Firefighters watch a home burn down because owners did not pay a fee

[Namaste]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

 

[El Nino]

That is an incredibly dangerous city policy. Fires can go out of control very quickly. Letting one person's house burn down puts the rest of the neighborhood in danger.

Maybe that ought to be a tax rather than a voluntary fee.

 

[GreenKirby]

Free Market™

 

[freeman123]

Honestly, I don't see this as a big deal. If everyone knows they're supposed to pay the fee, then people who choose not to pay it deserve the consequences. It would be like if I bought a brand new car and then drove it around without insurance. If I end up totaling my car; whose fault is that?

$75 a year is nothing. Anyone could afford that. The guy even said, "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." He apparently thought that he could cheat the system and just not pay the $75, but that the fire department would still help him if there was a fire. He tried to cheat the system and it backfired on him. He has no one to blame but himself.

 

[Deleted member]

But he even said that he'd pay them anything and they just stood there.
that is some bureaucratic BS imo.

 

[freeman123]

But he even said that he'd pay them anything and they just stood there.
that is some bureaucratic BS imo.

If they let people pay after their house caught on fire, then that's what everyone would do and the fire department would go out of business. It would be like Geico letting people buy car insurance after they already totaled their car.

 

[UberMario]

I say they should get that stupid*** mayor out. Seriously what the heck is that bs? Are they/we really in that bad of an economic situation that the firefighers won't come to the rescue unless payed in advance? All they did was waste a family's $10000+ because they didn't get 75 FREAKIN' DOLLARS. That is beyond pathetic, what's next? Their police department is going to require $75 or they'll let burglars murder your family? Honestly . . . . . .

Also, here's a followup:

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

EDIT: The story is even worse, you know the family who's house burned down? One of their sons was arrested for assaulting a firefighter when they strictly refused to put the fire out EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE ALREADY THERE. Seriously, these workers had no dignity.

 

[Jim Morrison]

What the hell, people have to pay for protection from fires? I thought that was just payed with taxes.

 

[Deleted member]

If they let people pay after their house caught on fire, then that's what everyone would do and the fire department would go out of business. It would be like Geico letting people buy car insurance after they already totaled their car.

out of business? they are paid by the city.
and every single other city doesn't have this fee.

 

[Pluvia]

What the hell do you use tax for over there?

 

[Geist]

Wtf is this? This immediately makes me think of gang 'protection' fees. Not saying the firefighters burned their house down in ultimatum or anything.

 

[El Nino]

Honestly, I don't see this as a big deal. If everyone knows they're supposed to pay the fee, then people who choose not to pay it deserve the consequences. It would be like if I bought a brand new car and then drove it around without insurance. If I end up totaling my car; whose fault is that?

If you totaled MY car while driving without insurance then it becomes MY issue, doesn't it? And if you don't have insurance for damages to my vehicle which you caused, then I'm going to have to pay for your mistake, and I'm not going to like that. I may even not like it to the point of bringing it up to an elected official.

Fires work similarly. If my neighbor doesn't pay the firefighting fee and his house catches on fire, that puts my house in immediate danger. If it spreads to my house, there's no guarantee that it can be contained. It may spread to the whole neighborhood on a hot dry summer day.

Generally, it isn't smart policy to make a service like that optional.

I say they should get that stupid*** mayor out. Seriously what the heck is that bs? Are they/we really in that bad of an economic situation that the firefighers won't come to the rescue unless payed in advance? All they did was waste a family's $10000+ because they didn't get 75 FREAKIN' DOLLARS. That is beyond pathetic, what's next? Their police department is going to require $75 or they'll let burglars murder your family? Honestly . . . . . .

In my area, cities have been cutting police, fire and EMT services due to the economy. The politicians claim there isn't enough funding. I often question their crisis management skills. I think most of them would rather the city catch on fire before they cut into their own salaries. But that's just my cynicism acting up again.

 

[SkylerOcon]

$75 a year is nothing. Anyone could afford that. The guy even said, "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong." He apparently thought that he could cheat the system and just not pay the $75, but that the fire department would still help him if there was a fire. He tried to cheat the system and it backfired on him. He has no one to blame but himself.

$75 a year is nothing. Anyone could afford that

$75 a year is nothing

Man. I really wish I get to live where you do one day. $75 not being a problem to "anyone" in your area must be nice.

Anyway, I think that's a pretty irresponsible city policy. Not only is 75 dollars not affordable to some people letting a fire burn down like that - as somebody already said - puts other people at risk.

 

[DTP]

^^^idk, I think if someone is capable of affording a home of their own, then $75 REALLY shouldn't be too much of an issue.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Some people obviously don't live where I live, then >_>

 

[Spire]

I made between $500 and $600 this past weekend by waiting tables. $75 is nothing to me. If you have a house but can't pay $75 a year, then that's one rare situation. I find it humorous that Frown has paid more money to get people into the Disco Room than it costs to insure your local fire department will save your house.

I really wonder what kind of rubbish that guy spent money on rather than fire insurance.

 

[El Nino]

It doesn't matter if it's $75 or 7 cents. If you give someone the option of paying extra for something that they aren't going to get right away, a lot of people are going to say no. You could pay $75 for 10 years and your house might never catch on fire. So that'd be $750 you gave up and received nothing in return.

Maybe that's not the safest way to think, but that's the way some people think. From an economic standpoint, it's not completely crazy.

It's also possible that this family paid the fee on previous years, but money was tight this year, so they waived it this time on the assumption that fires aren't common in their area or whatever.

I'm not trying to justify their mentality, but I do recognize there's some stupid **** I really ought to take care of for health and safety reasons that I kind of put off too.

 

[Jim Morrison]

That's how insurance works, bro.

It's just in case something happens but it never does.

 

[freeman123]

out of business? they are paid by the city.
and every single other city doesn't have this fee.

Most cities don't do it this way. Apparently this city thought that it would be better to offer the service to people outside of city limits instead of forcing them to pay for it.

El Nino
If you totaled MY car while driving without insurance then it becomes MY issue, doesn't it? And if you don't have insurance for damages to my vehicle which you caused, then I'm going to have to pay for your mistake, and I'm not going to like that. I may even not like it to the point of bringing it up to an elected official.

Fires work similarly. If my neighbor doesn't pay the firefighting fee and his house catches on fire, that puts my house in immediate danger. If it spreads to my house, there's no guarantee that it can be contained. It may spread to the whole neighborhood on a hot dry summer day.

Generally, it isn't smart policy to make a service like that optional.

I'm assuming that the reason the fire fighters went to the residence and watched the fire was so that they could prevent it from damaging anyone else's property, which they did.

SkylerOcean
Man. I really wish I get to live where you do one day. $75 not being a problem to "anyone" in your area must be nice.

Anyway, I think that's a pretty irresponsible city policy. Not only is 75 dollars not affordable to some people letting a fire burn down like that - as somebody already said - puts other people at risk.

Who do you know that can afford to own a home, but can't afford $75 a year? If they don't own the home, then it would be the home owner's responsibility to pay the $75.

Also, how much do you think you pay for the fire department now? Everyone has to pay for it. It's just that most people pay through forced taxation. It's never free.

 

[El Nino]

That's how insurance works, bro.

It's just in case something happens but it never does.

Yeah, I know. But I know quite a few people who have had to go without health insurance for years because money was that tight for them. When it comes down to the wire, your next month's rent matters more.

Who do you know that can afford to own a home, but can't afford $75 a year? If they don't own the home, then it would be the home owner's responsibility to pay the $75.

House payments aren't exactly cheap, and with the price of rent being pushed up due to the housing market, I can easily see some people buying homes right on the line of what they can afford mainly just because it might be more affordable than renting in some areas.

Also, how much do you think you pay for the fire department now? Everyone has to pay for it. It's just that most people pay through forced taxation. It's never free.

Yeah, but that's the point of taxes. Economically, the general trend is that people seem to make decisions based on what something is worth to them at the moment. Insurance is almost never worth anything at the moment. Some people think in long term; some people don't. The reason fire services are taxed in most areas is because of common interest. If your house catches on fire, mine might as well. You can apply this logic to individually owned apartments too. It's the same with contagious diseases.

I mean, I agree with you that this family made the wrong decision. But I still have to say that the policy is flawed.

Edit: I don't even like the concept of taxes. wtf is wrong with me today?

 

[Mota]

That's pretty pathetic from the firefighters.

Even if the guy hadn't paid the fee, it's $75, they're going to let the house and possessions worth thousands burn over that? Not to mention the the safety of neighbours, their property and the guy frantically attempting to save his house from the fire solo as the fire brigade kick back for the show.

Save the house and protect others, then deal with the non payer later lol

Could you imagine if hospitals and doctors wanted to know if someone had payed fee before treating
"What? You've got a deadly and highly contagious disease that could doom mankind? Well have you paid the fee? NO!? Well sorry can't help you, off you go then."

 

[Jonkku]

Having to pay extra for firefighters to do their job? I mean, I doubt those $75's pay all of their salary, so there must be money coming from somewhere else as well.

Only in America.
Why did the firefighters even come to the scene if they knew they weren't going to do anything about the fire?


Well, even though the family lost their house, atleast they still have their free health care and live in a country with a good economy and government.








Oh wait!

 

[Jim Morrison]

Reported for trolling with the truth, I hate Europeans.

 

[Pluvia]

Well, even though the family lost their house, atleast they still have their free health care and live in a country with a good economy and government.








Oh wait!

I couldn't help but laugh.

 

[~N9NE~]

Bewildered as usual.

 

[Namaste]

I believe this gets to the point where it doesn't mater about the $75. People are saying "But it's so low they should of payed it". Well yeah, they should have. But the discussion I more wanted to bring up is "Should they of even needed to?" I don't think you can safely say "It's not a lot it's their fault for not paying it" without being able to justify the Firefighters letting a families home burn down for "not a lot".

 

[freeman123]

I believe this gets to the point where it doesn't mater about the $75. People are saying "But it's so low they should of payed it". Well yeah, they should have. But the discussion I more wanted to bring up is "Should they of even needed to?" I don't think you can safely say "It's not a lot it's their fault for not paying it" without being able to justify the Firefighters letting a families home burn down for "not a lot".

I can justify them not putting out the fire. They aren't slaves, and they have no obligation to put out a fire for free.

Suppose we were talking about fire insurance. Let's say that this family never bothered to buy fire insurance for their home, and then their house burned down. Is it wrong of the insurance company to not buy them a new house even though they didn't pay for fire insurance?

 

[SuperBowser]

Yes, stubborn inaction while a family watch their home and all their worldly possessions burn to the ground will sure teach them a lesson.

 

[Nihonjin]

Total BS.

If you don't think this isn't a big deal you're ********.

Apply this same policy to, lets say, the police? Either you pay them in advance, or no protection for you. (Mafia much?)

How about paramedics? If you collapse because of a heartattack, have fun dying while they go verify whether or not you paid your bills before performing CPR.

This is supposed to be an emergency service, you help first, you ask questions later. You don't watch people's houses burn because of God **** pocket change.

I mean ****, what if someone was still inside?

I bet some of these morons call themselves Christians too. Disgusting.

This story seriously put me in a bad mood.

 

[freeman123]

If you don't think this isn't a big deal you're ********.

Apply this same policy to, lets say, the police? Either you pay them in advance, or no protection for you. (Mafia much?)

How about paramedics? If you collapse because of a heartattack, have fun dying while they go verify whether or not you paid your bills before performing CPR.

This is supposed to be an emergency service, you help first, you ask questions later. You don't watch people's houses burn because of God **** pocket change.

I mean ****, what if someone was still inside?

I bet some of these morons call themselves Christians too. Disgusting.

This story seriously put me in a bad mood.

No one's life was in danger. It would be different if they watched people trapped inside the house burn to death. That's not what happened.

I would be fine with optionally paying $75 a year for police or paramedics as apposed to being forced to pay by the government. Being forced to pay something sounds a lot more mafia like to me.

And Christians believe that people deserve to burn for all the eternity; so I don't know why you'd think they'd care about a house burning.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Suppose we were talking about fire insurance. Let's say that this family never bothered to buy fire insurance for their home, and then their house burned down. Is it wrong of the insurance company to not buy them a new house even though they didn't pay for fire insurance?

This is a pretty horrible comparison.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The problem with this set-up is that it places a certain degree of trust that individuals know what they are doing and take responsibility for their actions. Instead of setting up a tax where everyone has to pay, Obion County has empowered its citizens with the ability to determine whether fire insurance is an additional fee that they would like to finance, harkening back to colonial America and the inception of the fire department by Benjamin Franklin. Unfortunately, not everyone can always handle that responsibility.

Situations like this justifies how the Legislative political body of America must create laws for the lowest common denominator of human error. It forms the basis for anti-laws to be created. Rules and regulations that are not formed to promote and empower the human condition, but rather to constrain it and hold its hand like a lost child because it cannot be trusted in its own regard. People cannot be trusted to even safeguard their own belongings and therefore a mandatory tax needs to be implemented so the government can force feed them and mandate that they be responsible for their own actions. As a result of this incidence, Obion County may force all citizens to now pay for firefighters. A service that fiscally conservative libertarians may not want as residents in the county, but have been forced to compensate as a result of the incompetence of one individual. Yet this is how laws are created. They are created to account for the lowest common denominator.

When I first stumbled on this topic, I immediately thought of the Fountainhead. A book in which the main antagonist, Tooley, insists that everyone adopts a policy of forgiveness, understanding, and sympathy for one another. Tooley's real agenda by enforcing such principles is to turn the country into a mediocracy, rather than judge anyone by merit. If someone fails to do something correctly, then forgive them and insist that they try again. Ignore their incompetence and instead of having them take responsibility for their actions, simply forgive and forget. It seems that such a situation is prevalent in this thread, as many posters are insisting to forgive the Cranick's negligence. Perhaps there is a pervasive fear, "That could happen to me." Subsequently what better philosophy to endorse then being nice to everyone. For by being nice to all individuals, all individuals should be nice to you. Ironically the depth of this statement is an entirely selfish agenda, yet we are so fundamentally incompetent to view what is beyond the surface that we can only see the "nice side" in regards to any personality. I think that it is horrible that the Cranick's house burned down, but it happens. His consequence is a direct result of his actions and now the family must take responsibility.

After all, if everyone offered to pay $75, only AFTER the fact that their own house is on fire, then that destroys the whole notion of paying for the insurance in the first place. You can't seek health insurance after getting into a horrible accident that rips off half your body and requires a multi-million dollar prosthetic surgery. Yes, firefighters should be available in each and every town to help each and every individual and should be subsidized by taxes. But that is not the case here, as this is not your ordinary town and for 20 years it has been acknowledged that firemen have been an insurance provision, rather than a born right. For Gene Cranick he believed he wasn't going to need the insurance and he was wrong. Now he has the reassurance of America. God bless.

 

[StealthyGunnar]

No one's life was in danger. It would be different if they watched people trapped inside the house burn to death. That's not what happened.

I would be fine with optionally paying $75 a year for police or paramedics as apposed to being forced to pay by the government. Being forced to pay something sounds a lot more mafia like to me.

And Christians believe that people deserve to burn for all the eternity; so I don't know why you'd think they'd care about a house burning.

Twisting thoughts/ideas is not very nice..

But this is ridiculous. You don't know what predicament this family was in to a point where they couldn't pay the fee. Why do you think there are taxes anyways? And to let a house burn down just because 75$ wasn't paid is stupid, irresponsible, and ridiculous.

 

[DTP]

I made between $500 and $600 this past weekend by waiting tables. $75 is nothing to me. If you have a house but can't pay $75 a year, then that's one rare situation. I find it humorous that Frown has paid more money to get people into the Disco Room than it costs to insure your local fire department will save your house.

I really wonder what kind of rubbish that guy spent money on rather than fire insurance.

Thiiiiis.

Sidenote: I've made the exact same amount in tips over the last 4-5 days waiting tables as well. Made $125 just yesterday lol
Didn't realize you were a ballin' waiter too.

*High fives*

 

[Jim Morrison]

For I'm gonna be a waiter sounds like the first step to being a millionaire!

 

[Nihonjin]

No one's life was in danger. It would be different if they watched people trapped inside the house burn to death. That's not what happened.

This time.

But did they even bother to make sure? My guess is no, because I'm reading reports of three dead dogs and a dead cat.

That could've quite easily been a kid who snuck inside unnoticed and got trapped.

I would be fine with optionally paying $75 a year for police or paramedics as apposed to being forced to pay by the government. Being forced to pay something sounds a lot more mafia like to me.

Then you're ********.

You understand that people make mistakes, right? You know that sometimes people make administrative mistakes where they think they've already paid a certain bill or where a company thinks they haven't paid a certain bill even though have? Good luck putting out that fire.

 

[freeman123]

CA5H
Twisting thoughts/ideas is not very nice..

I don't know what you're referring to. The mafia thing? If someone is going to try to make a mafia comparison while simultaneously advocating a system that forces people to pay for a service regardless of whether they want it or not, then they can't possibly expect no one to point out the irony in that.

CA5H
You don't know what predicament this family was in to a point where they couldn't pay the fee.

Well, my guess would be that Gene Cranik thought that he could cheat the fire department by not paying them, under the assumption that they wouldn't let his house burn to the ground. This is backed up by the fact that Cranik admitted that he "thought they would put it out anyway", and by the fact that he offered to pay the fire fighters after his house was on fire(meaning he had money).

Also, if the government didn't have a monopoly over fire departments, then competition would cause prices to be lower and more affordable to everyone. It would also make it more likely for a person to find a fire department that would put out a fire, even if they hadn't paid in advance, in the event of an emergency.

CA5H
Why do you think there are taxes anyways?

Because a bunch of elitists think that they have the right to enforce onto people what they think is best for them?

CA5H
And to let a house burn down just because 75$ wasn't paid is stupid, irresponsible, and ridiculous.

Of the guy who didn't pay the $75? I agree.

Nihonjin
This time.

But did they even bother to make sure? My guess is no

Well, they were talking to the home owner as it was going on. So I'd imagine he would have told them if anyone was unaccounted for.

Nihonjin
You understand that people make mistakes, right?

Yes, and that's why I'm against giving the government authority to make decisions for everyone else. When the government makes a mistake, it affects everyone. It's bad enough that we have to deal with the consequences of our own mistakes.

For anyone who is interested, here's a video of a guy making a pretty good argument for why forced taxation and government monopolies aren't the best way to provide services such as fire departments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVL3Hq9P3bU

 

[Jim Morrison]

Also, if the government didn't have a monopoly over fire departments, then competition would cause prices to be lower and more affordable to everyone. It would also make it more likely for a person to find a fire department that would put out a fire, even if they hadn't paid in advance, in the event of an emergency.

For anyone who is interested, here's a video of a guy making a pretty good argument for why forced taxation and government monopolies aren't the best way to provide services such as fire departments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVL3Hq9P3bU

The point is that fire departments should react as fast as possible and you'd need the nearest fire department of the service you're using. You're not gonna have a fire department of every service in every town.
It'd be really stupid if you had 10 fire departments in a small city of different services.


Bad wording, but you know what I mean.

 

[Jonkku]

Why did the firefighters even come to the scene if they knew they weren't going to do anything about the fire?

I still stand by this..

They could've just asked on the phone "Did you pay?" and be done with the whole thing.
Surely the neighbours would have called them there later, once the fire spreaded into their houses.

You don't call a pizza guy and be like "Oh I won't pay for it but can you come here to look at me being hungry anyway?"

 

[~N9NE~]

Why was Christianity brought up lol?

I was thinking hypothetically, if someone was in the house and died, would the firefighters be held accountable at all?