No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[Asher]

"generous" is not a word I would use to describe this situation in any way. And you are avoiding the points, and my question.

[BlackCat]

Nah, what I wanted to point out is that you freely can attack an illegal foreigner since they don't pay taxes - no tax, no protection .

[Asher]

Are we supposed to render gratuitous financial services to everyone facing foreclosure?

No, because that would not be reasonable. What your country should have done is be more like Canada -- have far more strict mortgage requirements. It's another societal thing. You always believe less government is better, then everyone gets all upset when Americans start screwing eachother over with **** like sub-prime mortgages.

It's another mess American attitudes created. More civilized countries protected their citizens, and thus their economies, from such nonsense.

[ColdWizard]

I agree that the fire department should be willing to take a larger fee to add people who are in the midst of emergency. But imagine if there were a story about extortionate fees charged by fire departments taking advantage of these situations. Then y'all would be *****ing about that.

The real villain in this story is the ******* kid who didn't know how to safely burn trash.

No one on this forum wants to hear this sort of logic.

[KrazyHorse]

Seems to me the system worked just fine, and as intended. What kind of change do you think is in order, Slowwie? Should South Fulton stop extending its fire service beyond the city limits altogether?

[Asher]

FWIW, Felch, not too long ago we had a thread on Apolyton about a Quebec family suing the BC or Alberta governments because they got a bill for search & rescue for her and her dead husband. They went, knowingly, skiing out of bounds and one of them died when they got lost.

I defended the fact that they were sent a large bill, even though the family suffered a personal loss. The government still sent S&R out for them even though they were knowingly skiing out of bounds and "taking the risk" (in HC's words), but simply billed them after. It's the right thing to do.

I defended it then, I'd defend it here if they billed this guy tens of thousands of dollars for putting the fire out.

The only unacceptable action would be to do nothing, which is exactly what they did.

[Ben Kenobi]

That seems to negate the whole "let the houses burn if they forget to pay so people will have an incentive to pay" thing.

I'm a conservative. I believe that if your job is a fire fighter, you fight fires. I'm also against bureaucratic decisions that stop people from doing the right thing. That being said, in a rural area, believe me you'd be paying your share to the firehall.

I'd be against extending city service to rural areas, because frankly, the service is better when you have local residents pooling together and a firehall composed of the same residents. Cost is less, and service is more timely and reliable than shipping an engine all the way from town. Also the 'free rider' problem is less, when everybody shares in the benefits.

Maybe I'm strange but that's just the way I roll. Do your job work hard, worry about the pay later.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's this lack of empathy, compassion, and civility which is why the US is the country it is today. You may think that's a source of pride, but it's a source of your crime rate, your class warfare, and your dog-eat-dog society. As far as Western societies go, it's pretty barbaric.

Have to disagree. This is the attitude I'd expect from Canadian towns. The reason we put a firehall in is because otherwise there would be no fire service.

Canada has huge huge tracts of land, that have absolutely no fire service whatsoever. Sure, maybe things in big cities like Toronto have everything paid for but Canadian municipalities are big on extensive taxation and narrow services.

America for the most part is far more compassionate and considerate and dare I say it, civil than Canada. At least the parts I've been to at any rate.

[BlackCat]

I'd be against extending city service to rural areas, because frankly, the service is better when you have local residents pooling together and a firehall composed of the same residents. Cost is less, and service is more timely and reliable than shipping an engine all the way from town.

That is pure BS. Professionals are way better even if it takes five more minutes to get them to the place.

[SlowwHand]

What if there were pets/people inside? Would the firefighters have stood by then?

Reread the article. Pets did die. To me, that's the real pisser. He had insurance, though like most people, not enough. The pets, whom I view as children, did nothing wrong and paid for it.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is pure BS. Professionals are way better even if it takes five more minutes to get them to the place.

Well at least in our town, they have a rotation. The volunteer service is comprised entirely of city firefighters splitting shifts. Makes sense. They all live out there, so why not? They work for the city, so when they aren't working for the city, they work for us.

And it's not 5 minutes. It's half an hour.

[KrazyHorse]

I love how blatant the adverse selection problem would be if they'd allowed this douche to pay them 75 bucks to save his house...

[KrazyHorse]

FWIW, Felch, not too long ago we had a thread on Apolyton about a Quebec family suing the BC or Alberta governments because they got a bill for search & rescue for her and her dead husband. They went, knowingly, skiing out of bounds and one of them died when they got lost.

I defended the fact that they were sent a large bill, even though the family suffered a personal loss. The government still sent S&R out for them even though they were knowingly skiing out of bounds and "taking the risk" (in HC's words), but simply billed them after. It's the right thing to do.

I defended it then, I'd defend it here if they billed this guy tens of thousands of dollars for putting the fire out.

The only unacceptable action would be to do nothing, which is exactly what they did.

How is it unacceptable? The family was safe. The loss they've suffered is solely that of their possessions...

[Asher]

How is it unacceptable? The family was safe. The loss they've suffered is solely that of their possessions...

Their home, and their pets.

They were there and capable to put the fire out. Doing so would've prevented additional damage to the paying neighbour's house, too.

It takes a bunch of real *******s to sit in a fire truck and watch a family's home burn down.

[Wiglaf]

Would it be better if they never went out at all?