Firefighters do nothing and let house burn down because family hadn't paid a fee

[Hobbs]

<snip>

Do something for me, will you? You're in the right city. There's a place I want you to visit. You won't talk to many people because, alas, their voices have been cut down. Ask yourself, however, this question. Did they perform their duties merely for money? Did they not give 100% because some people don't pay taxes? The duty of a public servant should never be to cause harm to the citizens he or she serves.

Let's think of a different scenario. Say a few businesses at the North Tower hadn't paid some fee or some such thing to the county. Would you be in support of the FDNY if they had done the same and stood at the base of 1 World Trade as it burned? If so, I can honestly say that is the most un-American sentiment I have ever heard...and I listen to Fox.

[Mytical]

I can anticipate the answer some will supply. "I wouldn't not pay the fees" missing the whole point completely.

The simple fact is, a public service..like firefighters should not only be available to the rich. I know, I know $75 is nothing! will be the battle cry. $75 is nothing to some, to others..it might as well be a million. So..now public services are only available to those who can afford them, heck with everybody else. I hope then that you never get to the point where you can't afford them.

This was a dick move by the city, not the firefighters. They were just following orders. "Hyuk, we done got no money, they not be rich. Hyuk, let em burn...hyuk hyuk." Like emergency room services, police and fire should NOT be only for those who can afford them..but be available to everybody. Same goes for justice, but we all know that isn't the case either.

Or why do rich/famous people get off a lot easier then anybody else? Hmm?

When we start charging for basic public services, we fail as a country. Human beings should be afforded basic services. Heck I pay taxes, all kinds of them..to the extent I get MAYBE half of what I earn..and then pay taxes on anything I buy with THAT. So I should be as miffed as anybody right? Only difference is, I know that if the situation was reversed I would want to be treated as a human being, not just a statistic.

[Bronzebow]

When we start charging for basic public services, we fail as a country. Human beings should be afforded basic services. Heck I pay taxes, all kinds of them..to the extent I get MAYBE half of what I earn..and then pay taxes on anything I buy with THAT. So I should be as miffed as anybody right? Only difference is, I know that if the situation was reversed I would want to be treated as a human being, not just a statistic.

We do charge for public services, though. That's the purpose of taxes. There's no such thing as a free service--you pay for everything you use. There's no other way to handle giving you whatever service in the first place.

That's the gist. This is a city FD with only the obligation to cover the city. They offer the county the option to pay what in all reality becomes a tax. If you don't pay your taxes, you don't get a service. It may sound cold, but what possible other option is there in this one situation that would not destroy the fire dept out of sheer lack of funding and spread? After reading more, I do have to change my stance that the volunteer firefighters did the right thing here; the county is what has failed its people.

Here's a thought example: If your house was broken into, would you call the security company that handles your neighbor's property and demand service?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'd say we have insufficient information about the financial and operating history of the county in question to say one way or the other if they're at fault for not having their own service. It's just as likely that they don't have the funding to provide that service even if they wanted to.

It's not as if the county government stopped this man from paying the fee, or is actively preventing such a service from being established as it has been established under this system. If the local population is happy with the fee system and doesn't want to pay the necessary governmental taxes it would take to create and maintain a fire department of their own, their government is not failing them by following their wishes and continuing with the fee system.

This system is perhaps the best compromise when it comes to providing services vs. imposing upon the people.

[lordlundar]

I really hate that the security company example keeps getting brought up, because there's a significant difference between an optional service and emergency response. A better example would be if the house was broken into and you phoned the police, only to be told "sorry, you didn't pay us, so you're on your own." How can you not call that extortion?

What if someone was in the house? The firefighters were not allowed to do anything because the owner didn't pay, so if someone was inside they would have to try to get out themselves, and failing that would die in the fire. That my friends is negligent homicide, a federal crime, and one that the excuse of "he didn't pay me" does not work against.

Now the fault primarily lies with the county, because it is part of their job to supply emergency services to all their residents without exception. That said, it no way excuses the firefighters on scene for refusing to do something because they weren't paid. Oh sure, they prevented the fire from spreading, but should there have been an explosion that they could have prevented? Someone minding their own business getting hit with a piece of shrapnel or hit with a burning ember causing third degree burns (hot embers can travel a very long distance even from a regular fire and are just as dangerous where they land as they are at the source)? Then what? Oh, we'll just blame the one that didn't pay. Umm no, that does not absolve them of the fact that they did nothing to prevent it. When nature adheres to man defined property lines, then you can talk about justifying their stand back attitude, but guess what? That is not going to happen. And even if they kept the fire contained in that area, they still put the public at risk by letting it burn and as such, failed in their job.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I really hate that the security company example keeps getting brought up, because there's a significant difference between an optional service and emergency response. A better example would be if the house was broken into and you phoned the police, only to be told "sorry, you didn't pay us, so you're on your own." How can you not call that extortion?

What you are ignoring is that we are talking about an optional service. The security company analogy stands because this service is secondary to immediate threat to life and limb. In essence the security company's job is to make their presence known to ward off criminals and/or repel those criminals if they come anyway to take your stuff. It's the same thing with fire protection (which is what we're dealing with) in that the firefighters function in this capacity is to keep fire away from your property and extinguish it in the event that it gets on your property anyway. In both cases this service is a luxury and secondary to imminent threat rescue services.

What if someone was in the house? The firefighters were not allowed to do anything because the owner didn't pay, so if someone was inside they would have to try to get out themselves, and failing that would die in the fire. That my friends is negligent homicide, a federal crime, and one that the excuse of "he didn't pay me" does not work against.

You are making multiple unfounded assumptions here. In this instance at hand there was no one in imminent danger even though the potential for someone to eventually be in imminent danger was there. There is no reason to believe that they would leave someone to die because they hadn't payed, this is not what happened. What would probably happen, since they are responsible for saving someone life if it's in imminent danger, is that they would make their way into the home, rescue the people, and THEN leave it to burn down.

Now the fault primarily lies with the county, because it is part of their job to supply emergency services to all their residents without exception. That said, it no way excuses the firefighters on scene for refusing to do something because they weren't paid. Oh sure, they prevented the fire from spreading, but should there have been an explosion that they could have prevented? Someone minding their own business getting hit with a piece of shrapnel or hit with a burning ember causing third degree burns (hot embers can travel a very long distance even from a regular fire and are just as dangerous where they land as they are at the source)? Then what? Oh, we'll just blame the one that didn't pay. Umm no, that does not absolve them of the fact that they did nothing to prevent it. When nature adheres to man defined property lines, then you can talk about justifying their stand back attitude, but guess what? That is not going to happen. And even if they kept the fire contained in that area, they still put the public at risk by letting it burn and as such, failed in their job.

Actually this is only part the county's job if the power-holders (see: voters) decide that it is. Your fallacious 'what if' scenarios do not have any bearing on what happened. They had no reason to believe that an explosion was possible and they were ready in the event that the fire spread for any reason. In the end, no one was hurt and even if the situation changed, they were ready to handle it if it did (which it did in fact do, so they handled it) thereby fulfilling their jobs as fire rescuers to all and fire protectors to those for whom they're responsible.

EDIT:

Do something for me, will you? You're in the right city. There's a place I want you to visit. You won't talk to many people because, alas, their voices have been cut down. Ask yourself, however, this question. Did they perform their duties merely for money? Did they not give 100% because some people don't pay taxes? The duty of a public servant should never be to cause harm to the citizens he or she serves.

Let's think of a different scenario. Say a few businesses at the North Tower hadn't paid some fee or some such thing to the county. Would you be in support of the FDNY if they had done the same and stood at the base of 1 World Trade as it burned? If so, I can honestly say that is the most un-American sentiment I have ever heard...and I listen to Fox.

This has got to be one of the most bullshit comparisons I've ever heard, and I've heard Glenn Beck utter entire five whole sentences.

The firefighters from South Fulton did not cause anyone any harm, they simply abstained from providing an unnecessary and unfunded service under orders from their department. The house did not contain anyone in danger of death, nor would it's combustion and collapse endanger anyone nearby (not anymore than to a very small extent, especially since they were right there to make sure that didn't happen. This was not a crisis of substantial proportions or a matter of national security where certain things are out in the wind until order is restored, this was one house, and nothing more.

Meanwhile, both trade centers did contain numerous people who would definitely die if not rescued because the towers were definitely going to collapse and when they did all these people would die along with the great majority of those who were buried by the resulting rubble and everyone effected by the ash and shock-wave of the collapse. In this way there were many, many people who were in imminent danger as opposed to the incident at hand's number of threatened lives of: 0. The rescue workers who responded to the WTC and Pentagon did so out of their obligation to save human life, not out of obligation to save people's stuff.

[AdminAssistant]

A house fire is an imminent danger....I really don't see how it could be seen as otherwise. There are all kinds of pressurized goodies in a house that can explode and aggravate a fire even further: water heaters and gas grills for example. Or cars that are parked nearby. As someone else mentioned, the debris and embers from a fire can start a brand new one some distance away. The smart thing would have been to extinguish the fire and then levy a hefty fine against the homeowner...hell, maybe give him a ticket for public endangerment! But they should have eliminated the threat to public safety. Because, believe it or not, even people out in the boondocks have the right to live in a safe environment.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

A house fire is an imminent danger....I really don't see how it could be seen as otherwise. There are all kinds of pressurized goodies in a house that can explode and aggravate a fire even further: water heaters and gas grills for example. Or cars that are parked nearby. As someone else mentioned, the debris and embers from a fire can start a brand new one some distance away. The smart thing would have been to extinguish the fire and then levy a hefty fine against the homeowner...hell, maybe give him a ticket for public endangerment! But they should have eliminated the threat to public safety. Because, believe it or not, even people out in the boondocks have the right to live in a safe environment.

Imminent danger does not mean "could lead to a thing that leads to a thing that you'd possibly need rescued from" it means "if something isn't done RIGHT NOW you will be hurt or killed.

Unless you have reason to believe that the firefights hadn't accounted for the existence of any explosive risks substantial enough to unduly exacerbate the situation, you cannot cite that as a reason why they should have intervened. There's also no reason to believe that they weren't observing the blaze and making sure that it wasn't putting up lit embers (not all fires do that) after all, they were obviously observing to see if it moved into their area of responsibility.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Do something for me, will you? You're in the right city. There's a place I want you to visit. You won't talk to many people because, alas, their voices have been cut down. Ask yourself, however, this question. Did they perform their duties merely for money? Did they not give 100% because some people don't pay taxes? The duty of a public servant should never be to cause harm to the citizens he or she serves.

Let's think of a different scenario. Say a few businesses at the North Tower hadn't paid some fee or some such thing to the county. Would you be in support of the FDNY if they had done the same and stood at the base of 1 World Trade as it burned? If so, I can honestly say that is the most un-American sentiment I have ever heard...and I listen to Fox.

The only way that analogy makes sense would be if Tower 1 had been completely empty at the time...but it wasn't. When lives are at stake, you do what you have to, payment be damned.

I want to bring up a point I saw on another discussion about this on a different site: Could the city in question not adopt a system which kept the $75 subscription cost but also allowed for an on the spot payment in case of emergency where said payment was substantially higher? (say $3000 or more) I'd be willing to bet most people would be willing to pony up the $75 than risk being out three grand or more.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I want to bring up a point I saw on another discussion about this on a different site: Could the city in question not adopt a system which kept the $75 subscription cost but also allowed for an on the spot payment in case of emergency where said payment was substantially higher? (say $3000 or more) I'd be willing to bet most people would be willing to pony up the $75 than risk being out three grand or more.

Might I posit that the number be calculated by the total input of all residents divided by the average yearly number of structure fires (or whatever type) in that county. In this way the person who has chosen to be outside the system essentially foots the bill that they truly would be foisting upon others, although there's a decent chance this number would be insanely high... but is that good or bad? hmmm...

I guess we'll just have to sit back and see what happens, there's a good amount of solid reasoning behind a number of courses of action and I could certainly understand if any one were chosen (including, none at all.) This being one of them. One can only hope that said decision actually get's some sort of coverage such that we can hear about it.

[lordlundar]

It's the same thing with fire protection (which is what we're dealing with) in that the firefighters function in this capacity is to keep fire away from your property and extinguish it in the event that it gets on your property anyway. In both cases this service is a luxury and secondary to imminent threat rescue services.

Bullshit. We are not talking about fire protection. That is stopping a fire from happening in the first place. We are talking about fire fighting. The fire is already happening, and it is not a matter of luxury that it be put out to prevent a threat to public safety.

You are making multiple unfounded assumptions here. In this instance at hand there was no one in imminent danger even though the potential for someone to eventually be in imminent danger was there. There is no reason to believe that they would leave someone to die because they hadn't payed, this is not what happened. What would probably happen, since they are responsible for saving someone life if it's in imminent danger, is that they would make their way into the home, rescue the people, and THEN leave it to burn down.

And your assumptions are based on what? That it already happened? Guess what? A firefighter doesn't get to wait for the incident to already occur. Furthermore, according to the mayor's office, if someone doesn't pay, they are out of luck. As far as this goes, because he didn't pay, the firefighters (and I cringe to even call them that) are out of their jurisdiction, so legally, they can let the people die. Of course, then comes the answer of conscience, but seeing as they were more than willing to say "screw it" in the first place, I doubt they'll have a problem.

Actually this is only part the county's job if the power-holders (see: voters) decide that it is.

Gee, I'm going to vote in someone so I can fend for myself! Great plan there! Tell me, why do I need them then? Add to the fact that your political system is so fucked up in the first place where all you can do is wait for the next election to turf them speaks volumes of just how much "power" the voters actually have. If their elected representatives cannot guarantee basic services (and there are alternatives than relying on an extortion service, as has already been mentioned), then they are useless and the county might as well be annexed by the city in that case.

Your fallacious 'what if' scenarios do not have any bearing on what happened. They had no reason to believe that an explosion was possible and they were ready in the event that the fire spread for any reason.

My 'what if scenarios have EVERY bearing on this, because that is exactly what a fire fighter has to consider before they even arrive on scene. And should they be wrong, they get to say "oops" and walk away without recourse? Peoples lives and safety should not be gambled, and certainly not because an extortion fee wasn't paid.

In the end, no one was hurt and even if the situation changed, they were ready to handle it if it did (which it did in fact do, so they handled it) thereby fulfilling their jobs as fire rescuers to all and fire protectors to those for whom they're responsible.

So they rolled the dice and got lucky. You seem to be of the assumption that this luck is consistent and no one will be injured due their negligence in the future (and no, using this as an example to blackmail people doesn't count) Guess what, the people are fallible, unexpected shit happens, and there's no guarantee that rolling the dice is going to have the same result.

Ultimately, the fire department should focus on saving lives and property from the destructive effects of a fire PERIOD. It should NOT be saving lives and property of people at the decision of some bureaucrat in an office a few miles away. In that regards, they failed and should never have the right to call themselves firefighters again. And while they might be able to rest easy in the claim that they were only following orders, the people in that county can no longer count on their help should someone not involved decide to change the rules, whether or not they paid.

[BlaqueKatt]

The county should start a volunteer fire department so that they wouldn't have to rely on the city service. That's what my hometown had (and all of the other towns around it).

yes because the equipment is totally free and wasn't paid for by taxes(the "fee" your referring to that people in your town didn't pay)

Hey a 20 year-old fire truck only runs $130,000

I mean, would a police officer allow someone to be shot or harmed because they haven't paid their income tax? No. They do their jobs.

um wrong-I've touched on this before
Warren v. District of Columbia

D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Ah yes I forgot to repeat that again. If exceptions are made it gives more homeowners an excuse not to pay the fee in the first place, leaving the fire department in the lurch and potentially leading to the rescinding of the agreement entirely.

That said I honestly don't know why everyone seems to be overlooking or ignoring the fact that the entire situation would not have occurred if the homeowner had just paid the fee in the first place.

also everyone is ignoring the fact that the man who had his house burn down is either an EW or an SC.

don't we all bitch about customers that think the rules don't apply to them?
Don't we bitch about those who think they should get extra stuff free?
Or the shoplifter that offers to pay rather than go to jail, after being caught stealing?

that is exactly what this guy did


More than likely if one of the firefighters were injured protecting material possessions-due to their being no contract in place quite probably the firefighter's injuries would not be covered.

Just the same as any of us getting injured at work "off the clock"

Oh and for the record-this is exactly how fire departments work in Alaska and have for years*-they will help if a person is trapped, but as soon as the person is safe, they stop-they will not risk their lives for property. Only one person has ever complained, and you guessed it it was a "the rules don't apply to me I won't pay, oh my house is burning-here let me pay now" In that case he was told no-he thought he should only have to pay the "yearly fee" of $150-needless to say he actually threw a toddler-esque temper tantrum because he didn't get what he thought he was entitled to.

That case it was explained that tieing the only emergency services crew up helping someone that didn't pay for it would put the people that had paid to be covered in danger. As the policy was started when they did have a "pay for the call" and they were at a fire for a "freeloader" and someone that paid for coverage died because they weren't available.

How would you feel if you paid the yearly fee and when your house caught fire with your family stuck inside you were told "sorry the Firemen are busy saving the property of the guy across town that never paid the fee?"

*it's impossible to get house insurance that covers fire damage unless you have a copy of the contract that states you are covered.

Kind of like the rich homeowners in Lake Delton, WI that voted against getting flood insurance renewed "because it was too expensive" then when they lost their houses to extensive flooding(as in the lake drained and houses were falling into the mississippi and wisconsin rivers) and their homeowners insurance wouldn't pay-they bitched that they should be able to buy the flood insurance now and have it cover what had already happened.

[Hobbs]

The firefighters from South Fulton did not cause anyone any harm

I've heard more of Beck, and this is even bigger bullshit. They let a family's HOUSE burn to the ground! How does that not cause harm?

I'm really wondering if you actually believe people should be left off to the wolves like this. I didn't think you were like that.

[draggar]

After all, the homeowner was given the option to protect himself, refused to pay for it, and then comes running afterwards expecting to be protected? I don't think so.

And the fire department didn't do their job in protecting the neighbor's house who DID pay for the protection. Now someone else might have lost their home (none of the stories mentioned the damage to the neighbor's home - but I'm sure it would be all over the news if it was a total loss, too).

What if there was a grass / forest fire in an unowned piece of land? Would they ignore it until it was burning people's homes who did pay the fee?

If the fire department wants $75 a year per home to cover their costs of covering the town then the town should levy a $75 tax on each homeowner and make them pay. This is a failure on many levels (and I don't think anyone here is backing the homeowner who didn't pay the fee), the homeowner, the fire department, and the town / county.

I would love to see if a similar situation went to the courts either here or in another place - what was the ruling (who was responsible?).

[Wingates_Hellsing]

And the fire department didn't do their job in protecting the neighbor's house who DID pay for the protection. Now someone else might have lost their home (none of the stories mentioned the damage to the neighbor's home - but I'm sure it would be all over the news if it was a total loss, too).

What if there was a grass / forest fire in an unowned piece of land? Would they ignore it until it was burning people's homes who did pay the fee?

If the fire department wants $75 a year per home to cover their costs of covering the town then the town should levy a $75 tax on each homeowner and make them pay. This is a failure on many levels (and I don't think anyone here is backing the homeowner who didn't pay the fee), the homeowner, the fire department, and the town / county.

I would love to see if a similar situation went to the courts either here or in another place - what was the ruling (who was responsible?).

All we know is that the fire spread to the neighbor's property, since this is a rural area we're talking about, it's basically guaranteed that their property line is a good distance from their actual house. If there had been any damage I would expect for there to be at least one picture of it or a few words describing it. In the lack of any such evidence we cannot conclude that their house or other possessions were damaged at all. Since this was as a result of the firefighters stepping in once the fire spread to the property (which would be true the moment they could start suppressing an area under their doctrine, which I've heard includes washing down the area just ahead so it doesn't actually light up) we CAN conclude that the firefighters did their job as does pertain to the neighbor. Simply put, we know they did their job, but we don't know if they were in any way unsuccessful.

In short, yes. Unless the federal government seized local resources and/or deployed their own for the sake of the land itself, any and all efforts would be to protect the land belonging to residents only.

If the constituents are unhappy with the current system and want a mandatory tax, than that is what they should have. If they would prefer to keep it the way it is, so that people who are (GASP) perfectly fine with the idea of looking out for themselves aren't strong-armed into paying for something they don't want, than that is what they should have. As yet, I haven't found any polling data on this, and I highly doubt it's out there.