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

[Bethelassoc]

"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."

This quote refers to the "Professional, career firefighters". They get a salary to fight fires. That's different than here in southeast MO, especially Madison Co, we have 3 (basically 2) fire departments. The city fighters get paid $10 a call, and the county dept works pro bono. Fire tags Are $50.

 

[Bob Alkire]

This quote refers to the "Professional, career firefighters". They get a salary to fight fires. That's different than here in southeast MO, especially Madison Co, we have 3 (basically 2) fire departments. The city fighters get paid $10 a call, and the county dept works pro bono. Fire tags Are $50.

I know what you mean, Much of my life I have had volunteer fire service, those men I respect much. The volunteer fire man works pro bono and we have the city fireman saying how under paid they are, might have to have a sick in. That is why his statement sounded like he was blowing smoke to me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

I am not a legal expert, so I am not sure. But I wouldn't be surprised.

And NO, since there was no life in danger, the fire fighters did not have the moral obligation to act.

Yes they do. You don't let people's property get destroyed while standing by to watch it. This would be like watching your neighbor's house get burglarized and standing by and watching it while doing nothing. It's morally wrong, regardless of what the law might say.

The Bible clearly establishes the right to personal property and the responsibility of humans to watch out for the well being of other human's and their property. It establishes a moral line.

Remember, this is not a money issue. This guy volunteered to pay whatever it cost. In other words, as I pointed out, the city didn't get $75; they were in fact offered much more. They made a stupid decision that is costly in several ways: They gave up thousands of dollars, not to mention the destruction of a family's home, and a lifetime of memories, the endangerment of neighbor's home and communities. What if a forest fire had broken out? You think anyone around will be convinced by the "We didn't get our $75" line? I don't. I know if I am the neighbor, I am totally unconvinced that this guy's failure to pay $75 gives you the right to endanger me and me family and my property. You see, to me, no matter which way you slice it, this was morally wrong and financially stupid.

The guy didn't expect it for free. He volunteered to pay, for more than the $75 they asked for. If the fire department wants to be a fee-for-service group, then they need to be a fee-for-service group. They failed on that count.

 

[Bob Alkire]

The guy didn't expect it for free. He volunteered to pay, for more than the $75 they asked for. If the fire department wants to be a fee-for-service group, then they need to be a fee-for-service group. They failed on that count.

As has been pointed out before, if they allowed folks to pay after the fact, knowing human nature, many wouldn't pay till they needed the service.

 

[Eric B]

I agree with the notion that life and safety comes first, then penalize him later.

What would have heppend if the neighbors didn't pay, then they would come and watch an even bigger fire.
Yet I'm sure there are plenty of woods around there. Now you're talking about a potential forest fire, and even if they come and try to keep it from spreading, since they are not putting out the source of the fire, the sparks/embers will continue floating off, starting fires all over, and now you will have to be calling in fire companies from all over, and water spraying helicopters, etc. and other people properties (including those who paid) along with acres of countryside being destroyed, and we could have had a major national news issue.

 

[HankD]

I agree with Pastor Larry.

Also with the previous poster.

Not only on a moral basis but a common sense basis.

The quicker a fire is put out the less chance it has of spreading, the sooner the better.

These firemen risked the woods, property and lives of everyone and everything in the immediate area by allowing this fire to prolong itself until it burned out while they had the means and manpower to stop it.

Suppose a forest fire had ensued?


HankD

 

[RAdam]

As has been pointed out before, if they allowed folks to pay after the fact, knowing human nature, many wouldn't pay till they needed the service.

Who cares? What does it matter? A house was burning and the fire fighters could have put it out. They should have, period. It was the right thing to do. Should the guy have paid the fee? Yes. Should fire fighters stand around while his house burns down because he didn't? No. Who would do that? Ever heard of a little thing called mercy? It means not getting something you deserved. A little mercy here would have gone a long way.

What if this was someone close to you? What if it was you? Do you always do what you should do? No, I don't either. I'm glad for mercy. I'm glad when I'm spared from getting what I deserve. I feel thankful towards the party extending mercy and I tend to straighten my act up. Had they put out his fire, they would have a grateful citizen probably ready to pay his fee every single time, and those that knew him and lived around him would have doubtless heard the praise he would have heaped on these fire fighters and would have been more likely to pay themselves. A little mercy can go a long way.

 

[Bob Alkire]

What if this was someone close to you? What if it was you?

As I pointed out earlier, I have been their. Didn't lose the house but it cost a lot to fix the house. Home owners insurance didn't pay because I hadn't paid for fire protection. I wasn't happy, but I felt like I got what I had ask for by not paying the notice.

 

[matt wade]

Had they put out his fire, they would have a grateful citizen probably ready to pay his fee every single time, and those that knew him and lived around him would have doubtless heard the praise he would have heaped on these fire fighters and would have been more likely to pay themselves. A little mercy can go a long way.

You over estimate people. What would have more likely happened would be that other people would stop paying the fee. They would say to themselves, "Why should I pay this if they will just come and put out the fire anyway?". People will reason with themselves that it is stupid to pay for something that they will get for free.

 

[annsni]

Should the firemen put their lives at risk for someone who did not want coverage? He chose to say "No", I do not want fire coverage. Now when his house is on fire, he suddenly decides differently and everyone is supposed to go ahead at his beck and whim??? I don't see that happening in ANY industry.

 

[Bob Alkire]

You over estimate people. What would have more likely happened would be that other people would stop paying the fee. They would say to themselves, "Why should I pay this if they will just come and put out the fire anyway?". People will reason with themselves that it is stupid to pay for something that they will get for free.

I've seen it happen just a ways west of you, about 75 miles at a rural settlement just out of Live Oak, Fl. They went down about 20% in compliance, if I recall correctly.

 

[Pastor Larry]

As has been pointed out before, if they allowed folks to pay after the fact, knowing human nature, many wouldn't pay till they needed the service.

And then they would pay a lot more. It is the whole principle of insurance. You pay less up front but you pay more later.

Listen to the facts: The guy told 911 he would pay whatever it cost to put out the fire.

That means, contrary to Matt Wade who apparently didn't read the article, he was not expecting to get something for free. In fact, he was going to end up paying far more than $75. And he was willing to do that.

Should the firemen put their lives at risk for someone who did not want coverage? He chose to say "No", I do not want fire coverage. Now when his house is on fire, he suddenly decides differently and everyone is supposed to go ahead at his beck and whim??? I don't see that happening in ANY industry.

It happens in every industry. People who choose not to have health insurance pay higher for health care later on when they actually need it. People who choose not to have extended warranties on their cars take a risk and understand that they will pay more for any problems they encounter.

Again, remember the facts: The guy did want fire coverage and he offered to pay whatever it cost to get it.

It's like life insurance. If you buy life insurance at the age of 25, you pay less than if you wait until age 50 or 60. If you buy health insurance when you are healthy, you pay less than when you are sick. If you buy an extended warranty on your car, you pay less up front than you pay later.

I can't imagine this is even controversial. In a nutshell, we have people arguing that a fire company should put a whole neighborhood (and forest?) at risk for the want of $75, ignoring the fact that the guy offered to pay much more than $75 when he needed the coverage. This seems so simple it boggles my mind.

Ann, can you imagine any industry where someone says, "I will pay whatever you ask," and they refuse to do business with them? I can't. If nothing else, it's a simple business decision. This fire company stood to make thousands of dollars and they said no because the guy hadn't given them $75.

The reason the county charges $75 is not because that is what it will cost to put the fire out. It will cost them thousands to put a fire out, even a small one. The reason they charge $75 is because they are gambling that fires will be so rare that the $75 from each house will pay for the one house that needs it.

Why shouldn't people be able to pay for fire protection on an as needed basis with the understanding that if they need it, it will cost them a bunch of money?

 

[Alcott]

This is a sad story, but I'm inclined to agree with those who say that if this is how firefighting service is supported, then you must be certain to pay that fee or not expect the firefighters to put yours out if it happens. All these threats coming in to the department just reflect the sense of entitlement that is prevalent today. On the other hand, bodily harm and injury is treated differently in that a hospital will have to take in anybody even if it is known they have no money or coverage. Is that the reason 20% (?) of American citizens have no coverage.

But this story turns microscopic in regard to an individuals' eternal destiny. And no matter our humanitarian feelings, Jesus is of the paid-up-or-burn position. If you die without Him, you can't scream that he is Lord then, having 'neglected' to confess that before people in your lifetime, for both life and opportunity are now over. This is a harsh illustration that could be used in an upcoming sermon at a church near you (forgive he little Disney connotation).

 

[Tom Butler]

Here's an update on the story. (Source: AP)

The owner of the home says she simply forgot to pay the fee. It wasn't that she refused to pay it, it just slipped her mind.

She and her son are living in a camper they had, for the time being. They are refusing help.

AP quoted her as saying "we have insurance, and we're happy everyone is alive."

 

[matt wade]

That means, contrary to Matt Wade who apparently didn't read the article, he was not expecting to get something for free. In fact, he was going to end up paying far more than $75. And he was willing to do that.

I did read the article. He may have been willing to pay more than that. At that moment, he might have been willing to pay just about anything. Did he have the actual money to pay it though? Would he have actually paid it?

If fire fighters started showing up at every fire, putting them out, and sending bills after the fact we'd have people up in arms that it's unfair to expect people to pay for services such as this. The fire fighters would also have to hire additional staff for debt collection. The additional staff would have to be paid for, so everyone's annual fee would be raised and even more people wouldn't pay it.

It's real simple. If you want the service, pay for it in advance. The fire fighters don't offer a "pay afterwards" option.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I see this as a microcosm of the problem our country is facing. Certain services should be paid for out of the general coffers to include law enforcement and fire departments. I wonder if a rural resident didn't pay a rural fee for LE and someone broke into his house would the LEO's just sit outside watching the intruders murder the people inside? To me they are the same type of service. This is particularily prevelant in the South. I remember I came accross a guy who was broken down. I pulled over helped him get his truck started. And he asked how much he owed me. I told him nothing. The guy was so shocked He didn't know what to say. Why because everything in our culture has become about financial wealth. We even measure level of spiritual development based on wealth. No one ever seems to do the right thing anymore because its right. Money has to be involved in some manner. I'm glad the president of the firefighters association has looked down on this matter.

I think the south was so abused by companies taking advantage of them (which caused the Hatfield and McCoy fighting) that people there don't really know how to operate outside that mentality. They ensure to bust unions down there but wages are a lot lower there than anywhere else in the country. So its about money. shame.

 

[Salty]

Some have stated that the fireman were there anyways.

I wonder if that was an insurance situation. Suppose a fireman was injured fighting that fire - but since it was not an "authorized" job, the fireman may not be covered under the city workmens comp - since he was not doing city work?
Hmmmm
Could be the Amish have it right. No insurance, all the neighbors just come and help and no one sues.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Some have stated that the fireman were there anyways.

I wonder if that was an insurance situation. Suppose a fireman was injured fighting that fire - but since it was not an "authorized" job, the fireman may not be covered under the city workmens comp - since he was not doing city work?
Hmmmm
Could be the Amish have it right. No insurance, all the neighbors just come and help and no one sues.

Yep I could agree with that.

 

[RAdam]

You over estimate people. What would have more likely happened would be that other people would stop paying the fee. They would say to themselves, "Why should I pay this if they will just come and put out the fire anyway?". People will reason with themselves that it is stupid to pay for something that they will get for free.

I understand human nature is depraved, but that doesn't mean I should determine how I act based on the depravity of man's nature. Sure, I could extend mercy to an individual and be taken advantage of, but should I assume it will be so? What does the bible say? Does it tell us to extend mercy and compassion only when we think it will be well received? No. It tells us to always do the right thing regardless. Depraved men might take advantage, but that's their fault and not mine. I'm supposed to do what is right regardless. I may over estimate people, but you are guilty of under estimating the influence that extending a little mercy and compassion can have. Christians have always had a greater influence through actions than words.

I still say they should have tried to stop the fire. It was the right thing to do. They might later have been advantage of by people. So what? It's not the fire fighters' fault. They would have done the right thing.

 

[matt wade]

I still say they should have tried to stop the fire. It was the right thing to do. They might later have been advantage of by people. So what? It's not the fire fighters' fault. They would have done the right thing.

You are being short sighted. You ask, "So What?" The "so what" is that if they are taken advantage of by people, they will cease to exist! The fire fighters need money coming in to support themselves and their operations. If people stop paying the fee because they know they will get the service for free, eventually the service won't exist anymore.