Just "WoW" ... Firefighters let home burn

Crni Vuk

Crni Vuk

M4A3 Oldfag oTO
Orderite
No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn

"They put water out on the fence line out here. They never said nothing to me. Never acknowledged. They stood out here and watched it burn," Cranick said. (...)

Just wow ... I kind have no clue what to say about this for the case its a true stroy as I never expected something like that to happen in a civiliced society (on purpose to say that).

I mean ... I can always judge a situation just from MY perspective and from where I live. And here, in Germany at least its not even a question if firefighters should move out or not, even if its not their district they will do at least 2 things, either move out on their own OR call the next firebrigade nearest to it. And are forced to fight any fire if someone will pay for it or not is no reason NOT to do it. Dont get me wrong if people are responsible for it they will face trouble but thats no reason to just let things burn or not trying to stop the source of the fire.
 
You know, some of those commentators (from the video below) are welcome to move to China. Most things in China is a subscription service, the rich get service, and the poor gets DIY service, unless of course, you are/work for the CCP. People bash each other's heads in to get their social registration into big cities and get into jobs in government owned corporations, hospitals, banks, etc so they can get government housing with unlimited service. That's right, be rich or be connected, or be prepared to live in squalor with no services.
 
I don't understand the controversy.

The agreement was very simple.

Pay the $75 dollars if you want protection. Don't pay it if you don't want protection. Essentially, this is a voluntary tax.

Now, if you aren't going to pay the voluntary tax, why should you expect the same service as the people that pay the tax?

In most of America(and the world), paying for firefighter services isn't a voluntary tax. The agreement there is that the government will help you if you pay the tax and even if you are financially incapable. This particular place in America decided to make it voluntary.

And $75 isn't really that much for stuff like this....especially given that this person already owns a house which means he has a certain amount of income...
 
^^Instead of getting into a discussion over why this system is right or wrong, one might point out that a contingency plan should have been implemented where the firefighters would actually put out the fire and then charge the homeowner a fine for failing to pay the tax instead of twiddling their thumbs while watching his home go up in flames.

Starseeker said:
You know, some of those commentators (from the video below) are welcome to move to China. Most things in China is a subscription service, the rich get service, and the poor gets DIY service, unless of course, you are/work for the CCP. People bash each other's heads in to get their social registration into big cities and get into jobs in government owned corporations, hospitals, banks, etc so they can get government housing with unlimited service. That's right, be rich or be connected, or be prepared to live in squalor with no services.
Click to expand...

Because Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and other countries/regions where public servants actually serve the public don't exist.
 
I'd take an issue with the idea of a fee for such a service, rather than the situation itself. That probably shouldn't be optional, but it's there so what can they do?
 
Verd1234 said:
And $75 isn't really that much for stuff like this....especially given that this person already owns a house which means he has a certain amount of income...
Click to expand...
Thats not the point even if its just 5$, we are talking here about not just the property but the lives of people, the person loost "only" his pets but think about it that his children, wife or other people might have been inside and the firefighters waiting outside doing nothing ? At least here that would be technicaly murder but I can only talk for my self. To tell you that I ve been a member of the voluntary firebrigade for aprox 10 years and for no one of us who did service there was it ever a question who might pay or not pay the service as it was the task to save the lifes and property of the people. I mean the way the firefighters handled the situation is from my point of view simply unprofessional they should have put the fire out simply if not for the "money" but for the danger that it might spread and also affect eventualy the property of those people which pay the taxes/fee imagine the house would had a huge gas tank in the cellar or somewhere in the house ? Such situations happen quite often! ~ and interesting is that they indeed moved out to make sure the people and neighbours which pay are save! A fire is a unpredictable force and even if it doesnt move outside of the area the smoke can be quite toxic considering the things that usualy are inside a home so you should ALWAYS try to put it down as simple as that imagine someone who did payed the taxes would get seriously ill from the smoke maybe one could argue that he should sue the owner of the house but is that the right way ? Why not simply trying to avoid the situation before it even happens. If people are responsible for the fire or not is NOT the task of the firefighters to investigate or decide! THere are other autorities for that and I find it sad that it seems in the link above the men had the right to decide it that should not be their job such things should come later. Thats where I think that formality should not be in front of the lifes of people.

We could always argue that way with many situations. Thinking about policeoficers which decide not to help a bum that is beaten hard by a couple of youth criminals as he is sure the bum doesnt pay his taxes. Is that corret ? You hvae a certain power or knowledge to save peoples lifes and yet youre not doing it cause they dont pay you ? Sorry but I find that very disturbing money should not be the most important value here.
 
The reason there is a fee is because his town doesn't have a fire department, so the department from another town offers to help out if you're willing to pay $75. Like the chief said, if they just let people pay whenever there was a fire nobody would pay.

It's like trying to get an insurance policy on a car right after it is stolen, and expecting to get the compensation equal to the car's value.

The KEY issue is that this is NOT a government service for the guy that lost his house, it is basically a private contract with a government service for another state.
 
House + Fire = Fire Department putting out a fire.

That is what happens, and any crap about the town not having it own Department so another town covers it for a fee or anything comes later. At no point should anyone looked at the status of the households fee till the fire was put out.

Here how it should of played out, fire gets put out, houseowner liable for the full call out cost.

Also I better check the status of my ambulance subscription.
 
The fire station probably should have done it, but they were under absolutely no obligation to do so.

It's NO different than a private company being expected to help out a random citizen for anything.
 
Guiltyofbeingtrite said:
It's NO different than a private company being expected to help out a random citizen for anything.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, the idea that firemen should HAVE to help out random citizens just because their homes are on fire is absolutely preposterous.
 
They should have put the fire out and send him a bill to cover their costs for saving his house. The firefighters most likely wanted to help, but government rules force them not to. A firestation is not cheap to run. They have a ton of complicated equipment to maintain, as well as constantly training.

He should have paid the $75.
 
Mad Max RW said:
The firefighters most likely wanted to help, but government rules force them not to. A firestation is not cheap to run. They have a ton of complicated equipment to maintain, as well as constantly training.
Click to expand...

what goverment rules?

we all know that a firestation is not cheat, but you cannot do that the firemen are there to put fire down.

They should have put the fire out and send him a bill to cover their costs for saving his house.
Click to expand...

so easy but they still fail to do it

He should have paid the $75.
Click to expand...

well, now he will always paid the fee, so they can protect the house (he doesnt have) from the fire.

I never expected something like that to happen in a civiliced society
Click to expand...

can i ask what are the requirements to be a civilized country?
 
I dunno, what is it about American politics and ways of doing things. I guess by the same logic if someone has some deadly plague and runs around spreading the disease, that person won't be taken to a hospital if they haven't paid the whatever bill you have to pay in the States to get health care.

Weird ass country.
 
DexterMorgan said:
I completely agree, the idea that firemen should HAVE to help out random citizens just because their homes are on fire is absolutely preposterous.
Click to expand...

Well...isn't the same principle behind the health care system in the US? That if you can't pay you are on your own? :scratch:
 
DexterMorgan said:
I completely agree, the idea that firemen should HAVE to help out random citizens just because their homes are on fire is absolutely preposterous.
Click to expand...

I guess public service only exist in Europe after all...
Glad to be living here.
 
Arr0nax said:
I guess public service only exist in Europe after all...
Glad to be living here.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's not only in Europe.

Countries like Argentina (South America) and Australia (Oceania) have public hospitals that sometimes function better than private ones even with limited resources and will patch you up without charging you a dime or even asking if you have medical coverage, as we have both government and local volunteer fire departments that would never think of not putting out a fire if someone didn't pay.

What is funny is how willing americans are to agree that if you don't pay you are on your own, it's like it's burnt into them. Here no fireman on any province or town would even question if they should put out a fire or not, it's not something that crosses anyone's minds, it's like "duh, but of course the fireman should put the fire down, how could you think the would do something like let your house burn if you didn't pay", but if americans are alright with it, and even agree with the fireman's decision, then that's how their society works. No offense but I'm glad I don't live over there :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top