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.'"
in my area my government confiscates my money and a portion of that is used to fund our local police.
I'd much rather have the option to keep my money and pay for a private police option. That way I can have enough control to ensure my money won't be wasted unjustly imprisoning people for non-crimes like drugs and prostitution. Of course if I tried to not pay the government their shakedown money, they would send those same police to beat it out of me or throw me in jail and confiscate my private property.
Having said that, our police should not venture into another area and provide their services to people who are not being pillaged to pay for them.
Because no one would pay the fee unless their house was on fire. It costs far more than $75 to put out the fire. This person does not live in the coverage area for this fire department. The department is nice enough to extend service to these people outside their area if they choose to "subscribe". This person didn't subscribe so they don't get the service. It's a simple concept.
Fire dept and police department services are NOT optional. This isn't a cell phone subscription or some opt in bullshit. These are required services needed to live.
Or a moral compass for that matter...
Only a true commie would think we need a huge federal government to put out a house fire. Us toothless uneducated conservative dolts out here in my neck of the 'woods' have volunteer fire fighters who do the job because they like it. The community supports them through the fund raisers and such.
Your socialist ideas do have merit though. If we just 'purged' (that means kill in Russia,Cuba,China, etc.) libertarian and conservative operatives that would mean far less people who might need government services. Although the problem arises that of the remaining population there would be only about 6 people not on welfare of some sort. Something to think about though.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
NO, you bill them for the cost, not the missed payment. The entire cost. which I believe is about 7500 dollars.
While I agree that would have been a better solution, if they won't pay a whole $75 a year to have firefighting service (which is negligible compared to the cost of maintaining the average house), what makes you think they'll pay a bill for $7500 after you put the fire out?
There is a world of difference between refusing to insure somebody after the fact and deliberately letting somebody's house burn down because they won't pay a fee to stop it. The former is common business sense. The latter is blackmail. As it was, the lives of the family's pets were lost because of their inaction, but what if there had been a person in that house who died because the firefighters didn't do their job? What if the fire had spread out of control, and caused far more damage than just this person's property, simply because they didn't act on the situation as soon as they were notified?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I like this method for two reasons:
1. You're explicitly paying for a service that's useful. When government takes your money in a lump sum, they tend to do all kinds of other crap with it. See the Social Security fund for a great example.
2. If you want fire protection you have to write a check. That's better than having it deducted from your taxes automatically. Once that happens, the amount creeps higher and higher without anyone noticing and without the government feeling like they need to reign in the price of the service.
Government a la carte would be a great way to increase the fiscal efficiency of our government.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
But now the contract is signed under Duress which can get it invalidated in court.
"Let me say it again, the HOMEOWNER CHOSE TO LET HIS HOUSE BURN when HE FAILED TO SUBSCRIBE."
Sorry, there's this little thing that puts the welfare of the citizenry SQUARELY upon the government's shoulders, and as such, they are to provide for the COMMON WELFARE of everybody. A *CIVIL SERVICE* such as fire-safety crews should be MANDATORY in every city and paid for by tax money.
That this isn't happening is grounds for RICO lawsuits. "Pay up or no service that we are legally and constitutionally bound to give you."
Yea, bull fucking shit.
South Fulton should have the living fuck sued out of them, as well as every other district that practices this shit. This is criminally negligent.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"This person lived outside of the city fire jurisdiction."
No such fucking thing. Multi-alarm fires are common and by law if the request for help from other departments is made THEY MUST ANSWER BY LAW.
It's quite apparent none of you people have done any sort of volunteer firefighting or professional firefighting.
This is pure criminal negligence upon the part of South Fulton.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You're a fuckwit without any clue about ESSENTIAL CIVIL SERVICES.
I hope you burn in a fire and die, you poor excuse for an American.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
For starters, we're on the same side of this. The guy's a moron and deserved what happened.
To your points:
Bankruptcy is a factor in the 'business plan' of the service. You estimate how many you'll have that file for bankruptcy and price things accordingly; that's just standard business practice so nothing new or unexpected here.
Contract under duress is certainly a reasonable concern. The fact that the town warned him in writing and then actually called him about it would be pretty damning circumstances in a court of law. He willingly chose not to have a small preventative service and then when he needed it reneged on the contract he would have in theory signed under duress. That's a nuance that a decent lawyer would be able to argue as well.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
They're a very bad idea anyway. That's why universal healthcare should be put into place.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Income taxes is theft of liberties, I know you don't understand, you've been brainwashed by the gov't+corporations for way too long.
You can't handle the truth.
This is what happens when you don't have socialism.
Highly off-topic, and trollish of an AC. You mods should be ashamed.
Just another day in Paradise
I'm sorry your parents had trouble getting an antenna, but it's not really related to the question of whether your neighbor should be allowed to put your property, and the value of your property at risk.
As for the pursuit of happiness, that is not a constitutional right, and it was never meant to be absolute. If punching children makes me happy, then I am not allowed to pursue that happiness. If putting your neighbor at risk makes you happy, too bad.
And we do not have freedom in the sense that you think. You seem to be arguing that if we do not have absolute freedom, I.E. anarchy, then we have no freedom at all. No, we have limited freedom. In my home state, I am required to insure my car. It is liability, but the principal is the same as the one being discussed here: I cannot make stupid decisions, if those decisions will harm others.