That's because you're taking the most extreme thing possible and using it as an example. It's really ignorant when people come back with that sort of thing.

What are your reasons for killing and eating the baby? What are the societal standards? There's a lot of things that come into play that you're only looking at from a "civilized", "western" veiwpoint.

Just to repeat a somewhat important point:

The people in the town can't stop paying for it because it is part of their property taxes they have to pay to live in the town. The problem is the people who live outside the town, and don't pay for it but want the same services as those who pay for them.

No, there isn't. Yes, it does.

Ah, the "morality is subjective so nobody should do anything for the benefit of others" argument. I shudder to think what position the world would be in if that argument was used as truth.

At NO POINT did I say that no one should help others, I just responded to the idea that the firefighters where in the wrong because what they did was "plainly wrong". Which I completely disagree with.

1st key phrase: "Outside the town."

A service like firefighting stretches ONLY around the town that they are based in, that's why each town has its own firefighting service. Those towns that don't have their own and don't have the service included in their taxes can't expect to get the benefits since they live outside of the area that is covered.

2nd key phrase: "And don't pay for it but want the same services as those who pay for them."

So why should those not paying for it expect to get the same services as those who are paying for it, especially when the service doesn't even stretch out of the town by default?

He didn't pay the 75 dollar yearly fee, with FULL knowledge of the consequences.

The fire department came when his Neighbor, who DID pay, called, as the fire was threatening HIS house.

The firefighters were also acting under orders from someone else. They would like to keep their jobs, so, they do as they are told.

The fire department in question is from ANOTHER town, that extends this service to those that pay the fee. In all reality, the department is technically under zero obligation to do even that. The town where the fire occurred does NOT have their own department, paid for with local taxes....

So, this guy didn't want to pay the measly fee, and now he has paid the price for his shortsightedness. Once his house is rebuilt.... (assuming he had homeowners insurance.......) I am going to just bet he doesn't have a problem paying the fee, and neither will anyone else in that town, that wasn't paying it previously.

There are both state police and city / county police. State police are paid for by state taxes, while county / city police are paid for the city / county taxes. Local police typically cover a county area - if the county doesn't get enough money, it can't hire enough police force to cover both incorporated (city) and unincorporated areas as well. Likewise public education is paid for by local counties and such - if a county has little money, etc, then it can't pay for a large number of schools, which means that those far away (but still in the county) need to be driven / bussed there over long periods. Some may instead turn to home-schooling. So, yes, in essence the police and public schools are services. No one is guaranteed those services, as far as I am aware, but most areas have them.

Take for example Ashtabula County, Ohio. Our terrible local government has been mismanaging things for 4 decades, and the sudden drop in residential property values killed what little income they had trickling in. We now have a Sheriff (elected position) and 1 deputy (paid position which does all the work) for the largest county in Ohio (in landmass, not population). We are "borrowing" dispatch services from neighboring counties, coroner services from Cleveland, and we sold all the Sheriff equipment to pay for the few remaining salaries. The judge suggested that residents buy firearms (I already knew to do that, living here for all my life).

Firefighting is provided by cities or townships if the people vote to pay for it (my township does). In a free country, the people have the right to choose what services they have by voting to pay for them or not. He chose to live in an area where there is no firefighting service paid for by his taxes, so he had the option to pay $75 a year to have someone else's firefighters cover his home. He didn't pay and therefore should have no expectation of receiving any help.



As to morality, that is completely irrelevant in this case. It is not immoral to not provide services to someone who did not pay you. Further, since no one's life was at risk in this case, there was no "moral imperative" to put themselves at risk by entering a burning home, expending tax payer-funded time/equipment, or getting fired for violating an order.

The dog eat dog, everything comes down to the bottom line mentality in the country really saddens me. Yes, he didn't pay the fee (either purposely or by neglect). Due to those choices he suffered a huge lose while individuals who's job it is to help in that sort of a situation sit idly by and watch. Say there was a off-duty fireman with EMT training in another town or city than his own. He witnesses a person with a medical emergency. I'm sure he's within his rights not to assist and just keep walking, but morally I don't think he'd have a leg to stand on. If an off-duty Los Angeles police officer was witnessing a property crime in progress in Fresno I'm sure he's within his rights to just keep going. After all, its not the city paying his wage, but should he? If a department of forestry fire fighter from Oregon sees a smoldering ember while driving through the forest in Washington is he within his rights to just keep driving? Never mind he has his axe and shovel in his truck. I imagine so, but if he's trained to deal with such things it would seem unconscionable for him to do so. Just as an ordinary citizen are you required to aid your fellow man in trouble? No, but can you be that cold blooded and unconcerned? Many people are, but it doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do.

1. They're already on the scene so the cost of equipment and wages are already in play.
2. The man is begging them to let him pay due to what he says is a case of forgetfulness.

I fully understand its an optional service provided by the town for residents outside the city limits. I understand he opted not to pay. If they were no where around thats one thing, but they had been called to the scene by another property owner and whomever told them not to help needs to take serious stock of their character. We of course don't know the entire story, but from what any of us can glean from the article and video its pretty cold-blooded and again, that turn in this country saddens me.

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm an advlt who owns his own home and pays all taxes and insurance on time and in full.

Your examples are great - they are prime examples of when people step in and help others or do "the right thing." Helping someone who is having a heart attack is wonderful - there are reasons emergency rooms won't refuse treatment to people. However, you need to also look at this from the situation in Tennessee - the man's house was on fire, he hadn't paid his fee (which, in reality was probably way more than $75, especially if he hadn't paid it for a while) and no human lives were in danger. The firemen rightly put out the fire around the guy's house in order to avoid it spreading and causing more fires on the property of people who had paid for the protection. Would it have been the "the right thing" to put out the fire for the guy who didn't pay the fee and risk having other people not pay their fees? Even if he swore up and down that he would pay after, there is no evidence that he simply wouldn't say "screw you" to the fire department after the fact, who supposedly have no means to get the money from him (which, again, is probably way more than $75 annual fee).

And just a note about your forestry fire fighter - they start fires all the time. If forestry fire fighters simply douse every single fire that occurs, all the debris and such that come off the trees will simply accumulate and the resulting fire will be even worse and destroy a lot of forest. So it's actually probably a good thing that the forestry fire fighter will not put it out without contacting the local forestry authorities.

The guy (likely a supervisor) who told the firefighters not to help isn't being immoral. He's looking out for the good of the city and its fire department, who need to get paid in order to do their job. The guy didn't pay his fee, thus he gets no help from the fire department when his grandson sets his house on fire. The firefighters need to get paid in order to eat and feed their family, if they have one. Risking their jobs just to put out a house fire - with no person inside the house - isn't worth getting fired over, especially because the homeowner hasn't paid the fee.

Money Is the root of all evil

Hey, Don't apologize! Psychic Trauma is perfectly correct. Psychic, when used as an adjective, can refer to anything of, relating to, or influenced by the human mind/psyche.

they were probably worried that doing that would cause everyone to stop paying until their house is about to catching fire


it takes a superhero to risk their life to save someone who takes them for granted

Whether or not you "remember" has nothing to do with being a grown-up. Responsibilities and obligations, sure, but I don't recall seeing anything about transcending basic human faultiness. If you walk out of the store after forgetting to pay? You're probably stopped by security, have a chance to return the merchandise and explain yourself, maybe get arrested and talked to by the police. Or are you saying that the person who walked out of the store should be immediately arrested and jailed with the maximum possible penalty for theft with zero chance to simply pay for the goods? If you forgot to pay for your car insurance, no, they won't fix it for you. But you can still buy a new car, or pay to fix it yourself, or rent one and gradually save up for it, and so on. They don't take away your car and any personal items still inside and destroy it.

I'll ignore the petulance in your response, but I'm not boo-hooing over the expectation of getting what I want for free. It's the later refusal of any compromise that bothers me. If you're late with something, the standard response is "okay, but now you have to pay for that plus an extra fee." He was denied exactly that. He was endangered by his own actions, but his life was allowed to be destroyed by bureaucracy. It's the latter part that I find wrong.

I have to agree that I do find the fact that he offered to pay whatever for them to save his house, but I also am pretty sure he would have tried to get out of paying that "extra" fee after all was said and done. They (the fire department supervisor) made the choice to not have to worry about that by simply not using resources that they might not get recompense for later on. If he had handed someone $1,000 on the spot, I'm sure something would have been arranged. But it also sets a bad precedent - everyone would simply pay $75 + X to get the fire put out and never pay the $75 annual fee. Which, obviously, would be disastrous for the fire department.

"Well... all my life savings is in the house."

He was not allowed to pay after the fact because that would set a precedent that EVERYONE could pay after the fact, which could be financially disastrous for the fire department. Do you honestly think 75 dollars covers the cost of them fighting that fire? Of course not. They rely on the fact that you will pay, even though you could go decades without having a fire. That's how insurance works. You can't get insurance protecting you from an event while the event is occurring, that would be ludicrous to expect in any other situation, and it's ludicrous to expect here. The fire department is going out of it's way to service these people, and have ZERO obligation to do so aside from a optional insurance type agreement. If you don't pay, you get no protection.

Quite possibly. Still, that's exactly the sort of situation the law should have been prepared for when it was made. The firefighters can call the chief, who can call someone higher up or something, tell them that he's got cash or a check right there that he's waving at them. Have him sign a form or something legally obligating him to his promise of payment; he weasels out of it, he goes to jail. I can't imagine it would be THAT hard, a house burning down is a big freaking deal.

Which is exactly why he should have paid.

So three totally innocent dogs and a cat died because those firemen were in a snit over $75. That is seriously cruel and sick. What if one of the children was in the house? They still would have done nothing? Way to hold a fricken grudge. I bet if they had let the man pay and then put out the fire the man would never have forgotten to pay ever again. But no, now the man has lost his house and his innocent pets. Just disgusting.

Just goes to show that people consider the lives of animals to be worthless. That itself is appalling.

The money really isn't the issue. His house burned down and his pets burned alive because he failed to take the proper steps to protect his home and his family. It could have cost 25 cents, it could have been free if he signed a paper, it could have cost him his first born, it doesn't matter what the price is, the bottom line is that the man lives in an area with no fire department, and did not take the required steps to secure the specialized protection he needed from ANY source, he completely blew it off. It is ENTIRELY his fault. Maybe you should send the homeowner a letter and let him know that you find his callous disregard of his pets appalling.

No, the fact is that the house burned down with firemen standing around and watching. Human decency and compassion should have compelled them to at least try to save the pets, but they didn't. IF they were trying to make an example of this man by doing this it was at the expense of innocent lives, THAT is unforgiveable.

If it was just the house it would be an entirely different story, the man got what he deserved. But it is not, lives were lost that could have been saved...over $75, that is sick and there is no defending it, period.

Not at all, they are just animals. The primary objective of any firefighter should be to protect actual people rather than pets.

Do you really think that the firemen themselves decided not to put the fire out? They don't handle the taxes and dues for it, all of their orders come from superiors. If they put it out they ALL lose their jobs. If human decency existed in everybody then all people who became firefighters in that situation would have put the fire out, and there would be no firefighters left in that area.

Why would they needlessly risk their lives to do something which they are in no way obligated to do? They probably have families and don't want to risk themselves just the "good guys". I realize that fire fighting is dangerous, and even more so when you've been contracted to watch an even bigger area than normal as these fire fighters have, so then why take extra risks that are unnecessary?