren't in it for the money and its not "just a job" to them. Shame on them for calling themselves a firefighter. They dont deserve to be put in the same group of men and women who risk their lives on EVERY CALL not just some of them.. SHAME ON THEM! My dad was a firefighter. No way would he have stood around and watched this happen.

 

[SaraJayne]

This is sometimes the case and such people should be commended. However, if they decided not to respond to a call because they're on vacation in Disney or saving another house or are doing their hair...well, I couldn't blame them. It's not like it's their job. It's very nice of them to devote their time, and we appreciate it, but just in case we usually pay our taxes to the county or pay fees to some other local municipal fire department that will ensure that someone will be on-call 24-7. Otherwise, you're banking your house and all your worldly possessions on the promise that your townsfolk will always be nice and always do the right thing. It's good to trust others to follow their moral imperatives...to a point.

I pay taxes for the fire department. If I have a fire at my house, they'll be here, no questions asked.

If they don't have enough firemen available (since they all may be on vacation in Florida), they call in EXTRA firemen from the next town. I know, novel concept, neighbors helping neighbors.

 

[SaraJayne]

I disagree. While it's shame that the man lost his house, what would have happened if one of the firefighters had been injured or lost their life?

That's a possibility on every single call they go out on, and every firefighter knows that.

 

[daughtersrus]

That's a possibility on every single call they go out on, and every firefighter knows that.

they take that chance every time they go out on call. Not only to those who haven't paid the $. I'm so glad our firefighters aren't in it for the money and its not "just a job" to them. Shame on them for calling themselves a firefighter. They dont deserve to be put in the same group of men and women who risk their lives on EVERY CALL not just some of them.. SHAME ON THEM! My dad was a firefighter. No way would he have stood around and watched this happen.

But if something happened at this fire, they would not be insured like they are at other fires where the bills have been paid.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

I pay taxes for the fire department. If I have a fire at my house, they'll be here, no questions asked.

Then I fail to see how your firefighters are entirely volunteer (meaning all firehouse costs are paid through local donations, as opposed to taxes). Perhaps your explanation is just not coming through well over the internet.

I agree it is not a novel concept that neighbors would want to help each other. However, it is also not a novel concept for neighbors to despise each other and never want to lift a finger to help. You are lucky to live in a place filled mainly with the former.

 

[freckles and boo]

they take that chance every time they go out on call. Not only to those who haven't paid the $. I'm so glad our firefighters aren't in it for the money and its not "just a job" to them. Shame on them for calling themselves a firefighter. They dont deserve to be put in the same group of men and women who risk their lives on EVERY CALL not just some of them.. SHAME ON THEM! My dad was a firefighter. No way would he have stood around and watched this happen.

So was mine. The idea of the hero in the turnout gear is romantic, but firefighting is a science and it does cost money to do it right. Trucks, equipment, training, manpower, and insurance are expensive. Saving people is the priority, property is secondary. I would be willing to bet that the 911 operator established that there were no people left in the house trailer before the decision was made not to dispatch.

 

[HannaBelle]

and couldn't the same be said for the homeowner? How about he let his house burn down for a measly $75.?

Why is everyone only putting the fire dept to blame? He chose to let his house burn down.

Of course he offered to pay after the fact. But what if everyone did that then there would be no money to run the dept. Waiting on the fires.

I say it is about time we start holding adults responsible for their own decisions and paying the consequences of them instead of saving everyone's butts all the time.

+1

 

[SaraJayne]

Then I fail to see how your firefighters are entirely volunteer (meaning all firehouse costs are paid through local donations, as opposed to taxes). Perhaps your explanation is just not coming through well over the internet.

I agree it is not a novel concept that neighbors would want to help each other. However, it is also not a novel concept for neighbors to despise each other and never want to lift a finger to help. You are lucky to live in a place filled mainly with the former.

What I mean is our firefighters are volunteers and are not paid for fighting the fires we have here (rural). All the time they put in (training, calls, etc) is unpaid. They all have other full time jobs.

Our fire station equipment/resources are paid for through taxes, not an extra fee that needs to be paid.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[wvjules]

I disagree.

What if you have the power to stop it, but at great personal risk to yourself? We're talking about stopping a raging housefire, not helping some poor old woman cross the street.
Alternatively, once you work to fix something, you're generally going to be held responsible if you screw up. So, what if you have the power to stop it, but as a result of your actions you actually make matters worse and the homeowner sues you? Hopefully you have insurance, but who pays for that? Well, in this case, not the homeowner.

What if by stopping the fire on this person's house you miss a change in the winds and his neighbor's crops (and thus his livelihood) are entirely destroyed by the fire that licked his land? What makes one person's property more important than his neighbor's?

What you mean to say is that many people feel a moral imperative to help others. This is true. However, we all must weigh our moral imperatives against the potential harms to ourselves and others. Unless everyone on this board is Mother Teresa, you're not doing everything in your power to help your fellow man. Similarly, there is the concept in law that there is no duty to save. You see a child drowning, you jump in to help, you hurt the child more while trying to save it, and you are responsible. From the point you decide to lift your hand to assist you are putting your faith entirely in the good will of the parents...hoping they won't come back and try to harm you for your "good" deed.

Firefighters are brave and we hold them upon a pedestal in our society. But in the end, firefighters provide a service, and should be paid for it. Firefighters risk their lives and then go home to their families who need a roof over their own heads and food on their table. To not pay for firefighter protection is denying them property the same way a fire might deny you of your own.

That is the job of a firefighter! Were they in any more danger because the $75 wasn't paid? I don't think so.

Shame on the fire department!

 

[wvjules]

But if something happened at this fire, they would not be insured like they are at other fires where the bills have been paid.

I don't understand this?