Firefighters intentionally let a home burn to the ground

[linwood]

This is nothing more than a legal protection racket.

If it were my house the fire department would have woken at 4 am with the front of their station having been thoroughly bombed with molotov cocktails.

 

[Engyo]

Sure, we could set the same thing up in the hospital emergency rooms, and for ambulances.
Pay a yearly fee, or die on the curb.

This is the alternative to the dreaded "Obamacare".

 

[Revoltingest]

This is nothing more than a legal protection racket.

A real "protection racket" would also set the fire. This guy just wanted
to avoid paying for the service, while still getting the service.

 

[Willamena]

I've never run across a fee for fire dept services before. Everywhere I've lived or owned property it was covered by taxes.
This denial of service could very well be a rare thing. But it looks simple....don't pay the fee & you better pray that the fire
god sends no wrath your way. But no whining over burning abodes is allowed for those who save the $75.

Yeah. Simple extortion.

 

[Lawrence Mills]

I feal so let down. It makes me question ( how far we have fallen as a country) The World Knows we just proved it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah. Simple extortion.

Property taxes are more extortionary. If he didn't pay, then they'd take his house.
In this case, he got exactly the service he chose to pay for.

 

[Willamena]

Taxes are equally extortionary. If property taxes covered fire protection, & he didn't pay, then they'd take his house.

Taking someone's house for breaking the law is not quite the same, though, doesn't quite have the same evil punch, as refusing an essential public service because an optional contribution wasn't made.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Taking someone's house for breaking the law is not quite the same, though, doesn't quite have the same evil punch, as refusing an essential public service because an optional contribution wasn't made.

But maybe that's just me.

It's not just you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Taking someone's house for breaking the law is not quite the same, though, doesn't quite have the same evil punch, as refusing an essential public service because an optional contribution wasn't made.

But maybe that's just me.

There should be some back-up fee system, such that he can pay extra for not opting in earlier.
It seems so wrong to have firemen just watch the house burn. The guy's an idiot, & made a bad choice.
But still, property taxes work this way: Pay it all, or lose it all.....no choice involved, & no slack is cut.
I've seen it happen, & it has a whole lotta "punch" to lose one's home to the government.

 

[Willamena]

Right, contribution to government coffers or else you go to jail. It's still extortion, just the threat is judicial rather than denial of service. If anything it's worse, since most people could happily live their whole lives never paying the fire department fee, but people paying taxes for it will pay for it and usually never see the benefit.

So again, this county's system may be stupid, and even then only because they did a fee-for-service on emergency services rather than, say, trash pickup (as my city does), but it's no more extortive (warning: POSSIBLY NOT A REAL WORD) than the alternative.

It's absolutely a real word.

 

[Willamena]

There should be some back-up fee system, such that he can pay extra for not opting in earlier.
It seems so wrong to have firemen just watch the house burn. The guy's an idiot, & made a bad choice.
But still, property taxes work this way: Pay it all, or lose it all.....no choice involved, & no slack is cut.
I've seen it happen, & it has a whole lotta "punch" to lose one's home to the government.

No, insurance works this way.

And insurance, when a government does it*, is legalized extortion.

* Public services should be paid from taxes. We are no stranger to "user fees" in Canada, but I feel the same way about them.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Oh, I agree that on paper the city had no obligation to extinguish the fire. But it still takes a sorry son of a ***** to stand there and watch somebody's house burn down when they could prevent it.

This. The firefighters were literally standing right there watching the house burn down. That would be like hospitals admitting patients and then refusing to treat them...oh wait a minute, that already happens!

 

[tumbleweed41]

This. The firefighters were literally standing right there watching the house burn down. That would be like hospitals admitting patients and then refusing to treat them...oh wait a minute, that already happens!

Exactly! Because the patient did not get the 'right' insurance, or has no insurance.
They did not pay the proper fees, therefor their lives, like the aforementioned house, are not worth saving.

I know others may say, "they cannot refuse you emergency treatment", which is true in most cases. But that treatment does not include moving you beyond 'stable', or an expensive surgery that can save your life. Or other, expensive, treatments. Like chemotherapy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'd like more information before I make a judgment.

It's quite common for firefighters to let something burn down - particularly if there is unacceptable danger to the firefighters or if they deem the structure unsalvagable - they don't want to waste men and resources on lost causes. This is most clearly seen in forest fires, or when firefighters try to contain a blaze within one room or section of a building to save the rest.

We don't need to jump to conclusions about insurance, etc, when the firefighters really have nothing to do with it. To address the OP, the doctor's paycheck depends on insurance involvement, but the firefighter's paycheck comes from the taxpayer.

 

[Smoke]

It's quite common for firefighters to let something burn down - particularly if there is unacceptable danger to the firefighters or if they deem the structure unsalvagable - they don't want to waste men and resources on lost causes.

It took a couple hours for the fire to spread to the house, while the family were trying to put it out with garden hoses. The house was not only not unsalvagable; it wasn't even on fire when the FD was first called.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It took a couple hours for the fire to spread to the house, while the family were trying to put it out with garden hoses. The house was not only not unsalvagable; it wasn't even on fire when the FD was first called.

That's like a comedy skit.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe he won't be such a tightwad next time, and will pay his fees.

Exactly. Sorry, dude. You should have thought about this before refusing to pay a measly $75 a year. Isn't this a lesson we try to teach children early on?

"Mom, I want that piece of candy!"
"Then buy it with your allowance."
"But I already spent all my allowance on comic books!"
"Well, maybe you should have thought about that when you spent all your money."

I have to agree with Revolting, though. (Yes, I just said that; no need to pinch yourself.) I say help these people and charge them an exorbitant amount of money.

 

[Smoke]

Exactly. Sorry, dude. You should have thought about this before refusing to pay a measly $75 a year.

Yes, he should have paid that $75. I'm sure he realizes that now. And we all understand that the firefighters were under no legal or contractual obligation to help.

I still say that if you stand by and let somebody's house burn down when you could easily prevent it, you are a sorry son of a *****.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I say help these people and charge them an exorbitant amount of money.

That would be the humane thing to do...

Or accept his offer to pay for all costs related to putting the fire out. That would be well above $75, plus a handsome fine.

 

[Smoke]

That would be the humane thing to do...

Or accept his offer to pay for all costs related to putting the fire out. That would be well above $75, plus a handsome fine.

Or just do the right ******* thing regardless of how much money you can extort out of somebody. That's always an alternative, too.