Firefighters let a home burn down because $75 fee wasn't paid!

Page 29 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Just on a human level the firefighters should have put the fucking house out. FFS, who can argue against that?
Do unto others and all that bullshit the bible belt likes to regurgitate. Walk the walk you stupid hick fucks.

ummm, they did...the neighboring homes.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Just on a human level the firefighters should have put the fucking house out. FFS, who can argue against that?
Do unto others and all that bullshit the bible belt likes to regurgitate. Walk the walk you stupid hick fucks.

They should take some responsibility for not paying for the fire protection. Your outrage should be directed at the county as a whole for failing to make this fee mandatory, not at the fire department for doing its job.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Just on a human level the firefighters should have put the fucking house out. FFS, who can argue against that?
Do unto others and all that bullshit the bible belt likes to regurgitate. Walk the walk you stupid hick fucks.

Why didn't you put it out?
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
11
81
Just on a human level the firefighters should have put the fucking house out. FFS, who can argue against that?
Do unto others and all that bullshit the bible belt likes to regurgitate. Walk the walk you stupid hick fucks.

Their union or insurance contracts might prevent them from acting on a property that's not covered. They're doing their job.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
That's not the way it works.

I can't opt out of taxes, and neither can you.

We both pay for this man's fire protection, like it or not.

-John

for the 800th time zork shows he has no idea how anything more complicated than a soda can works...
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Because the firefighters were hippy commie socialist muslim alien liberal senile xenophobic homophobic acrophobic taco-bell-phobic Whitney Houston loving scumbags that want to take our god-loving edjumacated American cowbell-wearing tea-bag lovin' pulled pork eatin' disco line dancers and subvert them into following Kim Jong LadenHussain Hitler!

That's why!!!!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
this thread is still going? why?

Because today the Tea Party County expanded the Pay to Spray policy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101020/us_time/08599202644500

Tennessee County Expands Its Divisive Subscription Fire Policy

Over the objections of firefighters and many residents, the Obion County commission voted 15 to 3 to expand subscription-based service throughout the county. Beginning July 2011, all [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]fire [COLOR=#366388 ! important]departments[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] in the area - including the five that have answered calls at no charge for the past three decades - will require residents to pay the annual fee.


The International Association of Fire Fighters has condemned the South Fulton Fire Department's inaction as "incredibly irresponsible." Pundits painted the family as victims of Tea Party politics or, alternately, as freeloaders.

At the conclusion of the meeting, many firefighters expressed disappointment but said they will abide by the commission's rules. "It's not the right thing to do," said Stan Mitchell, a [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]volunteer [COLOR=#366388 ! important]firefighter[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] with the Rives Fire Department. "But I've been doing this too long to quit."
"This ain't the way to fix it," Reavis concluded. "God save us all."
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
The only way to convince some people that it is not the right way is to, in this case literally, let 'em burn.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Yeah, this is how we treat the homeless, the bankrupt, and those whose house burns down.

The function of Government, and Government Services, is to help the people that need help.

It's not like we don't pay taxes to give the Government the resources to help people.

If you have a problem that this guy didn't pay his $75 extortion fee, take him to court.

But to let his house burn down is capricious and irresponsible. Not to mention, inhuman.

-John
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Yeah, this is how we treat the homeless, the bankrupt, and those whose house burns down.

The function of Government, and Government Services, is to help the people that need help.

It's not like we don't pay taxes to give the Government the resources to help people.

If you have a problem that this guy didn't pay his $75 extortion fee, take him to court.

But to let his house burn down is capricious and irresponsible. Not to mention, inhuman.

-John

Troll Post. Why do you hate America? The voters voted for these county officials who don't want Fire Protection. Now, go DIAF.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
I don't expect much from you, Caveman, and a post on topic, would be celebrated.

Attack away, caveman.

-John
 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
As a volunteer firefighter who has seen and fought fires raging out of control and burning down miles of houses and country at a time, this is simply insane to pick and choose who pays and who doesn't for a fire response. In a drought or high fire condition, letting one house burn down for not paying could endanger countless surrounding houses and properties needlessly and stupidly.

This also isn't about living in a city with a paid fire department versus living in a rural county with an all or part volunteer fire department. Rural counties are also usually partly funded by the state and county anyhow, and you can't just pick and choose the fires you want to respond to. That's leaving themselves open to liability and lawsuits for not performing up to federal or state fire department standards and could also result in punitive actions like them getting any future funds denied that are county, state or federal funded and also probably lead to them be decertified to fight fires at all, period.

Anyone working for a fire department that endorses a reckless policy of inaction and endangerment to life and property like this should do the morally right thing and immediately quit in protest.
 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
Heard about this on the radio. He should have "remembered" to pay his fire insurance. That's essentially what this is. It's not required, and it's a service provided by another city.

However, they should have the ability to provide some service at the actual cost. Like they said on the radio, if it cost a $1000 then send him a bill for $1000.

You can actually do this for ambulance, police and fire department services. But getting them to pay after the fact, is going to be hard, if not impossible. You can also bill insurance, if they have it, and occasionally get reimbursed. But most rural departments don't have the bookkeeping, manpower or funds available just to follow up repeatedly on all the calls they make to get them to pay.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
As a volunteer firefighter who has seen and fought fires raging out of control and burning down miles of houses and country at a time, this is simply insane to pick and choose who pays and who doesn't for a fire response. In a drought or high fire condition, letting one house burn down for not paying could endanger countless surrounding houses and properties needlessly and stupidly.

This also isn't about living in a city with a paid fire department versus living in a rural county with an all or part volunteer fire department. Rural counties are also usually partly funded by the state and county anyhow, and you can't just pick and choose the fires you want to respond to. That's leaving themselves open to liability and lawsuits for not performing up to federal or state fire department standards and could also result in punitive actions like them getting any future funds denied that are county, state or federal funded and also probably lead to them be decertified to fight fires at all, period.

Anyone working for a fire department that endorses a reckless policy of inaction and endangerment to life and property like this should do the morally right thing and immediately quit in protest.

So what you're advocating is that this city simply stop offering this service to anyone outside the city.

Good plan.
 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
This has happened a few times in other parts of the country as well.
Fucking morons...The city has no obligation to provide fire protection services outside the city limits, BUT they WILL, IF you're willing to pay an annual fee.

Don't pay the fee...don't call for help when you fuck up and burn your place to the ground.

This is not true in Texas, nearby cities here are OBLIGATED by LAW to respond if called to a rural or nearby city or area or risk losing their fire certification by the state, and fire fighting funds they might get from the county, state and federal. Now, if they are fighting a major fire in the city, and don't have the resources currently available to respond to a nearby rural area, that's tough luck I guess. But the city will also not want to risk endangering their cities and send all their units to respond to a fire outside the city, too. So any response a city might make to a rural area will be reduced. Also keep in mind, ambulance services are also usually tied to a fire department. Are they going to let people die just because they didn't pay $75???

And the fact they pay or don't pay in the rural area should not be an issue at all, since the funds the city gets to fight fires are not 100% city property tax generated anyhow. The larger the city fire department is, the higher the percentage of funds they are getting from county, state, and federal funds, too. Just guesstimating here, but a large fire department for a city might get 30-40% of it's funds from outside sources like those previously mentioned.
 
Last edited:

M0oG0oGaiPan

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2000
7,858
2
0
digitalgamedeals.com
What the city should do is have a team of guys that start fires and make people pay them a yearly fee otherwise they'll randomly come over one night and burn your house down. I think the guy could have also hired the mob. They offer fire protection services from what I hear.
 

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
So what you're advocating is that this city simply stop offering this service to anyone outside the city.

Good plan.

Reading comprehension is not your friend after a 6 or 12 pack? How did you get this from my post?

I was obviously referring as "themselves" to the city not responding or fighting the fire without being paid first. The point is, the city is ALREADY BEING PAID SOMETHING in county, state and federal funds to RESPOND AND FIGHT NEARBY FIRES. And failure to do so, and even WILLFULLY failing to do so, should cause their extra funding to DISAPPEAR and they should lose their state certification to fight fires.

Get it now?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.