|
On October 05 2010 20:51 MacDo wrote:
You will not getting fired for this. If training a firefighter is this expensive you will get only a warning.
facts, news or statement that you are indeed a supervisor for a department of firefighters?
i just based my assumption you get fired off of previous experience and common sense,
Sure training a firefighter is expensive but in this case the collateral damage you get from burning this guys down(via people who don't pay fees) is higher.
Therefore i assumed he would get fired
|
On October 05 2010 20:21 Sanguinarius wrote:Yeah,I think we also shouldn't take care of patient who are helicoptered in - cause they weren't in city limits. Unless we can take their organs after they pass away and give it to my own city's residents.... Let me ask you, does that make sense? The answer is No. Its stupid. Just like refusing to fight a fire.
I think you're missing my point. My point is don't blame the guys that put their lives on the line on a daily basis to save others. Blame the home owner for not paying the fee, their superiors for not telling them to put the fire out, the policy makers for allowing this to happen in the first place, and the voters for electing those policy makers.
In the post of mine your quoting I'm responding to someone that agrees with s post stating that this should be left up to the city government. Implying that this is some private fire fighting firm. It is not it's a municipal service.
Ok, well this guy's house wasn't in the city limits and he chose not to pay the tax to give him services from the city government. The firefighters wouldn't have been put in this situation in the first place if the county commissioners were doing their job and looking out for the well being of their constituents and taxing all of them to provide county wide fire services.
I also would like those not in the U.S. to understand that this is not an issue of us privatizing basic services, but one of jurisdiction and how we pay for government services.
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
|
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
this just means the other guy had shitty luck and can sue for compensation, which he would get anyways, even if they were helping a guy who paid the fee and overlooked him?
i dont see how someone who didnt pay and someone who paid makes a difference in this case
|
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company.
Well yeah in Finland it works that way and it's quite efficient =P
This is really silly to be honest, this would actually be illegal in Finland. If you see someone in need for help and if you are capable of helping, it's illegal to not help and you might go to jail for it.
|
On October 05 2010 20:58 HeavOnEarth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
this just means the other guy had shitty luck and can sue for compensation, which he would get anyways, even if they were helping a guy who paid the fee and overlooked him? i dont see how someone who didnt pay and someone who paid makes a difference in this case
Why should I receive a service I didn't pay for while you don't receive the same service that you did pay for at the same time? Firefighting is a service, yes a basic one, but still a service that has to be paid for.
|
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not?
|
On October 05 2010 20:35 spinesheath wrote:You do realize that me being fired is much less of a problem than this guy losing his home? Besides I would make a call to court about this issue then, and unless the system isn't totally retarded (questionable in the US it seems) I would keep my job. I would also be sure to have the support of the man whose house I saved, and most likely media and public too. "firefighter fired for fighting fire", yeah sounds funny.
I am assuming that at least half those firefighters are going to church every now and then (US, rural area?). While I don't consider myself a christian, I do appreciate most of the morals/ethics that go with it. One of the important ones is to help those around you when in need. Unconditionally.
It's funny you should mention unconditionally helping those in need...
In America, lately there have been more than a few cases where a Good Samaritan gets arrested or sued for helping. It's ridiculous- and 9 times outta 10 I'm sure the person you help would be supremely grateful; but if you are that 1 time outta 10, and get sued by the son of an elderly woman you tried to help who slipped on the ice- you are gonna be pretty mad that helping people unconditionally landed you a fat bill...
I'm not trying to say that what the firefights did was right (personally I think they are giant douchebags for what they did...). I lived in a rural town when I was a kid, and the fire department was full volunteers, paid for by the townspeople. The only person in town who didn't pay for it was the dude who owned the dairy farm out in BFE; and his farm burnt to the ground. The fire department showed up to put it out anyway, and dude beat them back with a stick...
Some people want help, and they'll ask for it if they want it. Some people need help, and will refuse it until they have a dire need of it...
Imagine the fire department had put that dudes fire out. What if something were broken during the fire being put out? Excessive line pressure could have spilled the barrel, which probably had some kind of pesticide or fertilizer in it if it burned the barrel to the ground over a 2 hour period before reaching the house. He could turn around and sue the fire department for causing more damage than they stopped because he has no contract with them. It's a double edged sword, volunteer work... =0\
|
On October 05 2010 21:06 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 20:58 HeavOnEarth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
this just means the other guy had shitty luck and can sue for compensation, which he would get anyways, even if they were helping a guy who paid the fee and overlooked him? i dont see how someone who didnt pay and someone who paid makes a difference in this case Why should I receive a service I didn't pay for while you don't receive the same service that you did pay for at the same time? Firefighting is a service, yes a basic one, but still a service that has to be paid for.
except if the fire department knew your house was on fire and the guy who didnt pay , they wouldve went to yours?
i honestly am not getting the point of your question, so my point still stands, he just got unlucky.
|
I am mystified that he didn't just dig a fire break around the barrels and save the house himself if it started from a single source and spread slowly. :-\
|
On October 05 2010 21:15 Antisocialmunky wrote:
I am mystified that he didn't just dig a fire break around the barrels and save the house himself if it started from a single source and spread slowly. :-\
same reason he didnt save his pets from dying, or pay the fee, hes a fucking retard.
|
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company.
Precisely. I'm baffled that some states and places don't do this on some government level.
Old cliche: two wrongs don't make a right. :/
|
On October 05 2010 21:06 LonelyIslands wrote:Show nested quote +
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not?
I will state again, i think the fire should have been put out and the county commissioners have made a lot of poor decisions as to fire coverage in non incorporated areas.
I'm saying how do you choose? I'm saying if I'm the taxpayer that paid for fire services and my house burns to the ground because the fire department is putting someone's house who's in another city or in an area not paying for that fire station I would not be happy. Also, I'd be suing the city.
The city has to take these things into account when making decisions on when to expend resources.
I just think it's an interesting debate which gets us down to the basics in making decisions on how public services are handled and paid for.
And for the record, yes the town only has one fire station.
source: http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm
|
On October 05 2010 21:19 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 21:06 LonelyIslands wrote:
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not? I will state again, i think the fire should have been put out and the county commissioners have made a lot of poor decisions as to fire coverage in non incorporated areas. I'm saying how do you choose? I'm saying if I'm the taxpayer that paid for fire services and my house burns to the ground because the fire department is putting someone's house who's in another city or in an area not paying for that fire station I would not be happy. Also, I'd be suing the city. The city has to take these things into account when making decisions on when to expend resources. I just think it's an interesting debate which gets us down to the basics in making decisions on how public services are handled and paid for. And for the record, yes the town only has one fire station. source: http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm
you realize they were only there because of the neighbor- who had paid the fee- was at risk. Otherwise they wouldve just bailed
|
Wtf you guys have to pay firefighters? I think they get our money from taxes or something
|
On October 05 2010 20:52 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 20:51 MacDo wrote:
You will not getting fired for this. If training a firefighter is this expensive you will get only a warning. facts, news or statement that you are indeed a supervisor for a department of firefighters? i just based my assumption you get fired off of previous experience and common sense, Sure training a firefighter is expensive but in this case the collateral damage you get from burning this guys down(via people who don't pay fees) is higher. Therefore i assumed he would get fired
No, just assuming from my experience in federal revenue agency. If I start fire people who made mistake or do something against my "orders" every time. I will loss huge amount of time to retrain someone to be able to do the job. Just more simple to me to warn him next time he do this he is cut. This work for almost all business (time = money).
Plus firefighter are already paid to be here, why not helping this guys ? You need to be extremely selfish to refuse give him help.
|
On October 05 2010 15:05 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:05 HeavOnEarth wrote:
actually wow, at first i was like jesus these guys are assholes, but it makes a lot of sense now why they let this guys house burn down.
Actually they're still assholes but just not as retarded as i thought they were. So they're assholes for not wanting to all lose their jobs in a tough economy? How many of you high and mighty people would throw away a job and a pension to save a guy's house who didn't even bother to pay his insurance fee?
This, pretty much.
If I had a choice between helping someone out who was unwilling to pay a small fee for my service, and risking my job...
or
Being a douchebag and being able to keep my family fed
I'd take number 2.
On October 05 2010 21:25 Glasse wrote:
Wtf you guys have to pay firefighters? I think they get our money from taxes or something
That's paying them as well.
|
The fire squad should name them self "karma police"
|
Lol, I thought TL was supposed to be way more liberal than this.
Although I do find myself strangely agreeing with the firefighters' actions as well.
|
On October 05 2010 21:01 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company. Well yeah in Finland it works that way and it's quite efficient =P This is really silly to be honest, this would actually be illegal in Finland. If you see someone in need for help and if you are capable of helping, it's illegal to not help and you might go to jail for it.
Imposing a heavy fine and saving the guy's house? Imo, that's really a bad idea. The probability of a house catching fire is very low which would have home owners thinking:
"hey, i don't need to pay this shitty fee since I'm probably not going to need this service anyway! Say, even my house starts burning like hell the firefighters would still help me out if I shove a ton of money down their throats. So yeah, I soooo don't need to pay this".
You probably only need about 20% of the population thinking like this to put the fire brigade out of business.
|
On October 05 2010 21:24 HeavOnEarth wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 05 2010 21:19 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 21:06 LonelyIslands wrote:
Now a philosophical question for those saying they should be putting the fire out. What if a city resident's house goes up in flames and burns to the ground while they're dealing with the fire at a person's house not in the city limits that has not paid for the service? How do you feel then as the person paying for the services?
Are you saying this town has one fire station? Are you saying that money is more important than life? That someone who can afford to pay a fee has a better chance/deserves the effort at having their house, potentially life saved over those who can not? I will state again, i think the fire should have been put out and the county commissioners have made a lot of poor decisions as to fire coverage in non incorporated areas. I'm saying how do you choose? I'm saying if I'm the taxpayer that paid for fire services and my house burns to the ground because the fire department is putting someone's house who's in another city or in an area not paying for that fire station I would not be happy. Also, I'd be suing the city. The city has to take these things into account when making decisions on when to expend resources. I just think it's an interesting debate which gets us down to the basics in making decisions on how public services are handled and paid for. And for the record, yes the town only has one fire station. source: http://www.cityofsouthfulton.org/fire.htm you realize they were only there because of the neighbor- who had paid the fee- was at risk. Otherwise they wouldve just bailed
I do, but is that the right call?
Take the neighbor out of the equation and you can get to the philosophy of the situation. Imagine the neighbor's house was on the other side of the city, or county, or state.
Should they have responded in the initial calls? If you're the mayor of a city who has to potentially deal with liability issues of sending your fire department to fight a fire out of it's jurisdiction leaving your city unprotected do you make the same call? Once it get's to the person that's paid the fee making the call you send them, but should they have gone earlier?
This specific case is fucked up and a failure of the policy makers that let it get to this point, but the overarching question is one of how basic services are paid for and when do those resources get expended? If the fire department is fighting a fire at a rural house that's not in their jurisdiction should they drop everything and let that house burn if a call comes from inside their jurisdiction? Or do they stay where they're at? Are they doing a disservice to the taxpayers that paid for the service it they choose to stay at the rural house?
My answer is yes, they should have responded to the initial 911 calls. If a fire was to break out somewhere else you manage your resources the best you can to fight both, but I'm not sure what to do if I have to make a choice. If you can only save one which do you save? It's a question that I'm not sure I have the answer to and one I'm interested to see what people think.
Maybe I'm just not phrasing it well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
