Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Firefighters show up, watch house burn to ground

profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

yea i fucked up the link i know, feel free to fix it.

I say the guy got what was coming to him. He took a risk by not paying the annual fee, and it backfired. (or should I say....burnt him?)
Oct 5 2010 12:53PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
im assuming he knew the risks, he took them, and he got what he paid for. nothing.

/karma drainz!


having not read anymore than the original article posted, i wonder if it was not sensationalized at all?
Oct 5 2010 3:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Deezy
Posts: 4580 - Karma: 1,004
.
Oct 5 2010 3:38PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
Seriously. If you don't think it would have been the more reasonable decision to put the damn fire out then bill the family 75 bucks, you have a lot of growing up to do, i dont give a shit how old you are. Save the house and then quibble over less than 100 bucks.

I think it's fucked up that a bystander didnt offer up 75 bucks to pay for the fee (if that is allowed, to pay on the spot.. probably not) and then they could pay him back and save a fucking house.

Are they dumb for not paying the fee? Yeah of course they are. But at some point you have to grow out of the tit for tat mentality and be the bigger man and save their fucking house. People are retarded sometimes
Oct 5 2010 3:43PM
0 0
profile picture
FUUUCK
Posts: 18426 - Karma: 4,888
Fucking socialists!
Oct 5 2010 3:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Dan.
Posts: 7201 - Karma: 1,126
in this situation, they are exactly the same as insurance. The residents of this neighboring town have the option of paying a fee to enact a Fire-Protection Service. if they opt-out, then they have no right to complain.

and Firefighters aren't there for profit, I never said that. but every non-profit has operating expenses, which in this case are gathered through the town's taxes, and the neighboring town's opt-in fire protection fees. if somebody doesn't pay the fees up front, they have no right to the services, and just like other forms of insurance, there ins't a "in retrospect" option.

Oct 5 2010 4:01PM
0 0
profile picture
BootySpunk.
Posts: 8148 - Karma: 84
Sounds fair to me.

Super fucked up on moral levels but...it is fair.
Oct 5 2010 4:07PM
0 0
profile picture
DockEllis
Posts: 1131 - Karma: 1,745
Maybe now the town will vote to raise their taxes a bit and implement a fire station, because voting that down was retarded to begin with
Oct 5 2010 4:11PM
0 0
profile picture
a_pla5tic_bag
Posts: 9210 - Karma: 5,357
save the house then evict them from it until hey pay. there you go.
Oct 5 2010 4:19PM
0 0
profile picture
MattWeiss
Posts: 1005 - Karma: 377
i dont think he can, unless its for property loss somehow...but i dont even see that happening since he was burning trash to start the fire, and since the fire fighters were from the neighboring city, its not their duty (according to the law) to put out that fire unless the homeowners payed the fee.  yes it sucks for them, but that the rules/laws, even though i see it as a moral contradiction
Oct 5 2010 4:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Black-Bandanna
Posts: 6680 - Karma: 1,602
It's pretty harsh, but it makes complete sense economically.
Oct 5 2010 4:20PM
0 0
profile picture
neutralzombie
Posts: 8629 - Karma: 606
there's something in some amendment about the right to a product or service, but i don't remember it. the 8th or 9th? i'm sure someone could probably clear that up for me.
Oct 5 2010 4:21PM
0 0
profile picture
Dustin.
Posts: 13839 - Karma: 7,704
I think they could have saved it and fined them.  That makes the most sense to me, and I'm sure the city has the muscle to pull a few hundo from someone who owes.
Oct 5 2010 4:22PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51293 - Karma: 157,938
I've agreed with you through this whole thread.

Major breakthrough? I think so.
Oct 5 2010 4:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Black-Bandanna
Posts: 6680 - Karma: 1,602
The service wasn't a public good. It was an excludable, non rival good. He didn't pay for it, so he wasn't entitled to it. Simple as that. Sure it sucks for him, but it was his own doing.
Oct 5 2010 4:26PM
0 0
profile picture
MattWeiss
Posts: 1005 - Karma: 377
yeah thats true, but no one was in immediate danger (if they were, that would have changed the rules so that they had to put it out to save the person), and it was outside of their "jurisdiction", it was offered as a service to those who paid the fee outside of that town, and they didnt pay. plus it was their own fault that they had a fire in the first place
Oct 5 2010 4:29PM
0 0
profile picture
ThaLetterM.
Posts: 8609 - Karma: 1,612
every single one of your posts is ridiculously condescending. Congratulations, you had a job when you were 15. No one gives a shit.
Oct 5 2010 4:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
EVERYTHING costs. I am not willing to pay for your cheap ass to be extinguished if you are not willing to pay for yourself or me in return.

How compassionate was it of the home owner to leave his neighbors out in the cold like that? for the program to work everyone has to pitch in, that's why it's $75 a year, not $50k a fire.

At some point compassion should outweigh SSS, $75 a year is a huge amount to overcome though and some people are scum-bags. and then their houses burn down.
Oct 5 2010 4:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Holte
Posts: 10730 - Karma: 7,744
The $75 dollar fire tax seems fine if that's the system that the people of Obion want to use. The obvious missing part of the system is an option for people like Mr. Cranick. Seems like there should be a clause that allows the fire department to respond to people who don't pay the $75, but fines them, say, $100,000 if their house is saved by the fire department.
Oct 5 2010 4:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
maybe we are turning over a new leaf.




Bottom line and my last post:

You help people in danger and worry about financial consequences later if you have the ability to do so. Have we become a society so vengeful and money grubbing that we would bring the equipment necessary to save someones home and possessions and then withhold this equipment despite their pleas for help because of a $75 fee? It is easy to say they should have paid their bill, but we all make mistakes and losing your home for not paying a $75 fee does not sound like the United States, at least the United States I want to live in. And how dare these firefighters even associate themselves with real heroes that put their lives on the line every day. In my eye they are pussy accountants more concerned with teaching a horrible lesson than protection the people.
Oct 5 2010 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
first paragraph is a faulty argument because they refused to put out the fire even when he offered as much as was needed, way above the $75. this is not a matter of other people paying for this guy-- if you were his neighbor you would still pay $75.


That is a terrible reversal of what was said. Once again, his NOT paying did not affect his neighbors, they still paid 75 bucks. Reversing it like you did and saying oh well he wasnt compassionate because he didnt pay it is not sound because the cost of a house (not to mention the danger of letting a fire burn) > $75, period, and the $75 didnt come out of his neighbors', or any person's, bank account.

this isnt to say what the firefighters did wasnt logical in terms of the rules. it's just that if you're willing to let a family's house burn down over $75, you're fucked
Oct 5 2010 4:53PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
and you're just as fucked if you choose to risk losing your house to a fire over paying $75 for a year of protection.
Oct 5 2010 4:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
So you live in a rural area with no fire protection, sounds dangerous, to help the people in danger the community works together to pay the co op (even if it costs $kkkkk's overall, worry about the financial consequences later, like you said, helping people in danger trumps all). From his offers to pay whatever it costs we can de ducebag he most certainly had the ability to help the people in danger. He did not help them.
Oct 5 2010 5:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Dan.
Posts: 7201 - Karma: 1,126
nobody was in danger. if somebody was in danger, the firefighters would have stepped in.
Oct 5 2010 5:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
Him NOT paying does effect them, they either pay a surplus or not enough, an audit would show that.

The cost of a house is more than $75! you got that one right timmy!

But the cost of bringing the fire department out there did come from his neighbors bank account, it did come from the people in the next town.
Oct 5 2010 5:08PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
right, like i said in my first (second?) post yeah obviously those people are idiots for not paying but at some points in life you need to not be petty and put people's welfare above a TINY amount of money, and one of those moments is when youre a firefighter and youre watching a family's house burn down, after youve already driven all the necessary equipment to the location.
Oct 5 2010 5:12PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51293 - Karma: 157,938
I hope so.

I just can't believe some people in this thread. Because the guy didn't pay the $75 they shouldn't have put the fire out logic.Yes it was dumb to not pay the 75 dollars, maybe he didn't have it, idk. He should have paid it. The fact that made multiple 911 and nobody came is outrageous. If you get hurt, they pick you up in the ambulance, bring you to the hospital, and then bill you. They don't let you die because you don't have health insurance. You can argue that there was nobody in the house, that's true. They could have just put the house out and fined him 5 grand or something. Letting a house burn for $75 bucks is just sick. That's some cold shit that you wouldn't really expect to see outside of the drug trade. The fact that he was offering them anything if they would just come and save the house is even more fucked up. Then they came to put out the neighbors field, and stood there and watched his house burn before leaving?



I don't care who you are, that's fucked up. The self righteous I'm a fire fighter posts in here or the ignorant kids. It doesn't matter. That argument is just fucked up. YEAH! Fuck having any compassion for other people. It's done the world great so far. Imagine losing $100k+ worth of a house and possessions in a fire and having the firefighters standing there watching it burn telling you "TOO BAD". The fact that it took 2 hours for the fire to reach and really start to engulf the house, they could have easily put it out.



It's fucked up. Anyone who thinks agrees with what went down has shit for a moral compass.
Oct 5 2010 5:13PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
the truck coming out had NO effect on the nieghbor's fee!! and they only came out because of the neighbor who HAD paid the fee. this is NOT affecting the neighbor's payments! you can NOT turn this around and whine that he's "endangering others" equally by not paying it, you simply can't, it just doesnt add up.

Oct 5 2010 5:14PM
0 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
oh and nice job conceding this argument like a total dick
Oct 5 2010 5:16PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51293 - Karma: 157,938
Also. If the firefighters had just shown up in the first place. The neighbors field wouldn't have caught fire. All that would be burned is probably the lawn and part of the dudes shed.

I'd be pissed if I were the neighbor or the guy who's house burned down. Some bullshit
Oct 5 2010 5:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarshred
Posts: 5670 - Karma: 18
Thats so fucked. Save the house worry about the rest later. If a cop sees you getting mugged and you have a warrant out, he's going to help you then arrest you, not just watch you get beat up and ignore it.

Why is the fee even optional? You wouldn't be denied service for not paying your taxes, its just if someone finds out that its an issue I.E. if the fire department SAVES your house then looks up to see weather you had payed.

Heafty fine, sure, why not, but this is fucked. We don't need any more homeless people in this country, really.
Oct 5 2010 5:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone was personally responsible. Imagine the extra stuff you could buy with the money left over from not paying for state sucking losers, hell I might even be able to upgrade my cable plan or lease a fancy new car so I can watch the same shows and drive the same cars the low lifes do with the money they saved by not paying for health insurance. "Life isn't all about money!" Imagine the extra time you can spend with your family, not at work because you're not screwed picking up the neighbors tab on the back end.
Oct 5 2010 5:21PM
0 0
profile picture
spkillah.
Posts: 350 - Karma: 13
why wouldn't you pay?

You and a lot of other people that are posting fail to realize that this small fee of 75 dollars is ridiculous and there's a reason why almost every other place doesn't have this fee. They are homeowners, they pay taxes from their checks to pay for these types of services. If they want another 75 bucks from every household, just raise the taxes if the firefighters budget is low. It's really a simple solution, but for a taxpayer to be charged an extra sum of money for something that their taxes should already be covering is ridiculous.

On another note, It was incredibly fucked up that the mayor allowed that house to burn down. It's fucking 75 dollars for christ sake and the homeowners in his area are the one's that made the fire department possible.
Oct 5 2010 5:23PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarshred
Posts: 5670 - Karma: 18
^I bet they have that fee because fucks like the person above you vote down anything that says "tax" but the department legitimately needed money.
Oct 5 2010 5:25PM
0 0
profile picture
spkillah.
Posts: 350 - Karma: 13
government funded projects like fire departments are supposed to be covered in the taxes that they pay, therefore an extra fee is prob. ridiculous to a lot of house owners after they lose so much money from their taxes to begin with. If you look almost anywhere else in the United States, no other places have an "extra" fee for fire control simply because they pay for it in their taxes. Tennessee is just an example of how southern states are fucked up

get educated
Oct 5 2010 5:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Muhammad
Posts: 420 - Karma: 23

+k for being right.

Oct 5 2010 5:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
in your words, "it doesn't add up"

The city assessed the fire departments operating costs over the area, divided what it would cost amongst the residents and charge them accordingly. If some people don't pay the fire department is operating in the red. The money coming in "doesn't add up".

Can you grasp that the $75 payments as a whole are what pays for the service not $75 per house fire? because not every house is going to catch on fire at once, and if they did $75per wouldn't cover it.
Oct 5 2010 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
i think you're misunderstanding...

they don't pay town taxes for fire dept or anything like that. So they aren't being charged 75 extra. It's just the 75 for fire coverage. Their taxes don't go to a fire dept because they choose not to have one. Which now that i think of it, you'd think they'd start a volunteer fire dept or something.
Oct 5 2010 5:28PM
0 0
profile picture
p.hawks
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
yes
around here its donation based, but ik that this wouldn't work in a lot of towns. its just separating the cost from the taxes. and I get that its not exactly ethical to let it burn, but there was a clear agreement which pretty much said you have to pay to get firefighting service. If you look at it, this is the same as pass insurance. Its $20 or $30 depending on where you ski, regardless of whether you use it. but if you lose it and didn't pay for insurance up front, you have to suffer the consequences
Oct 5 2010 5:31PM
0 0
profile picture
BMskier
Posts: 3363 - Karma: 365
i havnt ead any response just the article, but i know that a lot of rural firedepartments make you pay a fee. this makes complete sense and i actually dont feel sorry for the family that lost the house because they were actually given an option and declined.
Oct 5 2010 5:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarshred
Posts: 5670 - Karma: 18
Privatized fire departments are a terrible terrible idea.
I'm a libertarian, I don't like much government run shit, but firefighting, yes.
Oct 5 2010 5:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarcoma
Posts: 437 - Karma: 5

If the people thought that an extra fee for fire protection was ridiculous, they shouldn't have voted in lawmakers who would pass such a bill. 

And, who says taxes should cover firefighter fees?  No where in the constitution does it say firefighters' salaries have to be paid for by taxes.  Your argument is based on false premises and thus is invalid.  Please feel free to change your icon back to a sheep because you are one.

Oct 5 2010 5:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
this wasn't directed at me right?
Oct 5 2010 5:33PM
0 0
profile picture
TZP
Posts: 874 - Karma: 61
Had he been in danger, they wouldve saved him. Nobody was harmed. It's 100% this idiot's fault. He even said : "Even though i didnt pay i thought theyd come anyway". What kind of piece of shit freeloading asshole thinks that way ?

It's like when everybody working in a certain office chips in every week to buy lottery tickets. What if one of those tickets ended up winning them millions of dollars and the one asshole who never chipped in to buy tickets said he wanted in on the loot ? I can guarantee that he would get sweet fuckall and no one would feel bad for him. Same logic here.
Oct 5 2010 5:34PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
yes, privatized is a bad idea, but that wasn't the case here.

Why should someone who does not pay city taxes, and therefore contribute to the provision of services, be entitled to the service?

taxes are irrelevant here. Taxes are supposed to be spread for the benefit of everyone. That's all great, but this guy DID NOT PAY taxes for this service, thus he has no right to it.
Oct 5 2010 5:34PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
no sorry, a few people responded while i was typing, i directed that at nalgene. He makes a good argument for if the guy paid the taxes, but i was just pointing that out.
Oct 5 2010 5:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarshred
Posts: 5670 - Karma: 18
They should probably have some sort of county tax for it probably, or have some sort of fine set up for those that decide not to pay. Maybe a certain percent of the value of the home? I dunno, this is a very tough problem and this will be my last post on the subject since I don't live there.
Oct 5 2010 5:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Dan.
Posts: 7201 - Karma: 1,126
you aren't a libertarian if you're siding with the guy on this. siding with the guy is wanting a big, socialized government, the exact opposite of the libertarian stance.
Oct 5 2010 5:37PM
0 0
profile picture
spkillah.
Posts: 350 - Karma: 13
I actually do agree with your post in this thread. Just a little education on this statement that you may or may not already know. You're right, they're not going to let someone die on the streets of America simply because they don't have health insurance. The problem is at the price of health insurance in America is that a lot of people don't have the money to pay for it. Those people that don't have the money, are the one's that are getting picked up by the government and being treated at hospitals. The problem lies here, if people don't have money to pay for insurance in the first place, whose to say that they will ever have the money to pay back the thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt they are from the operation. This is why many a times, they simply treat the person and put it on the governments tab, thus the reason why health insurance is so steep to begin with. The people that pay for health insurance in America are covering the operations of many people on the streets that don't have the money to pay for it.
Oct 5 2010 5:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
fucks like me??? fuck you.

fucks like the home owner are the ones who get what they deserve, don't pay their share of the costs but expect their share of the benefits

Fucks like you are too stupid to realize welfare hurts everyone overall. We have insurance so life isn't such an up in the air gamble. Fucks like you steal one mans money (the honest man) and give it to another (the self-entitled lazy man).
Oct 5 2010 5:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
The citizens in the area, most likely the man who's house burned down, voted against it.

How about instead of a fine, those who chose not to pay are free to protect themselves from fire in anyway they see fit, be it a private service a home sprinkler system or no way at all if they prefer.
Oct 5 2010 5:43PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)