Not that I'm religous, nor have I ever been to church, but no that is something I would not do.

And what if there were? Would they have just sat by while they burned to death?

I don't know, that 75$ sure is important stuff.

I don't give fat rat's ass what line of demarcation magically changes a property on fire from being one departments jurisdiction or not.
This is a clear cut case of profit over morals, it is inexcuseable. They should have put teh fire out, and fined him.
Now that it has media coverage, I am sure that legal ramifications for the county are going to occur. They are going to spend more money in legal fees and settlements over this,
Wonder what else the county will have to cut. IIRC, federal tax dollars are also allocated to cities/municipalities/counties for emergency responders.

No amount of rationilzing it is going to change the fact that a man's house burned down while trained and able personel were there, and refused to do thier duty, over the issue of a delinquint bill.


Also there is home fire insurance, purchased by the homeowner, and this "insurance" the article speaks of must be a PR term for "service fee".

It might have been uncaring to let his house burn down, but it was due to his own refusal to pay for a service that brought that situation on him in the first place. If everyone were covered under a service that was only supposed to be offered to those who paid, how would the system possibly sustain itself? No one would pay, because they would always be relying on other people to pay for the services and expect them to be covered. Like some have said, a single case definitely wouldn't strain their resources, but it would set the precedent that people don't have to pay for fire department services.

Furthermore, I don't care either way whether you choose to listen to my "morals" at all. The fact is, this is a matter of emotion versus logic. Emotional appeals are weak, designed to prey on human feelings of empathy, sympathy, and shame, while offering very little actual substance as an argument. I also do not consider posts meaningless, nor do I troll. I simply see these emotion-filled arguments as frail, stubborn even in the face of facts. You do not pay for fire protection, you are not protected in the event of a fire.

Edit: By the way, I have seen how people pay after they are fined. They don't. My car was hit 5 years ago by a man without insurance, and he's still paying his debt off. $1800 is not a lot to pay, and yet he refuses to make payments at a decent amount.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/Fcuk2006/Inb4lock.gif

To clarify, you shouldn't have to pay subscription for "fire protection". If taxes aren't enough to pay for a department it falls upon the city and not the residents to take damage. The city should look at it's expenses and figure out what there problem is.

I can't agree more with this.
I for one wouldn't have been able to just sit there, not without questioning what kind of person I am.

That's just it. He wasn't in any area where his taxes paid for fire protection. He paid less taxes, a byproduct of living out in the country area, but that also means less services. His taxes didn't automatically cover fire protection, like it would in a city area. He was offered to be covered by fire protection from a nearby region, where he did not respond to such offers.

I guess these people just mindlessly obey rules like drones that can't think for themselves and realise "Hey, maybe what we're doing here is wrong and immoral. . ."

And to everybody saying "Well, he didn't pay the fees, he shouldn't get the services", are you really that apathetic and robotic that you can't think of anything else but the rules and money? Seems like society is rapidly evolving to the point where people truly lose their morals. Needless to say, I'm sick to my stomach, and if I were the man who's house burned down I would leave the country and never return.

And go to a country where nothing costs anything? Public services are provided for free, you don't pay taxes, etc?

Who said that? Certainly not me.

I personally would just be so disgusted with any country where people did that, that I just couldn't live in that country anymore and would have to go somewhere else.

I was implying that no matter where you go, you can't expect services without paying for them. No matter where you live, you'll be expected to pay for public services if you want to benefit from those services.

Edit: Another way of looking at this is from the municipality/region this fire department had jurisdiction over. How fair would it be if those people who paid taxes to keep that FD up and running if they had to pay for others who didn't pay for those services, but still expected them anyways?

This has absolutely nothing to do with public services and everything to do with human empathy.

Fire FIGHTERS, people who make a career of saving people, their homes, and their loved ones from fire and other natural disasters, sat idly by while a man's home burnt to cinders before them. They had all the means before them to do it, yet would not simply because of a couple cheap slip of cotton and paper that they didn't get.

It's disgusting.

So, I'm an immoral person because I don't think the closest fire department should offer unprotected areas free handouts when bad things happen to them? Get off your highhorse. There's a lot more at play in these types of things than bleeding heart morality. If you can't look at it objectively, you're a sap. END OF DISCUSSION.

See how annoying that is?

It has everything to do with public services. If you don't chip in for the public service, you don't get the benefit of that public service. It's that simple. If they started to bend the rules for one guy, they would have to bend the rules for everyone else. At that point the system fails and no one will get fire protection because no one is willing to pay for it anymore. It's fire insurance, plain and simple. You can't just magically bring in fire trucks without them being paid for in advance - it doesn't work that way. The fire trucks need to be built, men need to be trained and lots of money needs to be had in order to do that. Plus maintaining the fire trucks, the firehouse, the fire hydrants, the water system, etc, etc. That all costs money. The man may or may not have "forgotten" about the fee, but he still didn't pay it, thus he doesn't get the service.

Actually, this has a lot to do with public services. If they didn't have people make annual/monthly payments, and instead let them pay a huge fine after their house was saved, how many do you think would pay in full, much less pay at all? The entire fire fighter system would likely collapse due to lack of funding, or at the very least be greatly reduced to the point of being irrelevant. Human empathy doesn't really pay for firefighter's salaries, now does it? Sure, they might have saved this man's house and such, hell, maybe even got a little of the payment he was offering. But it would have set up the precedent, as others have stated, that people can choose not to pay for firefighting services on a regular basis, then expect the FD to come and save them when they actually do need it.

Edit: Already well-stated by Reneer.

If somebody was to visit here and not pay taxes or have "fire travel insurance", rent a property for the duration of their stay, and have it catch on fire, the fire service would put it out regardless.
I can accept that in the US the methods in place are very different than here with regards to emergency services, and I think thats down more to culture than politcs so please don't take this as a politcal post, but flat out refusing to put out a fire and charge him later is just idiotic, no matter where you live.

Yeah, he might not pay his bill if you charge him later, but thats punitive.

This thread is starting to require too much moderator attention. I can see that some of you feel quite passionate about the issue, and some of you are play devil's advocate, or internet tough guy. But some of the posts are starting to get really snippy and the arguments are repetitive. I'll let the next few posts decide how it goes.

And for those of you who post just to say "I smell a lock"? Knock it off. Report a thread or don't, but don't spam.

when you rent a home or apartment, the owner of the complex pays for the services

The difference is that they could simply INCLUDE it in the taxes. You know what happens when you don't pay your taxes, right?

Very bad things, and that's drilled into everybody's heads. Everybody gets the same protection, hell, people who don't pay their taxes get protection (and if you're living it a house, as that poor man USED TO DO, I'm sure you pay your taxes).

You know what? Lets just have police be "insurance" that you pay for. You start getting mugged on the street and the police can just drive right on by. Those doctors? Naw, they get the money UP FRONT while you're dying. No cash, no treatment. I mean, you showed up at the ER with a pre-existing condition, right?

You're losing sight of the big picture here: Public services exist to serve the community as a whole, and, even bigger, the country as a whole, including everyone who lives in it. Good, bad, black, white, rich or poor. 75 dollars or no 75 dollars.

If he doesn't pay his bill after the FD saves his house, the FD loses money. If the FD loses enough money, they can't keep their equipment maintained. If they can't keep their equipment maintained, it will break down eventually. They will have to then buy new equipment to replace the broken down equipment, which costs money. Now if people get wind that they can get "free" fire protection, do you honestly think they will pay for it if they don't have to? At some point then, if enough people don't pay (assuming that fire protection isn't included with property taxes) then the fire department will not have enough money to operate and no one will get fire protection.

Except for the fact that in this situation fire protection was not paid by his taxes. It was a separate charge that he did not pay. If enough people don't pay that charge, the fire department will not have enough money to maintain their equipment / pay the firemen. I don't care how much of a public good it does - it costs money. If a part of the community does not pay to receive the service, they do not get the protection / whatever that service offers. Fire departments are local. They aren't state-wide like the police are. Thus one or two people not paying their taxes means that it doesn't really matter to the state police because they tax enough so that it doesn't matter (generally). Local fire departments do not have that kind of fiscal luxury.

And I am not losing sight of the big picture here. In fact I have a firm grasp of it: if enough people don't pay for those public services, the public services can no longer function. Those who pay for them have the right to use those services. If you don't pitch in for those services, you don't get those services.

Thats punitive... You can't deny someone something because they might be fraudulant later.

1. People who benefit from services without paying for them are freeloaders. When I pay taxes, I'm paying them for MY benefit. Not someone who wanted to be covered, but chose not to pay.

2. Taxes pay for public services, including police (both state and local, so that guy would have benefited from police, regardless of where he lived) and any potential public hospitals, if any were near enough that he needed to pay for them. Because he was beyond the limits of the fire department's jurisdiction, he was not required to pay for their service in his taxes. But, he was offered coverage for fire protection.

"All public services will be terminated on April 15th and up until the day when the offices receive your payments. Have a safe, empathy free week!"

Human empathy is all good, as long as you can afford free public services to those who don't pay.