Their job is saving lives, they have no obligation to be firemen. They chose to be firemen, knowing the risks and when they did they agreed to save lives. It is their duty, you cannot go picking and choosing whose lives to save. Their job is to save every life it is possible to save.

They're not called Bravest for nothing.

If they don't want to risk anything they shouldn't be firemen.

I predict serious fallout from this decision even though it barely made today's newspaper here except a political piece in the editorial section (seriously, wtf with politicizing this?)

...Within the realm of their job area and requirements. If they aren't required to do it, they won't risk their lives.

I am very disturbed by the complete lack of sympathy with so many people here for a man who's house just burned to the [censored] ground while the firemen where watching!

Sure the guy should just have paid the fee when he had the chance, but it's not like that makes him a child molester or something. [censored].

I would have to disagree there to be honest, like I said their job and requirements of the job is to save all lives possible.

This really opens a can of worms though, what about your average illegal immigrant? Technically firemen are not 'required' to save them, but they do because it is what they are there for.

Someone brought up a controversial but valid comment on that news thread...

What if in 911 the fireman were ordered to only rescue those who paid their taxes?

It's not that we're not sympathetic for him, it's just that what can you expect? You don't pay for insurance, you can't expect to get anything back.

Meek, their job requirement may be to save lives, but only within the realm of where their job takes place.

Besides, the headline makes them sound like complete [censored]s, "firefighters watch as house burns." I seriously doubt they just watched, sang Kumbaya and broke out the marshmallows. They were probably packing up to leave, and/or already in the process of moving out.

I'm pretty sure they prefer to risk their lives to save PEOPLE! That is, not budgies, or whatever.

My whole issue with it is that animals needlessly suffered and died because of this.



It was dogs and cats, not budgies! Clearly you are not a lover of animals.

You know what, I think you are wrong. I saw a fireman travel up three stories of a burning building to save a hamster. The guy went up and rescued my hamster when I was 11 and my friend's house caught on fire.

Besides there probably was no risk to their lives anyway, they do have water. They could have saved those dogs and that cat, but they never even tried.

I can be pretty absentminded. I forget important things all the time. It is not like I don't try; it just isn't something I can help. I really hope nobody out there thinks I deserve having my life ruined for that. :unsure:


EDIT: I guess it all comes down to which you think is more important: rules or people.

So you don't care at all that the man lost his house, all of his possessions, is now homeless and quite possibly has nowhere to stay?

I'm generally good with the taxes as well.
It's only when I get my salary and see what I earnt and what I get that I mind them.
A day after that it's totally forgotten.

That much was his fault, Gandalf.

It's not the animals' fault that he was such an asshat.

Seventy five dollars ain't that much.

I do care, however I care more about lives then possessions.

A $75 fee for "protection"? Sounds like a laundering scheme.

Absolutely despicable and unconscionable behavior by the firemen and whoever their superiors are (there's such a thing as disobeying). I hope they get prosecuted.

Yes hes an asshat, because he didnt pay, even though he offered to pay when they showed up...

I read elsewhere that at first they were told not to respond, but then got called out because there was a risk it would spread to a neighbor's house, and that they did indeed stood there watching it burn while the guy pleaded.

In either case, besides the usual idiots politicizing it, this story should seriously infuriate every single person who hears it when it finally gets the headlines it deserves. So far it's barely been mentioned.

I'm not saying the firefighters are free of guilt.

I'm just saying $75 isn't that much.

For what?

I'd like to see you quote whatever law or agreement they violated.

I would like to say that they violated a law on animal cruelty, however even if they did they probably wouldn't be prosecuted anyway.

None the less there is simply no way to defend their actions, the guy begged and pleaded to be allowed to pay, there was no excuse as to why they didn't take his payment and do their duty and save those animals.

I don't really know how it all works in the US, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighting_in_the_United_States implies that firefighters are regulated in some way. :shrug: If they work for the town, then taxes should cover expenses.

Can you imagine if firefighters at Katrina said "nope, not gonna save you unless you prove you have flood insurance"?

This was getting a bit heated. I have dampened some of it down so if anyone tries to fan the flames again I will take appropriate action - whether you have paid your 75 bear hugs or not. :stare:

Cool it guys. OK.

This whole story makes me think of the "fire brigades" in Terry Pratchett's Discworld, who were eventually disbanded because they would go to people's houses and make tutting noises about how flammable it all looked, and how a small fee could save them from any unfortunate "accidents"... It really is quite sad, never thought I'd see anything similar in the real world.

I'm pretty sure no animal cruelty laws force people to risk their lives to save animals from a burning building.

We can't say they would have been risking their lives, we weren't there. They may have been able to control the fire before it got to out of control and they may not have had to risk their lives to save the animals at all. They never even tried, that is the issue.

This and the 9/11 anology are complete strawmen. A better example would be blaming New Orleans police for not helping 9/11 victims and the NYPD for not helping with the Katrina rescue. This house was not in that fire department's jurisdiction. That section of the county has no contracted fire department service. Any outrage should go to the county who hasn't found a way to get their residents fire protection.

How far outside of the city limits, and the people who pay them, should that fire department be obligated to serve? A set distance? Halfway to the next closest fire house? Any where, any time a fire breaks out? Can I get mad at them for not coming to Oregon if my house catches on fire? The homeowners made a very conscience decision to live outside of city limits and knew they had no fire protection. They chose not to pay the nearest town for the service so they don't get service.