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.'"
Seriously this is stuff that does not belong on the front page of a technology website.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
I'd be fine with something like this. Put out his fire, then charge him for the entire fee he would have had to pay (plus interest) from the last time it was paid, or from when he bought the house.
There is still a problem with the money coming in for equipment, though.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Yea I know bible stuff doesn't go over well here but I do wonder if this will be what is taught in the churches of that county this Sunday.
Just wondering if how many will people will like being goats?
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Oh gods, for some mod points right now... I'd mod you so HARD, baby,
Income tax is an atrocity committed upon free people to deprive them of their liberties and freedoms. Unfortunately the people are apparently not as free in their minds as some would believe, otherwise the income tax would never have passed as an idea in any free society ever.
Income tax requires you to submit to a degrading interrogation by the state, you are supposed to tell the state everything you do, how and why, etc.
Income tax also deprives people of freedoms in another terrible way: it lets the government grow indefinitely, even to the point where over 99% of income is taken away (point in case is USSR).
--
The correct way to provide funding for a minimum government is of-course through a selective sales tax, that would not tax items that are necessary for basic survival (so no taxing the poor). This does the following:
1. Lets you keep your liberties.
2. Lets you control the size of gov't and spending by controlling your own spending on taxable items.
You can't handle the truth.
If the city started letting people pay the fee after they needed it, it would be like buying auto insurance after you've had a wreck and expecting the insurance company to cover you for that wreck. In other words, after a while, the only $75 payments they'd collect would be for the houses that actually caught on fire.
Prepare for some subtle sarcasm...
What's wrong with that? That's exactly and literally what our sweet ass new health care plan in the US will be doing. You can pay a fine that's well less than the price of insurance, and then just buy insurance if you get really sick. I mean, I just don't see any problem with that, what could possibly go wrong?
Yeah. And so we shouldn't have postal service to them. Oh, wait. Or roads. Oh, wait. Or defense. Oh, wait.
Of course he was. The FD handled the particular version of danger that cropped up this time; but there are times they don't, and the neighbor loses everything. This chance is exacerbated by letting a fire get fully involved.
Yes, it did. It killed the pets. And, as I explained above and you ignored, there are circumstances where people are in the house you're not aware of. The risk is substantially greater than just to the owner. This is why it shouldn't be a matter of personal choice.
No. These substantially affect only you. A fire isn't comparable to "eat your veggies" or "maintain your body" and you're being disingenuous (or worse) when you try to draw the comparison. Yes, you should be able to decide what you do with you body. No, you should not be able to decide not to take fire safety measures with property that is physically connected to other people's properties and/or resources (water, roads, power and/or gas and/or communications lines, etc.) and where under your roof, you EVER allow another living being to visit.
I'm 100% libertarian when you can demonstrate that your choice only substantially puts yourself and lives classed as consenting, informed adults at risk; but as it is utterly impossible to do this in the case of a house or property fire, which by their very nature can spread uncontrollably, and are likely to if not fought without quarter, this is not an area where your liberties can reasonably trump another's liberties.
You want to eat poorly and not exercise? You want to take drugs? You want to frequent prostitutes, or be one? I'm all for your choice. 100%.
Personal liberties only have a rational meaning when they can be demonstrated to have a scope that you can limit to yourself by your own actions. As soon as you think it means you can make any choice you like just because it's your choice, you've entirely perverted the entire concept.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yawn
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Probably would be at least $30,000. Then again, that is probably more than a house in the rural SE United States is worth..
The cost of actually putting out a particular home fire is pretty trivial. The costs are largely fixed (salary, equipment, maintenance, training) These costs don't change whether you put out 0 fires a month, or 20 fires.
Actually putting out a fire (oxygen, water, fuel, retardants, etc won't add up to much for a normal home fire. A few hundred bucks tops.
Now obviously it should be more than that, considering the high fixed operating costs.
So lets take a look at those fixed operating costs... the community of Naugatuck Connecticut, with ~31,000 people has 41 employees, 5 volunteers, and necessary fire equipment. They have an annual budget of $2.9 million.
Now I doubt they are going to send all 45 firefighters out to deal with simple home fire, but the picture for the story shows 10, so lets run with that, and for the sake of over estimating assume that it takes a whole day to put out the fire.
Based on that a "reasonable" charge to put out the fire is 10/45ths of 1/365th of $2.9M. You see what I did there? Do you find that agreeable? Then add on a few hundred bucks for consumables etc... aw hell... make it an even $1000.
That works out to about $2800 to put out the fire. Sounds about right to me.
Why exactly do you think it should be 10x that amount?