No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

[KrazyHorse]

It should be a universal service paid for out of the county's general tax funds as it is in civilized states. Why are these southern states so ****ed up?

Feel free to complain to the county, not the city...

[Asher]

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

In terms of optics, yes. In reality, no -- because of the threat to the neighbour's house.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

Dedication

Also, if this guy's home was so valuable to him then he would have ponied up the 75 bucks.

You'll forgive me if I'm not particularly concerned about other people's possessions when they themselves are not...

[Boris Godunov]

Is the pool big enough to justify allowing rural county residents to free ride off the city's resources if people are allowed to pay on the spot?

Considering we're talking about an already-extant fire department that subsists on city taxpayer dollars that is doing rural calls as an extra service, I don't see why not.

And who's getting a "free ride" if they have to pay on the spot (and more dearly)?

[SlowwHand]

Feel free to complain to the county, not the city...

I alluded to this fact. I'm not overly surprised that it would be you that finally said it. Outside the city limits was enough to screw the guy, as far as city services go.

[Asher]

Dedication

Also, if this guy's home was so valuable to him then he would have ponied up the 75 bucks.

You'll forgive me if I'm not particularly concerned about other people's possessions when they themselves are not...

Cash is tight for a LOT of people right now. $75/year for the off chance you need the fire department can easily be seen as something so unlikely, the money is best spent keeping food on the table.

Of course it would've been better, especially in hindsight, for him to pay for the service. But he shouldn't be punished by having his pets killed and home destroyed for it.

I'm nearly 27 years old and I've never needed the fire department for anything. If I was completely broke and had to choose between feeding my family and paying $75 to a fire service, it's clear what I'd do.

[Boris Godunov]

Who would ever pay the annual fee if you could pay on the spot?

Right, because no one buys insurance in this country.

[DinoDoc]

And who's getting a "free ride" if they have to pay on the spot (and more dearly)?

Because this is at least the second time the idiot has "forgotten" to opt in to the fire protection program according to reports. I assume it's people like him that have convinced the city to take a more hard line stance.

[Asher]

Because this is at least the second time the idiot has "forgotten" to opt in to the fire protection program according to reports. I assume it's people like him that have convinced the city to take a more hard line stance.

What reports?

Also, please answer my illegal mexican query.

[DinoDoc]

What reports?

The Cranicks said they also forgot to pay their fire service fee on time about three years ago. But the fire department then did not hesitate to put out a chimney fire and let them pay the fee the next day.

Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2010/10/05/113824.htm#ixzz11YDD1vr0

[Asher]

The article claims they usually had paid it, but were away and missed the payment this time.

Interesting how you ignore that part and fixate on others. While ignoring my question which destroys your logic.

[KrazyHorse]

Cash is tight for a LOT of people right now. $75/year for the off chance you need the fire department can easily be seen as something so unlikely, the money is best spent keeping food on the table.

LOL at the thought that 75$ a year is a lot to anybody with a job. What a ****ing joke. He decided to gamble and lost. He and his kids are safe. The loss they suffered was a direct result of their own ****ing stupidity (in two parts: not paying their bills and burning trash in some obviously retarded fashion). The loss was monetary, not personal.

If the city is going to start giving away free **** to those who are not their residents, I'd rather they start with actual poor people, say in the third world. **** this guy and **** his whiny-ass sense of entitlement. I just wish the firemen had laughed at him while they were there.

[Solomwi]

Cash is tight for a LOT of people right now. $75/year for the off chance you need the fire department can easily be seen as something so unlikely, the money is best spent keeping food on the table.

Of course it would've been better, especially in hindsight, for him to pay for the service. But he shouldn't be punished by having his pets killed and home destroyed for it.

I'm nearly 27 years old and I've never needed the fire department for anything. If I was completely broke and had to choose between feeding my family and paying $75 to a fire service, it's clear what I'd do.

So this guy's decision not to protect his possessions imposes an obligation on others to do it for him? And how exactly was he punished? He was simply not given a service he decided not to buy.

[Boris Godunov]

So the idea that they were deliberate free loaders seems to be undercut by that article, which says they usually did pay it. Even worse...

The bottom line here is that it is simply immoral if you have the means to put out a fire and save someone's home and pets to just sit by and do nothing. It is no different from an ER turning away people who can't pay or a policeman refusing to help someone being mugged because he knows that person didn't pay his taxes or something of that nature. The notion that fire protection is a mere service is appalling.

I'm glad all the firefighter brigades that came to NYC from around the country after 9/11 didn't have the attitude of this TN city. After all, NYers weren't paying them, either.

[Asher]

So this guy's decision not to protect his possessions imposes an obligation on others to do it for him? And how exactly was he punished? He was simply not given a service he decided not to buy.

From DinoDoc's own article, it's not that he decided not to do it. He usually did pay it. They were away and did not pay it on time, according to the article.

And I'm not at all surprised that an argument in favour of morality rather than strictly economics is a bizarre thing to Americans. This is the point I was making earlier.