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.'"
Uhhh, yea. That's how it works.
Your city and county taxes pay for fire departments. If your county is too poor to pay for a fire department, you may have a volunteer fire department, or the nearest municipality may charge a fee to cover service. If you don't pay that fee, you don't get fire protection.
It ain't rocket science. Some bubba sets his own house on fire, and then whines because the people he didn't pay, didn't come to put it out. I've lived in Tennesee: they really don't like taxes there. That's fine, but there are consequences.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You have to pay your taxes if you want municipal services. If you wave it away claiming you don't want government interference in your life, then the firefighters will not interfere with fire burning down your house. The guy sadly got exactly what he argued for in the first place when he turned the city down.
This is what happens when you don't have socialism.
for libertarians everywhere.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wouldn't work. Look, it's not like there are fire hydrants out there. That fire department depends on those fees to get tank trucks and other stuff you have to have to fight rural fires. If you could just pay as you go, then no one would ever pay, and the fire department wouldn't be able to afford the equipment.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
They turned up to stop the spread of the fire to a neighbouring property, then they stood and watched as the house burnt to the ground, killing the animals inside. The guy forgot to pay $75, offered to make good on it, and they refused, they just watched his house, his life's possessions, and his pets burn alive.
I don't care who you are, that's callous beyond anything I wish to respect.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
A publicly funded fire brigade? What's next? Public healthcare? You dirty socialist!
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Nuff sed.
Table-ized A.I.
Dude, it's the state, not the country. Don't blame fricking Obama for the problems of Fulton County Tennesee's rural fire department! That's just absurd.
In most other states, there'd be a state income tax, or a hefty county tax, or a sales tax or something to support fire coverage for all the citizens in the county. They didn't want that there, so there is a fee. And if you don't pay it, you're screwed. And it's their own bed to lie in.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In case any of you are wondering, this is exactly the reason why a lot of us detest libertarianism, and refuse to vote for Ron Paul not because they think he can't win but because they think he would ruin this country.
Basically you are now forcing firefighters to be bill collectors. What do they do, negotiate with the guy on the spot?
No, the real problem is with having a voluntary fee for a collective, necessary service. Don't blame the firefighters. Blame the government that set up a no-win situation.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Easy solution: Put out the fire, then hit him with a massive fine. Say 10x the actual cost of fighting the fire.
You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?
While there are several solutions (and theories) in place, the fact remains that you'll always have a percentage of free-riders. Of course, in a purely capitalistic model, this is solved because every service has an associated cost with it, and those that don't pay the cost don't get the service (e.g. this case). In socialism, you pay a larger chunk (e.g. taxes) and you get a plethora of services, freeing you from the worry of particular services -- but then, you do not get to pick and choose.
Typically, life-or-death services (e.g. police/fire) fall under the latter, but I guess rural Tennessee is different.
What is next a cop fee and if you don't pay the cops will just stand there as you get raped as you did not pay the fee?
fireman and cops should be payed for with taxes!
also will the fireman pass up a burning car as they don't know if the people in the car payed?
This what the republic want for health care but with health care buying on your own can cost $1000+ month with a big list of stuff not coved and if you are sick then it can be hard to get it at all. Some job only have that min med that cost about $700+ year + copays with $2000 MAX YEAR PAY OUT AND that is joke care.
There's a lot of libertarians here on Slashdot. Well, this is what a libertarian utopia looks like, kids. If this strikes you as unjust and cruel, you'd probably better stop listening to Glen Beck on the teevee, and start voting for candidates who believe that government is a useful thing.
(If, on the other hand, you're happy with the outcome of this story, that's cool, you're not a hypocrite, and, we can agree to disagree.)
As for "why not put out the fire and then bill him", the $75 fee is not to put out the fire, it's to keep the fire department running when there *isn't* a fire. You can no more pay the bill after you need the service than you can wait until after you get cancer to start paying for medical insurance. The system can't work that way.
Animal cruelty charges should be brought, they allowed 4 pets to die...frankly I would be more pissed about that than losing my stuff.
NO, you bill them for the cost, not the missed payment. The entire cost. which I believe is about 7500 dollars.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Right up until the moment they need the government. Ain't it a bitch?
I was raised liberal in a redneck part of the country. And a lot of kids I grew up with thought it was clever to call the cops "the pigs". The first time my mom caught me pulling that shit, she pulled me aside and bitched me out, telling me, "You won't be calling a pig on the day you need a cop."
Frankly, I like nice roads. I like a school tax that enables stores to hire cashiers who can read. I like the idea that if any brown people overthrow their government while I'm on vacation that I can go to the embassy and the Marines will fly me the fuck out of there.
I'm a supporter of paying higher taxes -- just make sure I get some decent services to go with it.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
The City of South Fulton doesn't have the authority to issue fines to people who don't live in their town.
"Why not put out the fire and then bill him for the $75?"
I was thinking he should get a fine, like parking meters, it's only 50 cents an hour to park YMMV and no one's watching too closely and you could park and not pay, but if you're caught it's a $50+ fine.
I say put out the fire and bill him $7500+. If he don't pay put a lien on the house and take the house.
But to just stand there and watch it burn? That should be criminal, what if people died? I think the firefighters should go to jail. What has his world come to when the people sworn to serve and protect decide not to? Sounds like anarchy.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
It set the precedent that your human beings.
I don't know why this is missed by people here, but OBVIOUSLY you would bill him for putting it out. OBVIOUSLY I mean the entire cost not the 75 dollars.
I would get fired before I let someones home burn down. To hide behind 'policy' and rules is a way to cover up entrenched callousness and cowardice.
The whole thing reeks of 3rd world policy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While yes it is sad that this happened to the family, I think this is a fantastic example of what happens when right wing capitalist values meet reality. They are so obsessed over the evils of socialism, how forcing people to pay for services 'used by other people' is anathema.
So here is what happens when you don't feel you should have to put money into the collective pool for social services. Thanks but no thanks. If some relatively small taxes is the price I have to pay for this kind of peace of mind, I'll take it every time.
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.
"Blame the government that set up a no-win situation."
You mean, blame the people that voted for the gov't that set up the no-win situation. People blame the gov't all the time -- without realizing THEY ARE THE GOV'T. As a citizen, you are responsible for your gov't...not the other way around.
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.
If the voters in that district agreed with you, they would have approved the tax.
Thankfully this is America, where democracy still holds some kind of value, and the actual residents of the county get to decide what their laws say.
South Fulton used to send out bills of $500 to non-payers for fire response. Less than 50% of the people paid that bill.
They realized that they would have to get a court order to collect the rest.
Subscription districts suck.
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.
As others have pointed out, the fire department showed up to prevent the fire from spreading to the neighbor's property. The neighbor had paid the $75.
Bingo.
So instead of pointing at the big bad nasty firefighters, go point the finger at the "government is evil" crowd who insists that any tax is bad and that we would be better off living in a libertarian utopia.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
That's true, this is like the health care debate. In this case, someone chose not to buy the service, and the public outcry will be, "That's terrible! No one should have that choice!" Also, note that the fire victim was surprised that the FD wouldn't take his $75 while the fire was in progress. If it were health care he needed, he'd complain that his house being currently on fire is a "pre-existing condition" and that an insurer should be legally forced to insure him the moment he feels like paying.
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.
Revive the Constitution.
The only thing that tires me more than a frothing libertarian is a frothing libertarian hater, of which there seem to be more than actual libertarians.
If you knew anything about what the hell you were talking about you'd realize that libertarians aren't opposed to all government, just parts of it. As with any group of humans there's variance, some are quite moderate, some are more extreme. However you find that things like military and public safety, which fire departments are, are things they almost universally are ok with taxes paying for.
There's a big difference between saying "Reduce or eliminate many government programs," and saying "Eliminate ALL government." That would be anarchists, not libertarians.
Also please realize the people suggesting bill him mean "Bill him for the cost of putting out the fire." It would be a case of "Pay $75/year in insurance, or pay the full cost if there is a fire."
That is the proper way to handle a situation like this, since fire is a public safety issue. Not putting out a fire should never be an option since the problems isn't that a house may burn down, it is that all of them may burn down. Ask London what happens when you lack proper fire control.
"No, the real problem is with having a voluntary fee for a collective, necessary service. Don't blame the firefighters. Blame the government that set up a no-win situation."
I think you mean "Blame the voters who are so anti-tax that they refuse to provide the necessary funds to even cover collective, necessary services."
Of course this would have no impact on your taxes, your taxes would be just as high.
Why?
If libertarians had their way and fire departments were privatized across the country:
Incidents like this would become an almost daily affair.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
An interesting sub-topic to be sure. Do you think he had the right to expect those services to be available to him knowing that he refused to pay into the system? I wasn't referring to the larger question of the legality of Health Care and I don't want to get too side tracked from the topic at hand with such. I was more interested in the fact that he refused to pay for the service and then expected them to provide such services for the original fee after it became an emergency.
I see that as very similar to folks who refuse to pay for health insurance, and then expect to be able to go to the emergency room for treatment. It just struck me as a little too close in general situation to the health care debate.
Apologies if I didn't make that clear.
But emergency rooms are still required to treat the grievously injured, insured or not. What if there had been a life on the line, someone trapped inside the building. Does some kid have to die because his dad was to cheep or too stupid to pay a fee?
I understand why this happened this way but I don't see why it couldnt be structured differently. If wilderness rescue can charge a lost hiker for finding them without that hiker having to pay a $75 fee ahead of time just in case they get lost, why cant the fire department charge someone who didn't pay the fee up front. Obviously the fee for putting out the fire should be a lot more than what the person would pay if they just paid in advance but it should be an option.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
You don't pay taxes in Europe? You pay for it whether you realize it or not. In this case, this individual is in a separate county, so his taxes did not pay for that service. He is frankly no eligible to receive those services if he didn't pay for them.
As for me, I would never be so stupid as to refuse to pay a $75 dollar fee for fire service.
You're ignoring the greater problem: socialised defense! The federal government is taking your money, and using it to protect poor people from terrorism.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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
Yes, we get it, we all get it, the whole of Europe gets it. We KNOW that public services are paid for with taxes, we don't think they magically exist for free. The other thing is that we tend to pay our taxes up to the top, and then the top ensures that stuff like firefighting are paid-for nationwide. That also means that there isn't a jobsworth being employed to check whether homes currently being burnt down are covered. Frankly, this situation is stupid even for all the people who DO pay because time is wasted checking to see if they're on the list (and faffing around resolving mis-spellings, no-doubt) when the firefighters SHOULD be going to put out the fire immediately.
FGD 135
OSHA considers a house fire to be "Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health"
All my personal protective equipment comes with warning labels that even when wearing the equipment properly, I can still be killed in a fire that the equipment will survive.
Every time I enter a building that is on fire it counts as "substantial personal risk". I am definitely at less risk than someone without the training or equipment, but I am still at risk.
If I am injured on a fire that my department has no legal responsibility to respond to, the Workman Comp Insurance provider can deny my claims.
Unless there is a pre-written agreement between the County and my Community, responding to a non-subscribers house fire is an out of jurisdiction response. The Subscription fee is what gives my fire department jurisdiction.
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.
Bad news: the scotus has already ruled that police can, in fact, legally stand by as you are raped. Even if they know about it. Even if you call for help.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
As a Brit, yes, I pay taxes, and if my house was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my friend who has a part-time job and pays less taxes was on fire, a fire engine would come to put it out. And if the house of my other friend who is on benefits (which you'd call "welfare") because this wretched economy means they can't get an interview much less a job, and as such doesn't pay taxes in any meaningful sense was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out. And if the house of my other other friend, who has a debilitating illness which means she couldn't work if she wanted to and gets just enough money from the government to pay for the food, rent and carers she needs was on fire, a fire engine would come and put it out.
We have this crazy idea over here that a person's right to emergency services shouldn't be based on how much money they're making, and shouldn't be removed through poor luck or illness. And yeah, a few lazy people abuse it; frankly, I'll accept that knowing that if anyone I care about is in need, no matter whether due to malice, bad luck or their own stupidity, they'll be helped, without needing to sign up for a series of different plans years beforehand.
"Duress": I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Black's Law (quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress) defines duress as: "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".
In other words, I can induce you to sign a contract with any LEGAL threat that I so please, and the contract is still binding. But if my threats are inherently illegal (such as threatening to hurt you, hurt your family, destroy your property, blackmail you), then the concept of duress applies, and you have a defense against my breach of contract claims.
This definition makes a lot of practical sense, if you think about it. If duress were a broader concept that included me refusing to provide you with services if you don't sign a contract, then I wouldn't even legally be able to tell you the point of signing the contract, in the first place. Under that kind of twisted logic, if you asked "Why should I sign this contract agreeing to pay you $20 to mow my lawn", and I responded "Because I won't mow your lawn for free", then I'd be subjecting you to duress. Clearly, that's not conducive to basic business arrangements.
In this case, the firefighters would be threatening to withold a service (fighting the fire consuming the man's house), which doesn't seem to be an illegal threat, to me. Granted, the house represents a very serious economic and emotional loss to this man and his family. I don't want to belittle that. But it's not like the firefighters set the man's house on fire, in the first place.
Now, there are some situations where a society will legally or socially obligate an individual member to act on behalf of his fellow man in a time of need. Some jurisdictions even have laws requiring you to aid another human being in distress, as long as you're not putting yourself in harm's way (like in the Seinfeld finale). So everything I said, above, assumes that this little Tennessee burg isn't one of situations.
they could charge the homeowner whatever turns out to be the actual cost of the service (the annual cost of having the resources available divided by the average number of fires per year, plus a surcharge for "forgetting" to pay). It might be several thousand dollars, and it's up to the homeowner to decide whether his house is worth paying for the service or not.
All fine and dandy except for one niggling problem:
Federal law limits post-fire bills to $500. This isn't enough to keep people paying the $75, nor enough to cover actual expenses. So they let it burn.
I don't read AC A human right
I live in the next town over, across the state line in KY, so allow me to expand on this a little.
The fire subscription fee has been in existence for 20 years for those living within a certain distance of South Fulton in Obion County. It has never gone up in 20 years. It is a meager fee for such service, yet a large portion of those eligible still gamble with it. Before 1990, the rural folks flat out didn't have fire service, period. South Fulton FD would not respond outside the city limits, so this is considered an expanded service for those outside the city limits, not a gov't paid and provided service like it is for those inside the city. And we use the term "city" liberally. South Fulton has a population of maybe 2500 people and falling as the old die off and the young leave for lack of employment opportunity.
Had there been a person in the home whose life was in danger, the firefighters would have been legally obligated to respond to save the person, but once the person is rescued, their duty ends for those without a fire subscription. Also, I don't understand why his pets died. From what I've been told, it took almost 2 hours for the fire to go from the burn barrels to his shed and ultimately to his house. He had lots of time to rescue his pets and his most important documents and possessions before the fire got to his house, but he instead assumed that the SFFD would come save his pets and property even though his fee was not paid. He expected something for nothing and got exactly what he put effort into - nothing.
As for the property next door, it was a harvested soybean field on fire, not another home. They have special tanker trucks with big spray booms to deal with such.
Huh? I believe that I'm "forced" to pay for Interstate Highways, Federal Police, the Military, and plenty of other things which are of only indirect benefit. If you don't like the health care proposal, do us all a favor and dislike it for a real reason, ok?
Right now I'm paying for people who don't have health insurance through higher hospital costs passed on to me due to all of the freeloaders who use the ER as their only doctor. I'd rather everyone pay less to keep them healthy and maybe employed, or at least employable, rather than pay more to have them sit around sick and on welfare. People losing their house is this manner is a direct analogy; too cheap to pay for their own fire service, they're even too cheap to pay $75 insurance for another town's fire service, they are now homeless and my taxes will go toward their welfare. Make the bastards pay a little so that we don't have to pay it all for them. Heck, the fire dept. was stupid too. It will cost us all a ton to help this family back onto their feet; if we'd just all be "forced" to pay in equally then this wouldn't happen. Or, give up, tell them to go homeless, and then pay more for police to arrest and house them (in prison) when they steal to eat.
Fact is, we all pay for everyone's stupidity. It's only a matter of how we pay, and how much. Your choice.