But the firemen did come and were there and did not lift a finger. If it were not within their jurisdiction, what were they doing there protecting the neighbour's field?

I can understand if the service not paid for was electricity or internet....not lives.

Someone brought up another good point...

What if a travellor was travelling through that town and had a car accident and the car was on fire? They haven't paid the fee, should they simply be left and not helped?

This is the problem when you start picking and choosing and eliminating anyone from emergancy services, you open up a massive ethical and moral can of worms. These firemen did no one any good through their inaction.

Emergency services should always be 'action first, finanaces later' when in operation, regardless of the financial status of the victims, because any alternative costs lives.

[gone]



I've gotten 10 or so reports on this story but this is the only article that mentions this. Is this true? Anyone?

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a fire started outside in some barrels claimed the life of our furry friends in said house.

Irresponsible journalism until confirmed...

Because the neighbor's paid the yearly fee, making their property the fire department's jurisdiction.

It doesn't work like that. A department serves a set area, not this or that particular house. Any houses within the served area are covered.

I think I agree with this comment on the issue from another forum....

How, as a human being whose job is to protect the public from fires, can someone simply listen to a man beg you to help him as his house burns down right in front of you and do nothing? What kind of heartless person would do that? He offered to pay the money, so they should have billed him after they saved him. The sad thing is now he will be forced to continue paying for the firefighter service when they did nothing for him.

What a [censored] world we live in.

I think if they had come and put out the fire and then sent the guy a bill for all their services that day, then it would have been a completely different story.

People would continue to pay their $75 because they certainly wouldn't want to be given a bill in the thousands if they had a fire. The man would still have his house and his pets and this would not even have made the news.....

Did you read the story? This fire department serves the city of South Fulton. The house that caught fire is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_area Obion county, it is not in the city limits of South Fulton, therefore they do not pay the property taxes that go towards the South Fulton Fire Department. Since this, and likely other neighborhoods, are not covered by a fire department the South Fulton Fire Department has agreed to service them for a very paltry $75 per year fee. Anyone who pays this fee will be serviced by the SFFD, anyone who does not won't be. I am not sure why this is so hard to understand.

This is very sad, feel bad for the people who lost their home. However this is not a regulation that was hidden in fine print, or was hidden from the residents in any way. The owners of this home had previously paid this fee but "forgot" to pay it this year, unfortunately this is the year their grandson decided to burn their house down.

As Imperial Guard says best: "YOU SHOULD HAVE PAYED THE FINE!"

But that article might not be the most accurate description of what really happened. They could have been given orders not to take action, I mean most decent people wouldn't sit there unless there was something at stake, like their job. Sad the animals died, but life will go on, it's more important the man didn't get hurt in the fire.

I do understand thank you very much. This is still their jurisdiction as they offer services to this area. They are the 'local' fire department for this area even though it is outside of their general jurisdiction..

This still does not change the fact that firemen stood and watched a house burn without lifting a finger to save it, There is no excuse, period. There is no 'ahh what a shame' or 'the guy was an idiot not to pay'. It boils down to basic humanity, if you stand there and not help someone in dire need it cannot be excused away. You have failed in your duty as a human and failed as a fireman sworn to help people AND animals, if possible.

Stepping outside of the main discussion here, but...
Why would they burn trash on their property? That sounds awfully risky.

Is it normal to burn trash in certain parts of America or what?

So if you are going to insist that public municipalities provide expensive services to people that don't pay for them let's go back to my previous question. How far away should they have to provide this free service? Also what if the towns bordering South Fulton should close their fire departments, as apparently the South Fulton Fire Department should be obligated to put any fire out for free. It seems like a pretty good idea for everyone, besides the residents of South Fulton since their property taxes are probably going to increase many-fold as they have to provide fire protection service to an unlimited number of free-loaders.

EDIT: @ El Di4blo, this is Tennessee we are talking about.

No I am not discussing borders or taxes or getting into that, I am discussing this particular case......

What could and should have been done......

1) The firemen had a moral obligation and duty to put out the fire, especially as they were right there. This is an obligation that goes beyond taxes, governments etc.. This is an obligation as a human being in a position to help another. An obligation to fulfill a commitment made to assist others.

2) The firemen should have accepted either the $75 the owner begged to pay or the $500 offered by the Insurance company and put out the fire.

3) Or the firemen should have put out the fire and sent the man a full bill covering all their costs for that day.

What the firemen should not have done is...

1) Refuse the payment offered and watched the man's house and animals burn. That helps no one at all.


That is what I am saying.

I wonder what these folks did before that neighboring city's FD made this offer to extend their coverage to them for a low annual fee? That city would be smart to rescind the offer, more trouble than its worth. No good deed...
---------------------


1 They don't have a trash pickup service
2 They don't want to pay for a contracted trash pickup service
3 They pay a fee (usually based on weight) to utilize the dump themselves, or via a contractor, at a county site. They burn as much trash as they can so the dumping fees are lower

Its quite common in rural areas. Sounds like a real nice place, eh? no sanitation, no FD...

@Meek - That's all fine and good but it was not up to the firefighters to decide this. They were instructed by their chief and the mayor of the town to not put the fire out. Even the homeowners made a point to say they didn't hold anything against the firefighters, they were doing what they were told to do.

Do the firefighters have a moral obligation to do something that would get them fired, thus depriving fire protection from those who have actually paid for it? What if another fire starts the next day before they can hire and train a new staff?

EDIT:

I had thought that a while ago but forgot to post it, it is the best solution IMO. Force the county to protect their residents.

Here a share of the property tax goes toward emergency responders, (that includes ambulance, police, and firefighters). It's been that way every town I lived in. I wonder what the heck is going on with the money management in that town, something isn't right.
I find the fact that the firemen let the house burn down over a delinquint seventy five dollar fee deplorable. It's pathetic that the pets, died, I am glad no humans did.

See 8 posts above yours:



There are a lot of unincorporated areas here outside of Portland Oregon. The area where I grew up had the best plan, 9 cities and 3 counties joined to create one big fire and rescue service.

"Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue's 210 square mile service area includes the cities of Beaverton, Durham, King City, Rivergrove, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, West Linn, and Wilsonville, as well as unincorporated areas in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties. The District has 21 fire stations, a Business and Command Center, a training facility, and two division offices (North and South)."

http://www.tvfr.com/aboutus/service_area.aspx

This area in Tennessee shoudl look at doing something similar

Fire fighters have a moral obligation to protect people and property. Many take an oath that says so.

What if another fire starts the next day? Send out the firemen to sit and watch it, what else. Though do you honestly think they would fire the whole department over it or even fire a whole crew, if they had put out the fire. Not going to happen, to expensive to train up a whole new crew, to risky. I can't remember if the article stated, are these paid or volunteer firemen?

Look I am sorry but you cannot justify the actions of firefighters refusing to help fight a fire over $75. It cannot be done, taxes and jurisdictions mean nothing compared to doing a duty and helping out a fellow human being.

Correction, love of money aka greed is the root of all evil.

Oathes mean nothing over here. Unless they see the green, no public official or worker is gonna do anything.

I just can't see that. I worked with sheriffs, police and firemen in my previous job in Canada and they were dedicated to what they do...protecting and helping people. Sure you got the odd idiot in the bunch, but in general these people put their lives on the line not for the money (Which is not very good anyway), they do it because they choose too, they want to help.

This is pretty clearly illegal for those that have bothered to read the law.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stustnst39_14_201_212.htm#s201

Probably a wise financial/legal decision for that city to disentangle itself asap. They do seem to have wound up getting the short end of the stick in this deal. As a taxpayer, I'd be pretty unhappy with the liabilities they're exposing my city to.

If the fire department goes bankrupt because they spend too much money doing things they don;t get paid for no one wins. Putting this one fire out wouldn't likely cause them to go broke, but the precedent it would set could be devastating. If someone forgets ( :rolleyes: ) or decides not to pay a very small fee up front what makes you think they would pay a bill that would be 1000x or more than that, especially after everything they own has just gone up in flames?

As for the rest I have no desire to debate morals. They are too flexible, fluid, icky and lead to nothing other than "Yes they do", "No they don't" cycles which are silly and don't get anyone anywhere. What is moral in one country could be immoral in another. What was moral 100 years ago may not be today.

It would have been great if the fire fighters in question had decided to take a stand and fight The Man^TM and put the fire out even though they were very expressly told not to. I cannot blame them for doing what their bosses told them to do and not providing a service that someone intentionally decided not to pay for.

What part of that law do you think applies?

I have no law training but I would think the use of the word 'unreasonable' in the only clauses that could be applicable would clear any firefighter who doesn't risk his life to save an animal.

The precedent this has already set is far more devastating.