Slashdot Mirror
Firefighters Let House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay Fee
Dthief writes "From MSNBC: 'Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground last week because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee. Gene Cranick of Obion County and his family lost all of their possessions in the Sept. 29 fire, along with three dogs and a cat. "They could have been saved if they had put water on it, but they didn't do it," Cranick told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. The fire started when the Cranicks' grandson was burning trash near the family home. As it grew out of control, the Cranicks called 911, but the fire department from the nearby city of South Fulton would not respond.'"
Easy solution: Put out the fire, then hit him with a massive fine. Say 10x the actual cost of fighting the fire.
Animal cruelty charges should be brought, they allowed 4 pets to die...frankly I would be more pissed about that than losing my stuff.
I hate dealing with subscription districts. One of the reasons why they still survive in my area is that we don't have authority to set and enforce fire codes there. Keeping the Ebil Goberment out of their lives is the goal of some of the people in the area.
That said, I think the solution to handling non-payers is to inform their Homeowners Insurance and/or mortgage holder about the requirement. Guarenteed if those people knew about the situation they would make sure the fee got paid.
Why does this remind me of the health care argument? People claiming that this sort of things is optional and they shouldn't have to pay, knowing in their minds that it's only a matter of time before they DO need to rely on that service. I have no sympathy for this family. They should have been responsible citizens and paid their dues just like everyone else, instead of assuming they could freeload off the system in an emergency.
Your argument is overly-simplistic. First off, if someone is a libertarian and is happy with this situation then they are not "morally bankrupt" at all. You assume that just because you don't like the outcome tat no one does either. A number of posters have already said they are fine with what happened.
The bigger flaw, however, is that you automatically assume libertarian as an absolute philosophy. By that reasoning, your desire for socialism must mean that you are in favor of a government seizure of businesses, houses, property, and everything else. Few people are so obtuse.
Most "libertarians" (including much of the "Tea Party" movement) are perfectly fine with some level of government services. Perhaps they do not like some current programs. Or proposed programs. They often take the label as an effort to distinguish themselves from conservatives and the Republican Party. While the GOP has fancied itself a "small government" party, it really is not in any practical sense. And often seems more concerned with social agendas (media censorship, abortion, homosexual rights) with which these libertarians are not interested in.
Doesn't work for some idiot who made a really poor chain of decisions including not paying promptly for his protection and burning garbage near his house?
Sounds like it worked well for society. Lots of people are checking that they made their fire payments in that county today.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I've seen a lot on here about the unconscionable conduct of the fire department (and yes, they were douche-nozzles about the whole thing). What I haven't seen is commentary on why this guy's idiot grandson was burning rubbish in the first place. Use legitimate solid-waste disposal (landfill or, better yet, recycling) but don't burn the stuff! Not only can it cause property destruction, but it's also a health hazard if plastics are being burned and people happen to inhale the noxious fumes. Too bad this poor guy had to lose his home because his grandson is a fucktard.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
I wonder how long it will be until we hear they let someone's house burn down due to a clerical error,
i.e. they actually paid but the computer says they didn't. Or the 911 operator types in the wrong
address when they call. Seems sure to happen sooner or later.
The comparison to national health care doesn't quite fit though, because the question there is whether the US federal government has lawful authority under the Constitution to order people to buy things. It definitely does not, if the Constitution is still a meaningful limit on federal power.
The comparison to national health care is a perfect fit. There are certain services, in a civilized society, that require contribution from the entire population so that all may benefit equally when they need it. Fire, Police, Military and Health care should never be "opt-in" services...they are all equivalent in that they are services that you cannot predict when you will need them, and paying on the spot for service performed is ridiculous.
Social Security and Medicare are also not "opt-in" and history has shown that without them our society would be in worse shape. Where in the Constitution does it state that at age 65 you should be treated differently? Yet the some people who scream about health care are the ones whining about cuts to the Medicare Plus benefits....
I cannot for a reason think why any logical person would think society would be better if Fire services, or Health services should be "opt in"....
pets fireman's life. Just ask the child of a dead firefighter.
Incidently, firefighters don't put out fires from the outside. If they fight it, they go in. There's no halfassing it.
If people can just pay the cost of the visit then everyone would choose to do so. At that point we're back to private fire departments. Look where that got us (private firefighters were becoming arsonists)
It's quite fucked up when you, AS AN ADULT choose not to pay something that's about .0001% the value of your house to keep it from burning down. If you don't think your shit is worth $75/year then WHY THE FUCK would a firefighter think it's worth their life?
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Point of clarity here: South Fulton is in Tennessee, thus in the same state. If the responding fire department were from Fulton, the interstate issue would be valid. For those not familiar with the geography, The town is essentially split on the state border and the laws on either side can be vastly different and create some interesting economic realities. On the Kentucky side of town (Fulton), liquor by the drink in restaurants has been legal for many years, there is no sales tax on unprepared food items in grocery stores, and packaged liquor can be purchased. On the Tennessee side of town, liquor is unavailable by drink at a restaurant or by package and the sales tax on food is about 9.75%. The result is practically no restaurants or grocery stores can survive on the Tennessee side (South Fulton). Until about eight years ago, nearby towns in Martin and Union City did not offer liquor by the drink. This made Fulton, Kentucky a popular destination for dining. The sales tax on food situation still has an impact on grocery stores in those towns as well. Since Kentucky has an income tax, many people choose to live in the northern Tennessee counties but do all of their grocery shopping in Kentucky.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein