Why did fireman just watch as this fire burn a house down

[Pastor Larry]

They may be legally correct, although I can't imagine that would stand up in court. Can you imagine the lawsuits had there been people in the fire and they had stood there and watched? Every single one of those firemen would have been brought up on negligent homicide or something similar. As it is, the owner's probably have a case of negligence in any respect. The fire department could have very easily put the fire out and then billed the homeowner for actual costs.

However, they are morally obligated. And that, to me, is the bigger issue. Here you have public servants who are not serving the public, In our cities, we regularly use the fire and EMS services of neighboring cities because there is a moral obligation of public servants to protect the lives and property of the public.

Here's the fact: They were there. They were getting paid to be there. Putting out this fire would not have cost them anymore.

The idea that there is a $75 charge to have fire protection on top of regular property taxes is shameful and unacceptable. That, in itself, is grounds for legal claims. That law should be immediately overturned.

 

[Salty]

Larry,
My understanding is that they would have saved human life if any were in danger.

But no, they were not being paid for that fire. They only came to protect the property of the next door neighbor - who had paid he annual amount.
Suppose you and another vehicle run off the road and end up in a ditch. The other driver is a member of AAA. His car is pulled out at no charge, since he is a member. Since AAA is there, does he have an obligation to pull you out also? Isn't that truck driver being paid to be there?
Is it a shame yes - but again - key word - Responsibility - something sorely lacking in these United States.

 

[abcgrad94]

As it is, the owner's probably have a case of negligence in any respect. The fire department could have very easily put the fire out and then billed the homeowner for actual costs.

That's assuming the firemen's bill would stand up in court, which it may not. Also, some people would sue the fire department for water damage to any items they did manage to save. Then the fire department is in a no-win situation.

 

[rbell]

$75 a year? That's nothing. My village provides our fire coverage via a volunteer fire department. My village taxes are near $5,000. My total property tax bill is close to $15,000 before our exemptions. If I STILL had to pay an additional $75, I'd be happy to.

Ah, the joys of living in Alabama.

I've heard of you poor New Yorkers--

I think I paid my property taxes last year with a bag of boiled peanuts.

 

[StefanM]

They may be legally correct, although I can't imagine that would stand up in court. Can you imagine the lawsuits had there been people in the fire and they had stood there and watched? Every single one of those firemen would have been brought up on negligent homicide or something similar. As it is, the owner's probably have a case of negligence in any respect. The fire department could have very easily put the fire out and then billed the homeowner for actual costs.

However, they are morally obligated. And that, to me, is the bigger issue. Here you have public servants who are not serving the public, In our cities, we regularly use the fire and EMS services of neighboring cities because there is a moral obligation of public servants to protect the lives and property of the public.

Very well said, Pastor Larry.

 

[sag38]

First, these kind of scenarios have been tried in courts of law and the fire dept. won. Second,fire fighting is extremely dangerous. Every time a firefighter enters a burning structure he or she places his or her life and limbs in danger. A seemingly standard structure fire can quickly turn into a nightmare. Have you ever heard of a back draft? Fire fighters don't just fight a fire because it's there unless they have a death wish. Just last night, on Dauphin Island, here in Alabama, several fire fighters were injured fighting a house fire. One, a seasoned veteran, had to be put on a ventilator. Third, providing a quality fire protection service is extremely expensive. A $75.00 charge doesn't even come close to covering the costs for fighting a house fire. A standard engine, properly equipped, and well maintained, can easily surpass $500,000.00. Consider the cost of training a fire fighter and keeping him or her trained. Tankers, to ferry water, specialty support vehicles and equipment, can run into the millions. I'm sorry but this family, in an extreme act of ignorance, chose not to accept fire protection. They gambled and lost. I hope they had insurance.

 

[RevGKG]

I know that. Obion County should either start a fire department or contract with the City of South Fulton and pay them out of property tax money.

You do not understand how things function in unincorproated areas. If there is no fire district or contract, there is no fire service. You pay for it with your city taxes. They pay with their annual dues. No paid dues, no service.

 

[RevGKG]

The idea that there is a $75 charge to have fire protection on top of regular property taxes is shameful and unacceptable. That, in itself, is grounds for legal claims. That law should be immediately overturned.

Fire Departments supported by tax dollars happens in incorporated areas. It is completely different in unincorproated areas.

 

[sag38]

Pastor Larry is a nice guy but he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

 

[mcdirector]

The realist in me says . . .. They did what they should have done.

If a home doesn't have flood insurance, we aren't going to fault the insurance company for not paying up regardless.

Also, if they did put out the fire on this house, who would continue to pay? Some, but at least some would stop because they knew their house would be saved. At some point a line has to be drawn. It might as well be at the beginning. Because if it's not at the beginning, then there's even more trouble waiting.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry is a nice guy but he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

LOL ... That's very kind of you sag.

But I would just note that the president of a firefighter's assocation (IAFF) agrees with me. So I must have some clue, even if accidental and built only on common sense. I find it inconceivable that someone who pays property taxes does not have fire coverage. That is just plain old silly, beyond belief.

Pulling cars out of ditches is a completely different issue, but the answer is yes, you can have the car pulled out of the ditch. You simply have to pay for it, which is exactly what I suggested in this situation. Furthermore, this guy told 911 he would pay whatever it cost, just like the driver in the ditch who pays the tow truck driver whatever it costs.

Here's another bit of hilarious absurdity. The county didn't get their $75. And on top of that, they turned down an offer for probably thousands when the homeowner said he would pay whatever it took to put the fire out. Here's the irony (and the absurdity of the county management): They didn't get $75, so they turned down probably several thousand dollars. And then they had to show up anyway for the next door neighbor. So rather than being several thousand dollars ahead, they let a man's house burn and now they have bad press on top of that.

Furthermore if $75 doesn't come near to covering it, then why charge $75? It sounds like a token fee that serves no real purpose.

I do think responsibility is key. This guy should have paid the $75. The firefighters had a moral responsibility to address the fire. The guy then had a moral responsibility to pay the firefighters whatever costs they incurred. There was breakdown all the way around, mostly, I imagine from bad management that is often typical in these type of situations.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If a home doesn't have flood insurance, we aren't gong to fault the insurance company for not paying up regardless.

Different situation. The flood insurance isn't there to stop the flood; it is there to replace and rebuild. This is a different scenario. This would be more like a dam operator refusing to close a gate to prevent flood damage because the guy didn't pay the flood-gate-closing fee.

Also, if they did put out the fire on this house, who would continue to pay?

Most people faced with the choice of a $75 annual fee or a $5000-10000 bill after the fact will pay the $75. I know I would.

At some point a line has to be drawn.

I agree, but not with the willfull negligent destruction of thousands of dollars of personal property. You draw the line with "If you don't pay it up front, we will still put it out, but you will pay it later." That is the only common sense approach, which is probably why it is wasn't done, and why it is pretty unpopular here .

I wouldn't be surprised if the homeowner's insurance company doesn't have a claim here as well. Their fire insurance is probably based on fire response, and if the fire company doesn't respond, the insurance company can go after them for negligence. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But at the end of the day, this is a common sense issue that you put the fire out and then settle up with a bill. You can go after the guy and even put a lien on his property until he pays it.

 

[preachinjesus]

I wonder if police service has a required fee here too.

So if I don't have the resources to pay it someone can be beating on my steps, rob my house, threaten my family, or any number of crimes and I am helpless to expect assistance.

You know, the mafia has this neat little thing...they charge for "protection"....

 

[abcgrad94]

I wonder if police service has a required fee here too.

So if I don't have the resources to pay it someone can be beating on my steps, rob my house, threaten my family, or any number of crimes and I am helpless to expect assistance.

You know, the mafia has this neat little thing...they charge for "protection"....

I don't know about your area, but in Charleston, WV they have a "user fee." If you work in Charleston, you get money taken out of your paycheck. Last I checked, it was $2 a week. This is supposed to pay for police protection for those who work in, but do not live in, the city. Talk about taxation without representation. Those who don't live there didn't get to vote on it! I believe Huntington, WV has the same deal. It doesn't matter if you work one day a week, you still have to pay the user fee.

 

[RevGKG]

I wouldn't be surprised if the homeowner's insurance company doesn't have a claim here as well. Their fire insurance is probably based on fire response, and if the fire company doesn't respond, the insurance company can go after them for negligence. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Wrong. It was well known in this community that the fire fee needed to be paid to receive fire protection and the homeowner chose not to pay. He is the one who was neglectful. This has been upheld numerous times in court. The homeowners insurance would have been based on this knowledge and charged accordingly.

And NO, since there was no life in danger, the fire fighters did not have the moral obligation to act. Face it, this is the way many unincorporated areas receive fire protection and all those who live there know it well.

If you receive fire protection where you live without paying a fee it is because you pay higher taxes. Many rural areas choose to pay a lower tax rate and a fire protection fee (if they opt to pay it). So just because he paid his taxes does not entitle this homeowner to fire protection. He needed to pay the fire fee and did not, his choice, not anyone else's choice.

 

[matt wade]

I suspect that if we were talking about a bank or the offices of an oil company that burned down, the liberals on this thread would be singing a different song.

We would hear about how the business should have paid the fee, and how they should have had a sprinkler system installed. We'd probably hear about the neglect of the person burning trash next to the business.

 

[StefanM]

I suspect that if we were talking about a bank or the offices of an oil company that burned down, the liberals on this thread would be singing a different song..

Who is the liberal? Pastor Larry? He's solidly conservative.

 

[matt wade]

Who is the liberal? Pastor Larry? He's solidly conservative.

Would you like to comment about the topic, or derail this into a "who's a liberal" thread?

 

[padredurand]

Fire service is without question a basic life/property saving emergency service. It is no less important than law enforcement, rescue, and emergency medical services. No other emergency agency responds solely on a subscription basis, ability to pay basis or under the threat of not responding if you don’t pay your bill. Counties will be called upon to provide higher levels of fire protection services and must begin to plan for these issues prior to the occurrence of a crisis or catastrophe. On January 19, 1987, the Obion County Commission passed a resolution establishing an Obion County Fire Department, but no action was taken to implement the resolution. Therefore, Obion County has a county fire department on paper, but is unmanned, unfunded and not operational. The Obion County Fire Department A Presentation Regarding The Establishment And Implementation of a County-Wide Fire Department

Fourteen years later and the need for a county wide fire company goes unmet, 'unmanned, unfunded and not operational'. I quote from above, "No other emergency agency responds solely on a subscription basis, ability to pay basis or under the threat of not responding if you don’t pay your bill. " Why is what seems to be obvious to county officials so hard to see? HIS HOUSE WAS BURNING! Squabble about fees and unmet resolutions AFTER YOU PUT THE FIRE OUT!

 

[Bob Alkire]

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

Would he be for fighting the fire and the fireman not getting paid?

It is the fireman's truck, it belongs to the city.

As I said, I've been their and was as foolish as the man in this story.

Also when and where I lived in Ar. you had to pay a yearly rate for EMS service to come out to you and then you had to pay their charges if they came out. It is nice to live in the country or small settlements, but you do live under different rules. Folks from the city take a lot of public services for grand it, that so many rural folks pay for.