• 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

#121
I think loss of life is one thing. Property is on a lower level in my book. To call the guys POS's is a little unfair since they weren't called to the scene until the fire had spread to the neighbor's home. It is possible that that there was not a house left to save. I imagine that "stealing" a fire truck and taking it out without authorization could result in some very serious penalties for the firefighters no matter the reason behind it.
 
#122
Big B. said:
I think loss of life is one thing. Property is on a lower level in my book. To call the guys POS's is a little unfair since they weren't called to the scene until the fire had spread to the neighbor's home. It is possible that that there was not a house left to save. I imagine that "stealing" a fire truck and taking it out without authorization could result in some very serious penalties for the firefighters no matter the reason behind it.
Click to expand...
to stand there and watch someone lose his home when you have the means to help definitely puts you in pos territory.....i doubt if too many real firemen would have done that....to allow these guys the same standing as the 911 responders is a slap in the face
 
#123
aborgman said:
Yes, stupid should hurt - but in proportion to the stupidity.

I mean "Tapout" shirts are stupid, but I wouldn't condone the death penalty for wearing one.
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't condone the death penalty either, but when you don't pay for a service for 18 years, then expect it to save your ass, that's when stupid should hurt, and hurt bad.
 
#124
The alternative to a voluntary $75 annual fire protection subscription would be what? Make it mandatory that every homeowner pay maybe $30–50 more per year in taxes for fire protection that they might not even use? Tyranny. ;)

If the homeowner wouldn't pay $75 before the fire, how likely would he be to pay a grand or more for the cost of the FD call after?

IMHO it's a stupid situation, but I'll bet the county supervisors get elected for having that policy.
 
#125
Jim Campbell said:
to stand there and watch someone lose his home when you have the means to help definitely puts you in pos territory.....i doubt if too many real firemen would have done that....to allow these guys the same standing as the 911 responders is a slap in the face
Click to expand...

What can they do when the fire has consumed most of the house before they arrive? Blame the regulations and decision makers that allow this to happen but I bet those guys have saved more people lives and homes than most of us will in our lives put together.
 
#126
Clark Dark said:
To the guy who posted "as a firefighter this makes me sick" (sic) you shouldn't compare those POS wreck chasers to professional firefighters. A professional firefighter wouldn't stand idly by and allow any loss of life or property...period
Click to expand...

Your blanket statement is incorrect if you listen to other professional firefighters being interviewed lately on several news stations. One of my best friends, an LA County Firefighter who works in a beach community said in comment "If you purposely don't chip in for dinner, don't show up late with plate."

Nobody can speak for anyone but themselves.
 
#127
Jim Campbell said:
to stand there and watch someone lose his home when you have the means to help definitely puts you in pos territory.....i doubt if too many real firemen would have done that....to allow these guys the same standing as the 911 responders is a slap in the face
Click to expand...

Emergency responders have to follow procedures too. And the responder has to think of themselves first before anyone else.
 
#130
I wouldn't risk my life to save some stranger's property and wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

It would be completely different if there were people inside. Firefighters care enough about helping people that they make it their careers and risk their life doing it. Asking them to run into a wall of fire, without any kind of compensation, to save some jerk's television and magazine collection is more than a little unfair.
 
#131
In Australia the service is provided for free, but then again in remote areas we have a "Country Fire Service" which is made up mostly of unpaid volunteers. We likely pay it in our rates somewhere too.

To be honest, its his own fault as other have already said. Personally if I had been on the phone that day at the fire station and got his call id have still gone out and helped him.

Then again, the bloke at the fire station was probably sick and tired of people berating him about extortion and "Why should they have to pay the fee", exactly like this guy did, and decided today he'd had enough and today somebody would learn their lesson. I'll bet hes gone out and helped people who 'forgot' to pay the fee on several occasions before.


The situation seems pretty clear cut to me; Pay the fee and your house is covered, he didn't pay the fee, therefore the fire service had no responsibility for putting out his house. We can quibble over the morals and such like all we want, and how the system is flawed, but at the end of the day his lack of forethought brought it on himself.

You know what they say; If you play with fire..
 
#132
sloasdaylight said:
By the way, the man didn't "forget" to pay the $75, he refused to pay it. I heard this on the radio yesterday and they played an interview with him where he said that he didn't pay the $75 cause he figured the fire department would put the fire out anyways, even if he didn't pay.
Click to expand...


And these people have a history of not paying. They also have a history of this very house having been caught on fire by their own stupidity. The last time, the fire department put it out anyway, even though they didn't pay. That fire was caused by failing to clean their chimney. The fire that just burned their house down was caused by burning garbage too close to the house.


Well, they gambled, they lost.



Maybe they should pass a law that states the fire department has to respond, but the non-paying homeowner is on the hook for the cost of the operation, not just the $75 it would have been before they set their house on fire.
 
#133
Floyd Eye said:
And these people have a history of not paying. They also have a history of this very house having been caught on fire by their own stupidity. The last time, the fire department put it out anyway, even though they didn't pay. That fire was caused by failing to clean their chimney. The fire that just burned their house down was caused by burning garbage too close to the house.


Well, they gambled, they lost.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, LOL! I completely forgot about that!

Simo98 said:
You know what they say; If you play with fire..
Click to expand...

exactly. wait, what? i don't get it :hiding:
 
#134
Its a sad story all around, and I would like the see the policy changed so that the fee is either a part of taxes, or you are still able to have your house fire put out without paying the fee, but are liable for the cost of the operation.

Sure, he said he would pay "Whatever is nessecary", but when they handed a bill over to him for several thousand dollars you can bet your booties there would be a similar story about "Fire Department Extortion" going around.


macaroni tony said:
exactly. wait, what? i don't get it :hiding:
Click to expand...

I think the saying goes something like; "If you play with fire, your going to lose all of your worldly possessions and beloved animals in a horrible and preventable fire".
 
#135
You see people around my area outside of city limits burning trash and debris under the canopy of trees sometimes, or in areas that are not cleared of other flammable objects well. Never do you see anyone within distance of the blaze keeping an eye on it either. I just don't get it.
 
#137
sloasdaylight said:
Frankly though, no one here knows how many potential warnings the man got to pay the fee, if he voted for the fee initially, if many residents in the area pay the fee, etc. All we're getting right now is a heartstring tugging style story from msnbc to stoke some controversy (yes, pun was intended).
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how many warnings he may have gotten to pay the fee. There is nothing the FD can say or do to make themselves right on not putting out a fire and watching the house burn to the ground. There should be certain services that ALL citizens get with no thought of a do not service list. This and law enforcement are 2 that instantly come to mind.
 
#138
cassanova said:
Doesn't matter how many warnings he may have gotten to pay the fee. There is nothing the FD can say or do to make themselves right on not putting out a fire and watching the house burn to the ground. There should be certain services that ALL citizens get with no thought of a do not service list. This and law enforcement are 2 that instantly come to mind.
Click to expand...

So, in your opinion, services that are not covered by taxpayers should just be free? Do you agree that if they had put the fire out they should be able to collect the cost of the operation from the homeowner or.......?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back