Firefighters Let Mans Home Burn Over Unpaid $75 Fee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7r-V1id038"]YouTube - Bob Seger - Fire Down Below

fitting..

 

It's like I said: it's a sad world we live in. And you've just proven me right.

PAX

 

I guess not as original as once thought. Oh well.

I think the term still applies.

 

I Didn't Mean For You To Crash And Burn....Twas Only Intended To Be A

Mild "Hose Down"....



Cheers Glen.

 

It's very important to be right, isn't it?

Not everyone feels the same way you do about things, and why should they? They are not you.

 

No- it's not important to be right but what is important is that someone's house burnt to the ground because of someone's stupid policy. And what makes this world even sadder is when someone tries to argue the point by acting like a troll and calling someone a name.

PAX

 

the fire departments policy is wrong..they should have the option for homeowners to assume all costs and still get service

the homeowner is wrong too as he knowingly kept his cake ($75) and wanted to eat it too (take advantage of a paid service he chose not to pay for)

 

Let's say that this happened in a communist country instead of a capitalistic society or what if the fire department was run by the mob. Would we then think what they did was right?
Worse yet- what if the fire got out of control and not only did one house get burned down but ten or twenty? What if a square mile of houses got burned down and with a great loss of life? There are some services that should be provided without restrictions and the cost dealt with later.


PAX

 

if the guy chose to live in a communist location he'd have to follow whatever policies they had

if it had spread and killed people or burned other homes the guy who started the barrel fire and let it go out of control would probably be held liable for his negligence ...why should everyone else have to pay for this idiots stupidity?

 

In the olden days, when you had to pay monthly or something for the Fire Brigade - the fire truck would arrive, see that you haven't and then leave again, letting your house burn.

 

but now we live in the present where all the poor folk are mad at the rich folk and want everything for free ..some even feel its their right

peace love and cheeseburgers:eggnog:

 

:beatdeadhorse5: I will ask this one more time for the people who think the fire fighters should have put out the fire. Not that any one will reply but, say the fire department put out the fire. And lets say a fire fighter got badly injured or killed, their family would be screwed as the fire fighter was NOT supposed to be there in the first place. So is it fair for a firefighter to risk their lives for someones property, when if they are hurt or killed they are on their own because the property owner did not pay their bill.

 

I can't speak for anybody else, but the reason I didn't respond was because there was NO way that anyone fighting that fire could have been hurt unless by some chance they weren't trained properly. The only thing they would have to have done to put that fire out was to stand 30-40 ft away from it and put the firehose on it. And that's basically it.

PAX

 

It would be a tragedy if someone did get hurt assisting another in any situation.

I guess it falls under anyone who is hurt who does anything under the good Samaritan act.

Thankfully there are still many who just do and then worry about legalities after they are done helping someone.

 

they didnt "let" anything burn....they didnt "watch as it burned"....they did their job helping the homeowner who "invested" his $75 on a service he may never have required...and they ignored the fella who "gambled" to keep his $75 and lost the draw and now is crying about it

 

Where I work we can see a firehouse/station. ?But if we had a fire: this station couldnt respond to it,, Thats the Burroughs fire dept, and where I work is the city. Thats just the way it is..

It would take a few minutes more, but the borough is volunteer.. The city FF's live in the station.. The response time isnt all that different though..

the borough often uses our lots for parades when firetrucks are used..

 

In response to your question yellowcab, doesn't that really depend on the terms of the firefighter in question's health insurance?
Maybe the firefighter's fund (?) wouldn't pay, but what about the insurance he has for himself and family. Then what about life insurance, may not get the double indeminity, but I doubt it would be void because of such an incident, .

Again, this whole scenario strikes me as odd. Here in So. Cal, as I said, property and city business taxes fund the emergency services, so in essence every person pays for the service. Very often you see firefighters from neighboring cities responding if the city in which the fire is in services are overwhelmed. Hell when the brush fires hit each year, you get firefighters from all over the state and other states as well.
If I phone in a fire emergency, they send the closest station that can handle it regardless of what city the fire is in. Then the cities involved sort out the $$ later. Some stations are more suited to home fires and others to industrial fires, but the priority is always the same, protect life and property.

Not doing that is just fucking stupid beyond comprehension.

 

Canada regularly sends people and equipment (water bombers) down south to help our neighbors

 

I know, Thank you

Strange we haven't had any big fires yet this season.
Crazy when you live someplace that actually has a "fire" season

 

you know, i'm pretty sure that poor folk have been mad at rich folk for quite some time

otherwise we'd still be working 60 hours a week for the price of a rich man's dinner from the age of 10

funny, perhaps we haven't been mad enough, for apart from the age we start, not nearly enough has changed . . .