| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kulvar
   |
Posted - 2010.10.05 18:54:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Kulvar on 05/10/2010 18:56:06
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/10/firefighters-watch-home-burn-down-because-owner-hadnt-paid-75-city-fee/1
 Quote:
The mayor of South Fulton, Tenn., stands by his town's policy that led firefighters to watch from the sidelines while a man's county home burned to the ground because he hadn't paid the $75 fire protection fee, WPSD reports.
http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978573523
This article said this all happened despite the guy paying his taxes. Also, 3 dogs and 1 cat burned alive in the fire. It also mentioned that this has happened before with a barn full of horses on another property.
I am ashamed at what my country has become.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 18:57:00 -
[2]
Remember, this is the ideal outcome for the libertarian nutcases: if you don't pay for fire protection, the firefighters (who are a for-profit corporation) just sit and watch while your stuff burns down as a lesson to anyone else who might be tempted to refuse to pay.
And of course the same applies to every other service you're used to having. For example, I hope you don't need the police if you haven't paid for police services from a police corporation.
-----------
|
So Sensational
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:07:00 -
[3]
Edited by: So Sensational on 05/10/2010 19:11:44
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Remember, this is the ideal outcome for the libertarian nutcases: if you don't pay for fire protection, the firefighters (who are a for-profit corporation) just sit and watch while your stuff burns down as a lesson to anyone else who might be tempted to refuse to pay.
And of course the same applies to every other service you're used to having. For example, I hope you don't need the police if you haven't paid for police services from a police corporation.
Oh the horror of not getting something you haven't paid for. The ideal outcome for libertarian nutcases is having the idiot pay his fee so that the firefighters can save his house.
See, in the ideal world he would've paid for the service if he thought he needed it and no one would've forced him to pay a blanket tax for whatever the government and/or other people feel he needs.
As he offered to pay them however, it's an example of ******ed bureaucracy, quite the opposite of libertarianism.
|
Carine Parnasse
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:09:00 -
[4]
As I understand it, the fire department belonged to a city the man wasn't a resident of. His county had no FD, so the nearby city had to cover it, but needed to charge a fee as they have no legal authority to tax people from other districts.
Quote:
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
So you want the residents of another city to pay for your protection from thier taxes? Well, you have learned a valuble lesson.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:12:00 -
[5]
They do this with their healthcare, why get upset about the fire fighters?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Kulvar
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:21:00 -
[6]
Originally by: So Sensational
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Remember, this is the ideal outcome for the libertarian nutcases: if you don't pay for fire protection, the firefighters (who are a for-profit corporation) just sit and watch while your stuff burns down as a lesson to anyone else who might be tempted to refuse to pay.
And of course the same applies to every other service you're used to having. For example, I hope you don't need the police if you haven't paid for police services from a police corporation.
Oh the horror of not getting something you haven't paid for. The ideal outcome for libertarian nutcases is having the idiot pay his fee so that the firefighters can save his house.
But he did pay for it. This kind of thing is covered by the basic city tax that every other city goes by. It is down right appalling for any city to ask for more money on top of those taxes. If the current level of taxes doesn't cover it then raise taxes so it does.
Theres also the reckless endangerment issue here. Because the fire department refused to respond they let his neighbors property get damaged by the fire and it wasn't until that happened that they finally showed up. Only to watch the mans house burn down. What if this fire got out of control and set several acres of trees on fire? What would their excuse be if several other peoples homes caught fire because of the gross negligence on the fire fighters end? One fire department is not capable of dealing with a fire if it gets out of control. I guarantee you if this had happened in an urban settings the fire would have gotten out of control and taken several peoples homes.
|
Sier Donovan
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Malcanis
They do this with their healthcare, why get upset about the fire fighters?
Its generally acknowledged that most Americans do want some kind of universal health care. Unfortunately they're getting blackballed by their government. As I understand it this is happening because of the insurance industry lobbying and large scale corruption involving their politicians.
There is one small difference however from this firefighter business. Hospitals there are still legally required to do the absolute minimum to patch someone up. Then that person gets sent the bill after the fact. They don't let someone bleed to death on the street because they have no insurance. They just won't perform any operations that are not considered life saving and critical. They apparently have no problem leaving you a scarred limbless husk as long as you still have a pulse.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:32:00 -
[8]
Two very important things:
1) The firefighters were already there. The extra cost of trying to stop the fire is trivial. The only reason not to do so is if you are treating the fire department as a for-profit business (and want to teach a lesson to any future non-payers) instead of a government service.
2) Fire does not care whether you paid your taxes or not. By refusing to stop it at this one house, they put every other house in danger.
And fine, let's take this whole "only get what you pay for" thing to its logical conclusion: what if the owner of the house couldn't afford to pay? Should the firefighters refuse to help him? Should a doctor refuse to save his life because he can't afford to pay?
Once again, libertarianism works beautifully if you're already rich, and screws over anyone who is poor.
-----------
|
Barakkus
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:52:00 -
[9]
There was a couple in Indiana who was charged $50k for the fire department responding to a fire at their home, which burned down anyways....
...gotta love this country... 
Originally by: captain foivos
Who would recruit someone named Barakkus?
Wait a minute...
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:03:00 -
[10]
Reminds me of Jennifer Government, where you have to give your credit card number when calling for emergency services, or they won't dispatch an ambulance.
-----
|
alittlebirdy
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:09:00 -
[11]
Look where it happened, tenn.
Up here in NY, all you ever hear is towns under mutual aid to others, it is LOL that they would let the place burn over $75. Pretty sure if they would have billed the guy $75 he would have paied
|
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:36:00 -
[12]
To be honest these firefighters are a shame to the current status of the firefighting profession.
I know as it has to do with Paramedics you have a duty to act. If you see someone that needs medical assistance and someone knows that you avoided helping, you can be sued, and will more often then not, will lose a trial based on negligence.
I wonder what the reaction of those in charge would have been if they were told that there were humans stuck in the house.
Slade
:Signature Temporarily Disabled: |
Carine Parnasse
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: alittlebirdy
Up here in NY, all you ever hear is towns under mutual aid to others, it is LOL that they would let the place burn over $75. Pretty sure if they would have billed the guy $75 he would have paied
Not how insurance works. If you only had to pay the $75 when your house was on fire the fire department would have to run on a few thousand a year.
Quote:
2) Fire does not care whether you paid your taxes or not. By refusing to stop it at this one house, they put every other house in danger.
No they didn't. They stood there and watched, and when it got close to the border of his non cheap neighbour's property, they contained it.
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
1st Cavalry Division
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:48:00 -
[14]
Rand would be proud.
Since when have fire services not been funded by local taxes? Given that they aren't in this case, I can understand the actions of the firemen. But why the **** aren't they?
____________________
|
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 20:49:00 -
[15]
But intervening without getting paid for the service would be... so so...socialist! 
Delenda est achura. |
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 21:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Rand would be proud.
Since when have fire services not been funded by local taxes? Given that they aren't in this case, I can understand the actions of the firemen. But why the **** aren't they?
As someone that is associated with all branches of Emergency Response, in one form or another, there is no room for understanding the actions of these firefighters.
Slade
:Signature Temporarily Disabled: |
illford baker
STK Scientific
IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 21:20:00 -
[17]
still think that $75 fee is too expensive now? its like tax, but you have the option to not pay it and not get the service.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 21:37:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Carine Parnasse
Quote:
2) Fire does not care whether you paid your taxes or not. By refusing to stop it at this one house, they put every other house in danger.
No they didn't. They stood there and watched, and when it got close to the border of his non cheap neighbour's property, they contained it.
And what if they'd guessed wrong about how long they could let it burn before getting involved? What if the end result was the neighbor's house burning down as well?
The simple fact is it would have been a trivial amount of effort to put out the fire immediately, since they were already at the site and ready to do so. They took a ****ing stupid risk for the sole purpose of punishing the first homeowner for not paying his protection fee.
PS: I'm still waiting for the libertarian idiots to answer my simple question: if the first person had not paid the $75 because he was too poor to afford it, should the firefighters just allow his house to burn down?
-----------
|
Eran Laude
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 21:49:00 -
[19]
How the **** can you just sit by and watch as somebody's house burns down if you're a person trained to put out fires? If this happened in Britain (or indeed, most other jurisdictions in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan and anywhere else that doesn't espouse mentalist ultra-libertarianism) there would be a public inquest.
There are some things that the government should provide through taxes - functioning emergency services are indisputably one of them, available free at the point of "service" to save, protect and serve all. I wonder, would they have stood by and watched if he or someone else was inside the house? Knowing some libertarians, I'm scared as to what the answer to that might be . . .
-----
Originally by: "CCP Whisper"
Boo hoo. Cry some more.
|
Carine Parnasse
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 22:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
PS: I'm still waiting for the libertarian idiots to answer my simple question: if the first person had not paid the $75 because he was too poor to afford it, should the firefighters just allow his house to burn down?
I don't think anyone is in favour of it. It's just a bureaucratic piece of **** they have to work around, as the county in question isn't paying the city for the fire department. Hopefully the negative publicity from this will make the local politicians actually provide proper emergency services, of thier own or paying for the neighbour's through taxes.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 22:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: So Sensational
Edited by: So Sensational on 05/10/2010 19:11:44
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Remember, this is the ideal outcome for the libertarian nutcases: if you don't pay for fire protection, the firefighters (who are a for-profit corporation) just sit and watch while your stuff burns down as a lesson to anyone else who might be tempted to refuse to pay.
And of course the same applies to every other service you're used to having. For example, I hope you don't need the police if you haven't paid for police services from a police corporation.
Oh the horror of not getting something you haven't paid for. The ideal outcome for libertarian nutcases is having the idiot pay his fee so that the firefighters can save his house.
See, in the ideal world he would've paid for the service if he thought he needed it and no one would've forced him to pay a blanket tax for whatever the government and/or other people feel he needs.
As he offered to pay them however, it's an example of ******ed bureaucracy, quite the opposite of libertarianism.
Its an example of a ******ed system.
Tbh, I am not surprised. Goes to show how messed up US is becoming.
Goes to show what a "profit driven" flawed system does, and what happens when wackos are at the helm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 22:58:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 05/10/2010 22:59:08
The home owners offer to pay only once his house was on fire is WORTHLESS.
Its the same as insurence 10000 pay a modest rate, and maybe 10 actually collect. If you only pay when the house is on fire, the fee MUST be about $10,000
The alternative is to NOT have a Fire dept at all.
(there is no option for modest fees only at the last minute, at least not that would allow the Fire Dept to put gas in their trucks...)
If you can't understand the above, you are an idiot.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 23:00:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
If you can't understand the above, you are an idiot.
Or you just feel that the fire department is an essential service that should be provided to whoever needs it, not a for-profit business where the most important thing is to make as much money as possible.
-----------
|
Culmen
Caldari
Blood Phage Syndicate
Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 23:14:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Culmen on 05/10/2010 23:15:13
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
If you can't understand the above, you are an idiot.
Right, suppose three of your neighbor were morons and didn't pay.
I wish the fire department the best of luck putting out a three house fire storm before it get's to your house.
Or maybe they should feed the parasites and put out their fires even if they didn't pay.
So either somebody got a service the didn't pay for or somebody didn't get a service they paid for.
Precisely why you levy a tax and put out the fire before it spreads.
and further more why do i even need a sig? |
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 23:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 05/10/2010 22:59:08
The home owners offer to pay only once his house was on fire is WORTHLESS.
Its the same as insurence 10000 pay a modest rate, and maybe 10 actually collect. If you only pay when the house is on fire, the fee MUST be about $10,000
The alternative is to NOT have a Fire dept at all.
(there is no option for modest fees only at the last minute, at least not that would allow the Fire Dept to put gas in their trucks...)
If you can't understand the above, you are an idiot.
Then why the hell did they show up in the first place.
/facepalm
Slade
:Signature Temporarily Disabled: |
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 00:42:00 -
[26]
That's like trying to make an insurance claim when you don't have any insurance on your car... should've paid the fire protection fee. Once again someone has to learn the hard way, and once again the forum asshat has to 
Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist |
Kulvar
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 01:24:00 -
[27]
Update:
The son of the man who's house burned down punched out the fire chief. Fire chief sent to hospital.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/tenn-chief-attacked-over-house-allowed-burn?page=2
Also, the International Association of Fire Fighters condemn the actions of the fire fighters involved for letting this happen.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101005007213/en/Fire-Fighters-Condemn-South-Fulton%E2%80%99s-Decision-Home
|
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 01:38:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Kulvar
Update:
The son of the man who's house burned down punched out the fire chief. Fire chief sent to hospital.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/tenn-chief-attacked-over-house-allowed-burn?page=2
Also, the International Association of Fire Fighters condemn the actions of the fire fighters involved for letting this happen.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101005007213/en/Fire-Fighters-Condemn-South-Fulton%E2%80%99s-Decision-Home
Felonious aggravated assault in Tennessee carries a sentence of 2-12 years... also attacking the fire chief will make the DA pursue the greatest sentence.
Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist |
Wendat Huron
Stellar Solutions
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 01:40:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Intense Thinker
That's like trying to make an insurance claim when you don't have any insurance on your car... should've paid the fire protection fee. Once again someone has to learn the hard way, and once again the forum asshat has to
Not really the same, then you try to fraud someone after the fact when the damage is done, here some damage could've been prevented.
The message that the fire department would stand idle by and watch your home burn if you didn't pay could've been sent more subtle, I doubt it ever was.
Delenda est achura. |
Intense Thinker
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 01:59:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Wendat Huron
Originally by: Intense Thinker
That's like trying to make an insurance claim when you don't have any insurance on your car... should've paid the fire protection fee. Once again someone has to learn the hard way, and once again the forum asshat has to
Not really the same, then you try to fraud someone after the fact when the damage is done, here some damage could've been prevented.
The message that the fire department would stand idle by and watch your home burn if you didn't pay could've been sent more subtle, I doubt it ever was.
Originally by: OP article
Gene Cranick, owner of the now-gutted house in Obion County, says he called 911 and offered to pay whatever it would take to get the firefighters to act, but they said they wouldn't do anything, WPSD reports.
Like calling the insurance company after you've had the accident to get coverage for the accident
Signature locked for editing a moderator's warning. Zymurgist |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |