Firefighters watch home burn to ground...

[Rogue Leader]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Nothing anybody writes will ever explain away or validate not helping someone when you can. It's just morally wrong. Besides, Like I said in my earlier post. If they had a contract signed that said pay $75 a year or if you don't pay the yearly and do you have a fire, then you will be billed for the entire cost for any fire service needed. Seems pretty simple to me. Then we have no moral dilemmas and every one get's paid. Also they should set up some kind of fund to help low income folk out that just don't have $75 to spend.

I hate to tell you this but the firehouse doesn't run on hopes and dreams. Depending on the area that $75 x however many houses could be a large part of their budget. A part that if people know they don't have to pay will be gone. Then their house burns and they are billed say $20,000 for the fire service, and they have no money, they go bankrupt, etc. Then the fire dept gets nothing again. Or they get to sit there and hope someones place lights up.

As for your last part, if you don't have the $75 to spend you have bigger problems shouldn't own a home. Sorry but I don't agree with bailing people out, they need to be responsible.

[MSG']

i find this absolutely rediculous and the fact that you all are defending the system is even more laughable. Firefighters show up, put the fire out, this pisses me off so much, one of the FEW responsiblities that the government has is to protect its citizens/personal property when it is out of your control, earthquakes, tornado's, hurricanes, FIRE! Its a natural diasasiter (locally small one) These actions are criminal for the ones in charge making the decision, and criminal negligence on the firefighters part. (good simaritian laws) In the military if you follow an order that you feel in unlawful, you will be punished, i can site plenty of examples. The guy didn't pay, ok, put the fire out, charge him 5k after the fact. I used to be a volunteer firefighter, we goto a fire, we put it out, PERIOD. If any one of you who are saying, oh to-bad so-sad, thats what he gets blah blah blah, ROLE REVERSAL, you all would be doing the same thing this guy was doing...I agree with being personal responsiblity, more independance etc etc. BUT, fire/police/military protection is one big reason why we have a GOVERNMENT...sorry for the bad spelling and punctuation, but this article, wow very angry.

[CamaroSkooter]

I have a question. If a home owner pays the fee they are technically entering into a contract with the fire department for a service.

If you do not pay the fee, then there is no contract made.

Let's say the fire department responds to the scene for the sake of protecting the house next door (who did pay their fee). Now, let's say they take the man up on his offer that he'll pay "anything" for them to "save" his house. And let's say the fire department does put out the fire at this guy's house.

First off, since there is no contract between the man and the fire department, he is not legally obligated to pay them anything. These days, verbal agreement will typically not hold up.

Also, what's to stop the home owner once they've put out the fire from suing the fire department? They provided a service that he technically did not request (on paper). And I imagine there's a lawyer out there that will find some loophole and make the case that the majority of the losses his house sustained could have been prevented if the fire department had responded to his initial phone call and provided that service sooner.

I will freely admit, I'm no legal expert, but I've always understood that the "good samaritan" act only covers non-professionals from liability. An on-the-clock first responder can't jump in and help in this case without becoming legally liable.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I have a question. If a home owner pays the fee they are technically entering into a contract with the fire department for a service.

If you do not pay the fee, then there is no contract made.

Let's say the fire department responds to the scene for the sake of protecting the house next door (who did pay their fee). Now, let's say they take the man up on his offer that he'll pay "anything" for them to "save" his house. And let's say the fire department does put out the fire at this guy's house.

First off, since there is no contract between the man and the fire department, he is not legally obligated to pay them anything. These days, verbal agreement will typically not hold up.

Also, what's to stop the home owner once they've put out the fire from suing the fire department? They provided a service that he technically did not request (on paper). And I imagine there's a lawyer out there that will find some loophole and make the case that the majority of the losses his house sustained could have been prevented if the fire department had responded to his initial phone call and provided that service sooner.

I will freely admit, I'm no legal expert, but I've always understood that the "good samaritan" act only covers non-professionals from liability. An on-the-clock first responder can't jump in and help in this case without becoming legally liable.

I guess you didn't read my post. I explained how to avoid all of that.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by MSG'

i find this absolutely rediculous and the fact that you all are defending the system is even more laughable. Firefighters show up, put the fire out, this pisses me off so much, one of the FEW responsiblities that the government has is to protect its citizens/personal property when it is out of your control, earthquakes, tornado's, hurricanes, FIRE! Its a natural diasasiter (locally small one) These actions are criminal for the ones in charge making the decision, and criminal negligence on the firefighters part. (good simaritian laws) In the military if you follow an order that you feel in unlawful, you will be punished, i can site plenty of examples. The guy didn't pay, ok, put the fire out, charge him 5k after the fact. I used to be a volunteer firefighter, we goto a fire, we put it out, PERIOD. If any one of you who are saying, oh to-bad so-sad, thats what he gets blah blah blah, ROLE REVERSAL, you all would be doing the same thing this guy was doing...I agree with being personal responsiblity, more independance etc etc. BUT, fire/police/military protection is one big reason why we have a GOVERNMENT...sorry for the bad spelling and punctuation, but this article, wow very angry.

+ I am in full agreement with you, and it is really sad to me that many people on this forum agree with letting it burn. It makes me wonder if there is anybody left in this country with any commonsense and morals.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by Rogue Leader

I hate to tell you this but the firehouse doesn't run on hopes and dreams. Depending on the area that $75 x however many houses could be a large part of their budget. A part that if people know they don't have to pay will be gone. Then their house burns and they are billed say $20,000 for the fire service, and they have no money, they go bankrupt, etc. Then the fire dept gets nothing again. Or they get to sit there and hope someones place lights up.

As for your last part, if you don't have the $75 to spend you have bigger problems shouldn't own a home. Sorry but I don't agree with bailing people out, they need to be responsible.

Well then just let them all burn. At least I'm coming up with a suggestion that keeps the fire from getting out of control and spreading to someone's home or kills someone. That's why it's their moral duty to put it out and then worry about getting paid. It's no different than someone going to a hospital that doesn't have insurance in an emergency. They don't let them lay there and die.

I know if I would have been the guy next door who paid my $75 dollars and the fire spread to my house ,when they could have put it out before that happen, it would have cost the fire dept a lot more than $75 in law suits.
They just got lucky that it didn't. What about the next time?
This is an insane conversation with insane people. I'm done with it. Good bye.

[Rogue Leader]

First off everyone keeps citing "good Samaritan laws" those laws have NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. They relate to when a person is ill or in peril. If the guy or his family were trapped in the house then yes the firefighters would had to have gone in to save them. No one was in peril here everyone is out, the laws DO NOT apply.

And No MSG I wouldn't have done the some thing this guy was doing, I would have paid my damn fire department bill in the first place and not had this problem. Fire is NOT a natural disaster, its caused by man. I am a volunteer firefighter and we do put out every fire we are called to, but this is a COMPLETELY different type of fire district situation that you don't understand. This is the guys jobs and the sad part is thanks to the laws in this country if they did put the fire out they probably would have lost them. Sorry but to them (and to me) putting food on their table is more important than saving his.

[Rogue Leader]

Originally Posted by motorhead

Well then just let them all burn. At least I'm coming up with a suggestion that keeps the fire from getting out of control and spreading to someone's home or kills someone. That's why it's their moral duty to put it out and then worry about getting paid. It's no different than someone going to a hospital that doesn't have insurance in an emergency. They don't let them lay there and die.

I know if I would have been the guy next door who paid my $75 dollars and the fire spread to my house ,when they could have put it out before that happen, it would have cost the fire dept a lot more than $75 in law suits.
They just got lucky that it didn't. What about the next time?
This is an insane conversation with insane people. I'm done with it. Good bye.

They responded to the guys house next door and protected it, that was the whole issue here. That they were there and did nothing for his house.

You need to realize that a house burning is someones PROPERTY and if there is no LIFE HAZARD then all it is is PROPERTY and none of the laws duties or anything else everyones citing apply. If he really gave a shit about his property he should have paid the fee to begin with.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by CuteQueen

People need to have compassion! What if the family was going through a hard time and could not afford $75 dollars for the bill. Someone could have got hurt and now a family is without a home they should have take them up on their offer to pay the bill after

and what if he was living it up, thinking he didn't need to pay because he never thought a fire would start in his house? What if he blew his money on going out to eat all the time, hobbies, gambling, etc? Should we show compassion then?

[Jay_LHD3]

I believe most of us are sad that this happened to the guy, even if we feel that he dug his own hole on the matter. :(

There needs to be a way that ensures people do not forget. But I agree with Rogue, he probably got several notifications about paying his "fire protection" service plan, and at the time it was not at the top of his to-do list.

[MSG']

Rogue leader, i live in the county, i pay property taxes just like everyone else, I also goto the city and buy things, and pay sales taxes. guess what these taxes pay for these VITAL city services, If my yard was on fire, and I called the fire department and they A. didnt show up or B. showed up to protect my neighbors house, because i forgot to pay some extra fee, which is a bullshit fee in the first place, I would be going to jail on some kind of felony charges, and i am a upstanding, tax paying, never been in trouble, peaceful kind of guy...this is one of the main governments roles is to protect its citizens if they would have showed up when the yard was on fire, the house wouldnt have burned, whats to say it doesnt spread and burn down the neighborhood? if I was the neighbors I would be pissed as well....not to mention its morally WRONG, and if i was one of the firefighters on the scene i would have lost my job because i would have fought it by myself if need be...and yes there was a time when i knew how to operate the truck when i was a volunteer

[Scrappy Doo]

Originally Posted by motorhead

+ I am in full agreement with you, and it is really sad to me that many people on this forum agree with letting it burn. It makes me wonder if there is anybody left in this country with any commonsense and morals.

There certainly are. The people that paid their $75 have the commonsense. The guy that didn't does not.

[Scrappy Doo]

Originally Posted by MSG'

i find this absolutely rediculous and the fact that you all are defending the system is even more laughable. Firefighters show up, put the fire out, this pisses me off so much, one of the FEW responsiblities that the government has is to protect its citizens/personal property when it is out of your control, earthquakes, tornado's, hurricanes, FIRE! Its a natural diasasiter (locally small one) These actions are criminal for the ones in charge making the decision, and criminal negligence on the firefighters part. (good simaritian laws) In the military if you follow an order that you feel in unlawful, you will be punished, i can site plenty of examples. The guy didn't pay, ok, put the fire out, charge him 5k after the fact. I used to be a volunteer firefighter, we goto a fire, we put it out, PERIOD. If any one of you who are saying, oh to-bad so-sad, thats what he gets blah blah blah, ROLE REVERSAL, you all would be doing the same thing this guy was doing...I agree with being personal responsiblity, more independance etc etc. BUT, fire/police/military protection is one big reason why we have a GOVERNMENT...sorry for the bad spelling and punctuation, but this article, wow very angry.

If you read the story and the posts here, you will learn that the homeowner lives in an area with NO FIRE PROTECTION. The $75 gets you fire protection from a nearby city in another county. The homeowner didn't pay, but his neighbor did. The fire department responded to protect the neighbor's house who paid the fee.

So at least take the time to read the story and the posts before posting some rant on here.

[PYROLYSIS]

The department should have fought the fire and then sent them a $1,000 bill for their services. Depending on the fire conditions when they arrived, they could have tried and the house still could have been a total loss. People think they can pay a measly 75 bucks and the fire department will save their house. I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't. Nobody ever cares what shape their local fire department is in until their crap catches on fire.