Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTailgatingRules on October 06, 2010, 05:49:38 PM
-
I thought it might be interesting to get everyone's thoughts on this issue. Personally I land on the side of the fire dept. Dude did not pay his fees and thus gets no service.
VOTE AND COMMENT: IS BURNING HOME SIGN OF ‘TEA PARTY’ AMERICA?
Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:46pm by Jonathon M. Seidl Print »Email »
News of a home burning down in rural Obion County, Tennessee because the neighboring fire department refused assistance to the owners who hadn’t paid the $75 fee for the coverage, has spread like, well, wildfire.
The incident has caused a raging debate, and has even left one talking head warning this is an example of “Tea Party†America. (See the original story and video from the scene.)
So is this an apocalyptic glimpse into the future? Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it an example of ballooning budgets and taxes that can’t provide emergency services?
Let’s take a look, and then you‘ll get a chance to let us know what you think using The Blaze’s new voting feature.
Last week, Gene Cranick’s house caught on fire. He called 911 and asked for help, but firefighters from the neighboring town of South Fulton said they could not put it out because the Cranicks had not paid the $75 required fee for such service. When fire fighters did arrive, they still would not stop the blaze, but did step in to some degree when the fire began spreading to a neighboring house that had paid for the protection.
“Oy, this is bad for libertarians,†wrote Danial Foster on National Review’s blog “The Corner.†He added:
I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?
And then answers his own question:
The counterargument is, of course, that this kind of system only works if there are consequences for opting out. For the firefighters to have put out the blaze would have opened up a big moral hazard and generated a bunch of future free-riding — a lot like how the ban on denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, paired with penalties under the individual mandate that are lower than the going premiums, would lead to folks waiting until they got sick to buy insurance.
Remember the insurance analogy — we’ll come back to it.
Foster’s post started quite the debate at National Review headquarters. His colleagues weighed in.
Kevin Williamson gave a little more background on South Fulton’s policy and argued that the $75 fee is actually an example of expanded service:
Dan, you are 100 percent wrong.
The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.
NR’s Jonah Goldberg then advocated for a middle ground, and suggested that this may save more houses in the long run:
Why isn’t there a happy middle ground? You can pay 75 bucks upfront or, if you wait until your house is on fire, it will cost you, I dunno, $10,000? Lots of things work like this.
Here’s the more important part of the story, letting the house burn — while, I admit sad — will probably save more houses over the long haul. I know that if I opted out of the program before, I would be more likely to opt-in now.
Finally, NR’s John Derbishyre said the issue boils down to being “crunchy†or “soggyâ€:
I am entirely with the South Fulton fire department here. In the terms of Nico Colchester’s great 1996 essay, they are being crunchy rather than soggy:
“Crunchy systems are those in which small changes have big effects leaving those affected by them in no doubt whether they are up or down, rich or broke, winning or losing, dead or alive. . . . Sogginess is comfortable uncertainty. . . . The richer a society becomes, the soggier its systems get. Light-switches no longer turn on or off: they dim.â€
One of the duties of conservatives in this soggy fallen world is to stand up for crunchiness. For the fire department to have extinguished the Cranicks’ fire would have been soggy, even aside from the considerable degree of sogginess it would have left on the property.
But “crunchy†wouldn’t do for Keith Olbermann — it’s just too hard. When he got a hold of the story, he used it to warn the country that the incident is an example of Tea Party America:
Blogger Paul Hogarth agrees: “This story brings to light the horrific consequences of what would happen if we let basic government decisions be made by right-wing ideologues.â€
Joshua Holland at AlterNet puts it another way: “Call it Ayn Rand’s stark, anti-governmental dream come true.â€
The Guardian‘s Michael Tomasky won’t go that far — but almost: “I won’t quite go the full nine yards of saying that this is what life would be like in tea party America. Not quite. But I’ll go 4.5 yards for sure. Remember, this country (like pretty much all countries) used to have private fire departments. They didn’t work well.â€
That brings us back to the insurance analogy. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution‘s John Bookman agrees that the fire department’s action seem a little “callous.†To him, however, it’s not so much a picture of Tea Party America as it is of Obamacare America:
The situation is in many ways analogous to the health care debate, where folks skate without insurance until something goes wrong and they show up in an emergency room, where the law says they have to be treated.
Do we instead do what the South Fulton fire chief did, refusing available treatment to fellow human beings even in life-threatening situations, because they gambled and didn’t buy insurance?
Bookman eventually answers the question in the negative, suggesting an individual mandate for fire protection. That way, there can be no losers.
Mandate or not, Glenn Beck argues that one cannot base his conclusions on feelings alone. The reality is that if people are not willing to pay, but expect the fire department to fight their fires anyway, there eventually would be no fire department at all. “If [fire departments] did that, would anyone pay their $75 dollars?†If the fire department makes one exception here, then another, and yet another, where will the money come from?
So now it’s your turn. You’ve heard and read what others are saying, but what do you think? Besides commenting, there’s another way you can let us know. We’re using this story to introduce a new feature on The Blaze: voting.
Below is box that allows you to contribute to a poll. Simply click the circle that best describes your thoughts. After voting, add your comments explaining why.
Were the firefighters right to let the home burn?
Yes -- they were right to let the home burn
No -- they should have tried to save the home
Vote
View ResultsShare This
-
I didn't read the entire article.
But I think the fire department should definitely have a stipulation that if you don't pay, you will be billed an exorbitant fee for their service. Then, it will go to collections just like any other business.
What if a person died in the house?
Think of it this way. The fire department said that not paying $75 warranted allowing their house burn down. Therefore, the fire department thinks that a person's security and pretty much, their life is worth $75.
Who looks more ridiculous in this situation? I say the fire department.
-
Fuck these cocksuckers. If I lived in that area and worked in the same capacity that I do now, they would fucking HATE me. So would their wives and any other family members who sat behind the wheel of a car. Put all the money (or lack thereof) bullshit aside and let's look at this the way it should be viewed.
First Responders live by a code. It's not some fancy code written by a noble man in 1850. It's not even a paragraph or a sentence that must be stated while holding a hand on the bible. We're not talking about an Oath here, although I'm certain these cocksuckers did swear to an Oath at some point. No, I'm talking about the code of humanity. It's the code of helping others in time of need. To not respond because of jurisdiction is one thing. But to respond and watch these people lose their home and have their lives ruined while having the capability to help? That's the lowest form of disgrace possible.
I suppose if a member of their family was being robbed and a police officer from another agency just walked by because it wasn't his citizen, they'd demand to have someone fired.
Those sorry motherfuckers will get theirs before long. They don't deserve the responsibility of being paid to help others. You don't pull shit like that and continue on with life as though nothing happened. It may be on a cold plate, but it will damn well be served.
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/tennessee-familys-home-burns-ground-firefighters-stand-watch/story?id=11806407&page=1
Firefighters aren't afraid to break down windows and doors to douse flames, but a Tennessee family's failure to pay a $75 fee stopped firefighters dead in their tracks last week as a home burned to the ground.
South Fulton, Tenn., firefighters stood on the sidelines, watching as flames engulfed Gene Cranick's Obion County home. They refused to help because Cranick had not paid an annual "pay to spray" subscription fee.
"I just forgot to pay my $75," homeowner Gene Cranick said. "I did it last year, the year before. ... It slipped my mind."
Watch "World News with Diane Sawyer" for more on this story tonight on ABC.
The city of South Fulton charges that $75 fire protection fee to rural residents who live outside the city limits. When a household has not paid the fee, firefighters are required by law to not respond.
"We have to follow the rules and the ordinances set forth to us, and that's exactly what we do," said Jeff Vowell, South Fulton city manager.
In fact, in Cranick's case, officials said that fire trucks didn't even show up until a neighbor who did pay the subscription fee called 911 to protect his home from the growing fire.
It's infuriating to Cranick, who is now left to clean up the charred remains of decades' worth of family heirlooms and other belongings.
"My neighbor called [the fire department], saying whatever it takes, we want them to put it out, we'll pay $500," said Cranick. "They told us, 'It's too late.'"
Pay to Spray' Fees Common in Rural Areas
South Fulton has had the "pay to spray" policy in place for more than 20 years, and the fees -- which often cover police services, too -- are fairly common in rural areas. Without implementing complex tax arrangements to cover cash-strapped city budgets, there are simply few other options.
"If the city starts fighting fires in the homes of people outside the city who don't pay, why would anyone pay?" said Jacqueline Byers with the National Association of Counties.
Still, it was small comfort to the Cranick family. Gene Cranick's son, Tim Cranick, was reportedly so upset by the fire department's actions that he went to the station and assaulted the fire chief. The younger Cranick was arrested and released on $5,000 bond, charged with aggravated assault.
"I don't know that there is a good situation when things like this happen," said Vowell. "It's regrettable. Tough for everyone involved."
I would be ashamed if I were a citizen of that city. Absolutely ashamed.
-
Fuck these cocksuckers. If I lived in that area and worked in the same capacity that I do now, they would fucking HATE me. So would their wives and any other family members who sat behind the wheel of a car. Put all the money (or lack thereof) bullshit aside and let's look at this the way it should be viewed.
First Responders live by a code. It's not some fancy code written by a noble man in 1850. It's not even a paragraph or a sentence that must be stated while holding a hand on the bible. We're not talking about an Oath here, although I'm certain these cocksuckers did swear to an Oath at some point. No, I'm talking about the code of humanity. It's the code of helping others in time of need. To not respond because of jurisdiction is one thing. But to respond and watch these people lose their home and have their lives ruined while having the capability to help? That's the lowest form of disgrace possible.
I suppose if a member of their family was being robbed and a police officer from another agency just walked by because it wasn't his citizen, they'd demand to have someone fired.
Those sorry motherfuckers will get theirs before long. They don't deserve the responsibility of being paid to help others. You don't pull shit like that and continue on with life as though nothing happened. It may be on a cold plate, but it will damn well be served.
Agreed on all parts.
This amounts to nothing more than protection money.
There are plenty of things in this world that are legal to do that are not the right thing to do.
-
I can tell what would happen next if that was my house. The first responders would be at the chiefs house that made the order to not act. I would beat the dog shit out of that man and burn his f'n house down. I hope doesn't owe any gambling debts to his buddies because the way this town acts, his fucked.
-
What Token said. I read the article the other day and my jaw dropped. Yeah, I would have just started swinging right then and there.
Bill the guy for it later, big charge and go through all means to collect. But to watch his house burn? Fuck em'.
-
Just to play devil's advocate...
Like the author said - where do you draw the line? The man knew that he had to pay or he would not get service. He had paid it in the past. We routinely slam people on this board for getting off easy, for not reaping what they have sown, for not having to face the consequences of their actions. Is this not the same thing?
You drink and your liver fails. Should you get the organ transplant instead of the 18 year old honor student?
If I don't pay my homeowner's insurance, and my house burns down, I can't expect State Farm to let me retroactively pay that premium I chose not to pay. I think folks are letting the whole $75 thing get in the way - what if it had been $10K? The amount of money should not be an issue.
Token, I disagree with your analogy, since laws are there to protect everyone, and a policeman enforces the laws of his jurisdiction for everyone present in that jurisdiction. This fire fighting service is an OPTION that was generously extended at a reasonable cost to people who otherwise would not have had access at all. In this case, the family chose not to avail themselves of the service, with tragic consequences.
People make choices - and some of them have horrible consequences. That's life. I understand their anger but - actions have consequences.
-
What Token said. I read the article the other day and my jaw dropped. Yeah, I would have just started swinging right then and there.
Bill the guy for it later, big charge and go through all means to collect. But to watch his house burn? Fuck em'.
If you bill the guy later, but still respond to the call,why would anyone ever pay their fee up front? As far as the "what if someone was in the house" argument, the 911 call stated that there was no one in the house and the fire department stated that if there was indeed someone in danger they would have responded.
If the county residents are so concerned about pay to spray, why have they not started their own fire department? probably because it was just easier and probably cheaper to pay the $75/year for service.
It's kind of the same mentality of the pre-existing condition argument. If you can't be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions, why would you ever pay for it until you actually needed it?
-
You would pay the $75.00 fee up front to avoid the $1,500.00 fee after the fact. Or whatever fee is agreed to. You set it up as a contractual agreement. You pay your $75.00, we respond. You forget to pay your fee, we still respond but you now owe us $1,500.00 as agreed by contract...and we will sue you for it.
Simple. Not responding because they said there was no one in the home is utter bullshit. Fires don't spread to other homes, to other property? Could someone be killed trying to contain the fire? Could it spread to a propane tank and blow up the fucking neighborhood?
Well, it's all Carnick's fault because he forgot to pay his $75.00 fee.
-
You would pay the $75.00 fee up front to avoid the $1,500.00 fee after the fact. Or whatever fee is agreed to. You set it up as a contractual agreement. You pay your $75.00, we respond. You forget to pay your fee, we still respond but you now owe us $1,500.00 as agreed by contract...and we will sue you for it.
Simple. Not responding because they said there was no one in the home is utter bullshit. Fires don't spread to other homes, to other property? Could someone be killed trying to contain the fire? Could it spread to a propane tank and blow up the fucking neighborhood?
Well, it's all Carnick's fault because he forgot to pay his $75.00 fee.
That solution is fine for the future if that is the direction they want to go. However that is not the way it has worked for 20 years in this area. If this sparks a change, fine. As it stands now, the "contract" they have witht he city states that if you don't pay you get no service. It is known up front that this is the consequence. What if you sue the guy and he still doesn't pay?
These people choose to live an area that is not covered by a fire department of their own. They have 4 choices:
1. Pay a measly $75 a year for fire service
2. Move to the juristiction of the city fire department
3. Play Russian roulette with their property
4. Start up and pay for their own fricking fire department
-
That solution is fine for the future if that is the direction they want to go. However that is not the way it has worked for 20 years in this area. If this sparks a change, fine. As it stands now, the "contract" they have witht he city states that if you don't pay you get no service. It is known up front that this is the consequence. What if you sue the guy and he still doesn't pay?
These people choose to live an area that is not covered by a fire department of their own. They have 4 choices:
1. Pay a measly $75 a year for fire service
2. Move to the juristiction of the city fire department
3. Play Russian roulette with their property
4. Start up and pay for their own fricking fire department
This.
Call me cold or heartless if you must, but they didn't pay, so no service. The only thing I fault the Fire Dept for is responding in the first place. Should have got the call and said, sorry, but you don't have coverage.
I live in an area where we have a volunteer fire dept. A shitty one at that. They had a fire less than a mile from the dept two months ago an the house burned to the ground. Literally to the ground. I have met several of them and they dream of being real fire fighters. About the only thing they are capable of is spraying a little water and keeping it under control. They more than likely won't be able to salvage anything. One of the cons of living out in the county. That is why I pay insurance and why they took that into account when my policy was drawn up.
Let their insurance policy cover the damages and pay to have their home rebuilt. Sentimental items that were lost are just that, items. At least they will have a roof over their head once the insurance kicks in.
-
The fire department did not respond until the neighbor called. To not respond at all because this guy forgot to pay his $75.00 is luda-chris. A house fire is a major catastrophe and has the potential to do untold damage to other houses, property and life. Where was the gas line disaster a couple of weeks ago that blew up most of a neighborhood and killed a bunch of folks? Did the firemen know there was no danger of this or some other hazard? Hell no, they didn't respond. (Not until a good paying customer called when his house was threatened) Were they sure the wind couldn't blow burning debris to an adjacent field and start burning other property? Would they respond if that blowing debris started a California style wildfire?
Naaa...it's just someone's house burning down. Dude forgot to pay his $75.00 so fuck him. We'll wait until a paying customer calls or the fire spreads to something else.
-
The fire department did not respond until the neighbor called. To not respond at all because this guy forgot to pay his $75.00 is luda-chris. A house fire is a major catastrophe and has the potential to do untold damage to other houses, property and life. Where was the gas line disaster a couple of weeks ago that blew up most of a neighborhood and killed a bunch of folks? Did the firemen know there was no danger of this or some other hazard? Hell no, they didn't respond. (Not until a good paying customer called when his house was threatened) Were they sure the wind couldn't blow burning debris to an adjacent field and start burning other property? Would they respond if that blowing debris started a California style wildfire?
Naaa...it's just someone's house burning down. Dude forgot to pay his $75.00 so fuck him. We'll wait until a paying customer calls or the fire spreads to something else.
Snaggle,
Let's say you forgot to pay your car insurance for a year and had a major accident totalling your $50,000 car. Do you expect the insurance company to pay for your repairs? Let's say you payed insurance for the previous 20 years and just "forgot" it this year, does that make a difference?
What if they responded to this non paying residents fire out in the county and another fire breaks out 10 miles away at a paying customers house? Do they leave the scene and take care of the paying customer?
-
Not the same at all. The fact that this was put in the political forum and the reasoning used in some of the arguments smacks of trying to put this in the category of the sorry, irresponsible individual looking for a handout. I wasn't responsible for my own actions but who cares? I'm entitled. You should take care of me anyway. Sound familiar? That's not what we're talking about here, though.
I don't know a thing about Mr. Carnick except that his house burned down and he says he's paid his dues before but forgot to pay them this time. He may in fact be a sorry, low down, scumbag....god forbid and even worse...liberal. The analogy to paying an insurance claim doesn't fit because that's AFTER the fact. This is an EMERGENCY situation that no one seems to be grasping the potential enormity of. A house fire is not a bonfire with people sitting around with marshmallows. It's bad, bad shit and can cause untold collateral damage. I speak from experience after 15 years of claims handling including numerous total fire losses. I've seen a home go up in flames and subsequently spread to other homes and property. I've seen shit blow up and people get hurt.
This fire department knew a home was on fire and did nothing until a paying customer called. They were content to let whatever happens, happen. Another what if.....what if said neighbor wasn't home at the time and it did spread to his house. Think he'd be real happy with his fire department right now? In no way am I saying Mr. Carnick wasn't irresponsible. I'm not saying he deserves a handout or even sympathy for that matter. I'm saying the truly irresponsible parties in this matter were the fire department personnel who ignored what is always a potentially dangerous and catastrophic situation. Until a guy who paid his $75.00 clams called.
-
I think the FD should have responded, but forwarded the total bill to Mr. Carnick.
-
I think the FD should have responded, but forwarded the total bill to Mr. Carnick.
You could have saved me a lot of typing. Jump in there any time, dipwad.
-
Even if he is not a deadbeat with an entitlement mentality, if the Fire department responds to a non paying resident it sets a precedent that they will have to respond to all deadbeat, entitlement folks.
Unfortunately in this case actions have consequences. Like it or not if you don't make people deal with the consequences of their actions, their actions will never change.
-
Even if he is not a deadbeat with an entitlement mentality, if the Fire department responds to a non paying resident it sets a precedent that they will have to respond to all deadbeat, entitlement folks.
Unfortunately in this case actions have consequences. Like it or not if you don't make people deal with the consequences of their actions, their actions will never change.
That's the point of the above post from Jarhead. The man should pay. He should pay big time. I don't see it setting a precedent if residents know they can pay $75.00 now or get a bill and/or collections suit for $1,500.00 and legal fees after the FD responded to whatever the emergency was.
-
That's the point of the above post from Jarhead. The man should pay. He should pay big time. I don't see it setting a precedent if residents know they can pay $75.00 now or get a bill and/or collections suit for $1,500.00 and legal fees after the FD responded to whatever the emergency was.
Like I said earlier, that's cool if thats the deal they want to make with the county going forward. However in this case they had to play by the current rules and in that the fire department did nothing wrong. As per the current agreement the only one at fault here is the owner of the house that did not pay his fire fee.
-
Token, I disagree with your analogy, since laws are there to protect everyone, and a policeman enforces the laws of his jurisdiction for everyone present in that jurisdiction.
I.C.E. has a contract with my agency that requires my agency to transport prisoners in the state of Georgia. While on these transport details, I am driving in a government vehicle and am required to wear a badge and gun at all times. If my transport detail carries me into Toccoa Falls Georgia and I need fuel, I must stop at a gas station in that city and purchase fuel. If I need to use the restroom while at this gas station, I happen across a robbery, should get a good description of the robber and call 911? After all, I'm not in my jurisdiction.
Not only will I be called a coward and slammed on local and possible national outlets (as I should be), I've also brought a huge embarrassment on my agency and will most likely lead to the end of my career. I have a moral obligation to help that person in distress regardless of my jurisdiction. Not because they are a person being robbed, but because I'm on the scene of the crime with the tools needed to assist the victim.
You show me a police officer (on or off duty) who refuses to assist a citizen in trouble regardless of jurisdiction, and I'll show you a coward who lacks what it takes to protect the sheep. You show me a firefighter in the area of a burning house (WITH THE FUCKING FIRE TRUCK) who watches someone's life burn to the ground, and I'll show you someone who won't run into your house to save you or your family.
My issue isn't whether or not they should have responded. Their policy prohibits them from responding to houses outside of their jurisdiction who have not paid the fee. Fine. But to come the aid of the neighbor, and stand there while this family watches their house burn down? I have no respect for any fireman on that scene. The fact that none of them said "fuck the policy, we're already here so let's help the people" tells me all I need to know about those individuals, and their leaders. It's fucking WATER. What's it going to cost the department? $1000.00 at the most? They are willing to put their department in the line of National public scrutiny for a few hundred dollars?
This fire fighting service is an OPTION that was generously extended at a reasonable cost to people who otherwise would not have had access at all. In this case, the family chose not to avail themselves of the service, with tragic consequences.
People make choices - and some of them have horrible consequences. That's life. I understand their anger but - actions have consequences.
Again, my problem isn't with the policy. It's with these dicksuckers who's conscience allowed them to stand around and not help a citizen (WHO THEY COULD SEE NEEDED HELP). If their conscience allowed them to stand and watch a family while the house burned down with offering to help, what will their conscience allow them to do when a child is trapped upstairs? As a citizen of that city, I'd be very concerned with that fire crew and it's leadership.
-
Bunch of bleeding heart liberals ITT, token brings up somthing. I woudl help a child in any circumstance, ANY circumstance. Children don't know the difference and can't help it that their folks don't abide by the rules and pay the fee. but that would all that I would do.
Where is Tarheel and what is his opinon on this, I would be interested in heraing it?
-
He has been pretty tied up at work I think.
-
You could have saved me a lot of typing. Jump in there any time, dipwad.
He's not the best colorman in the league for nothing.
-
If you want to debate the HUMMANITY of it, that is one thing. Humans are ruled by their emotions. From a human point of view, no way could I have stood there and watched that house burn without helping. i cannot fathom why the firemen themselves would do that.
But if we are debating the unemotional basic circumstances, I still say that there have to be and should be consequences to people's choices and actions and inactions. This is an extreme case with a tragic outcome - but the underlying idea is the same. Until this country stops picking up the slack for people who CAN but DON'T, people will not be inclined to DO for themselves at all, knowing that Big Brother will take care of them, so why bother?
I guarantee you that there are a buncha folks in that county right now making sure their $75 is paid in full.
-
Wow..just wow. I hope I'm never in an emergency situation of any kind and have to rely on some of you. I'll probably be dead before you finish making sure I'm a good law abiding citizen who has handled all his responsibilities to your expectations.
-
Wow..just wow. I hope I'm never in an emergency situation of any kind and have to rely on some of you. I'll probably be dead before you finish making sure I'm a good law abiding citizen who has handled all his responsibilities to your expectations.
We'll ask your wife whether or not to save you.
-
We'll ask your wife whether or not to save you.
Shit, I'm toast.
-
poop, I'm toast.
Nah, CCTAU will come to your rescue.
-
Wow..just wow. I hope I'm never in an emergency situation of any kind and have to rely on some of you. I'll probably be dead before you finish making sure I'm a good law abiding citizen who has handled all his responsibilities to your expectations.
I would save you, baby... but you would pay. Oh, yes, you would pay...
-
I would save you, baby... but you would pay. Oh, yes, you would pay...
$75 bucks if I pay in advanced?
-
$75 bucks if I pay in advanced?
It would not be a cash transaction.
-
It would not be a cash transaction.
Help...Help....S.O.S......Heeeeeeelllp!!!!!!
-
It would not be a cash transaction.
But cash is untraceable, whereas caning marks are more so.
-
But cash is untraceable, whereas caning marks are more so.
I don't leave marks where anyone can see them...
-
If you want to debate the HUMMANITY of it, that is one thing. Humans are ruled by their emotions. From a human point of view, no way could I have stood there and watched that house burn without helping. i cannot fathom why the firemen themselves would do that.
But if we are debating the unemotional basic circumstances, I still say that there have to be and should be consequences to people's choices and actions and inactions. This is an extreme case with a tragic outcome - but the underlying idea is the same. Until this country stops picking up the slack for people who CAN but DON'T, people will not be inclined to DO for themselves at all, knowing that Big Brother will take care of them, so why bother?
I guarantee you that there are a buncha folks in that county right now making sure their $75 is paid in full.
We agree on the unemotional basic circumstances. And you'd have no complaint from me had the FD not responded to the call. I live just outside the city limits so I don't expect our city FD to respond to my house when it's burning. Instead, I'll get a group of neighbors who decided to volunteer their extra time to fight fires and help other people in need. Maybe that's something those citizens in that rural area should consider. Plenty of grant money available.
I still stand by my comments though. The FD was ALREADY there. The fact they could stand there and not break policy by putting some water on that fire says a lot about their character. I'm willing to bet that as much hell as we give people around here, very few of you would have stood there and watched that house burn. Instead, you would have said "fuck the policy" and started putting water on that house. All it takes is one to stand up. The rest would have followed.
-
And now I'm the asshole for assuming the 15 posts after the one I just quoted would still be on topic.
-
And now I'm the asshole for assuming the 15 posts after the one I just quoted would still be on topic.
That's fine - you and I can still debate. It's not our fault that the rest of the crew has ADD...
-
Bunch of bleeding heart liberals ITT, token brings up somthing. I woudl help a child in any circumstance, ANY circumstance. Children don't know the difference and can't help it that their folks don't abide by the rules and pay the fee. but that would all that I would do.
Where is Tarheel and what is his opinon on this, I would be interested in heraing it?
I heard that someone missed me.
This is truly a catastrophe for this family and I do hate it for them.
But all emotion, conjecture, and supposition aside, the City of South Fulton Fire Dept. offers their service as a Value-Added benefit to rural, county residents of Obion County for a fee. If you don't pay you don't get the service. It's noted in one of the articles that this has been common practice for 20 years and it has worked fine.
However, my understanding is that a rural neighbor to the Cranick's house did pay and the City FD showed up to put out the fire at their home; it stands to reason that while they were there I would think they would be obligated to put the entire fire out including the Cranick's house; this would have been the responsible thing to do. It follows that the Cranick's should have had to pay them for doing it.
To take it full-circle of course, actions have consequences; had they been responsible and paid the fee in the first place this mess would not have been a story for debate.
-
I guess hindsight is not always 20/20. Just something to consider...
What if a firefighter was hurt in the blaze after deciding to respond? Knowing that the no-pay-no-service rule was known by everyone beforehand, who would pay for the firefighter's medical bills and disability? The city/municipality insurance agreements may not cover injuries sustained in these circumstances. At least from my perspective, that's enough of a reason to let the house burn.
Of course, my thoughts are different if there's a chance that a person is requiring assistance in the burning home.
-
I read another article about this today - the homeowner actually said "I figured that if I called them, they would still come put out the fire, even if I had not paid the fee..."
Boom. He knew damn good and well. Emotion aside, he screwed up. Outside of an emergency room (and only there because the law requires them to provide care) I cannot think of a single service that someone will perform for free after the fact even though you chose not to be covered.
Home damaged in a tornado? Car damaged in a wreck? Can't retroactively pay insurance.
Air conditioner quits because you forgot to pay for preventive maintenance? Can't retroactively do maintenance.
Termites eat your home because you didn't pay for Terminex to maintain the bait system? Not their fault.
-
Not the same at all. The fact that this was put in the political forum and the reasoning used in some of the arguments smacks of trying to put this in the category of the sorry, irresponsible individual looking for a handout. I wasn't responsible for my own actions but who cares? I'm entitled. You should take care of me anyway. Sound familiar? That's not what we're talking about here, though.
It is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Katrina set the new standard. Somehow people feel that they can be less responsible and still get the benefits of those who are not less responsible. In life we make mistakes. Hopefully we can all keep those mistakes out of the "horrific" category. Mr Cranick did not. He gambled, he lost. Why is it society's place to take care of everyone. to each should come personal responsibility. This has been the left's mantra for years now. "Don't worry. We'll take care of you. We know you are too stupid and irresponsible to take care of yourself."
No personal responsibility creates a sorry society.
-
Nah, CCTAU will come to your rescue.
Is this another lawyer?
If so, why even bother to check if he is all the things mentioned. We know he's not just by association.
LET THE MAN BURN.
I would, however, save his wife. She probably feels the same as I do about him. :rofl:
-
Is this another lawyer?
If so, why even bother to check if he is all the things mentioned. We know he's not just by association.
LET THE MAN BURN.
I would, however, save his wife. She probably feels the same as I do about him. :rofl:
No, not a lawyer.
-
I guess hindsight is not always 20/20. Just something to consider...
What if a firefighter was hurt in the blaze after deciding to respond? Knowing that the no-pay-no-service rule was known by everyone beforehand, who would pay for the firefighter's medical bills and disability? The city/municipality insurance agreements may not cover injuries sustained in these circumstances. At least from my perspective, that's enough of a reason to let the house burn.
Of course, my thoughts are different if there's a chance that a person is requiring assistance in the burning home.
Well, again, this is good logic-based supposition and I'd agree with your reasoning completely.
But, I do have to point out that the leftist, hopey-changey, feelings and emotion-based media would spin this scenario in a totally different way: "The EVIL insurance company and the CORRUPT city officials (Republicans all) caused this poor, helpless family to loose their home by tying the hands of the heroic firefighters."
And this:
I read another article about this today - the homeowner actually said "I figured that if I called them, they would still come put out the fire, even if I had not paid the fee..."
Boom. He knew damn good and well.
...
coupled with this:
It is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Katrina set the new standard. Somehow people feel that they can be less responsible and still get the benefits of those who are not less responsible. In life we make mistakes. Hopefully we can all keep those mistakes out of the "horrific" category. Mr Cranick did not. He gambled, he lost. Why is it society's place to take care of everyone. to each should come personal responsibility. This has been the left's mantra for years now. "Don't worry. We'll take care of you. We know you are too stupid and irresponsible to take care of yourself."
No personal responsibility creates a sorry society.
Tells me that the issue of personal responsibility is exactly what we're talking about with all due respect to those who disagree.
-
One more thing to look at:
Dude lived in a Mobile home. By the time the fire dept would get there, the trailer would be a total loss anyways. They act like the fire dept could have saved the whole fucking thing, simply not true, but helps the liberal spin
-
One more thing to look at:
Dude lived in a Mobile home. By the time the fire dept would get there, the trailer would be a total loss anyways. They act like the fire dept could have saved the whole fucking thing, simply not true, but helps the liberal spin
Just happened to notice this thread......
Bottom line: it doesn't matter. I don't give a shit if it was a cardboard box. It was somebody's home, and it was important to somebody. We have had structures burn to the ground before that were obvious goners by the time they were called in, but you know what? The owners have always been extremely thankful for the effort we put in, and it eases their pain to see an effort put forth, even if they know it's a lost cause. There has been alot of debate about this on some of the fire boards, and I can't believe some of my fellow firemen actually agree with this bullshit. Ok, so they didn't pay the $75 yearly service fee. So you have something in place that says if we have to respond to you and you didn't pay, we're going to bill you $5,000 or some crazy shit like that. FEMA has a listing of hourly rates for fire trucks, personnel, equipment, etc that should be charged for use during hurricanes, natural disasters, etc. Bill them based on those rates. I've been in the fire service for 11 years, and I am an assistant chief in our town's volunteer department. This sort of thing just makes me fucking ill.
Not everybody likes cops. Most everybody loves firemen. They see us as the universal solution to whatever has fucked up their little world that particular day. That's what we are supposed to be. Those are your people, and you stood there and watched their home burn down. You are a piece of shit, and the people higher up that allowed this to happen are bigger pieces of shit. We are here FOR THE PEOPLE, above all. Your department is short on cash? Go out there and raise some money. Our department busts our asses year round and raises around $60,000 in extra funds each year. We're probably the best equipped volunteer department in the county because of it. If you need extra cash, go earn it. I guarantee you that department has just fucked themselves out of a bunch of money in the future.
-
One of your best there scissors.
-
It was somebody's home, and it was important to somebody.
Uhhh! Apparently not. It was not important enough to pay the $75 fire fee. So now I guess we should debate the meaning of important.
My family is very important to me. Therefore I pay the outrageous health insurance premium instead of buying a boat. That way if something along the lines of a medical emergency takes place, I do not waste time debating whether or not I am covered.
If something is truly important to you, you take the necessary steps to insure that the thing that is truly important to you is protected.
-
One of your best there scissors.
Shit like this gets me fired up man. Whatever happened to doing what's right, and helping people? What's so damn hard about being a decent human being? Everything is all about the money today. You didn't pay us $75? Well, we're going to let your house burn down. Granted, it was a goner when the fire started, but it's the principal of it. I bet you that sometime within the next 2 years, the unincorporated area around that municipality WILL have it's own volunteer fire department, though. But then again, part of the problem with the volunteer fire service over the past 5 years is everybody wants something. People just don't volunteer for things anymore. It takes something like this for people to want to get off of their asses and contribute something to their community. And still even then, they're doing it for themselves. Then they want you to kiss their ass for doing it. The way I see it is service is the "rent" we pay to take up space on God's green Earth.
For the most part, the ones that are volunteering nowadays are the ones who are doing it so they can have all kinds of gay firefighter stickers on their pickups, and want the novelty of being known as a firefighter. The percentage of people who will actually risk their life to help or save another is incredibly slim; the percentage of those who talk alot and say they would is incredibly high. Kids are just different nowadays. What's sad is I'm only 27, and things have changed that much from when I was a kid. It has to just about kill these guys in the service that are older than me and been there longer. Probably every 3-5 years we run across one guy who is very solid and you can see him in an officers position in the future.
-
Uhhh! Apparently not. It was not important enough to pay the $75 fire fee. So now I guess we should debate the meaning of important.
My family is very important to me. Therefore I pay the outrageous health insurance premium instead of buying a boat. That way if something along the lines of a medical emergency takes place, I do not waste time debating whether or not I am covered.
If something is truly important to you, you take the necessary steps to insure that the thing that is truly important to you is protected.
Have you ever forgot to pay a bill? Maybe a few days late on a bill? Maybe you forgot to renew your tag or drivers license on time. Maybe you forgot a birthday or anniversary. It doesn't make it any less important.
Should the guy have made sure the $75 was paid beforehand? Sure. As a fire officer, am I going to stand by idle as somebody's home burns to the ground over $75. No. As a policy maker, am I going to make a policy that would allow this situation to occur? No.
-
Siccors, I get what you are saying. I honestly do. But you have to remember this...
the homeowner actually said "I figured that if I called them, they would still come put out the fire, even if I had not paid the fee..."
The point I think that everyone is trying to make is that he knowingly didn't pay the fee b/c he thought they would take care of it anyways and it bit him in the ass.
Yes, I have forgot to pay a bill, I came home form work one day a few years ago and there was no water. Then I looked at the mail basket and realized that I had forgot to pay the last months water bill. Was it important, yes, did I forget, yes. This guy didn't forget, he just refused to pay. I had to pay the last months bill, plus a $40 reconnect fee. In other words, I paid them $40 to take a lock off the meter and turn the valve back on. All I am saying is that this guy has admitted that he didn't pay, not that he forgot, but that he thought they would come out anyways even though he didn't pay the fee.
-
And if the dude ain't gonna pay $75.00 what the hell makes you think he'd pay $5000.00?????
-
RWS, the "right" thing happened when the municipality that was really nowhere close to this little unincorporated area generously and graciously OFFERED to extend service to these people in the first place, with a NOMINAL fee for doing so. They did not have to do that. They made him an offer he chose not to accept. He got burned (pun intended) - his mistake.
I get where you are coming from with the humanity of it all. But there are too damn many people in this country who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions!! Too many people who want someone else to step in out of the goodness of their hearts and fix the fuck-ups of others!! At some point, we will become a nation of nothing but freeloaders, unless something changes. This was a teaching moment for a lot of people - I am glad it got national press. And I would make a donation to the fire department for sticking to their guns.
-
RWS, the "right" thing happened when the municipality that was really nowhere close to this little unincorporated area generously and graciously OFFERED to extend service to these people in the first place, with a NOMINAL fee for doing so. They did not have to do that. They made him an offer he chose not to accept. He got burned (pun intended) - his mistake.
I get where you are coming from with the humanity of it all. But there are too damn many people in this country who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions!! Too many people who want someone else to step in out of the goodness of their hearts and fix the fuck-ups of others!! At some point, we will become a nation of nothing but freeloaders, unless something changes. This was a teaching moment for a lot of people - I am glad it got national press. And I would make a donation to the fire department for sticking to their guns.
Fire departments provide mutual aid to other municipalities and unincorporated areas free of charge every day across this country. There is an unincorporated area adjacent to our jurisdiction that over 75% of the time their fire department can't respond to calls in their own area, and we provide fire protection for them, and we don't charge them a dime to do it. When we have a structure fire, 3 other fire departments are paged out along with us for automatic aid. If any of those departments have a structure fire, we go to them. Hell, when we had a 7,800 gallon tanker years ago, a county in Florida requested us for a huge woods fire. The way we see it, we all get county taxpayer money to fund our departments. I guaran-fucking-tee you that the department that stood by while that home burned down runs some sort of mutual aid to another town or municipality, and doesn't charge a dime for it.
My point is, this goes all the way to the top. Sure, the guy that didn't pay the $75 bears some of the blame in this. The fact that the county had not stepped in long before this and either established a fire department, or entered into contract with this municipality that was providing the service, is mind boggling. People are stupid, and it is the job of those in power to save people from their own stupidity. The county should have stepped in long ago and not rely on these people to pay a fee. In a world where we are arguing about health care and other things, I know that isn't a popular notion and may sound utterly stupid to some of you. I just feel that everybody deserves the right to free emergency services such as police and fire protection. For the most part, everybody does have access to free police protection. Not so much with fire.
I understand your argument that we're a nation of people who want everybody else to fix our fuckups, and that's true. In general, I don't agree with it either. But you have to understand what we do, and the logic. In essence, we are responding to somebody else's fuckup. We are always responding to somebody else's mistake. We are expected to fix it, and we accept that notion by being in that particular line of service. We understand what we're getting into when we get in. It's just what we do.
-
Here's what the city fire department should do.
Starting January 1, 2010 they should no longer provide service for a fee to the unincorporated county. Let the county figure out a way to provide their own fire service. I'm betting it will cost each resident much more than $75
-
Here's what the city fire department should do.
Starting January 1, 2010 they should no longer provide service for a fee to the unincorporated county. Let the county figure out a way to provide their own fire service. I'm betting it will cost each resident much more than $75
No it won't. It may cost a few of them some hours, but they can most definitely get federal grant money to start a volunteer department. In the end, they'll be better for it. So will the community.
-
People are stupid, and it is the job of those in power to save people from their own stupidity. The county should have stepped in long ago and not rely on these people to pay a fee.
Since when is it ANYBODY's job to "Save people" from their own stupidity.
Govt can't control everything.
-
People are stupid, and it is the job of those in power to save people from their own stupidity. The county should have stepped in long ago and not rely on these people to pay a fee.
Since when is it ANYBODY's job to "Save people" from their own stupidity.
Govt can't control everything.
When it comes to police and fire, our job is to proactively protect. It is our job to save people from their own stupidity. Like I said, I know that's not a popular idea in this day and age, but it really is the truth.
-
When it comes to police and fire, our job is to proactively protect. It is our job to save people from their own stupidity. Like I said, I know that's not a popular idea in this day and age, but it really is the truth.
Vote dimocrat much??????
-
Vote dimocrat much??????
Never have, never will.
-
When it comes to police and fire, our job is to proactively protect. It is our job to save people from their own stupidity. Like I said, I know that's not a popular idea in this day and age, but it really is the truth.
No, it’s your truth. Mine is that I am responsible for my own actions.
I don’t pay the $75.00 Fire fee and I catch my house on fire. MY FAULT.
Where I live (like most places) I have to pay a fee for the popo to answer my security alarm. No pay, they ain’t gonna show up.
Based on your belief they should show up anyway.
-
No, it’s your truth. Mine is that I am responsible for my own actions.
I don’t pay the $75.00 Fire fee and I catch my house on fire. MY FAULT.
Where I live (like most places) I have to pay a fee for the popo to answer my security alarm. No pay, they ain’t gonna show up.
Based on your belief they should show up anyway.
They should, but if your alarm routinely malfunctions and brings them out for false alarms, then you should pay for that. The way ours works is you get to have 3 false alarms in one month. The 4th one, you get a $35 charge.
-
No, it’s your truth. Mine is that I am responsible for my own actions.
I don’t pay the $75.00 Fire fee and I catch my house on fire. MY FAULT.
Where I live (like most places) I have to pay a fee for the popo to answer my security alarm. No pay, they ain’t gonna show up.
Based on your belief they should show up anyway.
Straw fucking man.
A security alarm is the ONLY reason the popo would charge you for their assistance. If you dialed 911 because someone was trying to break into your house, the popo would likely drive 150 mph to your residence and be severely pissed if there wasn't an ass to whip when they arrived.
Since when is it ANYBODY's job to "Save people" from their own stupidity
Holy shit. Are you serious? Who do you think emergency organizations spend 90% of their time dealing with? Cut your finger off with a skill saw? Call the ambulance. Catch the woods on fire while burning a pile of leaves when it hasn't rained in 78 days? Call the fire department. That's how the it works.
-
Vote dimocrat much??????
I don't see where that has anything to do with the position he has taken. I agree with him BTW. Guess that makes me a democrat now. :rolleyes:
-
...
Govt can't control everything.
I think that The ONE, Pelosi, and Reid would disagree with you on that point.
-
Straw fucking man.
A security alarm is the ONLY reason the popo would charge you for their assistance. If you dialed 911 because someone was trying to break into your house, the popo would likely drive 150 mph to your residence and be severely pissed if there wasn't an ass to whip when they arrived.
Holy shit. Are you serious? Who do you think emergency organizations spend 90% of their time dealing with? Cut your finger off with a skill saw? Call the ambulance. Catch the woods on fire while burning a pile of leaves when it hasn't rained in 78 days? Call the fire department. That's how the it works.
^^ THIS x100.
Emergency organizations exist to fix your fuckups and protect you no matter how stupid you are. We wager on the side of knowing somebody, somewhere, is going to do something stupid. I understand the argument that people should exercise common sense. And dallaswareagle, I understand that you just can't see how this is my truth and not reality to the rest of the world. But, it really is the reality of anybody that works in any line of emergency services. I know it sounds crazy and might be hard for somebody on the outside to understand, but if you worked a few months doing what we do, I think you would totally understand it.
-
The examples you gave in that last post are all medical emergencies. I dare say that had there been people in the house, the responding firemen would have gone in after them. But since all humans were accounted for and unharmed, the property is replaceable. VERY different situation.
-
The examples you gave in that last post are all medical emergencies. I dare say that had there been people in the house, the responding firemen would have gone in after them. But since all humans were accounted for and unharmed, the property is replaceable. VERY different situation.
Sorry, but not different at all. Funny how no one has addressed the earlier posts about the potential collateral damage. In fact, the fire was spreading to the neighbors home, who had paid the $75.00. He just happened to be there and make the call. Again, would that neighbor be a happy camper if he happened not to be home and his house went up in flames? BTW, Cranick was trying to stop the spread that was in fact going towards his neighbors home. Regardless of whether or not this dude paid his $75.00, a home going up in flames is a serious emergency that has the potential to do untold damage to other property and persons. The fire department should have responded even if they weren't going to pump water to this guy's home. They didn't until a paying customer called.
-
^^ THIS x100.
Emergency organizations exist to fix your fuckups and protect you no matter how stupid you are. We wager on the side of knowing somebody, somewhere, is going to do something stupid. I understand the argument that people should exercise common sense. And dallaswareagle, I understand that you just can't see how this is my truth and not reality to the rest of the world. But, it really is the reality of anybody that works in any line of emergency services. I know it sounds crazy and might be hard for somebody on the outside to understand, but if you worked a few months doing what we do, I think you would totally understand it.
I do see your side (your truth) and respect your opinion on this. I just disagree with it. To me it all comes down to this. The person knew that he had to pay $75.00 for fire protection. He chooses not to. His place caught on fire. Life’s a bitch.
Your most likely right, you understand more about a person when you walk a mile in their shoes.
I have just seen too many people fuck shit up and then want someone to fix it for them. Or blame someone else. The Drunk driver blames the bartender. The child molester blames his parents. The guy who robs the stores blames drugs.
This H/O may be the nicest guy in the world and made a mistake by not paying. You know responsibility is an adult thing. Sometime you take it on the chin.
-
I do see your side (your truth) and respect your opinion on this. I just disagree with it. To me it all comes down to this. The person knew that he had to pay $75.00 for fire protection. He chooses not to. His place caught on fire. Life’s a bitch.
Your most likely right, you understand more about a person when you walk a mile in their shoes.
I have just seen too many people fuck shit up and then want someone to fix it for them. Or blame someone else. The Drunk driver blames the bartender. The child molester blames his parents. The guy who robs the stores blames drugs.
This H/O may be the nicest guy in the world and made a mistake by not paying. You know responsibility is an adult thing. Sometime you take it on the chin.
What happened to blaming sexy children?
-
What happened to blaming sexy children?
The internet police are everywhere.
-
Let's say I don't pay my power bill in the middle of january, it's -10 degrees for a week or two, and I am in danger of freezing to death. To me this is a dire emergency, to the power company not so much.
Should the power company turn my power back on even though I did not pay?
-
Let's say I don't pay my power bill in the middle of january, it's -10 degrees for a week or two, and I am in danger of freezing to death. To me this is a dire emergency, to the power company not so much.
Should the power company turn my power back on even though I did not pay?
This could be life or death-So (you hope they) don’t cut it off.
Plus there are outside agency’s that can help you with this.
Plus you have to look at payment history-Maybe lost bill.
3rd month you have not paid. Better get some blankets.
-
I have just seen too many people fuck shit up and then want someone to fix it for them. Or blame someone else. The Drunk driver blames the bartender. The child molester blames his parents. The guy who robs the stores blames drugs.
I agree with this, 1000%. I just don't view this guy in the same light as a criminal.
I could go into a big spill about what it takes to work in emergency services, but I'll spare the bravado bullshit. There's a time to follow policy, and there's a time to break policy. The best firemen/policemen/EMT services know when to cross that line.
Sitting in the firehall playing with your dicks when the call came in? Time to follow policy. He didn't pay, his fault.
Responding to the original call because a paying customer's shit is about to burn, only to arrive and see the family in their yard watching their life burn to the ground? Time to break policy.
Those guys are pussies, and I'd tell it to their face.
-
I agree with this, 1000%. I just don't view this guy in the same light as a criminal.
I could go into a big spill about what it takes to work in emergency services, but I'll spare the bravado bullshit. There's a time to follow policy, and there's a time to break policy. The best firemen/policemen/EMT services know when to cross that line.
Sitting in the firehall playing with your dicks when the call came in? Time to follow policy. He didn't pay, his fault.
Responding to the original call because a paying customer's shit is about to burn, only to arrive and see the family in their yard watching their life burn to the ground? Time to break policy.
Those guys are pussies, and I'd tell it to their face.
I'm pretty sure you have it backwards in your understanding of this incident. The guy who did not pay was the first to call and the dept would not respond. The guy who did pay called later and they came to protect his property. By the time the dept got there the non paying customer's house was already a total loss
-
Let's say I don't pay my power bill in the middle of january, it's -10 degrees for a week or two, and I am in danger of freezing to death. To me this is a dire emergency, to the power company not so much.
Should the power company turn my power back on even though I did not pay?
Is your provider Alabama Power? If so, they have this problem covered in policy. They will NOT turn your power off in extreme temperatures, hot or cold. If your provider isn't Alabama Power, I can't answer your question.
I'm pretty sure you have it backwards in your understanding of this incident. The guy who did not pay was the first to call and the dept would not respond. The guy who did pay called later and they came to protect his property. By the time the dept got there the non paying customer's house was already a total loss
Hmm. If that's the case, then yeah I've misunderstood. I was under the impression the first callers house was still burning when the firemen arrived. Even if the house itself couldn't be lived in again, they still had personal property that could possibly be salvaged. If the house had already burnt to the ground, then I have no complaint.
-
Is your provider Alabama Power? If so, they have this problem covered in policy. They WILL not turn your power off in extreme temperatures, hot or cold. If your provider isn't Alabama Power, I can't answer your question.
Hmm. If that's the case, then yeah I've misunderstood. I was under the impression the first callers house was still burning when the firemen arrived. Even if the house itself couldn't be lived in again, they still had personal property that could possibly be salvaged. If the house had already burnt to the ground, then I have no complaint.
Nope, you've got it right. The first caller didn't pay and yes his home was burning to the gorund. And yes, so many questions are being avoided in many people's black and white world.
-
Is your provider Alabama Power? If so, they have this problem covered in policy. They WILL not turn your power off in extreme temperatures, hot or cold. If your provider isn't Alabama Power, I can't answer your question.
Hmm. If that's the case, then yeah I've misunderstood. I was under the impression the first callers house was still burning when the firemen arrived. Even if the house itself couldn't be lived in again, they still had personal property that could possibly be salvaged. If the house had already burnt to the ground, then I have no complaint.
How long does it take for your average trailer to burn to the ground? I'm sure there were some personal items that could have been saved, but you have to live your own decision not to pay for the service.
Remember the guy actuall said, "Ithought they would respond even if i did not pay"
-
How long does it take for your average trailer to burn to the ground?
Are you asking, or are you insinuating that fire departments shouldn't respond to trailer fires because they burn so fast?
I'm sure there were some personal items that could have been saved,
I'm sure of it too. And they just stood there and made sure it didn't burn any paying customer's shit down. Hell, I think they even pulled the hoses and sprayed down the fence, but they couldn't spray the house?
but you have to live your own decision not to pay for the service.
Remember the guy actuall said, "Ithought they would respond even if i did not pay"
My argument isn't whether or not the guy is responsible for not paying the fine. I even stated that I didn't have a problem with the FD originally not going because of policy. But to show up, pull the hoses, turn the water on and not put any on the house trailer fire? That's some sorry assholes. And that shit will catch up with them one way or the other.
We have a lot of different arguments going here. So for the record, I'm not arguing if the guy should be responsible. I'm not arguing that he isn't a dumbass for thinking they'd show up even if he didn't pay. I'm saying I'd be ashamed if they were on a city payroll that I contributed taxes to. And I'm saying that if that BS happened in my JD, I would show them the same courtesy they showed that family when I stopped them for doing 60 in a 35.
After all, policy is policy. Right? Press hard, 4 copies.