EastCoastNiner Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxALJ-9Ys-w What are your thoughts on this? I think it's sad that his house burned down, but the people of the town decided that they would pay $75 in order to service by the fire department, and this family did not pay the fine. I don't like the policy, but I do understand it. It's a sad situation, but they did what they were obliged to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted October 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 It's ridiculous, the policy and the reaction to it. Those people are humans, and they lost a huge chunk of their lives due to the fire. It shouldn't cost $75 to protect your personal items, preserve memories and, above everything else, prevent a disaster that causes you to have to rebuild your life (which costs money and emotional scars). Pathetic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reno Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 That's horrible, if I was the firefighters I would have disobeyed my orders and the put the fire out myself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted October 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 It's ridiculous, the policy and the reaction to it. Those people are humans, and they lost a huge chunk of their lives due to the fire. It shouldn't cost $75 to protect your personal items, preserve memories and, above everything else, prevent a disaster that causes you to have to rebuild your life (which costs money and emotional scars). Pathetic. The town decided that it would be funded though taxes or a $75 payment. That family chose not to pay, and they did not receive the service because they didn't pay for it. If I don't have insurance, and I have cancer, should I just tell the insurance company that I will just pay them for a couple months worth of insurance, and then I won't need it anymore? No, it doesn't work like that. That family took a risk, and it didn't pay off for them. It's sad, but they didn't pay for the service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 The town decided that it would be funded though taxes or a $75 payment. That family chose not to pay, and they did not receive the service because they didn't pay for it.If I don't have insurance, and I have cancer, should I just tell the insurance company that I will just pay them for a couple months worth of insurance, and then I won't need it anymore? No, it doesn't work like that. That family took a risk, and it didn't pay off for them. It's sad, but they didn't pay for the service.It's a little different. Most of the time the government or whomever won't just let you die. This was different because it was just personal property. Not saying it wasn't a big deal, but if people were trapped inside the story may have played out a bit different... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 That's horrible, if I was the firefighters I would have disobeyed my orders and the put the fire out myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted October 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 It's a little different. Most of the time the government or whomever won't just let you die. This was different because it was just personal property. Not saying it wasn't a big deal, but if people were trapped inside the story may have played out a bit different... I get why people would be mad, and I don't like how you have to pay $75 for protection, but the town decided on it, so I guess they did what they had to do, and held their ground. I just find it a very interesting discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted October 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Then, you'd have to find a different job, and who knows how hard it would be to find one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 ECN you are such an enormous tool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Then, you'd have to find a different job, and who knows how hard it would be to find one?There's more important things in life than a job, anyone who doesn't notice that is a coward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted October 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 The town decided that it would be funded though taxes or a $75 payment. That family chose not to pay, and they did not receive the service because they didn't pay for it.First of all, that's stupid. People pay taxes for that very reason, and that's the end of that discussion. If a chick was hiding in her closet, close to being murdered, and she phoned the police, should they ignore it if she didn't pay her "police fee" (if that existed)? What if there was a baby in that fire? People need to do the right thing, sometimes going beyond what they are told to do. When I was 15, I had a diabetic seizure in a grocery store. A cashier ran to grab some honey, gave it to my mom to use in between my cheeks to bring my sugars back up. Didn't pay for the bottle of honey. If that bottle was $75, I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered...and if so, it would've been paid for AFTER it was used. They stop the fire immediately, and if they are still heartless, they can charge the family $75 after it's over with. If I don't have insurance, and I have cancer, should I just tell the insurance company that I will just pay them for a couple months worth of insurance, and then I won't need it anymore? No, it doesn't work like that. That family took a risk, and it didn't pay off for them.That's more related to things like flood and fire insurance. Do you know what hospitals do? They have to accept you no matter what, insurance or nothing at all, empty pockets, whatever...and they bill you later. You come in there with a devastating injury, and they are required, by law, to treat you. Doesn't even have to be that big of an injury, either. Firefighters, police, and doctors/nurses in the ER...they are all required to do their job (or should be required to do so), no matter the situation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted October 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 (edited) I don't like the idea of the $75 fee, but that's what they decided on, and that family decided NOT to pay it. It's really not that hard to understand. If there were people inside the house, I have no clue what they would do. I'm going to guess they'd go in because lives would be in danger. It's the same thing as insurance, and they didn't pay. It's not that hard to understand. It is morally right? No, not at all. Is it what the town rules are? Yes. Paying $75 afterward makes no sense. The whole point is to pay if you want the service, and once you find out you may need it but didn't pay for it, you can't just decide to pay after. It's a terrible rule, but that is what the town decided on. Edited October 11, 2010 by EastCoastNiner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted October 11, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 I don't like the idea of the $75 fee, but that's what they decided on, and that family decided NOT to pay it. It's really not that hard to understand. If there were people inside the house, I have no clue what they would do. I'm going to guess they'd go in because lives would be in danger. It's the same thing as insurance, and they didn't pay. It's not that hard to understand. It is morally right? No, not at all. Is it what the town rules are? Yes. Paying $75 afterward makes no sense. The whole point is to pay if you want the service, and once you find out you may need it but didn't pay for it, you can't just decide to pay after. It's a terrible rule, but that is what the town decided on.I get what you're saying, and I understand that the town decided on that. However, the town should have no right to do that because, technically, it endangers lives. And, in that light, those firefighters (meaning, all of them) should've stepped up to do what's right. If they had any balls, they would've all went on strike once the town put that fee into place. If I'm a firefighter, and a family is standing out there watching a chunk of their life being burned to the ground, I dive in and save it. Lose my job? Good. The town will definitely hear about it, as a whole, and will be forced to change their policy, and I'll eventually be reinstated, or offered a job elsewhere because of my heroics. Having the fee is wrong. It's ALSO wrong to stand there and watch that home burn down when you're fully capable of making a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 I can see where ECN is coming from, the firefighters didn't have to put out the fire, but the 75$ policy is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Three dogs and a cat died inside the fire. When dude called 911 and offered to pay, they said no. The firefighters showed up... to keep the fire off the neighbors houses. One of the guys who lived in the house attacked the fire chief and was arrested for aggravated assault. An entire house burns to the ground and four domestic pets die in a fire over a petty $75 dollars. These people give firefighters... no, not just firefighters. They give human beings a bad name. Sad, sad, sad occurrence. Disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted October 11, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 Maybe I'm just being stereotypical here, but do you think it would be easy for those firefighters to find another job in their town in Tennessee that pays the same as what they were making at the department? I can sit here and say that I would have put the fire out because I would feel like [expletive] seeing a house burn down and people's belongings destroyed, but they didn't what they were required to do. I know that they COULD have put it out, but who knows what the repercussions would be. And, yes, I know someones response will be "that house is greater than the repercussions", but who knows what you'd do in that situation? I think the biggest problem here is the town rule that they have to pay $75. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 (edited) I don't see the big deal here. If there were lives in danger, then yeah I'm sure the fire dept. would've gone in and saved those people. These people didn't want to pay and so they do that at their own risk.. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they probably felt entitled to that service but that's a whole other issue in itself. The $75 thing is beyond stupid but its what the town decided on. Now, the firefighter's should've done the right thing and gone in IMO. But at the same time you have to look at it from the town's fire department's point of view as well. If they do that for these people, then others will stop paying because they figure well, the firefighters will just put it out because they're nice guys. That isn't how things work because then nobody would pay for the service. Edited October 11, 2010 by Flash 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 who cares what the town decided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted October 11, 2010 Report Share Posted October 11, 2010 I don't see the big deal here. If there were lives in danger, then yeah I'm sure the fire dept. would've gone in and saved those people.No, you're completely wrong. The people called 911 and the fire department didnt even show up! Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 No, you're completely wrong. The people called 911 and the fire department didnt even show up! Sad. They weren't inside the house and the fire dept. didn't have them listed because they didn't pay. Its their fault for not paying. Should the fire dept. have shown up? IMO yeah but I can understand why they didn't if there were no lives in danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 4 animals died, do they count as lives in danger? IMO $75 is petty to have four animals die, let alone that family is likely in a fair amount of ruin because the township was trying to make a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 You do it for one person then everyone else thinks they won't have to pay and then your volunteer fire dept. has no money to run on. It sucks, but its the way it works over there and they chose for it to be that way. For the third time, if it were me I would've sent the fire fighters anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 And again, the guy pleaded to pay the $75 when he called 911 and they said no. It wasn't the money, it was the principle. They were making a point. I know you say you'd have sent them, but in the same breath you defend the township. I'm not sure what side of the fence you're on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 And again, the guy pleaded to pay the $75 when he called 911 and they said no. It wasn't the money, it was the principle. They were making a point. I know you say you'd have sent them, but in the same breath you defend the township. I'm not sure what side of the fence you're on. They can't do that because then people would only pay when they have an emergency like that and how often are there fires like that? That's not how it should work either. I also believe the mayor of the town came out and defended the fire dept. as well IIRC. I would've done the morally correct thing and gone in, no doubt. But I do see where the mayor, FD are coming from as well. There's 2 sides to every issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
platoon793 Posted October 12, 2010 Report Share Posted October 12, 2010 "Cranick, who lives outside the city limits, admits he "forgot" to pay the annual $75 fee. The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee." That's why there was a fee. I personally think the firefighters should have put the fire out and if they really wanted that $75, then ask for it after. Maybe even more, I don't think the guy would care at that point. He would just be happy he still had a house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.