The Glade 4.0

No, because in that case the fire department would have put it out regardless. If lives are in danger, they are will respond regardless of payment, and would be criminally negligent if they did not. There's a huge difference between refusing to preserve property and refusing to save people.

Again, this is a what if that you can't base anything on. What if, in 1990, the City of South Fulton, had not started offering this subscription service to country residents? Then this fire would not have been fought regardless, nor the portion that extended to the neighbor's property.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Again, you're attempting to equate saving property to saving life. The man has an insurance policy that is evidently going to pay him.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Absolutely not. This only applies if the safety of people is in danger. Not property, not even animals. People's safety.

This is simply a reason why taxation for emergency services should be compulsory. People should not have the option to opt out, because whent hey do and the emergency comes up, then there are all kinds of reasons why they should have gotten the help at the expense of those who did pay, either by paying the fee or by being part of the community that does tax for the service.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I would like to point out, that it's this position that DEMANDS the level of taxation that we have today.

What is unfortunate is that both of you have in the past posted a very conservative stance on such matters and yet seem to be oblivious to how the above position puts governmental agencies in an untennable budgetary position by having to plan for providing service to everyone, but only getting paid a fraction of what that costs to cover.

You can not have it both ways. You either need to put your money (taxes) where you mouth is and support the appropriate levels of funding for these kinds of activites, or you need to understand and accept the consequences regardless of how unfortunate they are.

If it were on the property of someone who had, or were on public property then one would think yes.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Emergency services are not at all the reason for the level of taxation we have today. In fact, when revenues are low emergency services are generally among the first things to be cut.

The government is not put in any untenable position by the need to provide emergency services; its put in an untenable position because of the demands for huge amounts of nonessential social services that can't be cut because someone will have some sob story about how its bad for children, the elderly, THE FOREST ANIMALS!! etc.

Emergency services can be afforded on far less than the level of taxation we have today when we aren't wasing money on everything from beautifying city hall to trying to make sure the we "LEave No Child Behind".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

He was outside, and watched his house burn down. His life wasn't in danger. He can pay the **** piper. Which, in this case, is losing his house for deciding not to pay the fire response fee while expecting them to come and help him anyway. Even if you feel this way, it still doesn't make what happened "inhumane". He wasn't trapped inside with the fire department refusing to come out.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

If there had been someone inside I'd feel different about it.

Our Constitution enumerates that if the state is going to accuse you of a crime then said entity has to make sure you have competent legal defense.

Like I said originally one could argue that the county should have some kind of mandated coverage, but that wasn't the case.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I don't disagree, and I believe this is the basis for the typical rules involved in this kind of situation.... the FD responds to verify there is no actual emergency, such as jeopardy of life. As others have pointed out, saving an unoccupied house from fire does not constitute and emergency to anyone other than the owners of that home.

Now, in light of your follow up comments, I agree with your statement that the situation in this particular district needs to be used as a focus to change the policies of the FD in question, as they should not have refused to respond at all if they are contractually obligated to protect the property of those adjacent to the fire (they paid the fee).

I do not however believe that this incident is a cause for a complete reword of this type of system.

They didn't refuse to respond at all, they did come out and fight the fire when it spread to the neighbor.

One could argue that because of the nature of fire to spread, they should have come out before the neighbor's property caught, but evidently they did as many accounts refer to them standing there watching and springing into action when it reached the neighbor's property.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Certainly it's not only emergency services that are the cause for the current taxing levels. However, it is the principle that was being espoused that is the cause. There are many many examples of that same principle being applied to other areas that compounded have landed us where we are today.

Which would be true except that you can't equate essential, emergency services with nonessential ones. Feeling that people should have access to firefighting and the government should make it happen, and tax if necessary, is not the same as making sure they have a community center.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It interesting you would use those specific examples, considering it is exactly the line you are trying establish between responsibility and neglect that gets blurred by what you support.

Right now, there is a large contingency of politicians who think not paying your loans is not sufficient reason to lose your car/house. Its a continuation of the erosion of personal responsibility. Its no like this guy didn't know the consequences, wasn't aware of the risk and opted to ignore the need for this type of insurance (and this fire response fee is exactly that, a form of insurance).

Presumably, this particular individual was smart enough to weight the consequences against the rewards for action or lack of action, and made plans accordingly. Of course, I suspect that is not the case, but I'm not going to let this persons stupidity become the fault of others who were responsible, or have the burden of supporting his stupidity put upon those people.


In what way? Both professions provide a service that is just as likely to be used to correct stupid behavior or assist with unusual situations, both professions are service based, both require specialized training, and both deal with circumstances that are generally considered "emergencies" only to the person in question, and both ideally provide a service to mitigate a bad situation getting much worse and potentially becoming a life altering event.

But, my comment about the lawyer was directly to RD and a rebuttal of his position that the professional has a moral obligation to assist regardless of compensation. It was a question about whether he practices what he preaches. Not that I don't agree with his comment that morality... however, instead of "should help", I think it would be "great if they did". My personal ethic says to be prepared and take responsibility for my own actions. If I get a in a bind and receive help, great, and when I can, I try to help others in a bind. But if I don't get help, I'm not going to blame others for the effects of my own decisions.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a general trend in society that professionals are always just that, professionals in their field, and as such, their time and expertise is expected at no cost, and they become liable for situations outside their control.... doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, etc.

Thats' how I read the article as well, but the way Farther presented the events, I thought maybe I misread it and they didn't come out at all until it had spread. IF that were the case, I would agree things need to change, because as you said, the nature of fire. However, it sounds like they did what I would expect... respond to verify the nature of the emergency and go from there.

But if your coming from a position of wanting all these things (essential or not) but not being willing to pay for them, you're in the same boat. From a tax/spend position they are all the same. The people want/need (x) services and those services cost (y) money. The problem is that many folks pitch a fit about the cost, but aren't willing to reduce the amount of services they demand.

So, you don't think a man trying to put out a house fire with a garden hose (because the F.D. would not come) is in any danger?

According to the article, they did not come out until the fire had spread to the neighbor's field. At least, that's how I read the article.

Well, I suppose I don't have a very good argument then, do I? All I have is my opinion, for what it's worth.
I simply do not think that not paying $75 is equal to losing your entire house. Maybe a fine by the city after the fact, but I do not believe it warrants people sitting around watching your house burn to the ground.
I've seen communities rally together to help feed, clothe, and shelter people whose homes burned down...I don't think I've ever heard anyone refuse to give a donation during these sorts of drives because the home-owner didn't have insurance or because the owner had done something to warrant a cause-effect-they -deserve-it sort of thing "well I'm not helping them, they shouldn't have left that candle burning. That's just common sense...nope, not helping them because its their own fault"....never heard that. It's terrible to lose your home. Terrible. I'm sure this guy's community will get together and help him out with food and clothing and such as well...I just think its cruel that people think that the punishment for not paying the $75 should be that no one helped prevent this man from losing his home.
We're human, we all do stupid stuff. Sometimes we need to learn a lesson and sometimes we need a helping hand from our neighbors/comunity, sometimes both....I'm not talking about precedents or analogies or anything, I'm simply talking about this particular instance and any others like it.
I don't think its right.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

The man who decides to live outside an established fire district is in danger.
The man who decides not to pay for fire department service is in danger.
The man who decides to not have fire extinguishers is in danger.
The man who decides to not have a sprinkler system is in danger.
The man who decides to enter a building building with a garden hose in danger.

Notice a theme about the danger there? But, if you want to reduce this down to the simplest measure.... The man who wakes up in the morning is in danger.

What are you advocating is the role of government, or society, to protect people? Provide systems that eliminate the consequences of stupid decisions? Eliminate the ability to make stupid decisions?

This is all fine and dandy, except then why would anyone pay for the service in advance? They could just wait until their house caught fire and then pay the fine afterwards. Even if the fine was significantly more than the $75 fee, nearly everyone would be willing to take that risk. In the mean-time the fire protection services would not have the operating capital up front to provide the service at all, to anyone.

It wasn't punishment, it was consequences. His community can still help him and rally around him. I'd also say that now he's had a good lesson and it's one others will learn from. You don't think losing your possessions and house was worth $75. He apparently did. If he loved it that much, he would have paid the money. You protect most what you love most.

There are plenty of Proverbs about what happens to foolish men. Sometimes it takes things like this for somebody (and even those around him) to stop being foolish.

Edit: Nobody's saying don't have compassion on the guy for losing his stuff. We're just saying the severity of the consequences don't obligate other people to fix his issue.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Well, your opinion is worth as much as mine.


I agree that the house and contents are worth considerably more than $75, and because of that, I would have paid the fee. But, there are a multitude of ways to lose your home, and many of those are preventable through action. Would it be just as much a tragedy and example of societal failure if the guys house was condemned because he didn't pay to have Terminex keep termites at bay? Should Terminex be responsible for responding to an infestation and not get paid for the treatment/repairs? (little bit of an oddball example, but I just met them at the house for an annual inspection, so its top of my mind).


That is easy to stay, and might sounds like a great idea, but it also opens up a liability problems. Good Samaritan laws might kick in, but in reverse, why is the assumption that the lack of payment means the person really wants the FD to respond and attempt to save the home instead of explicit instructions to not save the property? What if he didn't feel it was worth the risk to attempt to save the home, but the FD does anyway, then he gets fined for it? He didn't ask for the service, and by not paying the fee, gave clear signal he didn't want the service (not necessarily applicable to this case specifically, but as general situation that makes that kind of policy tough).


I would posit that getting to watch his house burn to the ground is a lesson that will more than likely make a lasting impression, which also doesn't mean the community can't decide to help him through the pain of the lesson learned.

LadyKate:

If fire services were conducted in the way you wish to see, they wouldn't be able to exist. They require a known budget in order to pay overhead, training, salaries, and benefits. Without the ability to hold a budget before hand (built around underwriting to determine the likelihood of incident) they wouldn't be able to maintain a force sufficient to the task.

In addition, saying that the man didn't deserve to lose his house for not paying a $75 annual fee is ridiculous. The man knew the consequences, and decided that it wasn't worth it to him to pay the fee. He made the decision that he deserved to have his house burn down instead. Everyone else simply honored his wishes.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm not advocating anything, nor am I talking about government. I'm simply saying that any person who would sit at a desk, or stand and watch, as a man's house burned down because he owed that person $75 isn't much of a man, damned sure is a pathetic human being, and, (if he/she claims to be a Christian) does a piss-poor job of representing his/her God.

That's all I'm saying.

If he owed me $75 dollars for anything other than the complete annual fee for fire service, I'd have helped him in a heartbeat.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20