Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The people who were the victims of the fire live in the county. The county should require all residents to pay for this via tax for the common good. Counties have governments/councils just like a city/town does. I live in metro Atlanta and we have multiple city/town and county government services. In Fulton County, where Atlanta is located there are people who are not residents of any city. They are county residents. The county makes them pay a tax for public safety so that they will be covered in an event related to fire or safety (police assistance).
Does this community not get the police sent for crimes? If so, how does that happen? More than likely it is because the county pays for police services via taxes. They can do the same for fire services.
The county makes them pay a tax, because the residents of the county voted for the tax. That's the way it works. County governments don't just decide to charge taxes. The voters have to approve the tax.
And no, police aren't available everywhere. Many small towns and communities don't have a police force at all. Where I live, we have a small police force, and their phone number is unlisted. You call the county, and the county dispatcher decides whether your emergency warrants the police or the county sheriff.
No, the question is whether firefighting service is a right.
That's YOUR question. Nobody argues firefighting is a "right" in this case... though it is if provided by the government. The question is whether it was RIGHT for the firefighters to just sit and watch the house burn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
You are saying that the firefighters had an obligation to risk their lives to save these people's house. But these aren't professional firefighters. They don't make a living fighting fires. These are volunteers. And they have a greater obligation to the community and its surrounds. That greater obligation is to be there. The members of the community that have voluntarily provided financial support to the fire department have an expectation that the firefighting services will continue to be available. The fire department cannot be in existence without that financial support. If the volunteer firefighters fought every fire, regardless if the person paid for the service or not, then the people who voluntarily pay for the service would dwindle, until there wouldn't be enough people to pay. And then no one would get firefighting services.
The moral thing to do for the firefighters is to save lives. A building is just a building, it's not worth someone's life. Yes, this was someone's home. But it was still just a building. Firefighting services for the people who value it enough to pay for it is more important than just a building. And that's what the issue is in rural areas. These homeowners didn't value the firefighting service enough to pay for it. Like many rural homeowners, they hoped it would never happen to them. Like many rural homeowners, they might have talked about it, and figured that even if their house caught fire, the firefighters might not have been able to get their fast enough, might not have had the resources to put out the fire. Because that's a reality of rural life. They played the odds, and it didn't work out for them.
Sounds like a whole lotta excuse making.
If you are volunteer firefighter, you take the same oath and receive the training needed and requisite to... um... FIGHT FIRES.
That means you fight them wherever you come across them. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to say, "well we would have risked our lives by going into the unpaid home to rescue people"... but we can't turn a firehose on to save the home.
Again, your principals appear to be different than mine. You will not convince me that the VOLUNTEER department did the right thing in this instance.
If they were driving through to another town for a chili cookoff in their engine and came across a fire in the next town, would you say they would be RIGHT to keep on driving, because clearly that house is not on the "put out fire" list!
Agreed, and what if children or elderly were in that structure? Do the firefighters play God at that point?
The County can still be sued for negligence/wrongful death. Since its in Tenn, the County officials should brush up on their statutes.
The firefighters show up in part to determine if any lives are at risk, and to save anyone they can. Human lives count for more than a building. And that includes the firefighters' lives.
That's YOUR question. Nobody argues firefighting is a "right" in this case... though it is if provided by the government. The question is whether it was RIGHT for the firefighters to just sit and watch the house burn.
Sounds like a whole lotta excuse making.
If you are volunteer firefighter, you take the same oath and receive the training needed and requisite to... um... FIGHT FIRES.
That means you fight them wherever you come across them. It makes absolutely ZERO sense to say, "well we would have risked our lives by going into the unpaid home to rescue people"... but we can't turn a firehose on to save the home.
Again, your principals appear to be different than mine. You will not convince me that the VOLUNTEER department did the right thing in this instance.
If they were driving through to another town for a chili cookoff in their engine and came across a fire in the next town, would you say they would be RIGHT to keep on driving, because clearly that house is not on the "put out fire" list!
Here's the thing------firefighting in this case is NOT provided by the government. It's not a government service. It's a subscriber service. People subscribe to the service to pay for it. If the service is provided for free, whether you've subscribed or not, then no one will pay for the service. If no one pays for the service, then there's no fire department. No service. No fire truck. What happens then?
And turn on the fire hose? Which is connected to......what? This isn't in a city. There's no fire hydrants. This isn't a fire station with eight fire trucks on call, and a chemical sprayer, and tanker trucks waiting to be tapped.
Obviously, the smart thing to do was to pay the yearly fee.
That said, there are some things that just don't sit right with me. Let a home burn over a 75 dollar fee is a sickening act. If i suppose that these people didn't pay the fee, i'd be willing to bet that they don't have the money for a cleanup either. There just might be a hulk of burned up house laying on a piece of property for years to come....or at least until they can afford to rebuild. That sure as hell doesn't make the community look very good. Why not extinguish the fire and if they don't pay the yearly fee, give them a fine or take them to court. There has gotta be a better way than to watch it burn when we live in a first world society. Geez.
If you aren't going to help extinguish the fire, then just don't bother to come out. But to be a professional firefighter and watch it burn is asenine. I swear, this country is getting wierder by the day.
This used to be the greatest county on Earth. Purportedly, a "Christian Nation."
Well, so much for that.
Last edited by desertdetroiter; 12-07-2011 at 11:58 AM..
The firefighters show up in part to determine if any lives are at risk, and to save anyone they can. Human lives count for more than a building. And that includes the firefighters' lives.
And in this case, the firefighters lives are in danger turning a waterhose on the burning trailer? They aren't being asked to run into a 10 story building here.
And your position is inconsistent. Either they receive aid because they paid the bill, or they don't. That would include ALL aid, no? Either the contractual "gotta incentivize people to pay the bill" argument WORKS, or it does not.
Next to losing a loved one, losing one's home is about the next worst thing to happen to someone.
But hey, if I don't care about my POS trailer, I can just not pay the bill and know the volunteer department will rescue my family in an emergency, right? Why pay my $75 if I get the service for free?
Here's the thing------firefighting in this case is NOT provided by the government. It's not a government service. It's a subscriber service. People subscribe to the service to pay for it. If the service is provided for free, whether you've subscribed or not, then no one will pay for the service. If no one pays for the service, then there's no fire department. No service. No fire truck. What happens then?
No excuse. THEY WERE THERE ALREADY.
Subscribing fees for firefighting service is stupid on its face. It's why more civilized areas of the country abandoned that idea... oh... a couple hundred years ago!
Essentially, you are making the argument that this burnt trailer makes as a good EXAMPLE for the rest of the community, that they better pay their bill, or else it will happen to them. That is reprehensible. How would the neighbors even KNOW that the burnt neighbor didn't pay the bill, if it never made the news?
Again, why do you assume the take away message for "everyone else" who learned that their neighbor's house burned down would be "we don't have to get the fire service subscription," rather than, "oh geez, I better make sure my fire subscription is paid up!"
I know that some people can get free food at the foodbank. Doesn't stop me from going to the supermarket and paying for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
