|
On October 05 2010 14:51 Arevall wrote:
Wow!
I can't believe that you think it was right to let his house burn down. Who the hell just watches a house burning down? Sounds like more like organized crime than firefighters on first read-trough.
Welcome to the real world where nothing is either black or white. Basically, we dont have enough resource to make everything perfect, so we go with decisions with the best expected/guestimated outcome.
|
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.
of course sir, youre right, this douchebag got what he deserved its not like he's some helpless wallstreet banker.
This guy is clearly the mastermind of evil.
|
That is illegal. I don't know what the laws are in the US, but in Canada you don't have to pay for fees like those - it's already a part of the government or something like that, and what they did is against the law.
I forgot about how it works, but I learned it in Law four semesters ago.
|
You can't pay $250 after you crash your car to get insurance to fix $10,000 in repair costs because that's cheating the system, and the pool of money that the cost of repairs is coming from is supposed to be filled in part by your monthly payments. It's the same idea here.
|
On October 05 2010 14:59 Cerety wrote:
That is illegal. I don't know what the laws are in the US, but in Canada you don't have to pay for fees like those - it's already a part of the government or something like that, and what they did is against the law.
I forgot about how it works, but I learned it in Law four semesters ago.
It's not illegal. In this case, their house was OUTSIDE city limits, they didn't pay taxes to the city.
|
I still don't understand why public firefighting isn't paid for out of taxes. It's madness that such an important civic protection service would not be paid for by public taxes, similar to public education and a host of other services that are seen as critically vital to the general populace...
|
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.
|
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?
The fire reportedly started in some barrels outside. As the flames crept closer to the home, Cranick says he offered to pay whatever it would take. The plea fell on deaf ears. Hours later, the home was gone.
Sounds like the fire hadn't even reached his house when the firefighters got there. Why didn't he go open his door and call his pets to come out? Seems like the homeowner was an idiot.
|
Remember that thread arguing for Anarcho Capitalism?
yeah.
|
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?
have u never returned a library book late?
Are u a sociopath deprived of empathy of any kind?
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 05 2010 15:03 Elegy wrote:
I still don't understand why public firefighting isn't paid for out of taxes. It's madness that such an important civic protection service would not be paid for by public taxes, similar to public education and a host of other services that are seen as critically vital to the general populace...
Not only this, but in this case it seems like the ER model would be a lot more appropriate. Losing your house and all your possessions isn't quit as bad as going to the ER, but it's pretty close. Save, and then charge an exorbitant fee later.
|
lmfao. So so so retarded. Just from a humanitarian standpoint... how can you watch somebodies house burn down when you have the means to stop it? How do the individual firefighters benefit at all? Blah. Privatization is a mess.
|
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?
its not like the media is gonna be like "holy shit this guy didnt pay his fee, and the firefighters put out his house anyways, what a huge story we got here"
they couldve easily negotiated soemthing under the table and no one would be the wiser
I dont own a house, but i can emphasize it would be pretty fucking shitty to lose one.
Anyways, instead they wanted to make an example out of him, so people go, "Oh shit, we gotta buy that 75$/month"
So yes they are assholes.
|
On October 05 2010 15:10 Sfydjklm 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? have u never returned a library book late? Are u a sociopath deprived of empathy of any kind?
That isn't comparable. You already pay for the library in your municipal taxes or tuition, depending on what library you are talking about. Returning a book late results in an opt-in useage fee agreed upon when you make your library card. The terms are laid out plain and simple, and signing out the book, returning it late, and paying the late fee is abiding by the terms.
|
On October 05 2010 15:10 Glaven wrote:
lmfao. So so so retarded. Just from a humanitarian standpoint... how can you watch somebodies house burn down when you have the means to stop it? How do the individual firefighters benefit at all? Blah. Privatization is a mess.
They don't lose their jobs.
Their boss told them not to do anything because the home owner didn't pay the fee. Firefighters wouldn't know who paid the fee or not, they must've been told so after receiving the address from the 911 call. The address was OUT OF TOWN, therefore outside their obligation, and when checking if the house was their responsibility they probably found out that it wasn't because the fee wasn't paid.
|
edit: i voluntarily removed my comment.
|
On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house?
the article clearly addressed this point <__<;
"
The South Fulton firefighters did show up and managed to save a neighbor's field. The neighbor had paid the fee. But they would provide no heroics for the Cranicks. A local news report shows them climbing back on their trucks, flames still dancing over what was once the family's home."
trololol 90 day ban for that? ouch.
|
On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house?
That's why the firefighters were there. They were making sure the fire wouldn't spread to the neighbours house, since the neighbour was covered by their service due to opting in by paying for it. If it started to spread to the neighbour's house, they would've hosed the area that the fire was spreading across to get to the neighbour's house.
|
On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house?
This is exactly what I've been thinking. It's one thing to deny a service due to non payment (ignoring whether its morally or ethically appropriate), but in the practical case of a fire, not stopping it as soon as it starts presents a huge danger to the surrounding territory unless the fire department can somehow ensure ONLY the non-payer gets his shit burned, which sounds pretty ridiculous.
I'm quite biased as I lost a home to fire years ago but there's something fundamentally wrong with a system where civic protection that should be paid for by taxes and public spending is instead apparently pseudo-"contract" based if you will.
Yes, we know the firefighters were there to prevent the spread of the fire, but it's pretty irresponsible to run the risk anyway of just letting a huge ass fire burn without taking action to stop the source, isn't it?
The video shows the fire still burning/smoldering on the ruins... is that really..safe? Then again, that exact shot might have been inaccurate in terms of portraying exactly what was going on. I don't think any fire department would leave a site still burning without some action..?
|
On October 05 2010 14:26 Romantic wrote:
Given the system they have (insurance) I suppose you can justify letting it burn.
But, uh, who really thinks 911 services should be voluntary insurance? The town has just lost this man's business because he now has to struggle to replace his home instead of purchasing what he would have purchased without his home burning. Sucks for all involved except the fire department.
Or, he would be purchasing the materials for rebuilding and all that stuff that goes in your house from that city as well, so they don't really lose anything.
On October 05 2010 14:54 Jibba wrote:
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
Actually, private // volunteer policing with cert's required would be the most ideal way of law enforcement. Unfortunately, it would be highly impractical to transition. :-/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
