Firestation refuses to put out fire
 

On the way back from getting dinner, I was listening to the radio in the car. The station I listen to sometimes has funny stories or small debates, and today was a good one!

In a local town, it costs $75 in taxes for the fire station to work. One man refused to pay the taxes. Awhile later, his house caught on fire. He called the fire station but they refused to come and spray his house. Then the fire spread and caught the neighbor's house. The fire station came then, and sprayed the neighbor's house (the neighbor did pay the taxes), but then left, still refusing to spray the original house. His entire house burned down, but luckily no one was harmed.

So what do you think? Should the fire station have still sprayed the house? The mayor of the town is on the side of the fire station, saying that the man did not pay his $75 tax, so the fire station was not obligated to hose down the house.

I honestly think the fire station should still have sprayed the house. Yea, the man didn't pay his tax for it, but still. His entire family lived in that house, and they just watched it burn to the ground, with all the man's possessions and everything he had.

News Article: MSNBC

How can they even call themselves firefighters if they do a thing like that? Taxes or no taxes, that's just unspeakably wrong.

The part which I find most distressing about this is that they appear to have had three pets die in the accident. Prior to learning the dogs and cats had been killed in the fire I was much less critical of their inaction. Not that I would only put blame on the fire station. They absolutely take some blame for their failure to pay their fee. Especially as the story does not seem to indicate economic hardship had any factor in this at all.

Personally I think the man should have been made to pay his taxes or threatened with prison time for failing to do so and the Fire station should have done it's job and sprayed the house. The man should have been punished for not paying his taxes but there should have been consideration for any people residing with him like his wife or children. Imagine one of the children could have been killed in that fire and it would have in no way been the child's fault that the man had not payed his taxes. The man should have been arrested and either made to pay or penalized for his refusal. As much as I would like to blame the fire station for being lax on their job and remiss in their moral obligations I feel that the man is also at fault for his negligence and thoughtlessness to the consequences of not paying the fire station. Particularly since there was no mention that this family was financially disadvantaged.

It's a public safety hazard to just let a fire burn out of control like that. If they would have hosed down the blaze to begin with it would not have spread to the neighbor's house. It's not right to put other people or the pets in danger just because someone owes a fee. The fire department should be ashamed of themselves for acting like that. It's $75 it's not like he owed thousands of dollars. That's like an EMT watching someone die because "they did not pay".

It's a complete safety hazard!
Taxes or NO taxes.
What if a GAS LINE broke?
Or worse, what if the neighbor's house who caught on fire...that fire couldn't get put under control?
And let's not forget the poor neighbors of this man are now being punished because of the burned rubble and potential dangers that causes to their health AND their property values!

I think the firefighters should have come and put out the fire. Having a fire out of control like that is a safety hazard and should be delt with as quickly as possible. What the fire department should have done was sent him a bill for the full cost of the operation. I'm pretty sure it would be for a lot more then $75.

Yea, I agree with that a lot. He didn't pay his taxes, he should be punished, but the punishment of allowing his entire house to burn to the ground is a little extreme, isn't it?

I'm not sure, I thing they should probably have put the fire down, at least for the sake of the mans family that might not have agreed with him.

I was gonna say something about that you always should pay your taxes if you can, it's a democracy and bla bla bla. But I'm not gonna since that's a much more complicated issue than that, and I don't feel like taking it now.

Moronic bureaucracy of them to refuse to deal with his fire, but he should have been charged for refusing to pay such a relatively nominal amount, stupid man and stupid fire department :roll:

They could have easily filed a lien on the property so that the family couldn't get any repairs done on their home until they paid their past due taxes.

I would like to switch my stance on this issue. In all honesty my initial reaction was informed by my misconstruing the situation. I took one look at the State it happened in, then made wild assumptions on the family not paying the fee due to Tea Party reasons. If it were not for the pets dying in the fire, I would have come down much more harshly on the family. However that was quite clearly basing it off extremely weak speculation, furthermore putting political biases ahead of the ramifications. I would thus like to wholeheartedly endorse the position made by another member.
I totally agree with this position. It seems to be the position which meets the needs of both sides in this discourse.

OH GOD! CAN WE PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT WHERE I LIVE?

He didn't pay for the services he wanted to receive so he didn't get the service he wanted. You must pay for the services you want.

It isn't like the rural fire thing is NEW. If it was so, then it would be different.

Also, this has happened before but no one gave a shit until now? Why does everyone care NOW?! Why not the FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED?!

Which, this city-the one I live- is changing the rural fire code to add it to property taxes so everyone outside of city limits will automatically have rural fire even if they don't (for some reason) want it.

Also, in this area, churches help people. They aren't going to starve and they will have a place to live until they can find/get another.

Let's hope he paid for home insurance.

Another thing-if the firefighters had put it out they would've been fired/kicked off the force. I know. I know people that are and were in the fire department. They must follow the protocol or lose their jobs which for some is the only way they survive from month to month.

Stupid rules tend to come into being because of people abusing the system in the past though, it has to be said.

The ramifications of this line of thought truly scare me. You would argue that the services in which a person is entitled to are dependent on their economic well being? How far would you take this stance? Are those in low income brackets considered people when it comes to protection from the police forces? How about when it comes to hospitals? Or will they only ever be considered people when they can afford the price tag.

People can only respond to something when they are made aware of it.

This would be all good and well, although how about the three dogs and cat? Is their suffering suddenly worth less now? What if someone had been stuck in the house for whatever reason? Although like I mentioned earlier this is sill of me, as they are clearly not people. If you don't pay the fee then quite frankly you deserve to die in a fire, amirite? :O


These two videos from The Young Turks explain the position much better than I do.

I have to agree with Crimson Fang, and against Cat Eye now. During the winter, my family doesn't pay for the heating and electricity bill. She works at a bar, and people don't go out during the winter as much, so she makes less money. Then, we can't pay the bill. Even though we don't pay our bill for a couple months, the heating place cannot shut off our heat or electricity, because we could very well freeze to death and it would be harmful to the entire family. We do pay it all off at tax time, though. But the point is, yea, we didn't pay our bill (as the man didn't pay his tax) but the firestation should have still done their duty (as, our heating/electricity cannot be shut off) because it is harmful to surrounding areas and the people in it (our family).

Oh so everyone should get fired after putting it out and then starve to death after losing their homes?

Personally I think that one is worse.

If it had spread to another house, they would've the other house if it had rural fire. Durr.

And it is like having car insurance vs not. You have it and you hit a car? Your insurance goes/you pay a deductible. You don't? You are some deep crap.

Well, it is stupid to have a law (or protocol) and not enforce it. Then why would anyone pay for rural fire. Water, gas, firetrucks, and paying firefighters isn't free, and neither is insurance on those trucks and the station and everything else.

Wanna know what's stupid? That he didn't pay the $75 dollars BEFOREHAND! He wasn't a poor/broke.

----------


One-He isn't poor. Wanna know how I know-I LIVE HERE UNLIKE YOU!
Two-He always paid except this year he decided not too. Doesn't that make a difference? He knew. He decided not to pay for the service.
Three-Police and hospitals-TAXES TAXES TAXES and health insurance which may be paid for for him by TAXES TAXES TAXES.

I've heard there was animals in there and I repeat HE COULD'VE PAID FOR RURAL FIRE. And they could've possibly died anyway if the fire was put out.

Personally, I'd like to die be done with life so bring on the fire.

In my opinion, I find that it's a stupid reason to put a human being's life in danger because he didn't pay his taxes. It's one of the most stupidest things I've ever heard. So the man didn't pay his taxes, is that enough reason to put his whole family's lives in danger?
The easy way around this would have been if the firefighters had put out the fire anyways (isn't it their duty to save people from fires and not ignore them for stupid reasons?) and later on sent the man a bill for the service or if they would have made him pay the 75 afterwards. Simple enough. But, of course, things don't happen like that.
All I'm saying is that just because someone doesn't do what you like of them, i.e. pay taxes, or what they should, doesn't mean you should let their house go up in flames and put innocent human lives in danger. And he lost 3 or 4 animals! (can't remember which number)
A firefighter's duty should be to save people from fires. Meaning they should put each and every fire they encounter out for the safety of the victims/others. Letting that house go down is like me ignoring the fact that somebody broke into my neighbor's house just because they didn't give me back something I loaned, or didn't pay me back a small amount of money, or had their fence two inches over my property line.

One-If he had been in the house or anyone else for that matter-that's when they would've put it out. It's the only way they can if he doesn't pay.
Two-They would've got fired/kicked off the force if they had put it out period. I don't make these rules, but I do know some of them.

Then there would be MANY people without homes and food and the like.

And I've heard that there were no animals in the house, but I've also heard there was.

Also the way it spread took HOURS (supposedly) to get to the house. They (being the owner) could've got the animals out maybe some stuff too if that's correct. And went to pay rural fire before it got to their house.

I'd really appreciate if you remained civil, thank you. Caps and yelling like that isn't necessary, so please, don't do it. He offered to pay for whatever service it was to put out the fire, they still said no. That's not right.
Also:
Let's put it this way. Hospitals instill that payment. Unless you pay $75 a year for their service, you will not be allowed in their hospital for treatment. Even if you're dying. I bet if the family had been in the house, they would have put out the fire. Let's not kill anybody, right?

One - I never asserted that he was poor. I was highlighting who would suffer under a policy which actively selects against those who are unable to afford the bill. I stand by my assertion that it is quite disheartening to aim for such an apathetic society which holds protection is only for those with the ability to foot the bill. A point which is also presented by the two videos which I presented in my post.

Two - It does not change my stance that it is a questionable law at best.

Three - So suddenly you are now arguing that protection is a public good? There is a world of difference between privatizing social protection services and keeping them as a public good. One I am staunchly opposed to, the other I support.


Finally, what is it you find disagreeable with this stance? As you seem so determined to defend your regions law.

He never actually never went to pay it though for some reason because if he had, and there was someone on full time there (which there was-my friend's uncle was there-he's on full time).

Hospitals are a little bit different. My house gets burnt down? I'm still alive. I get to try and rebuild that which I have lost. And I wouldn't mind paying 75 dollars a year to get hospital treatment. It'd be a lot cheaper than my insurance that pays almost nothing on everything.

If there was ONE person in there-even the report of one (true or not)-they would have to put out the fire. Period. I've already said that part. But since no one was in any immediate danger and he didn't actually go and pay the rural fire when he offered to pay-they could do nothing.

-deleted due to me being a smartass before I can even post it-

Caps=emphasis. !!!!!!!!!!=yelling. There is a difference. Or I could just start using exclamation points for emphasis.

But I will defend my town since I live in it, and it is not unreasonable to pay 75 dollars once a year to get rural fire. Especially since I think they'd work with you if you'd just talk to them about it, like many places around here will if you call or some in to explain to them.

Italics is also used for emphasis. I asked you nicely, so please, stop. I don't mind if you wish to defend your town, but you can do it civilly.

I save every single penny I get. Literally, I will walk around town looking for spare change on the ground. Maybe I can't pay that $75. What happens to me then? My house burns down, and all my possessions inside it? Just because I didn't pay? Maybe you're right, maybe he wasn't poor. But I am. We get help from the army to pay for our bills. $75 is more than what I make in a month. But we'll let the firestation not care about that and let everything I own turn to ash.

Fire is dangerous, regardless of whether there's people inside or not. It could have spread much further. What if he had lived in the woods? All those trees could have been lit up.

We pay taxes to have policemen.

He could've paid 75 dollars to protect against something else-he decided he didn't need it until the house caught of fire. Which is like trying to get home insurance when your house is getting hit by meteors or anything else.

Also refer to the above post where I say they will more than likely work with you if you cannot afford it the second it is due.

Hospitals-why do people get insurance? Same reason people get other insurances. They can't foot the bill of a new house/full price for a surgery/getting sued in court for hitting another car.

Same goes for this rural fire. It's insurance from having your house burnt down. You don't have to have it-same goes for health insurance (for now) and home insurance (I believe)

He chose to go without one. And that's the one he needed. Sure, it sucks, but life sucks and then you die. At least he can go and try to rebuild and continue on.

Hopefully he didn't also skip out on home insurance, but if he did (or didn't for that matter), people (and churches) around here will help him. He will be fine. He will not starve or die of thirst. He will have shelter. It will be warm. He will rebuild once he claims on the insurance or can get enough money to rent or place or whatever.

----------

I've mentioned this before I believe. They would've worked with him if he had called beforehand or came in beforehand and been like I can't pay this all right now. They would've worked something out with him.

Also, if you live in the city, you don't have to pay it.

Oh, you want me to be civil, but look what you just did there? Insulting those who save lives and house. THEY did not make the rule/law/protocol. They wanted to put out the fire, but you know what? They also wanted to keep their jobs so they could keep their house and food and the food for their family. Should they starve just to save a house? Not a life, just a house? And possibly have people starve? I think not personally.

If it had spread, and the owners had rural fire (I've already stated this I believe) they would've put it out in the other areas. I am really getting tired of repeating myself, but I will continue to do it if need be.