|
On October 05 2010 19:41 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 19:34 Golden Ghost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments. I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated. Except the fire department was funded from the city. This isn't the case of the fire fighter's being contracted out to a private company they are municipal workers. The property was not in city limits. The service to rural areas is one provided by the city fire department for a fee (that city residents already pay for in their taxes and this family did not). So because he doesn't live in the city he shouldn't have to pay for a service that city property owners do?
The property was not in city limits.
Yes, I know and I really, really, REALLY couldn't care less.
In Europe even firedepartments of neigbouring countries come to eachothers aid when needed.
Just sent him the bill for manpower, vehicel cost etc.
And that should have been the end of the discussion imo.
|
On October 05 2010 21:35 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:05 Zzoram wrote: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.
I agree with this, and you have to take some responsibility of your own, if i am to cheap to insure my car i should not whine if i crash it and dont get any money. If i am to cheap to pay for firefighting service i should not whine if my house burns down and the firefighters dont help out.
If i was a firefighter in this position with a wife and kids to support i would not risk my job saving the property of someone who made the choise to not pay for my help in case he needed it.
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
But, to avoid situations like this firefighting should always be tax-funded and mandatory, and free for thoose unable to pay taxes due to no income or similar. Same with healthcare in my opinion.
|
On October 05 2010 21:35 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:05 Zzoram wrote: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. Show nested quote +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.
not what i meant, i mean i dont have to go to the thing and give them money or anything
|
On October 05 2010 20:35 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 20:01 HeavOnEarth wrote:On October 05 2010 19:53 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 19:26 ey215 wrote:On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote:
"Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars. I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either. The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act. Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county. Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)? Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well. On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote:Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something...  They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment. you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired. 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. Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 20:25 HeavOnEarth wrote:On October 05 2010 20:18 xlep wrote:On October 05 2010 20:01 HeavOnEarth wrote:On October 05 2010 19:53 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 19:26 ey215 wrote:On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote:
"Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars. I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either. The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act. Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county. Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no Were you in the military? Those firefighters had the knowledge and resources to reliably save this house. Who the fuck cares about orders if it is to basically save the future of a that guy (or his whole family, not sure is he has one)? Just because you are ordered this or that you should never stop using your own brain. Sure the whole system is crappy, but those firefighters themselves certainly are guilty as well. On October 05 2010 19:48 Manit0u wrote:Oh man, whatever happened to work ethics? I mean, I've always thought that firefighters are kind of like doctors, willing to help others no matter what, having the calling or something... They are just like doctors in the US. At least from what you hear about it, no money = no medical treatment. you do realize if your boss tells you to do something, you don't follow his orders, you are fired.
so you're saying that everything is ok as long as your boss tells you to? Policy or not, law or not, firefighters not helping people save their home is wrong. By their logic policemen shouldn't help homeless people that are assaulted right in front of them because they don't pay for the "service". Sure the family should've paid but there are other ways, e.g. just give them a bill over 5000$. Thats still about 65 years of the annual amount they'd had to pay -im saying its your job or this mans house, who would choose the latter? -Then everyone would opt for the 5,000$ bill and there are suddenly no more firefighters. - I would. Without hesitation.
It's so easy to throw away a career when you don't actually have to spend the thousands of dollars and years of education to get your certification and find employment.
I'm sure when you get fired and your home gets foreclosed and your family is out on the street at least your children will be proud that their father stood by his morals to save some stranger's life house.
|
On October 05 2010 14:29 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:27 EvilTeletubby wrote: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. Ouch Mani. hahaha, when people don't pay for HBO do you send out arson teams?
Lol, arson teams.
Anyway, I'm sure if a person was trapped in there they would have done something about it.
|
I can't imagine these guys getting away with this ... the rage of the internet will crash down upon them.
The "he didn't pay, he gets no service" argument is stupid. They were there, they could have put out the fire. Money can be settled any time.
Not to mention I'm sure a good lawyer could dance all around that argument and come out with a million dollar settlement.
|
On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake?
Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
|
On October 05 2010 21:54 Golden Ghost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 05 2010 19:41 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 19:34 Golden Ghost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments. I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated. Except the fire department was funded from the city. This isn't the case of the fire fighter's being contracted out to a private company they are municipal workers. The property was not in city limits. The service to rural areas is one provided by the city fire department for a fee (that city residents already pay for in their taxes and this family did not). So because he doesn't live in the city he shouldn't have to pay for a service that city property owners do? Yes, I know and I really, really, REALLY couldn't care less. In Europe even firedepartments of neigbouring countries come to eachothers aid when needed. Just sent him the bill for manpower, vehicel cost etc. And that should have been the end of the discussion imo.
Yes, and that happens here all the time as well. I was in San Diego, California when brush fires wiped out entire portions of the county including a lot of houses with loss of life and that fire was fought by fire crews from all over the country.
But you're arguing that the firefighters should lose their jobs and the homeowner should receive compensation when he chose not to pay for fire services. The fire should have been put out, but it isn't he fault of the fire fighters that it wasn't and he shouldn't receive compensation from the city that they didn't put the fire out. He made a personal choice and paid the price. I hope he had insurance on the house at least.
The guy didn't pay the $75 in the first place you really think he's going to pay the thousands the bill would cost?
|
On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
His house burned down.
Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault. And since he was willing to pay "Any price necessary" to get the to stop it afterwords, he had the money for insurance.
|
On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS.
|
Anyone arguing about the ethics of payment, laws and codes, etc. is clearly overlooking the fact that they went out there to just watch the player burn down. I mean, if they dude didn't pay, why they hell did they waste tax payer funds on the fuel to go fist bump each other at the winnie roast? Why? Because they are douchbags.
Granted, the states have no shortages of laws protecting or promotion douchbaggery in the name of public servers. Add another to the list - firewatchers.
|
On October 05 2010 22:12 comis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS.
I was under the impression it doesn't take a firefighter to open a door and let animals out of a house.
On October 05 2010 22:13 sk` wrote:
Anyone arguing about the ethics of payment, laws and codes, etc. is clearly overlooking the fact that they went out there to just watch the player burn down. I mean, if they dude didn't pay, why they hell did they waste tax payer funds on the fuel to go fist bump each other at the winnie roast? Why? Because they are douchbags.
Granted, the states have no shortages of laws protecting or promotion douchbaggery in the name of public servers. Add another to the list - firewatchers.
They were there incase the person next to him's house caught fire. If they weren't there, and the person next door's house caught fire, when he paid, then it would be an issue.
|
This is just wrong to begin with. Fire Departments should be paid by the city via taxes and not with some fee. I mean there is absolutely NO reason for anyone not to pay that apart from forgetting it or being completely retarded - no one is going to be able put out a major fire by themselves, so everybody is going to need that service.
As soon as the fire department is run like a company, things like this can happen. And i can see how someone can argue that they did nothing wrong in letting this mans house burn down. If you look at it like if you are running a company, then sure, it would actually be a wrong move to put out the fire, since that would send out the message that nobody needs to pay that fee, because you're going to do your job anyways. It is still fucked up pretty badly if you look at it from a moral perspective.
|
On October 05 2010 22:10 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). His house burned down. Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault.
Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy.
Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
|
On October 05 2010 22:13 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:12 comis wrote:On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS. I was under the impression it doesn't take a firefighter to open a door and let animals out of a house.
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
|
On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger).
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
|
On October 05 2010 22:15 comis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:10 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). His house burned down. Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault. Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy. Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation.
Indeed.
Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.
Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself.
On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them.
On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take"
He had the money =\
|
Oh good. Excellent to see we're moving away from that communist plot.
/sarcasm, by the way.
|
On October 05 2010 22:14 x2mirko wrote:
This is just wrong to begin with. Fire Departments should be paid by the city via taxes and not with some fee. I mean there is absolutely NO reason for anyone not to pay that apart from forgetting it or being completely retarded - no one is going to be able put out a major fire by themselves, so everybody is going to need that service.
As soon as the fire department is run like a company, things like this can happen. And i can see how someone can argue that they did nothing wrong in letting this mans house burn down. If you look at it like if you are running a company, then sure, it would actually be a wrong move to put out the fire, since that would send out the message that nobody needs to pay that fee, because you're going to do your job anyways. It is still fucked up pretty badly if you look at it from a moral perspective.
The fire department was paid for by the city via taxes. This property was not part of the city. For legal purposes it might as well been in the middle of Antarctica. Or asking you to send your firefighters from Germany to put out a house fire in Australia. Keep in mind we're talking legal purposes.
The city doesn't even have to provide fire services outside of it's city limits, but wanted to cover a larger area in the county since there was no county fire services. The city wants those people to pay for that service just like residents inside the city do, which is I think reasonable.
|
On October 05 2010 22:13 sk` wrote:
Anyone arguing about the ethics of payment, laws and codes, etc. is clearly overlooking the fact that they went out there to just watch the player burn down. I mean, if they dude didn't pay, why they hell did they waste tax payer funds on the fuel to go fist bump each other at the winnie roast? Why? Because they are douchbags.
Granted, the states have no shortages of laws protecting or promotion douchbaggery in the name of public servers. Add another to the list - firewatchers.
Try reading the article and maybe you will find an answer to your question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
