|
On October 06 2010 07:03 Jonoman92 wrote:
Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway".
then you get a dick who sues them for the surcharge, like the dicks who sued people for trying to save them so now only trained personnel can save people else you risk getting sued. This is just mis management by the city and surround area unto how to pay for public services.
The US is quite conservative about the roles of government more after the fall of the USSR hell the US doesn't see some things as human rights. I know a few counties in Europe see housing a a human right the US does not.
|
On October 06 2010 05:25 NukeTheBunnys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:00 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 03:25 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else. My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare) On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice. And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others. Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable. And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane. You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why: A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane. B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs. A)
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer: I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being. On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else. My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare) On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice. And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others. Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable. And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane. In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case. And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing. Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not). I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion) Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house. You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court. You are right, we do not know what the fire looked like, or how it progressed. We do know it to the fire department 2 hours get out to the call though, and fire can spread really far in two hours. I don't think its fair to assume that it was some trivial fire when the fire department got there, and if it was, they owner should have put it out him self. Well, if he does file a suite now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Unless you pay the service charge they are not legally obligated at all to do anything for him, so if he does sue he will end up getting nothing and having to pay court costs. As for "what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home" well, I detailed them already in a previous post. and you are right, the city could demand what ever it wanted. And the guy would have no legal obligation to pay anything. If you read this you would know that they do charge a fee for responding to call, and they end up collecting it less then 50% of the time because they have no legal way of collecting these fees. So they could charge what they want, but have no way to collect it
It took them whole 2 hours to reach the place only because they didn't want to go there, when the guy called them. The only reason why they went there at all is, because the property of a paying customer was in danger. I assume that if they responded to the first call on time, the situation would not have been even nearly as dangerous as it was by the time they arrived. Maybe I should correct myself: For the first two hours they were not "watching his house burn down and his life get ruined". They "only" condemned his whole future existence by knowingly letting his property burn down, even though most likely it would have been only a small effort to help him.
I have to admit that I have only a limited legal knowledge. However, sueing for water damages, when a fire is being put out, does not sound reasonable to me. The same applies to trespassing especially when there is a dozen or so people that can testify that the man was begging the firefighters to save his house. On the other hand, failure to render assistence is punishable (at least in Germany)...
I can imagine that there might be no legal obligation for him to pay the money they ask for. I still think that preserving somebody's existence is worth more than than any monetary amount.
Here we could start over the argument than if they would have saved his home and he did not pay, everybody would cease to make the monthly payments to the fire dept. However, this is only an assumption and in addition I'd imagine that with some changes in legislation it could be prevented that people would not pay in the future.
|
On October 06 2010 07:19 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:03 Jonoman92 wrote:
Fuck the law, not saving someone's house over a $75 fee is wrong. Provided I think they should charge him a decent surcharge so they don't embolden other people to not pay the fee thinking "oh they'll save my house anyway". They have no authority to collect any fee because that house was outside their jurisdiction, and whatever bill they try to give the guy after the fact would not have to be paid. Not to mention the home owner could sue the city for any water damage and make a killing since they weren't even supposed to save his house. That's why they only offered service to rural homes that opted to contract with the city for fire fighting service, to cover their costs and cover themselves legally. Again, how many times does this have to be repeated? It really seems like everyone who is outraged never read the full article and watched the news video, and has no understanding of jurisdiction.
Obviously the guy was asking them to save his house so he's asking them to pour the water on his house, even in America I am very doubtful he could win a case for water damage. Save the house first, then discuss payment. If they don't pay the $750 or w/e (10x the standard fee seems about right, still on the low side, but you gotta be reasonable.) Then what I would do, is if they don't pay that or try and bitch out of it light their house on fire the next week and laugh.
Seriously, taking the law into your own hands seems like the best option most of the time imo.
|
Guys, legal liability is a HUGE DEAL. This is the US of A remember. In this country a robber can sue the home owner for having an unsafe home if he injures himself in the act of robbery. Everyone has policies to cover their ass from litigation.
|
On October 06 2010 07:23 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 05:25 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 05:00 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 03:25 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else. My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare) On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice. And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others. Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable. And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane. You are not making any argument. You are just saying "letting a house burn down when you can stop it is inhumane." If you want that to be your argument you need to explain why: A) Letting a house burn down is inhumane. B) Inhumane things should always be avoided at all costs. A)
I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane.
B) Seems to me like you're either as compassionate as a rock or have a thing for stupid pseudo-philosophical questions, but I'd still answer: I very much dislike having any feelings of unpleasantness, discomfort or suffering. I try to avoid them at all costs. I imagine that the same applies to every human being. On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 03:20 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:57 Myles wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the montly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. It's still not a free lunch. Someone has to pay for it in the end. It doesn't come out of thin air. Also, you don't seem to understand America's tradition of taking advantage of the system. People live off the welfare system and other programs here without ever really trying to get off them. It provides a decent enough life that those people don't care to improve themselves and in the end it makes it worse off for everyone else. My intention is not to argue about free lunches. I just wanted to point out that I disliked your figure of speech, mainly for the reason that it is somewhat inaccurate here. Let's not forget that the firefighters were already there and could save his property without much trouble. Also, this thread is not meant to be about welfare in the US. (btw you could hardly say that there is any system to be taken advatage of in the US if you compare it to say Germany, where a family of two unemployed parents and two kids gets more money from welfare than a family of the same size with two parents that work shitty full-time jobs. Still this is not the place to argue about welfare) On October 06 2010 02:02 NukeTheBunnys wrote:On October 06 2010 01:45 ggrrg wrote:On October 06 2010 01:12 Myles wrote:
I don't really get all the outrage. He was out of the city limits and didn't pay the city taxes, that's why he needed to pay a fee to get firefighting service. Yea, in a perfect world this wouldn't be required, but then you remember there's no such thing as a free lunch and that without those fees no firefighting service would be available at all where they live.
It's pretty heartless to do? Sure. Would it have been ok to put out the fire and charge them a higher fee? Maybe. But if you start doing that then everyone outside the city limits gets the idea that you only need to pay per fire, rather then pay every month so the fire dept has enough funding to keep going to that area. First of all, there is such a thing as free lunch. Where I live multiple organizations provide such a service to underprivileged people. Then you just make an assumption that people would stop paying for the firefighting service if they saved this guy's house, even though he did not pay the monthly fees. Not helping a person even though you are perfectly capable to do so, is absolutely inhumane no matter what the circumstances are. No, there is no such thing as a free lunch. These organizations who provide that service are supported by some means. They don't get the food they give out for free, they dont get their location for free, they dont get all the workers for free, ect. They are supported by donations, and frequently taxes as well. The fire department decided to not give this guy a free lunch and that is their choice. And may I point out that you are currently being absolutely inhumane right now. You could donate all your belongings to charity, you could volunteer at any number of good places, there is a whole lot you could be doing and are currently not doing. You do not need a computer, it is not essential to your survival, if you had not bought it thats a thousand dollars that could be going to a food bank or a homeless shelter. You want other people to make sacrifices to help other people and you judge them when they do not do this. How bout stepping up and doing something yourself if its so terrible to not take action to help others. Do you really think that we should argue about free lunches here? The fire dept decided to be rigorous, which doesn't change the fact that their lack of action was extremely inhumane and thus condemnable. And no, you most certainly cannot point out that I am being "absolutely inhumane" right now. The first reason being that it has absolutely no relation to the topic whatsoever. The second one being that unlike the firefighters I would have to sacrifice something personal. From what I understand from the article the fire wasn't too big or too dangerous (especially in the beginning). Also, for the expenses they would have had for putting out his fire, the city could have charged him an arbitrary amount of money essentially covering their expenses and even "making some money". On top of that, the firefighters were right there watching his house burn down! I'd say watching somebody's life get ruined and not helping even though you can, qualifies as pretty inhumane. In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case. And where as you would need to make some personal sacrifices to your personal comfort, the firefighters would have had to make sacrifices to their personal safety. Do you know how to fight fires, step one is to climb on the roof and cut big holes to let the heat out and water in. The roof is frequently damaged by the fire, so this is one of the most dangerous parts of fighting a fire. You don't just stand outside where its safe and point a hose, because the fire is never going to get put out. Not only that they would be endangering their job, and the job of everyone else that they work with by opening themselves up to liability suites. And If the man won, and got compensation, it would be the fire department that had to pay, meaning less firemen, less equipment, and therefore more of a risk next time they go out on a call. By charging an arbitrary amount of money he could sue them for extortion as well as the water damage and trespassing. Still no room for free lunch discussions here. My use of the term "free lunch" had the sole purpose of showing that people can be compassionate sometimes (which the firefighters obviously were not). I also did not imply by any means that the fire service should have been free. In fact, I did recommend charging him for this service (from here on, one could argue if the financing of the fire dept should not be restructered, e.g. by making the fee mandatory. but that's not the point of this discussion) Well, neither of us knows exactly what the fire looked like when it started, how fast it spread and how dangerous it was. However from what I understand, the flames started outside of the house and needed at least some time until they reached the house. I do not expect the firefighters to take the risk of injuries or casualties (especially not for somebody who did not pay), however, it seems like they could have easily stopped the fire before it had reached the interior of the house. You go way to far with the possibilities of charges he could have filed, if they saved his home. If you ask me, it is far more likely that he will file a charge now, since they did not save his house. I really don't see what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home. As far as the extortion goes, the city could demand a payment as a fine or as expenses coverage, and as far as the amount is somewhat reasonable there are no grounds to believe that he could succeed in court. You are right, we do not know what the fire looked like, or how it progressed. We do know it to the fire department 2 hours get out to the call though, and fire can spread really far in two hours. I don't think its fair to assume that it was some trivial fire when the fire department got there, and if it was, they owner should have put it out him self. Well, if he does file a suite now, he doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. Unless you pay the service charge they are not legally obligated at all to do anything for him, so if he does sue he will end up getting nothing and having to pay court costs. As for "what kind of liability suites could possibly pass in a semi-functional justice system for saving somebodies home" well, I detailed them already in a previous post. and you are right, the city could demand what ever it wanted. And the guy would have no legal obligation to pay anything. If you read this you would know that they do charge a fee for responding to call, and they end up collecting it less then 50% of the time because they have no legal way of collecting these fees. So they could charge what they want, but have no way to collect it It took them whole 2 hours to reach the place only because they didn't want to go there, when the guy called them. The only reason why they went there at all is, because the property of a paying customer was in danger. I assume that if they responded to the first call on time, the situation would not have been even nearly as dangerous as it was by the time they arrived. Maybe I should correct myself: For the first two hours they were not "watching his house burn down and his life get ruined". They "only" condemned his whole future existence by knowingly letting his property burn down, even though most likely it would have been only a small effort to help him. I have to admit that I have only a limited legal knowledge. However, sueing for water damages, when a fire is being put out, does not sound reasonable to me. The same applies to trespassing especially when there is a dozen or so people that can testify that the man was begging the firefighters to save his house. On the other hand, failure to render assistence is punishable (at least in Germany)... I can imagine that there might be no legal obligation for him to pay the money they ask for. I still think that preserving somebody's existence is worth more than than any monetary amount. Here we could start over the argument than if they would have saved his home and he did not pay, everybody would cease to make the monthly payments to the fire dept. However, this is only an assumption and in addition I'd imagine that with some changes in legislation it could be prevented that people would not pay in the future.
Unfortunately, it's not so "unreasonable" here. There are tons of stupid lawsuits that actually win the suing party money when what they are suing for is "unreasonable". This stigma has caused a lot of people to be more hesitant towards helping each other in the U.S. Heck, there's that law in NY I think that says you can't sue someone for helping you, but barely anyone knows of it.
|
Guys, stop making up fees with fantasy land math. That's not how it works, you can't negotiate with a firefighter over what fee to pay. They don't have authority to create a fee structure on the spot.
|
I've got mixed feelings on this, in the first place I feel terrible for a family that lost their home that they had lived in for a very long time.
But on the other hand, if every person didn't pay the fee, and WAITED for a fire at their house to pay them, then they wouldn't have any money to pay the fire fighters when a fire comes around. I assume that the 75$ goes to pay the firefighters I don't actually know, correct me if I'm wrong.
I guess they should have put it out then charged them for all the years of fees, and a fine.
|
What is up with these people? If you are ABLE to fight the fire you WILL, why must you always ask of something in return? These insurances really should be free, or payed for by the government if you will.
|
Maybe the firefighters started the fire to get the 75$! Insidious!
|
This is the greatest thing I have ever read/seen personally.
Basically this guy said "fire protection.. EFF THAT!!"
and then when he needed it said "But ill pay now! ill pay now!"
seriously.. how anyone could feel bad for this person is beyond me. He knew exactly what he was gambling on when he didn't pay... he gambled and loss. next time play it safe and you wont lose your house on a gamble.
|
From an econmic/legal/administrative/etc... standpoint it was probably the right decision of the firefighters to just watch the house burn down. Plethora of arguments in this thread already supporting this view.
However, despite what is an "economically sound policy," the firefighters should have just collectively hosed down the house. This may be an act of "rebellion" that might undermine the entire system, but from a practical view there would likely have been 0 repercussions in terms of what would happen to the firefighters or really putting the insurance policy at jeopardy. They would have likely been reprimanded by the mayor or some other state official, but they would not have been sanctioned for their actions due to the expected community outrage that such a decision would have entailed.
In this manner, both the community furor over the matter wouldn't have happened as well as harming the system in place. Just my thoughts.
|
On October 06 2010 07:33 Kalpman wrote:
What is up with these people? If you are ABLE to fight the fire you WILL, why must you always ask of something in return? These insurances really should be free, or payed for by the government if you will.
They are paid for by the government, for people who pay taxes to the government. This house was outside the city and didn't pay taxes to the city so it didn't get service from the city. The city was nice enough to offer an opt-in system where rural houses outside the city could benefit from city services, but this man didn't pay it. He is owed no service.
|
On October 06 2010 07:34 Krytha wrote:
Maybe the firefighters started the fire to get the 75$! Insidious!
That's how protection.. works. /sicilian accent
Ps. Why couldn't he just pay 21 cents (75/365) and get the service for that day? :-p
750 10x penalty sounds good too. Especially when this guy saved up by not paying 1500 over 20 years. :-p
|
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
|
On October 06 2010 07:35 mnofstl007 wrote:
This is the greatest thing I have ever read/seen personally.
Basically this guy said "fire protection.. EFF THAT!!"
and then when he needed it said "But ill pay now! ill pay now!"
seriously.. how anyone could feel bad for this person is beyond me. He knew exactly what he was gambling on when he didn't pay... he gambled and loss. next time play it safe and you wont lose your house on a gamble.
Same way i feel bad for your lack of compassion.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
There is a reason why heroes are heroes, because its rare an admirable. Firefighters are not automatically heroes, and these ones did there job as they were required. If you're expecting everyone to be a hero that you're going to be very disappointed in life. And Human Decency gets people shit on all the time now. So much so that people stop being decent because it works out better for them in the end.
Used to be you help someone and they appreciate it. Now you help someone and a lawyer looks for any reason to sue you.
|
On October 06 2010 07:55 DaCruise wrote:
I think there is a generel agreement about firefighting being a somewhat heroic act. The 300~firefighters that died on 9/11 are considered to be heroes. Well guess what: THEY ONLY DID IT FOR THE MONEY. Hell maybe they even hired the terrorists who hijacked the planes so they could profit from putting out a huge ass fire. Ofc dying wasnt part of the plan but thats irrelevant. Heroes my ass.
This pretty much matchs the logic of those of you who think the guy had it coming and the firefighters were doing their job when in fact those firefighters are all a bunch of spineless pussies.
Saying "the guy didnt pay but fuck that". "I actually believe in human decency and we are gonna put out ths fire asap and deal with whatever retarded lawsues that may or may not appear later on".
THIS would have been heroic.
Those were municipal firefighters putting out a fire in the city. They did their job correctly. Just like these firefighters did their job correctly, only protecting the house covered by the municipality as contracted by paying the fee.
If you armchair white knights are so keen on being heroic, why don't you guys go out there looking for random people to help instead of posting on forums?
|
This goes to show you why services like the fire department should be hired by the municipality rather than on an individual basis. However, in this scenario where people are paying for coverage on an individual basis, they pretty much did what they should have done. If you are able to suddenly hire the fire department only when you need them, nobody would ever pay until the moment their property is in danger. Saying that these fire fighters should have saved this person's property anyway would be like saying an insurance company should have to instantly sell an uninsured person coverage and cover a car accident accident that has happened immediately prior to that coverage having been purchased.
Frankly, it's his own fault that he decided not to pay for the service. He knew full well what could happen, decided to take a gamble to save a few bucks, and lost.
|
Kinda like a cop watching someone get raped and going "well they forgot to pay taxes last month. serves em right"
|
I feel like it's a legitimate service that everyone gets, but if places do this than you should abide to the rules. However, on this note, if the man had 75 dollars on him and gave it to the firemen, they should do something at that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
