But the public reaction to that, once it was discovered that they didn't pay the fee, would have been much, much more muted than "they let the house burn down".
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
$75 or we'll let your house burn down
- Thread starter capnsandwich
- Start date
Look at the quote in my post where the guy says " They didn't hesitate to put it out before". Add that to the fact that he did an interview on Olberman's show and it isn't a far stretch to see where they're going with it. Just my opinion.
Maybe, but I doubt that the fire department would have recouped any of the money they charged them. We don't know if maybe that's their policy to begin with, and did it the first time to this family and didn't get a single red cent from them.
No, they didn't put it out for free. They allowed them to pay the fee a day later.
Yea I read that, but stating an objectiveish fact is far from bashing them or trying to make them out to be the bad guy in my opinion.
Yeah, they let him pay the $75, which I'm sure he did gratefully. How much do you think it cost the department in man hours, gas and whatever else was involved in containing the fire? That homeowner didn't pay for all that.
Right. Which is why they should've sued him this time.
OTOH, if he had paid the $75, that is all he would have paid (I assume, someone correct me if not), so I'm not sure I see your point.
Oh, I understand that much. I still don't like the system though. Just my opinion.
I think some one whose shown his level of judgement in the past is far from a calculating individual.
Well, the point is if they let the guy pay his fee after he pays the fire, they can't very well not extend the same courtesy to everyone else can they? So if no one pays unless they have a fire, don't you think they should actually pay what it costs instead of some rinky dink, BS $75 yearly fee. The whole reason the fee is so low is because EVERYBODY pays it, yet very few have to actually utilize the fire department's services.
It really isn't THAT hard to understand is it?
Calculating "After the fact" you mean.
Obviously the guy thought they would continue to put out his fires and allow him to pay the $75 after the fact. I'd say they set a precedent after they did it the first time. The homeowner took a calculated risk. He lost.
Well, we're seeing an increasing trend of people being charged for emergency services because of their stupidity or inaction. (I'm thinking of the balloon guy, and someone who ignored warnings and got stuck in the wilderness.) So there's some traction behind this idea. And I thought they paid the fee after the fact the first time.
Think of it like car insurance. If they decided not to carry it and then they wrecked their car, it would have been their own fault they were now utilizing public transportation. They gambled and lost. It's really that simple. Why do people automatically expect that other people should be responsible for their welfare?
Yes I do. But that has nothing to do with what I originally said about how these types of services should not be allowed to have a do not service list.
It's like being a cop to me. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you want to enforce. Fireman do not get to pick and choose which fires they get to put out. If you are the closest department then you respond and put it out period. That is your job. If they can service the neighbors house (which they did) then they certainly could've and should've doused the flames that destroyed this guys home.
