Didn't Pay Your Fee? No Prob! FD Watches House Burn Down.

[Pakman3000]

A Tennessee man watched in horror last week as flames consumed his house. Also watching? The local subscription-based fire department. The man had not paid his $75 firefighting fee, so the firemen would not lift a finger or a hose.

Only after the fire spread to his neighbor's field would the firemen even respond to his 911 calls. Once there, they only put out the field fire as his house continued to burn to a crisp. His neighbor had paid his firefighting fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," the hapless homeowner told reporters.

The man offered to pay them the fee right then and there, or however much it took to get them to put out the fire, but was refused. The man lives in a county that has no fire protection. The nearby town offers fire protection to non-residents on a per-contract basis.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," the mayor told WPSD.

Later someone went to the fire station and assaulted one of the fire fighters.

http://consumerist.com/2010/10/firefigh ... round.html

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

[MARDIGRA21]

That is crazy I would of took their fire hose and did it myself

[smoke]

So charge the pro-rated amount, plus the next years amount and put out the damn fire... :?

That is just a cop-out excuse... our resources our limited my ass. I hope the mayors fire insurance is paid up.. :twisted:

[Ironhide400]

That is crazy! I agree with Smoke on this one.

I hope the Mayor is paid up....
[youtube:9ixzjgyb]-RiP5cyR18s[/youtube:9ixzjgyb]

[jxspyder]

Naw, I gotta agree with the Fire Department on this one. It's $75 a year. A YEAR. I'm pretty sure I'm paying more than that now with Fire levees and such, built in to my taxes.

"You know, I figured why would I pay to take care of my house, because we all know when it comes right down to it, I'm entitled, so they're going to take care of my house even though I tell them to F off."


And the "someone" was either the guys brother or son. I've heard both now.

[Ironhide400]

I understand the fire departments side, but as soon as he offered to pay whatever to have them come fight the fire, then they should have tried? Apparently the fire department is for hire, so why not? I agree it is only $75, but why wouldn't they try after he offered? I could see them refusing if the guy said come fight the fire, but I aint paying for it.

[MaximusR3]

i just wonder if there is more to the story. My dad just recently retired as a firefighter here in California and i know that there are situations where the structure cannot be saved and they turn their attention to saving lives over personal property and then work to prevent it from spreading any more than it already has. It also seems odd that the FD would keep tabs on who was paid up and who wasn't. do they have a "do not help" list in every station that they throw darts at or something? I can't imagine a 911 call would be outright ignored either, they would have to have received the dispatch call, looked up the address, saw it was on their shit list and then decided to ignore it. How they would then explain why they were still at the station after being dispatched is beyond me

I'm not saying this story didn't take place as it was written, i'm just curious if there is more to it or not because i know it would never go down like that with any crew my dad was ever captain of

[saviger]

seems like there is more to the story that we are not being told.

[toby2533]

Well here in nowhere central PA where every fire department is vol, they used to make money with baks sales carnival's and tickets. PA has stepped on eveyones neck about tickets they want them to go to the Casino so the state can get their taxes (they are doingthis to the VFW also). So the Vol FD area all starting to do this yearly payment. It a heated debate here in the grand town of Dillsburg PA.

[squidfamily1]

Another Republican in Tennessee who probably bitched about not having a tax break without realizing that Taxes are what pay for civil services. You want to live somewhere that has a low tax base? This is probably the reason, no fire service.
On a side note: the fire insurance, if this guy even bothered to get any, probably is based on a requirement to have this $75.00 service paid for. Therefore he probably won't be getting any reimbursement.

[David_3033]

Dude WTF!! We have some VOLUNTEER firefighters around here that would of put it out for free!! This is just ridiculous if you ask me.

[Amiable Horde]

Dude WTF!! We have some VOLUNTEER firefighters around here that would of put it out for free!! This is just ridiculous if you ask me.

Though it is redicilous there is a point where paying your dues should be made serious and not when you feel you need it.

[toby2533]

I don't think our Vol FF would have not put out the fire, but we have this fee for EMT service they just charge you more if you don't pay the yearly fee. Police are township and only spend so many hours a week patroling the town.

[jack]

What is this, the 1800's in New York again? That is some sorry shit.... the good Samaritan law alone should've come into play. This is a criminal action of extortion and reckless endangermentand. Everyone of those firefighters should've been thrown in jail for their actions.

[jxspyder]

What is this, the 1800's in New York again? That is some sorry shit.... the good Samaritan law alone should've come into play. This is a criminal action of extortion and reckless endangermentand. Everyone of those firefighters should've been thrown in jail for their actions.

It's hard to enforce Good Sam laws when you can get sued over being the good samaritan......


And I wouldn't call it extortion, but rather applicable consequence of taxes. I wish they'd take this stance with welfare and other free-load tax money programs. But then again, I'm tired of the bail-out mentality. Might just be biased.

[jack]

What is this, the 1800's in New York again? That is some sorry shit.... the good Samaritan law alone should've come into play. This is a criminal action of extortion and reckless endangermentand. Everyone of those firefighters should've been thrown in jail for their actions.

It's hard to enforce Good Sam laws when you can get sued over being the good samaritan......


And I wouldn't call it extortion, but rather applicable consequence of taxes. I wish they'd take this stance with welfare and other free-load tax money programs. But then again, I'm tired of the bail-out mentality. Might just be biased.

Criminal negligence then, Either way somebody would be getting kicked in their bean bag.

[MuleTheDestroyer]

Seems the clan is full of a bunch of progressive hippie liberals. look, this guy wanted to have his house out in the middle of nowhere, not in a fire precinct. he is not covered. the fire dept, in a near by town volunteers their services to anyone that can pay the fee. The choice the dept had was to either do that or refuse service to the outlying areas. Guy didn't pay, he didnt get the service. if the dept puts fires out anyway then everyone gets free services at the expense of the townsfolk (who would pay for what they get for free?).

Seems to be real popular to say that everyone should have this or is entitled to that, but all this stuff has a price. Fire Engines and firemen (even the voluteers) aren't cheap, and whenever an engine leaves town to put out a fire it takes away the resource the townsfolk bought. Some one figured out how to offset the costs with the fees so that it'd work out for everyone to have service as long as they paid. they should have known better, should have seen this reaction coming and never offered fire protection beyond containment to anyone living outside the city limits. Your house burns down, thats just tough titties.

[jack]

The home owner offered to pay the fee then and there... but they still refused, hence criminal negligence.

[jxspyder]

The home owner offered to pay the fee then and there... but they still refused, hence criminal negligence.

Or just proof of choice and consequence. What are they going to do, pull out the credit machine? Wait for the check to clear? Take the money and face a lawsuit later?

[Pakman3000]

Seems the clan is full of a bunch of progressive hippie liberals. look, this guy wanted to have his house out in the middle of nowhere, not in a fire precinct. he is not covered. the fire dept, in a near by town volunteers their services to anyone that can pay the fee. The choice the dept had was to either do that or refuse service to the outlying areas. Guy didn't pay, he didnt get the service. if the dept puts fires out anyway then everyone gets free services at the expense of the townsfolk (who would pay for what they get for free?).

Seems to be real popular to say that everyone should have this or is entitled to that, but all this stuff has a price. Fire Engines and firemen (even the voluteers) aren't cheap, and whenever an engine leaves town to put out a fire it takes away the resource the townsfolk bought. Some one figured out how to offset the costs with the fees so that it'd work out for everyone to have service as long as they paid. they should have known better, should have seen this reaction coming and never offered fire protection beyond containment to anyone living outside the city limits. Your house burns down, thats just tough titties.

Although I'm in California, I am not a hippie liberal lol. I'm not sure if FF's have an oath, but like docs they should do no harm. If a doc came upon someone with no health insurance in a triage situation, would they leave that person to die? I think the same rule applies especially as a civil servant volunteer or not. I can bet you someone in that FF crew wanted to step up to help and was overridden by a superior. I just can't fathom it any other way. I really don't think the slippery slope argument holds. How else would neighbors know who pays and who doesn't pay. There's no sticker like AAA on the houses so it was solely at the discretion of the fire chief on scene which is why he got punched later by the son. I know there's a principle behind what you're saying but damn. Is all that worth $75?

[jxspyder]

Seems the clan is full of a bunch of progressive hippie liberals. look, this guy wanted to have his house out in the middle of nowhere, not in a fire precinct. he is not covered. the fire dept, in a near by town volunteers their services to anyone that can pay the fee. The choice the dept had was to either do that or refuse service to the outlying areas. Guy didn't pay, he didnt get the service. if the dept puts fires out anyway then everyone gets free services at the expense of the townsfolk (who would pay for what they get for free?).

Seems to be real popular to say that everyone should have this or is entitled to that, but all this stuff has a price. Fire Engines and firemen (even the voluteers) aren't cheap, and whenever an engine leaves town to put out a fire it takes away the resource the townsfolk bought. Some one figured out how to offset the costs with the fees so that it'd work out for everyone to have service as long as they paid. they should have known better, should have seen this reaction coming and never offered fire protection beyond containment to anyone living outside the city limits. Your house burns down, thats just tough titties.

Although I'm in California, I am not a hippie liberal lol. I'm not sure if FF's have an oath, but like docs they should do no harm. If a doc came upon someone with no health insurance in a triage situation, would they leave that person to die? I think the same rule applies especially as a civil servant volunteer or not. I can bet you someone in that FF crew wanted to step up to help and was overridden by a superior. I just can't fathom it any other way. I really don't think the slippery slope argument holds. How else would neighbors know who pays and who doesn't pay. There's no sticker like AAA on the houses so it was solely at the discretion of the fire chief on scene which is why he got punched later by the son. I know there's a principle behind what you're saying but damn. Is all that worth $75?

Had it been a life or death situation, they might have reacted differently. Had people been in imminent danger of bodily harm, might have been different. As this wasn't the case though, is it really fair to make that kind of comparison and judgement?

And you can reverse that last point. Is the potential of losing your house and the hundred grand + priceless mementos and memories worth saving 75 bucks a year?

[jack]

The home owner offered to pay the fee then and there... but they still refused, hence criminal negligence.

Or just proof of choice and consequence. What are they going to do, pull out the credit machine? Wait for the check to clear? Take the money and face a lawsuit later?

criminal negligence is criminal negligence and for all you know he could've had cash .

[jack]

Seems the clan is full of a bunch of progressive hippie liberals. look, this guy wanted to have his house out in the middle of nowhere, not in a fire precinct. he is not covered. the fire dept, in a near by town volunteers their services to anyone that can pay the fee. The choice the dept had was to either do that or refuse service to the outlying areas. Guy didn't pay, he didnt get the service. if the dept puts fires out anyway then everyone gets free services at the expense of the townsfolk (who would pay for what they get for free?).

Seems to be real popular to say that everyone should have this or is entitled to that, but all this stuff has a price. Fire Engines and firemen (even the voluteers) aren't cheap, and whenever an engine leaves town to put out a fire it takes away the resource the townsfolk bought. Some one figured out how to offset the costs with the fees so that it'd work out for everyone to have service as long as they paid. they should have known better, should have seen this reaction coming and never offered fire protection beyond containment to anyone living outside the city limits. Your house burns down, thats just tough titties.

Although I'm in California, I am not a hippie liberal lol. I'm not sure if FF's have an oath, but like docs they should do no harm. If a doc came upon someone with no health insurance in a triage situation, would they leave that person to die? I think the same rule applies especially as a civil servant volunteer or not. I can bet you someone in that FF crew wanted to step up to help and was overridden by a superior. I just can't fathom it any other way. I really don't think the slippery slope argument holds. How else would neighbors know who pays and who doesn't pay. There's no sticker like AAA on the houses so it was solely at the discretion of the fire chief on scene which is why he got punched later by the son. I know there's a principle behind what you're saying but damn. Is all that worth $75?

Had it been a life or death situation, they might have reacted differently. Had people been in imminent danger of bodily harm, might have been different. As this wasn't the case though, is it really fair to make that kind of comparison and judgement?

And you can reverse that last point. Is the potential of losing your house and the hundred grand + priceless mementos and memories worth saving 75 bucks a year?

You're basing it on backing after the fact,their actions could've very well killed someone BECAUSE of their refusal to act so yes it's very fair to make that judgement.

[jxspyder]

Seems the clan is full of a bunch of progressive hippie liberals. look, this guy wanted to have his house out in the middle of nowhere, not in a fire precinct. he is not covered. the fire dept, in a near by town volunteers their services to anyone that can pay the fee. The choice the dept had was to either do that or refuse service to the outlying areas. Guy didn't pay, he didnt get the service. if the dept puts fires out anyway then everyone gets free services at the expense of the townsfolk (who would pay for what they get for free?).

Seems to be real popular to say that everyone should have this or is entitled to that, but all this stuff has a price. Fire Engines and firemen (even the voluteers) aren't cheap, and whenever an engine leaves town to put out a fire it takes away the resource the townsfolk bought. Some one figured out how to offset the costs with the fees so that it'd work out for everyone to have service as long as they paid. they should have known better, should have seen this reaction coming and never offered fire protection beyond containment to anyone living outside the city limits. Your house burns down, thats just tough titties.

Although I'm in California, I am not a hippie liberal lol. I'm not sure if FF's have an oath, but like docs they should do no harm. If a doc came upon someone with no health insurance in a triage situation, would they leave that person to die? I think the same rule applies especially as a civil servant volunteer or not. I can bet you someone in that FF crew wanted to step up to help and was overridden by a superior. I just can't fathom it any other way. I really don't think the slippery slope argument holds. How else would neighbors know who pays and who doesn't pay. There's no sticker like AAA on the houses so it was solely at the discretion of the fire chief on scene which is why he got punched later by the son. I know there's a principle behind what you're saying but damn. Is all that worth $75?

Had it been a life or death situation, they might have reacted differently. Had people been in imminent danger of bodily harm, might have been different. As this wasn't the case though, is it really fair to make that kind of comparison and judgement?

And you can reverse that last point. Is the potential of losing your house and the hundred grand + priceless mementos and memories worth saving 75 bucks a year?

You're basing it on backing after the fact,their actions could've very well killed someone BECAUSE of their refusal to act so yes it's very fair to make that judgement.

So you listened in on the phone conversation between the two? Unless we get that, all we have to work with is what's in front of us. So no, it's not a fair judgement. Simply because you're assuming the information you're making your judgement on.

If I know you had a drink in the last couple of hours, assume you drank to stupidity, than judge you for drinking and driving because you drove yourself home, is it a sound judgement? Same concept.

[jack]

:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: .
(This is me diffusing the situation).