• 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
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.

Way to be American :roll: Did you even read what happened? You have kids? Family pets? They DIED IN AGONY in a fire that could have been extinguished by your neighbors..... oh well. :shrug:

And those neighbors were trained at putting out fires AND they had the equipment.
So much for heros. So much for honor. So much for being a good American.

These "fire fighters" are criminals.
 
Way to be American :roll: Did you even read what happened? You have kids? Family pets? They DIED IN AGONY in a fire that could have been extinguished by your neighbors..... oh well. :shrug:

And those neighbors were trained at putting out fires AND they had the equipment.
So much for heros. So much for honor. So much for being a good American.

These "fire fighters" are criminals.

Calm down and take a deep breath. In answering the poll question I voted that the firefighters were correct (that is technically). The situation is not unique. Even in big metro areas where no intergovt. agreement exsists firefighters have ran up and stoped at the edge of their protection area. Most federal wildland firefighters cannot fight structures except from the outside. There are placed in many States where houses exist outside town limits, have no fire protection. In some cases private or govt fire departments may offer a homeowner to purchase fire protection services. If they don't, they are on their own.

I feel for the homeowner. I also feel for the fftr's. They were between a rock and a hard place. If they were injured/died fighting the fire it is possible they or their families would not be covered medically or death benifits. The firefighters may have been held liable for damage to fire equipment, etc.

The firefighters are not criminals if they acted within the scope of the fire district jurisdiction. The homeowner had no policy with the fire department. The fire department had no obligation to assist. You can say this is not right. Then convince the elected officials and tax payers to fund fire departments at the level required.

Until you have walked in the fftr's shoes, don't be so quick to judge.
 
Last edited:
Soooooooo.......
what youre saying is if Fire fighters arent getting paid for what they want.... they let **** burn down?
You arent entitled to services from a government that you did not pay taxes to.
Its really that simple.
 
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

You lack understanding.
If these men (firefighters) had been at a barbeque across the street, off duty, not being paid by the city of South Fulton, and this fire broke out.... They would work their asses off to put that fire out.

As it stands, they were on city time, being paid by the city, and being told by the city that they will not put the fire out. Helping someone out is not worth disobeying policy and getting fired. Im sure Mr. Clive Jenkins or whatever the **** this dude's name was (homeowner) was not going to support those firefighters and their families until said firefighters managed to find a new job after the city of South Fulton fired them.
 
someone, anyone must be to blame...except for the one guy whose fault it actually is. the cheap bastard who wouldn't pay $75/year to protect his house.
 
someone, anyone must be to blame...except for the one guy whose fault it actually is. the cheap bastard who wouldn't pay $75/year to protect his house.

Likewise, the extreme opposite - 1 person being the one who must carry all the blame - just as bad. If there wasn't somebody there able to pay, the fire would have spread. People could have died, it would have then had the chance to become a serious wildfire if it hadn't already.

If debts need to be settled, do it, but don't use it as an excuse to put properties and lifes in danger.



Who think up the crap used to defend this? We aren't talking about car insurance here, or any other debt, but a case where firefighters COME TO THE SCENE of a fire [because the neighbor pays the out-of-town fee], and DOES NOTHING until the fire reaches the property line and allegedly damages the property - instead of stopping the damn fire to keep it from spreading at all and THEN settling any debts that may need to be taken care of.... how does that make ANY sense? How do you justify that?
 
You lack understanding.
If these men (firefighters) had been at a barbeque across the street, off duty, not being paid by the city of South Fulton, and this fire broke out.... They would work their asses off to put that fire out.

As it stands, they were on city time, being paid by the city, and being told by the city that they will not put the fire out. Helping someone out is not worth disobeying policy and getting fired. Im sure Mr. Clive Jenkins or whatever the **** this dude's name was (homeowner) was not going to support those firefighters and their families until said firefighters managed to find a new job after the city of South Fulton fired them.

The person / people who decided it was a BAD IDEA to put out a house fire and let anyone burn and die is a criminal. A cop will stop someone that had 4 beers in a hour and have them treated liked a sex offender even if they havent had an accident... BUT firemen are NOT arrested / convicted of felony charges for refusing to help save lives????? To save property??? How hypocritical is THAT!?!??!
 
The person / people who decided it was a BAD IDEA to put out a house fire and let anyone burn and die is a criminal. A cop will stop someone that had 4 beers in a hour and have them treated liked a sex offender even if they havent had an accident... BUT firemen are NOT arrested / convicted of felony charges for refusing to help save lives????? To save property??? How hypocritical is THAT!?!??!

no lives were in danger. the firemen were following city policy, they could've been fired/sued/etc if they had violated city policy and put out this fire earlier. sorry, bleeding hearts, but I am not going to risk my job and my ability to support my family to help someone who was too cheap to help themselves. want to be mad at someone...try the city, or better yet direct your anger at the dumbass who let his grandson start a fire next to his house.
 
Y'all do know that when fire departments were first formed they were extortion rackets that extorted money from businesses and private individuals to prevent the marks' business/home from being set on fire then watched as it burned to the ground. If your business/home caught fire by some other means the 'fire department' would put out the fire. Competition was fierce between the rival gangs that ran these fire departments.
 
Absolutely 100% wrong.

If worse came to worse, they could have put out the blaze, and asked for the $75 later. Absolute bull****. Reflects badly on the firefighters.

I'm here to help my fellow man. I will help them whether I'm being paid or not (within reason).
 
Absolutely 100% wrong.

If worse came to worse, they could have put out the blaze, and asked for the $75 later. Absolute bull****. Reflects badly on the firefighters.

I'm here to help my fellow man. I will help them whether I'm being paid or not (within reason).


what part of "the firemen could have lost their jobs and/or been sued if they put out the fire" do you people not understand? I will help my fellow man, but not if it puts my job or the security of my own family in danger.
 
what part of "the firemen could have lost their jobs and/or been sued if they put out the fire" do you people not understand? I will help my fellow man, but not if it puts my job or the security of my own family in danger.

That's the whole problem. The firefighters never should have been put in this situation.
 
That's the whole problem. The firefighters never should have been put in this situation.

agreed. but many people here continue to call these guys "monsters" and "evil" and scream for them to be fired. typical knee-jerk reaction, blaming someone without bothering to understand the situation.
 
what part of "the firemen could have lost their jobs and/or been sued if they put out the fire" do you people not understand?

I don't think it is a matter of understanding or not, but rather, a matter of thinking that it doesn't matter - that the law would side with them if they did it [putting out the fire] and getting fired. It would take a really good BSer to convince a judge that it was legal termination to stop a fire from spreading [or rather, it should - as it becomes apparent that there is some disconnect in this regard].
 
Lots of cold hearted folks voted right:(
 
Lots of cold hearted folks voted right:(

Is this a personal attack against 27 (as of now) posters on this forum?
I think so!
 
They were completely in the right for the exact reasons I laid out in the actual thread about this story.

...and so far, the only opposition I have seen comes from people who aren't bothering to read the facts.

OK, I read that someone ordered the firefighters not to put out fires in places where the owners hadn't paid some local fee. Technically the decision to stand and watch is right but on every other standpoint this is just indefensible.

I will accept that I am not familiar with the US system of public services and the "every man for himself" culture that seems prevalent but I have to accept that this case was in America. No UK firefighters over here would allow themselves to be put into such a position, no local populace would allow a fire chief to run such a policy. The only way I could agree the "technical" view of this would be if the firefighters were a totally private company hired to very protect specific private property and the fire was not on the private property.

Are there any details on this story in any major news webistes so I can get more details?

At the very least, if these guys were employed by a private company then phone for some real firefighters to come and do the job. Don't stand and watch any property burn to the ground.
 
Back
Top Bottom