http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html



It seems as though the idea of doing the right thing is no longer practiced...

Well, he didn't buy the insurance. So it's his fault for being short sighted... HOWEVER, firefighters were standing right there and not doing a thing? That's just evil.

Well, arguably that was doing the "right" thing as far as the law in that township was concerned. I'm not sure that's the most unbiased source either, at the bottom of the article they [POLITICAL CONTENT POLITICAL CONTENT].

You realize this will almost certainly become a political discussion?

At least we didn't find out what their stance was in the event people were trapped in the house, though losing pets and the house itself that way is terrible. If he didn't pay then they still should have saved his house, pets and the rest of his property, fining him an appropriate amount afterwards. Letting it burn to the ground is ridiculous.

So the firefighters let the house burn down and three dogs and a cat die because of $75?

Even though the article is political and a new link should be found, that's disgraceful.

here, you have to pay a fee for an ambulance to go to your house, otherwise you get charged after the incident (much more than the one-time fee). That seems like the more logical and all around better way to go about it when it comes to emergency services: didn't pay your last payment for them, charge more after the issue.

I would have raised hell over this scandal. I mean letting a home burn down over 75 bucks that's just sad

What!? :facepalm:

This is just horrible.

I had to stand by my Grandparents when their house burned down in May.

They lost everything even though firefighters were there.

We lost things so valuable to our family that we can never replace.


The same thing has happend to this man, only his stuff could have been saved.

They should have done it when he offered to pay when the fire was getting close to his house.

It just seems like a waste to me.

If you know it's political, then don't say it. I can't retort properly as I would be violating the rules.

I removed it, its just so, stupid, despite any political reasons, the chance that the fire could spread is more than enough reason to put it out.

I am literally sick to my stomach after reading that article. I won't even begin to describe what I would do if firemen let my house burn down with animals and all my memories inside when they were just there with hoses. That is perhaps the most despicable thing I have heard of happening in the U.S. in all my life(not counting outside influences of course). How could anyone with even a lick of compassion inside themselves watch as a house burns down, knowing they could stop it with just a bit of water from their hoses. bleh

Put out the fire, charge him $500, he'll pay the monthly service charge from now on.

Everyone is happy.

It really makes me sad that the firefighters didn't think exactly this as they waited for the fire to spread so they could help someone else.

Sadly, it's not one of those small towns where everyone looks out for each other. Or pretty much anywhere else where people look out for each other to at least prevent your life going up in flames...

FFS.

When he offered to pay whatever it takes, they should have put it out. He should sue (lol at suggesting an American should sue...), and report them for animal cruelty while he's at it.



Of course, it's the fault of the prat who was "burning trash" outside.

This is... awful. That anyone could possibly defend this is ridiculous.

Even if we're talking about the guy who didn't pay the extortion fee, I'd be PISSED if I were someone living next to them. They risked the houses of the entire NEIGHBORHOOD because one man didn't pay a fee. And people wonder why others have a hard time giving humanity credit? :facepalm:

Iunctus Nos Sto, Tribuo Nos Cado.

This is disgusting. As has been said, the fireman could have charged him later, they didn't have to stand and watch as they lost all their belongings and several pets. For once, I'm in favour of frivolous lawsuits.

Oh dear. If something like this happened here (which it never will) I think the firefighters would lose their job and be ridiculed for months. Maybe even get their own houses burn down. Disgusting story really, not much more to say. And I've never heard of paying money for 'fire protection', pffffffff.

The problem, according to the fire department, is that in the past they have collected on less than 50 percent of these kind of situations. They apparently have no legal recourse if the homeowner refuses to pay after they put the fire out. It seems weird that they have no legal options, but that's what they are claiming. This has probably lead to some sort of zero-tolerance policy.

And apparently this isn't the first time this particular resident has had this problem. In an interview (I can't remember the link :/) he mentioned a few years ago he had a fire and they let him settle after the fact. So this is not the first time he's "forgot" to pay fee.

But the real failing here is why the hell something like a fire emergency service is opt-in. The county has clearly failed to provide their own dedicated fire department. Why are they not then collecting some amount of tax that would go towards paying for the city's department's service? This would be as crazy as some sort of jurisdictional dead-zone for the police force. Apparently 75 percent of this fire department's calls are to this county. It's just baffling how mismanaged this whole things is (for the last 20 years no less).

This is weird. It doesn't make sense either.

Fire Insurance for your house is in case of a fire, yes. But even if you don't have fire insurance, there's no legal way the fire department can stand by and watch your house burn down.

This makes no sense! There's no way this can be legal in the U.S!

I'm sorry, but this is something not even Big Brother in 1984 would do!

Well there are many legitimate reasons for firefighters not putting out a fire. Not paying your local government fees is not one of them, however.

That's not what the problem here is though. This fire department does not belong to the resident's local government, it belongs to a neighboring government. The problem is not the firefighters or the homeowner's unwillingness to pay the fee. The problem is a system that forced the firefighters into a certain position and didn't guarantee the homeowner basic and essential emergency services.

Yeah, I edited my post before you finished writing yours. Sorry.
I realized what you said before you said it.