Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee

THIS.

I am baffled by the people who are up in arms over this. It's like this socialist attitude kicks in, disguising itself as altruism, and it totally overrides common fucking sense.

I live in NYC and pay NYC taxes (the whole kilobuttload of them). I'd be furious if someone from some New Jersey suburb were getting fire, water, or police services for free while us New Yorkers paid for it.

And worse yet, everyone so much wants to blame the government that they miss the real culprits. If you want to bitch somebody out, bitch out the county who wouldn't spring for a real fire department. Bitch out the county reps or politicos who nixed the idea to introduce a fire department.

But don't bitch out the city fire department that was doing you a favor and simply refused to perform a service that you weren't entitled to.

Edit: Oh and to address the "well, what if they'd died in the fire" crowd. The news article made it clear they had time to remove belongings, so I doubt it was life and death. If it was life and death, they'd probably've pulled them out and continued to watch the unprotected house burn.

Again, these attempts to paint people who *GASP* want to be paid for doing a real job as evil baby-eating cretins gives me a migraine.

edited 7th Dec '11 2:22:10 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Being legally obligated to help people in need? Boy, I can't see that backfiring at all...

TSM,

Heres a tip, go look the word socialist up.

Firefighters demanding payement before attending a fire is damm obscene and what you expect from a 3rd world country.

Those are citizens rules that were cited as Germany's example. There are states in the USA that have similar laws, such as Minnesota, which has the "Good Samaritan Law"

To be the simplest solution is to pay for all fire departments in a given state with state taxes (I'd do the same for school so that each school in a state would get the same amount of per student funds).

It does, Barkey? Huh. Well this thread is informative.

On people getting things for free from me: I'd be fine with this...But then I'd let people use me until there was absolutely nothing left solely because I don't think I am as important as anything around me. Including ants. And yet I am also hideously fucking selfish at times. How this works I am not sure. But it does!

And now to look into the Good Samaritan Law and ponder about how I oscillate from extreme selfishness to extreme selflessness...

That's because firefighters are usually payed ahead of time in the first place. Firefighters aren't some group of robot that build their own shit, get recharged from the sun, and can generate water from nowhere. They are a group of normal people who do a dangerous job using machines and equipment that cost money to upkeep.

They are not obligated to put out a fire and they sure and hell aren't forced to. It's a job. Someone needs to foot a bill and the home owner didn't want to.

Correct.

No Whale, what's obscene is expecting the fire department paid for by the taxpaying citizens of one jurisdiction to fight fires in another and think it is okay to not pay them. The gall.

Because, after all, hoses, trucks, training, gear, oxygen, and water are all free to God's creatures. Oh, wait.....

The worst part is, they offered an alternative. Pay $75 a year and we'll provide you the same service as the people who actually pay us and are entitled to our services.

And still people find a reason to bitch.

edited 7th Dec '11 1:39:30 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

What's so bizarre is that this fee is optional in the first place.

Housefires are dangerous to the community when they occur, but the community doesn't have the manpower/funding/whatever to set up its own fire department, so it pays extra to have fire department services imported from the next county over. Fine. This makes sense.

But then why, for Chrissakes, is this an optional fee, instead of something that's mandatory and just a consequence of owning property in the area? Isn't it in the best interest for the entire county to have the county protected by the fire station?

I mean yeah the firemen are dicks for watching the house burn, but it's the smaller county that's in the wrong.

-my reaction-◊

Well Oh So, you ask the $75 question. If you'd like an answer just look at the comments on the article and on this very site. Read comments in stuff like the OWS threads.

Everyone has demands, but when you say "Okay, here's what we need from YOU to satisfy your demands" suddenly all the people that had so much to say fall silent.

In order to introduce a new tax, they have to vote. If $75 a fucking YEAR is too much for these people I can imagine how quickly that bill would be shot down.

That happens all the time round my end -shrug-

But different strokes for different folks.

People can agree to mandatory car insurance but they can't agree to this?

Oh So, if some folks had it their way, police, EM Ts, doctors, lawyers, and servicemen would never get paid.

TSM?

Eh? Where did you get that shit from?

The fire fighters are in the right and did every thing they were supposed to do, which was to make sure the fire stayed isolated to the one home. If you're not going to pay the $75 fee because you think fires are a myth, then shame on you. The problem is that the city/county doesn't have a proper firefighting system, which is why we have people that have to pay a $75 fee in the first place. You're obviously aware of it, don't bitch at the firefighters for doing what they're supposed to.

Also, had any living person been in the fire, the fire department would have been obligated to react to remove the person, then proceed to stay and watch as usual. So don't worry; these firefighters aren't some cold-hearted bastards that would watch you die. Luckily, everyone got out fine, and hopefully they have a better understand of how fires work.

If you want this type of system, then pay the fee everyone else does. If you don't want this type of system, then do what you need to do to fix it.

And this is why having an opt-out for this stuff is dumb.

Though Savage is right, in that they all would have been better off by saving the house and then suing the owners...

That's just common logic. Most people want shit for free.

Can they do that though? What's to stop them from claiming they didn't want them to put out the fire?

edited 7th Dec '11 1:55:11 PM by TheDeadMansLife

@Whale - To what shit are you referring?

That, here all but dem lawyers are paid through taxation.

edited 7th Dec '11 1:55:52 PM by whaleofyournightmare

As in, legally obligated?

TSM, having people opt out of these things is taking advantage of them.

Yeah. Under the united states law if you are a civil servant and a person is in a danger that falls in your type of work then you must save them.

@Whale - Oh, that shit. I get it from comments found in OTC (on other threads, not necessarily this one) and from some comments in the article, etc.

@Oh So - You're not following what I'm saying. I'm saying that as much anti-goverment hate as there is; and as much as libertarians like myself are labelled as Republican stooges or capitalist lackeys, the truth is the government has to walk this crapshoot of a tightrope.

I loathe Mayor Napoleon Bloomberg as much as the next guy. But the truth is, you have two choices, make it mandatory that people have to pay for stuff and listen to them bitch that you take their money. Or, make it optional and have them bitch when they can't get the services they didn't pay for.

Or..you Take a Third Option like this county did and come up with a cheap alternative. And STILL people bitch.

Yeah. That's why the fire department is there in the first place and didn't just stay at home. They go there to make sure everyone comes out alive and to keep the fire under control, however, they have no justification for saving your property.