i'm conflicted about the fire thing

[CTLawGuy]

(sorry to post ANOTHER op about this)

On the one hand, I have sympathy--sympathy for the person who just lost his job and can barely feed his family. Maybe that person didn't pay his fire protection fees because he would rather, you know, eat. He had to make a hard choice. He wishes he lived in a town where the fire department was paid for by taxes so he wouldn't have to risk being utterly unprotected.

His house catches fire (thankfully no living things are in the house) and he pleads with the fire department, but they tell him that he needs to take personal responsibility, and he should have paid. and then they callously watch as his house burns down, as he pleads that he will pay any amount if they would just put his house fire out. all to no avail.

That person I have sympathy for. I feel rage toward the fire department on behalf of that person. I feel the rage toward the Ayn Randian system that was imposed upon him.


Then again there's the guy who is fairly well off and could easily afford to pay his fire fees. but he watches Fox News all day and spends his time railing against "socialism". He loves that he lives in a "low tax" state unlike those snooty godless elitist New England liberals. He rereads atlas shrugged every week. He refuses to pay his fee because he considers even a fee-based fire department socialist and he "can take care of his own property."

One day, the fire just happens, (thankfully no living creatures are in the house) and, in this moment of crisis, the Ayn Rand shit flies out the window. he realizes he can't prevent his house from burning. The fire department comes and they refuse to help. he offers to pay anything, but the fire department is sick of his and many others' utter refusal to pull their weight to support their community, support that has to disproportionately come from others who do the right thing. if the fire department puts his fire out, he basically loses nothing and he can go back to railing against "socialism" and "lazy welfare queens who expect the government to do everything for them for nothing." If they do nothing to put the fire out, and he loses everything, then maybe it will get through his thick skull that Ayn Rand is bullshit; that we have government services and taxes for a reason; a GOOD reason.

I find it much harder to have sympathy for this person.

(bear in mind that all this thinking would change if there were people in the house. if human life was in danger I would expect the fire department to act regardless of payment or how much of an ass the guy was.)

[petronius]

1. What fire thing?

:shrug:

[some guy]

2. Let go of the hypotheticals,

you'll be less conflicted.

[robinlynne]

3. There is another thing. The fire didnt just happen. The man set a big fire outside

and he had already done it before and burned down another house.

Not excusing the fire dept or county at all. They are murderers if animals died.

But stop playing with fire. One man set two houses on fire? wtf?

[hlthe2b]

7. I think you need to provide the link: I heard it was another

person who set the fire in his own fields--not the homeowner. That is what I have heard reported twice. :shrug:

[robinlynne]

43. his brother or brother-in-law I believe. They were burning trash outside.

[Tippy]

11. Thee were two fifty gallon drums setting there

People who live in the counrty use these drums to burn trash not exactly the safest thing to do but ....I expect that is what he was doing, we had some wind here that day we are two and a half hours away. There was another house that burned two or three years ago, but it belonged to someone else but the situation was the same..I will double check to make sure it was not the same man...

[seaglass]

28. My husband is a professional firefighter. Are you fucking serious?

They are murderers if the animals died? Do you know that there are actually house fires that are too far gone for firefighters to enter to save a pet? Are they murderers too?

WOW.

[robinlynne]

44. but that is not why they did not enter. That is not what happened in this instance.

[seaglass]

54. How do you know? If there was no danger why didn't the owner get his pets?

Is the owner an accessory to murder because of his failures?

Way over the top.

[robinlynne]

66. The owner set two fires in two houses. I don't think that is acceptable.

I think his irresponsibility put lives in danger. I dont think murder but close. reckless endangerment at the very least. Anyone who has caused one fire may be able to say accident the first time, but a second time?
two house fires?

[Confusious]

65. The guy had two hours to get his pets out.

The fire deptment are the murderers.

[robinlynne]

67. Why didn't he? What is the story? If he let them die, he should be in jail.

[Speck Tater]

4. I think everyone should work for no pay. Especially if their work is dangerous.

And anybody who feels sorry for the man should make amends by going to work tomorrow and telling their boss they've decided to work for no pay from now on, just like those firemen should be doing. After all, expecting a regular paycheck is such a greedy, grubbing Republican thing to do.

And people who vote against supporting public services should have those services provided anyway. Free of all costs and obligations, of course, because firemen should, like the rest of us should, always work for no pay.

[hlthe2b]

8. Take that analogy to your hospital Emergency Room....

I'm sure YOU won't insist the physician and staff save your beloved family member (or yourself) in a life-threatening emergency, even if you can't pay or are uninsured.

It is unethical to refrain from steps to halt an imminent hazard, emergency, or life threatening situation until the money is in hand. What part of that can people not understand? Some of the discussion that tilts very RW disgusts me.

The time to sort the money out is after the imminent and irreversible emergency has been addressed.

[Speck Tater]

13. I guess I forgot the "SARCASM" smilie, but I thought it was self-evident. nt

[hlthe2b]

15. Sarcasm doesn't come across in email, postings, or letters...

that's why we have emoticons. But, I'm relieved you don't really believe what you wrote. ;)

[freebrew]

46. Some of us aren't brain dead,

I got the sarcasm w/o the tag.

Thanks, good post.

[hlthe2b]

59. Apparently you didn't

Snide comments aside.

[seaglass]

29. Really? What life threatening danger does an ER doctor face when trying to save a patient?

I think the odds are with the lack of danger to the doctor.

[hlthe2b]

58. Ever heard of EMTs? Trauma response physician teams?

Blood borne pathogens? Multiple Antibiotic resistant TB and other infectious pathogens? Crazy nuts with guns in the ER?

Grow up.

[COLGATE4]

33. They won't treat you if you can't pay. You'll just get 'stabilized'

and then sent on your merry way.

[hlthe2b]

60. They "put out the fire" . Recovery/rebuilding is up to you

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Yes. My favorite response in this whole brouhaha...

... was "Would it have killed them to put the fire out?". :crazy:

The literal answer is "maybe".

[liberal N proud]

5. Man didn't pay the ransom, his house caught fire, the fire department watched

Sounds criminal.

This is America, not some banana republic.

[seabeyond]

26. when i pay my taxes every year and the piece goes to fire, am i paying ransom? nt

[WolverineDG]

30. The system in place was one he participated in & supported by voting

He just thought he could skate by & get something for nothing, leaving a small town responsible for the entire cost of fire protection for the town & the county. Or did you miss the fact that he's done the whole "Put the fire out, I'll pay you anything" card once before & *still* stiffed the city?

And, despite all this happening, the County Commission voted to extend the same pay-to-spray system to other towns in the county, instead of raising taxes & looking for grant money to fund their own FD.

dg

[liberal N proud]

41. Better solution would have been...

Save the home, then fine the homeowner for not paying his taxes.

Then there is a legal course to take to resolve the issue.

What kind of society are we living in?

[WolverineDG]

45. Shoulda coulda woulda doesn't do anything in this situation

because for whatever reason, the people in this county chose to go with the fee instead of a tax.

dg

[struggle4progress]

57. The powers of the municipalities are set by the legislature in the Tennessee statutes,

and apparently do not extend to taxing residents outside of the municipalities or fining folk for acts or omissions occurring outside the municipalities

[hlthe2b]

6. Screw that: they let three dogs and a cat DIE....

Callous beyond belief, not to even have tried to stop or slow the fire long enough to preserve life. That is my bottom line. PUBLIC SAFETY--could just as easily been a person in there (or a child running back to save their dog/cat).

Total callous BS.

[seabeyond]

27. how? it took a long time for fire to reach house. owner had lots of time to open door

and let dogs out.

how did the firemen not putting fire out kill them? the owner could have easily gotten them out. why didnt he?

[hlthe2b]

64. You seem to be presenting a"new" set of facts...

Not what I had heard or seen reported. Nor indicated by his description of events on KO. :shrug: who knows. All I know is that this thread is pulling in some very non-progressive posts, to say the least (not meaning yours).... Disturbing.

[COLGATE4]

35. If you'll look at the actual facts reported, there was a lapse of some

2 hours between when the fire started and when the FD arrived. How is it that the homeowner didn't rescue his pets during the 2 hour window? Don't blame it on the fire department. And, BTW, there was no human inside.

[hlthe2b]

61. BTW, there could have been a human inside..

I love how everyone seems to be "making up the facts" as this progresses. I call BS.

[frazzled]

9. It's an object lesson for other things

Namely, taxes for public services and mandates for our recent health care bill. On this latter, people often argue. But here's the deal: someone doesn't want to buy insurance. Then she gets really really sick, or hit by a truck. Do we let her buy in only when she becomes sick or injured? No, we must try to get everyone to purchase insurance if the system is going to work. If you don't have the money the government helps you by making it very very cheap through assistance. But if you still don't do it, that's your choice. But you get a penalty via your taxes --to pay for that day when you need to be hauled to the hospital for $50,000 in care. And yes, under the new law you will be treated regardless of whether you bought the insurance. (That's what the tax penalty is for.)

The firemen should have saved this man's house, too. They were there, and it's the only moral thing to do. They could have charged him a fee plus penalty later. Or better yet, they should charge everyone taxes for fire service. Alternately, if they wish to have a fee-based fire service, they should find a way to penalize in advance anyone who doesn't buy it (and help those who can't afford it).

[Spazito]

10. I find your OP quite sad as well as telling and my comments are not meant...

to be a reflection on you but, rather, the sad reality of the bigger picture as I see it. It was not that long ago where one would not be conflicted as to whether helping save a neighbor's/anyone's home from being destroyed by fire, one would just expect everyone, especially those trained in the field, to save it and leave the 'politics' until later.

A sad commentary as to what was versus what is and a lack of clarity as to what should be which, imo,is one helps those in need of help regardless of their political affiliation, wealth or lack of same, some frigging check list.

[EFerrari]

12. You help them because of who you are, not because of who they are.

How difficult is that.

[Amonester]

16. +1000

:thumbsup:

[robinlynne]

68. EFerrari, I'm going to try to remember that every day. Thank-you.

Remind me when I forget.

[CTLawGuy]

20. do you see any merit to the idea

that until they feel the harsh effects of the harsh system they support (i.e., privatized public services) people who support such a system won't understand that it is cruel and unworkable?

Its the same logic as is used by people who support a draft as an anti-war measure--if people actually had to fight or fear being forced to fight a war, they would be less likely to support such a war.

[Spazito]

39. No, I don't see the merit...

in punishing one man by letting his home, his possessions burn to the ground in order to try and "teach" others a lesson. There is no lesson in this, there is only a lack of compassion, empathy.

Those who think standing by and letting this family's home/possessions and possibly pets burn will show others the "privatized system" doesn't work are actually promoting that very system because the argument comes down to the payment of $75.00 or the non-payment of same which IS the privatized system in action. Those who paid the $75.00 and will pay it again have only learned, if anything, to make sure they support the current privatized fire service by handing over the money, they will NOT be out there trying to change the system at all so what "lesson" has been learned?

[CTLawGuy]

50. well it would teach the guy who DIDN'T pay

a lesson, not the people who did.

[lukasahero]

34. There's a moment in the movie "Witness"

that gives me chills even now just remembering it.

It's when the boy runs to ring the bell to alert the neighbors of their need for help. And the neighbors come. One by one from where ever they are they come over the hill to the aid of their neighbor (the neighbor who, it should be noted, has had a falling out with the community due to their choices).

I wish we still lived in a world where neighbors came to the aid of neighbors.

[Spazito]

40. I wish the same...

when help is needed, help is given, period.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Public safety means there is no conflict in what should have been done.

Unless the fire dept. had control over the weather and any unforeseen hazards, had backup available in case the fire got away from them or something exploded, etc.

[cbdo2007]

17. Here's a hypothetical - what if one of the firefighters was injured or killed putting out the fire?

Then, I'm guessing DU would be looking at this issue a whole different way and there would be 50 threads blaming the guy, saying the Fire Department never should have been there to begin with because he didn't pay his bill.

Give some credit to the firefighters here, they went to a questionable residence of someone who isn't interested in fire protection, they don't know what's inside and it's smarter for them to not risk it. NOBODY here on DU would risk it.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. I'm speechless

[Zanzobar]

19. Don't feel bad about being conflicted

Can't you tell almost all DUers are conflicted? So many walking the fence it's hard to tell where anyone stands!

[tanyev]

21. What about people who are taxed for fire services, but are delinquent on their taxes?

Should the fire department check the city tax rolls when a 911 call comes in?

[aikoaiko]

24. No, because they are still a part of the social goods contract.

The county of the house in TN rejected the contract, and the homeowner rejected the contract.

[tanyev]

25. I get that, but I have to agree with the OP on being conflicted about this.

[aikoaiko]

32. I think any caring person would be conflicted.

I can see why people would ultimately decide that the firefighters should have attempted the save the house.

I can also see why people would ultimately decide to support the decision to let it burn given the specific circumstance of that county and individual homeowner.

I fall into the second camp.

[COLGATE4]

37. What the hell is a "social goods contract"???????

[aikoaiko]

47. Its like a common good but service oriented.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social_good.asp

By choosing to live in an area that collects property taxes, they pay their taxes for services. Even if they individually choose to not pay taxes the contract is enforceable through collections or property confiscation.


The county representatives in TN opted to not engage social good contract for fire department services and the individual home owner whose house burned down apparently declined to opt into such a contract by not responding to the fire department's offers for service for $75.

[WolverineDG]

31. No, because the city can enforce taxes by foreclosing

there's absolutely nothing they can do to enforce the fee payment or bill, other than saying "Sorry, no pay, no spray."

dg

[COLGATE4]

36. Not necessary. If they don't pay their taxes the city can put a lien

on the property and, eventually sell it for back taxes. Here, the FD had no way of collecting the money.

[RedCloud]

22. It's facially immoral. QED

[caraher]

23. I think it's a trap to make this be about sympathy for one guy

I will never truly know whether the guy was forgetful or just cheap... but that's not the point. The real issue is what kind of society we should have. Have we so eroded the very concept of community that this has to be about whether victims of a fire are deserving of sympathy, rather than whether we have in place suitable mechanisms to help when people need fires put out, police protection or medical care?

[COLGATE4]

38. In his first interview with Olbermann he stated that he hadn't paid

but just assumed that they'd come and put the fire out anyway. Then someone whispered in his ear (figuratively) and he changed it to "I just didn't remember to pay it".

[caraher]

49. Maybe... he doesn't strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed...

but as I said, that isn't really the point for me. The real problem is that this subscription system is a terrible model for an essential service.

[slackmaster]

42. I'm not conflicted at all. Firefighters are supposed to put out fires.

Not act as enforcers for stupid government fees.

[TexasObserver]

51. It has to be one of the dumbest decisions ever made by a city manager.

Letting a house burn until it catches on fire the subscriber's home beside it is negligence, as well as being extremely stupid.

[tnlefty]

48. I'm not conflicted at all.

First of all I will state that I despise most of my neighbors, truly despise them.

Having said that and knowing that most of my neighbors could afford to pay our subscription fee, if a house caught fire, we'd be there to check to see if anyone was in the house and to try as best we could to contain a fire before the volunteer fire dept. showed up and if the fire dept. refused to help there would be a semi riot. That's just how we are...everything goes out the window in certain situations and we help each other.

I fully understand that more and more people in my part of the county and 3 surrounding counties would have a hard time coming up with the money for the subscription fee...doesn't matter decent folks don't allow someone's house to burn down.

When it comes right down to it, there are far more decent people here than the assholes who really showed just what huge assholes they are in this one county. I hope this haunts them for the rest of their days.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. He never should have been put in that situation, if he is right or wrong means nothing

he never should have been given the option to make that kind of mistake



why does "to big to fail" work but not "to small to fail"?

[Bluerthanblue]

53. firefighters don't judge who is worthy of their aid- they help people

they don't like or agree with all the time.

Human life is ALWAYS in danger in a house fire- if the owners, or well meaning by-standers had attempted to do what the fire dept wouldn't they could have been seriously injured or killed.

It was wrong for the fire chief to not allow his people to do what they are trained to do.

It's easy to help people you like- but public servants don't discriminate because of the political leanings of the people who need them, at least, not those who are committed to their work. Volunteer or professional.


:hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. This week's "worst phrase in the english language" is; fire protection fees n/t

[LisaM]

62. Among other things, they got out their equipment and responded to the call

Which has to be a lot of the cost involved in the first place.

The whole thing sucks and I cannot stop thinking about the poor pets.

[coti]

63. This is one of the best posts I've seen on the subject.

I'm conflicted too.

My "bottom line" opinion is that whoever decided the county was going to have a "for fee" fire protection system screwed up big time and is pretty much responsible for the situation. The proper and only way to protect people and homes on a community level is through some kind of mandatory tax, such as property taxes, and those who don't pay their property taxes should no longer own their homes.

That way, everyone is covered and no way gets away with freeloading.

[Generic Brad]

69. Fire bad

Putting fire out good.

That pretty much sums up the argument.

[Zorra]

70. We bleeding heart liberals believe in compassion for the feeble minded.

Tough love can take other more constructive forms than allowing some dumbass fool's house to burn down.

[sohndrsmith]

71. Bottom line, there is no (or shouldn't be, imv) a "sympathy" scale qualifying or

disqualifying someone for adequate aid or response in an emergency, be it from the fire department, police or emergency room. Were that the case, there would be a high percentage of displaced, sickly, crime victims within the GOP/TP, rather than decent, unfortunate, impoverished, dark skinned folks instead... (Oh, good grief - what a horrible thing to say!!! They're on my bad guy list at present, so they get to be in my analogy today).

Clearly, there are many differing opinions on this issue, but for me it all comes down to the simplest solution, the lack of which is what I find so unbelievable in this.

If a municipality has a for-fee requirement, I am dumbfounded that they do not also have a provision which specifies how to handle those who have not pre-paid the fee but have an emergency and are in need of responders immediately.

Whether it be an additional penalty, a citation ordering community service, whatever... that would kick in under such a situation. That someone is refused emergency services, (and those services were on site in this case!!) for non-pre-payment of the annual fee should NEVER be an option... ever. I would guess that this sort of policy goes against everything firefighters, police officers and EMS responders choose their professions in the first place - and I can't imagine their being prevented from doing what they're trained - and available - and consider it their duty to perform.

The policy needs a better thought out (or thought out, period) contingency stipulation that does the following:
--does not prompt people to deliberately avoid the fee
--is significant enough for people to want to avoid it, but reasonable enough for people to pay/do/complete the fee or penalty.
--ensures that, under no circumstances, would anyone be denied the same response as anyone else if and when they have a life/home/health threatening emergency.

The current policy of letting firefighters stand there and watch someone's home burn down - perhaps even hear the yelps or cries of the dogs and cats being burned alive (knowing they're in there would be horrific in itself) and either being afraid of losing their jobs - or being compelled for some reason to do nothing when they are hardwired to do something, especially being their and having the equipment to save a home and lives.... is wrong.

Have a fee. Have a penalty for those who don't or forget to pre-pay it. But I see it as bordering on criminal (to be polite) to have a policy that destroys lives for $75 bucks - no exceptions. Oh but they made exceptions in the past...

Have people volunteer x number of hours fundraising for the FD or PD - or depending on their skills, fixing, cleaning, improving, maintaining the fire and police stations - or any number of tasks that need to be done under municipal jurisdiction. Parks, garbage... whatever. Even jail time! I for one would gladly do several days or a week (or more if necessary) if doing so meant my 30 year old home, 10 year old dogs and 3 cats would not be destroyed or die from being burned alive... who wouldn't?

It's outrageous that no one had the sense to follow this program through in the best interests of all parties who might be affected.

THAT'S what I have a problem with on this issue....