• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the fire department right or wrong?

Right or wrong?

  • Total voters
    42
Hatuey said:
I think the fire department was neither right or wrong. They were lawful. They have no legal responsibility to attend to fires outside of the area they are assigned. They also have no legal responsibility to attend to fires to the people in the county who refused to pay the taxation. I own a house outside of Montreal, Canada. The fact that it's about 45 mins to an hour outside of a metropolitan area means that there is a high probability that if our house will catch on fire, the firefighters in the nearest town won't have time to get to it as it's a pretty rural area. It's a chance we took when we bought the house. These people likewise were too cheap to pay what is essentially a $75 tax to have firefighting service. I don't know why. I don't care really. What I do know is that they got exactly as they deserve. As I stated in another thread: If you want the government's help, pay your taxes.
Click to expand...

I agree with Hatuey... I think that's a sign of the apocalypse.
 
Given that, these days, people sue over just about everything, anyone who steps across their authoritative boundaries is stupid to do so. This would include a fire department.
 
Your Star said:
They were wrong. Someone could have died, and the blood would have been on their hands. They should have fought the fire, and charged them after.

Though, this kind of system shouldn't be in place anyway. Things like these, should not be privatized.
Click to expand...

I agree. Send them the bill and take proper legal recourse.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree. Send them the bill and take proper legal recourse.
Click to expand...

yeah, and how many people have outstanding financial judgements against them in this country?
 
MaggieD said:
I'm not making up anything. It's poor public policy. The poorest, as far as I'm concerned.

In my neck of the woods, which seems to make a difference, this is absolutely unheard of. Everyone has fire protection provided by pre-designated fire departments. No bills are sent because the fee-for-service is included in everyone's property tax bills.

Please tell me you don't check to see if someone's property tax bill is current before you respond to a domestic dispute. Please.

The fire department's sole purpose is to put out fires. Had they been asked by a nearby community to assist in a large fire, off they'd go. But here, they checked their records, saw the guy hadn't paid his $75, and let the freakin' house burn down. Inexcusable, imo.
Click to expand...

Your still failing to give this a good understanding.

Lets give a good example that relates to me.

I work off duty at a high school during football season for security at home games. I have the unfortunate duty of closing down the front entrance after the parking lot fills up and not letting anyone get in, due to people parking behind other people, in the grass areas that the school wants to preserve, etc. We inform those who can't park due to the lot being full that they can park at a school about 1/4 mile up the road. They instead park in the grass across the street from the school (4 lane road) and walk across the roadway. I have been informed NOT to stop traffic for the pedestrians crossing the roadway. Parking had been designated for these individuals at another location, and they chose not to park there. If I get out in traffic and try to stop cars to let the pedestrians cross, and for some reason I get run over by a car (which happens alot to officers directing traffic across the US), my medical expenses, worker's compsensation, and even in the event of death, life insurance will not cover the cost because I was acting outside of my duties with the off-duty employer, in this case being the school.

You have to understand that if people violate their policy or orders from their superiors in situations like this, the employer is not liable for their injuries.


I don't feel like I should throw my family's wellbeing down the toilet to try to help everyone else all the time. And neither should these firefighters.
 
ptif219 said:
Does not justify fire fighters watch it burn
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

Knowing that my injuries wouldn't be covered, my life wouldn't be covered, my family wouldn't get a dime if I died trying to fight that man's fire is all the justification I need not to fight it.
 
molten_dragon said:
The don't think the fire department was wrong. The guy didn't pay for the service, so he shouldn't be able to enjoy the benefits of that service. However, this whole situation was handled very badly.

The county that the guy lives in is very much in the wrong for not providing fire protection to the people who live in that county.

The fire department could have handled things better by simply putting out the fire and then giving the guy a bill for their services (and making it expensive enough that $75/year is an attractive option)

If the county persists in not providing their own fire department, they should pass a law making it mandatory to pay the $75/year to the other town for the services of their fire department.

The really sad part of the story is that the neighbor of the house that originally caught fire also had their house damaged. Something needs to change so that that kind of stuff doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...


I'll say it again since nobody read it the first time.

The residents of this county had TWO DECADES to elect county officials who would do something about the fire coverage situation if it was a concern to them. It is obvious through this 20 years of inaction that everyone in this particular county was happy and content with their current system of fire protection.

Who are we to tell them what they really want/need if they didn't set it up after 20 years?
 
Caine said:
Who are we to tell them what they really want/need if they didn't set it up after 20 years?
Click to expand...
Why don't you understand that you are -entitled- to a service provided by a government that you do not pay taxes to?
[/sarcasm]
 
Aunt Spiker said:
After mulling it overi n another thread I think the guy was a douche - it seems he didn't pay on purpose and his attitude was crappy. He knew his house was likely to be engulfed (when eventually it was after several hours) but didn't lift his own little nubbs to help his animals - and then tried to pin it all on the firefighters.

However - on a moral and accountability level - the firefighters have now brought a heap of problems on them. People *trust* them to do their job. What if there was a clerical error which shows that "someone didn't pay their due" - but they actually did and *if* they had some time they could get a statement from the bank to prove it. :shrug:

If you're a full time, paid firefighter - fighting fires is your job. . . deal with the riff raff AFTER you do your job.

If it's money - then the people who should deal with that are the bill-intakes and others who live in the realm at the office.
Click to expand...

I agree.

And I think full time NYPD Detectives should come down to NC and handle the crime committed against me....... :roll:
 
Gabriel said:
For the christians that hypocritically support libertarian economic policy.

"The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" - The bible.

Not that I'm a christian.. just sayin.

I truly believe for a fire department to sit and watch this mans house burn down was wrong .. insured or not. It is a statement on the morality of society when you see so many in support of not helping this character out. I think it is a disgusting mentality/morality and anarchist to renege help for this man as he watched his life go up in flames.

Yes people need to pay taxes to have public service.. yes people need to pay for private services. The private costs more in many instances. But that doesn't excuse these people as humans. The Nazi's in the second world war whether they agreed with what they were doing were "just following orders".. well so were these firemen.
Click to expand...

I also think it is disgusting for a group of people to condemn the firefighters for not going outside of their duties, and thus outside of their protection (medical, life, worker's compensation) to fight a fire where, if injured, they would go into the poor house, and if killed, their families wouldn't be properly compsensated for their loss 'in the line of duty'.

Especially when this is coming from the same society that is such sheep they won't lift a finger to help another human being themselves when they are right there at the time because "thats what the cops are for" and watch as a girl at a coffee house in a college town gets stabbed to death.

Most citizens are sheep and have no right to talk on this issue.
 
Caine said:
I agree.

And I think full time NYPD Detectives should come down to NC and handle the crime committed against me....... :roll:
Click to expand...

I think the cops in El Paso should be investigating all the murders that go on in Juarez.
 
Gabriel said:
Stupid would be in this case, believing that taxes are wasted on valuable public services that are actually cheaper then if provided privately. The idiocy from the far right seems to be that all government is wasteful and more expensive then private services. This is an outright lie and anyone who believes it has been duped. Hence I agree being stupid does have consequences.
Click to expand...

This county didn't have fire coverage until 1990 at all. The city that these firemen work for was doing the people of this county a great service by offering to come in and fight fires for a yearly fee to be paid in advance.
 
Gabriel said:
For the christians that hypocritically support libertarian economic policy.

"The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" - The bible.
Click to expand...

Ah yes - the Bible. Indeed it says that:

Timothy 6:7 said:
7For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
Click to expand...

Malachi 3:8 said:
6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty.
"But you ask, 'How are we to return?'

8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
"But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'
"In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. . . .
Click to expand...

the Bible also says

Mark 12:41 said:
The Widow's Offering
41Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins,[j]worth only a fraction of a penny.[k]

43Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on."
Click to expand...

:thinking

I swear - God's saying he's Evil, there.
 
Caine said:
Your still failing to give this a good understanding.

Lets give a good example that relates to me.

I work off duty at a high school during football season for security at home games. I have the unfortunate duty of closing down the front entrance after the parking lot fills up and not letting anyone get in, due to people parking behind other people, in the grass areas that the school wants to preserve, etc. We inform those who can't park due to the lot being full that they can park at a school about 1/4 mile up the road. They instead park in the grass across the street from the school (4 lane road) and walk across the roadway. I have been informed NOT to stop traffic for the pedestrians crossing the roadway. Parking had been designated for these individuals at another location, and they chose not to park there. If I get out in traffic and try to stop cars to let the pedestrians cross, and for some reason I get run over by a car (which happens alot to officers directing traffic across the US), my medical expenses, worker's compsensation, and even in the event of death, life insurance will not cover the cost because I was acting outside of my duties with the off-duty employer, in this case being the school.

You have to understand that if people violate their policy or orders from their superiors in situations like this, the employer is not liable for their injuries.


I don't feel like I should throw my family's wellbeing down the toilet to try to help everyone else all the time. And neither should these firefighters.
Click to expand...

We're discussing this on two different threads. Yikes.

Your analogy makes absolutely perfect sense. You are the employee of the school district. And, as such, you would be covered under their insurance -- Worker's Comp, or whatever. It's not the same thing, Caine.

If you were killed in the performance of those duties, the school's Worker's Comp would cover you -- as would any life insurance policy you had. There's probably a higher benefit for "killed in the line of duty." Or, perhaps, that's the only kind of life insurance your benefit provides. But that's the only way your LIFE insurance wouldn't kick in. Hard to believe the only life benefit a PD gives a copper is one that provides for a benefit only if killed in the line of duty. Though I could, as I said, easily believe the benefit would be many times different than accidental or other death.
 
MaggieD said:
We're discussing this on two different threads. Yikes.

Your analogy makes absolutely perfect sense. You are the employee of the school district. And, as such, you would be covered under their insurance -- Worker's Comp, or whatever. It's not the same thing, Caine.

If you were killed in the performance of those duties, the school's Worker's Comp would cover you -- as would any life insurance policy you had. There's probably a higher benefit for "killed in the line of duty." Or, perhaps, that's the only kind of life insurance your benefit provides. But that's the only way your LIFE insurance wouldn't kick in. Hard to believe the only life benefit a PD gives a copper is one that provides for a benefit only if killed in the line of duty. Though I could, as I said, easily believe the benefit would be many times different than accidental or other death.
Click to expand...

I full well understand that I could get optional life insurance that would cover outside of the line of duty death if I wanted to. But im a healthy young man who doesn't think he needs it.

If I go and get myself killed outside of the line of duty, I understand that my wife won't get anything. And she understands this, and you won't hear her bitching and moaning about how evil the city is for not paying it anyways.
 
Not ONLY were they wrong.... they should be charged willfully neglecting and felony animal abuse. :soap
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Not ONLY were they wrong.... they should be charged willfully neglecting and felony animal abuse. :soap
Click to expand...

So its the fire departments fault that the pets remained inside the house when the homeowner had plenty of time to get the pets out before the house ever caught fire?

Emotional Appeal DENIED.

Average citizens are not incapable of saving their own pets from a house that isn't on fire yet.
 
Caine said:
So its the fire departments fault that the pets remained inside the house when the homeowner had plenty of time to get the pets out before the house ever caught fire?
Click to expand...

No, thouhg it could be argued that they are responsible for not doing everything they could to help save them.
 
Caine said:
I full well understand that I could get optional life insurance that would cover outside of the line of duty death if I wanted to. But im a healthy young man who doesn't think he needs it.

If I go and get myself killed outside of the line of duty, I understand that my wife won't get anything. And she understands this, and you won't hear her bitching and moaning about how evil the city is for not paying it anyways.
Click to expand...

That you choose not to have that separate policy is your choice. That's the benefit you're provided. Firefighters have that same opton -- assuming THEIR unions aren't doing a better job of bargaining.

As to your decision not to have separate life insurance, of course that's your choice. Hopefully if you have children, your wife can support them should you die other than in the line of duty....which is far more likely than not.
 
Caine said:
So its the fire departments fault that the pets remained inside the house when the homeowner had plenty of time to get the pets out before the house ever caught fire?

Emotional Appeal DENIED.

Average citizens are not incapable of saving their own pets from a house that isn't on fire yet.
Click to expand...

Soooooooo.......
what youre saying is if Fire fighters arent getting paid for what they want.... they let **** burn down? And they arent couragous? Honerable? Heroes? That they are doing their job based on PAY? You know what there are more people in society that would have done more that these criminals (fire fighters) did!!!! They dont deserve to be in parades. They dont deserve respect.
Can YOU imagine NOT doing anything to help these people? I think those Fire Fighters are cowards and 100% dishonerable! I SPIT on their badge! I would have helped put the damn fire out and Im not even getting PAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :soap:soap:soap
 
Last edited:
The Giant Noodle said:
Soooooooo.......
what youre saying is if Fire fighters arent getting paid for what they want.... they let **** burn down? And they arent couragous? Honerable? Heroes? That they are doing their job based on PAY? You know what there are more people in society that would have done more that these criminals (fire fighters) did!!!! They dont deserve to be in parades. They dont deserve respect.
Can YOU imagine NOT doing anything to help these people? I think those Fire Fighters are cowards and 100% dishonerable! I SPIT on their badge! I would have helped put the damn fire out and Im not even getting PAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :soap:soap:soap
Click to expand...

That's funny, I'd tell the homeowner where he could stuff his arrogant sense of entitlement and then ask him if he'd like to pay his $75 for the following year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom