Firefighters watch house burn to ground.

[Llama]

http://gizmodo.com/5656373/firefighters-stood-by-and-watched-while-this-house-burned-to-the-ground

This seriously does not make sense to me. A family doesn't pay a 75$ annual fee, and their firefighting department refuses to come to their aid, while their house is burning down. I understand that if the firefighters had helped them it would insinuate that they would put out the fires for free. Still how could anyone who's job it was to put out fires and save families as well as various other people and structures from fires just stand by and watch this, it sickens me it really does.

So do you think the firefighters were justified in not helping this family out?

 

[Not Scicky]

I don't care if you're not obligated as a firefighter to help, you should feel obligated as a decent fucking human-being, this is stupid and immoral and I really can't add much more to it than that.

(That being said, c'mon man, it's 75 dollars for fire-protection and you couldn't pay?)

 

[Fatecrashers]

Firefighting is an essential public service, shouldn't that $75 be a part of taxes instead of optional?

 

[Veedrock]

I think its justified given the circumstances, but like Fatecrashers said, there shouldn't be a choice to opt-out of paying for the service.

That said, I genuinely don't think they did it to be dicks.

 

[Morm]

The $75 per annum is why they become firefighters.

It's entirely hypocritical to be a firefighter and then do that shit.

 

[Cathy]

It seems kind of absurd that they couldn't put out the fire and then charge $75 afterwards. I'm sure the family would have been happy to pay. Although I guess the thinking is that if that were allowed, no one would pay up front, so they'd only get money when they actually put out a fire, whereas they want to get money from everybody, whether they put out a fire for them or not.

 

[vonFiedler]

Did you see all those fucking trees on the property? No shit the fire spread to a neighbor. It sounds like the people of this town are just about to protest, and they are completely justified in doing so.

 

[Not Scicky]

There's the catch Cathy, the family offered the fire-fighter's "any amount of money" to put out the flames, but the firefighter's said it was too late. So yes, they would have been happy to pay. But nope.

@vonFiedler: Well, if you don't consider assaulting a firefighter 'protesting' then sure, they're just about to protest.

 

[lmitchell0012]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it's completely ridiculous that they couldn't help out just because they didn't get $75.

 

[Morm]

this seems a bit like mafia dons breaking legs to get protection money.

 

[FlareBlitz]

The sad part about this is that this is exactly how privatized fire fighting would work...so why whoever was in charge of this chose to ignore the primary advantage of it being a public service is beyond me.

The sadder part to me is that health insurance companies pull this exact shit in this country and no one thinks that's tragic...

 

[earthpeople]

While I understand why people would be up in arms about this, I also understand the position of the fire department. If one family doesn't pay and still gets their fire put out, how many other people will stop paying the annual fee? There might be a better way to put this following statement, but they had to make an example of this house or they would end up losing a lot of money.

If I was one of those fire fighters, I would have a lot of trouble making up my mind. On one hand, you're letting a family's house, full of treasured items, burn to the ground. Some people will look at you with disgust, saying you have no feelings or some bullshit. But if you go to help, you might end up losing your job and in this economy that might be a devastating move for your own family. Pretty much lose-lose if you ask me.

 

[ck49]

I can understand them not putting out the fire. Its their job, and if they did no one would pay any more. The only problems are that the fire spread, which you should have stopped earlier, and that you have to pay in the first place. I think it should be a mandatory payment and part of your taxes, not an optional thing.

 

[WaterBomb]

I think the Fire Dept did what they had to do, but I also think Firefighting should not be privatized. I think either they should all be volunteer, or they should get paid directly by the government. To be honest I wouldn't object to paying an extra dollar out of my paycheck in taxes to support Fire departments.

 

[monkfish]

well so whats the point of paying your $75 like a chump when the joneses next door leave a cigarette burning and get a FREE extinguishification?

 

[TTS]

this seems a bit like mafia dons breaking legs to get protection money.

Not quite. The firefighters didn't start the fire. This is more like someone getting in a car accident/having their house burn down/having their house flood/etc and then going to a car/homeowner's insurance agent and saying they'll pay for insurance to cover it.

I think the Fire Dept did what they had to do, but I also think Firefighting should not be privatized. I think either they should all be volunteer, or they should get paid directly by the government. To be honest I wouldn't object to paying an extra dollar out of my paycheck in taxes to support Fire departments.

This wasn't privatized. The town/area that the house that burned down was located in is pretty rural and does not have its own fire department. The fire department is located in a nearby town/city. If the fire was in that city, it would've been taken care of, since taxpayers in that city fund the fire department. From what I've read, the people who live in that rural area are aware that there is no local fire service. In the end, it's the homeowner's fault for assuming that they'd be saved even if they didn't pay. I'm sure some of the firefighters probably wanted to help, but doing so would end up costing them a LOT of income, since plenty of other cheapskates would potentially stop paying the $75/year fee. There's also the possible issue of the firefighters' insurance not covering if they fought a fire that they weren't obligated to fight, although obviously that's just a guess since I don't have access to their insurance contracts. In the end these people lost material goods, and that's it; I've got a hunch that the fire department would've gone in regardless of the $75 if there were people inside. Sucks to be the homeowner in this story, but they had to be an example -- if they wanted people to risk their lives to defend their PROPERTY then they should have paid the fee.

On a side note, I do agree that it should be mandatory and lumped into property taxes or something like that.

 

[PenKiller]

I live in an area similar to this, we only have volunteer fire departments. Yes they have the yearly dues, however they will still put the fire out even if you don't pay their fee. Just one catch. When they put the fire out you receive a bill that could easily be three to four times the price of the yearly dues. I have never checked on it but I believe the bill can be added to your county taxes. What these firefighters in TN have done was nothing more than make a public example of the family.

 

[Son of Disaster]

I agree it's tragic but i think it's more tragic that you wouldn't just pay 75 to protect your family and property. Are you that petty that you would avoid a fee like that even at risk to your family?

 

[icepick]

I completely agree with the actions of the firefighters. Why should they provide a service to those who aren't their customers?

 

[AccidentalGreed]

The points being said above, either sides of the ordeal should have taken action.

The father could have paid $75 in desperation and be happy he lost less than the fire took away now, and, for God's sake, the firefighters need moral obligation. I mean, seriously. They've got the materials to put down the fire and all that, and yet....this happens.

 

[Cathy]

I think the bigger flaw is just that the fire department hadn't considered this situation. Dispatching the fire team and putting out a fire has some market value and it's surely a lot higher than $75. It's not anti-free-market or anything to allow people to pay the full market value for that service (which may be several thousand dollars) in exchange for having their house saved when they didn't pay the $75. I guess they couldn't invent a deal like that on the spot, but it seems like it should have been considered ahead of time.

 

[Morm]

I completely agree with the actions of the firefighters. Why should they provide a service to those who aren't their customers?

Because their service is saving lives/livelihoods, that would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone who is having a heart attack right in front of them.

 

[Ferrouswheel]

This issue is considerably more complicated then people are making it out to be. So first some important points:

1. It was not the local fire department nor a private fire department, it was a nearby city's fire department, that for a fee would go to places outside of their area of responsibility to put out fires. It makes it much more justifiable that they didn't go out, as if they had gone out to help the person, and another fire in the city broke out, they may not have been able to make it back in time.

2. The house owner offered to pay the full cost of the fire fighter's expenditures if they put out the fire, and they refused. This is the one that is much more irresponsible in my opinion as he is doing exactly what people without health insurance are supposed to do, if they get sick, pay for the whole thing, if we are going to use the insurance analogy.

3. The fire department ended up coming to the neighborhood because the man's neighbors had payed the bill, so they put out the fire on the property line, while watching his house burn, this is the real WTF part.

 

[TTS]

Because their service is saving lives/livelihoods, that would be like a doctor refusing to treat someone who is having a heart attack right in front of them.

Except doctors don't risk their lives in the same way that firefighters do. Doctors run the risk of exposure to bodily fluids, etc, but being a firefighter by nature is dangerous.

 

[Not Scicky]

I'm sorry I've watched Fire-Fighter's put out a fire before and all they did was hose the motherfucker down. I'm aware that in many cases, it's alot more dangerous than that, but this was not one of those situations, there was no baby or dog or cat inside that needed saving or whatever, it was just a burning house that they could've at least bombarded with water or something.

Clearly danger was not the issue here, as soon as the fire spread to another lot, WHAM, Fire-Fighters are there and the fire is put out... on that lot. The only motivation the fire department had was making an example out of an innocent family.