Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

loki old fart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you.

Why is your goverment paying for a large military and police force, if they are not duty bound to protect you.?

They're protecting the National Interests.

This does not always tally with "protecting" or serving the citizens of a nation in quite the way that people would like to imagine.

Firefighters have only the objective of making sure every one is safe first. In this case everyone was safe and sound. (PS pets don't count if they can get them cool, otherwise go to the pound and get a new one,(cause they are harder to find in a blaze and sometimes pose a risk to the firefighters aka pit-bulls)) Then if it is safe for them to do so they tackle the blaze. Loads of time it's not safe for them to do so except from outside the house which does jack gak except to keep it from spreading.

I personally live in a county in MD with a volunteer FD which creates the MAJORITY of its budget from fundraising within the community that I have personally helped with in the past. So I know about half of the FD personally.

It all comes down to the fact that its out in the boonies so has subscription Fire Service which is basically like insurance, pay for it just in case the worst scenario happens. And like any other kind of insurance if you don't pay for it don't expect to get anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And also in this case since it is out of their jurisdiction they are essentially private citizens in the matter and have no right to rescue. Just like if I see you get stabbed I can legally watch you bleed to death and ignore your cries for help with no legal repercussions. And notice I said legal not ethical. Remember lots of legal things are unethical, and some ethical things can be illegal.

Bloody hell America....seriously.

Why do you pay your taxes at all? In the UK we might pay more, but then our Government actually occasionally does stuff for us.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Bloody hell America....seriously.

Why do you pay your taxes at all? In the UK we might pay more, but then our Government actually occasionally does stuff for us.

If we don't they come and get us, and we are never heard from again.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Bloody hell America....seriously.

Why do you pay your taxes at all? In the UK we might pay more, but then our Government actually occasionally does stuff for us.

The point is the guys whose house burnt down were not paying county taxes, which cover fire service, because they didn't have to, because they lived beyond the county line.

The fire service was offered as an option, which they chose not to take advantage of.

It's like in the UK if you have a well and a septic tank, you are not obliged to pay water rates. But if your well dries up, you can't expect the water company to give you a free pipe.

Ironhide wrote:By the time the firefighters had responded to the neighbor's call-in, it is safe to say that Cranick's house was beyond saving.

You've gotten yourself confused - the original call was to the Cranick's place. The firemen only responded when the fire spread to the neighbours property. Had the fire service responded to the first fire there never would have been damage to the neighbours house.

And to the -"No fire should be left unattended." Well, if the Cranick's had that mentality from the start, there wouldn't have been one. I'll bet they didn't even have a fire extinguisher in the home.

Yes, boo hiss on the Cranicks, they're awful, awful people. But who honestly gives a gak about them? Seriously? It's one family.

Read this next bit slowly because it's important - you cannot build a system that is based around everyone being responsible. This means if you build a fire control system that relies on people making opt in payments, or having the fire service leave fires unattended, you have a very stupid system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghost in the Darkness wrote:Firefighters have only the objective of making sure every one is safe first. In this case everyone was safe and sound. (PS pets don't count if they can get them cool, otherwise go to the pound and get a new one,(cause they are harder to find in a blaze and sometimes pose a risk to the firefighters aka pit-bulls)) Then if it is safe for them to do so they tackle the blaze. Loads of time it's not safe for them to do so except from outside the house which does jack gak except to keep it from spreading.

Yeah - that last bit there - spraying water from outside to keep it spreading... they didn't even do that. Which meant the fire could have spread.

For feth's sake people this isn't rocket science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's like in the UK if you have a well and a septic tank, you are not obliged to pay water rates. But if your well dries up, you can't expect the water company to give you a free pipe.

A house lacking a water supply won't spread its lack of water to neighbouring properties, or threaten to engulf the whole neighbourhood in a lack of water supply and get people killed.

So they're not really very alike at all.

fire4effekt wrote:
On a side note, it's nice to have the an inkling about someone and then every post reafirm what i had concluded. Some people are hearless bastards, and by some people i mean a certain mod. Nice face your putting on dakka btw.

I care for the people who actually pay their bills and don't try to mooch off the rest of us.


To your point about me. There's only one thing I can say about that.

sebster wrote:

A house lacking a water supply won't spread its lack of water to neighbouring properties, or threaten to engulf the whole neighbourhood in a lack of water supply and get people killed.

So they're not really very alike at all.

Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.

loki old fart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you.

Why is your goverment paying for a large military and police force, if they are not duty bound to protect you.?

They are not duty bound to protect individual citizens. Blame NY court cases for that.

Ancient Budha say: If you want to find a donut shop call a cop. If you want to find your kid call me.
(Intranet bonus points on which movie that comes from)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Bloody hell America....seriously.

Why do you pay your taxes at all? In the UK we might pay more, but then our Government actually occasionally does stuff for us.

Thats the problem. HE DIDN"T PAY THE TAX. So screw him.

Frazz, I think your one of the few people that agrees with me on this.

If the town doesnt like paying $75 a year for coverage, maybe they should do what other towns across the US have done. Start a volunteer Fire Department.

Kilkrazy wrote:

sebster wrote:

A house lacking a water supply won't spread its lack of water to neighbouring properties, or threaten to engulf the whole neighbourhood in a lack of water supply and get people killed.

So they're not really very alike at all.

Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Catyrpelius wrote:Frazz, I think your one of the few people that agrees with me on this.

If the town doesnt like paying $75 a year for coverage, maybe they should do what other towns across the US have done. Start a volunteer Fire Department.

Yes. I now fear the town will withdraw its ETJ coverage to everyone.

On the positive maybe this will spur the county to get it together with the communities and do a county wide fire brigade.

Volunteer Fire Departments can be a major benefit to small rural communities. I live in a town that is entirely residential, its definatly not what most people think of as New Jersey. The only place to go in town is the local Volunteer Fire Deptartment where they are always haveing some kind of fund raiser in the form of a party, community day... etc.

Back OT, if the fire department was to have put out the fire at this guys house, they would have been setting a bad precident, and more then likely many others would stop paying their fee. To me this is akin to walking into Wendey's and complaining when they wont give me free food. On a positive note however, it sounds like the man has learned his very expensive lesson.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.

In the US (depending on location, of course) homeowners can be held liable for failing to maintain septic systems, so it isn't quite the same.

dogma wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.

In the US (depending on location, of course) homeowners can be held liable for failing to maintain septic systems, so it isn't quite the same.

They can be held liable for fires spreading too, so it is.

Monster Rain wrote: If the fire department is already there, why not do the right thing? What kind of dicks are they? I couldn't just stand there and watch somebody's house burn down. Well, not most people anyway.

See, that's it. I completely agree they were under no obligation in this case. The guy was a dope for not paying for something as important as that. However, you can't be a firefighter on the scene and ignore the blaze. It's irresponsible and completely tonedeaf, as other firefighters have since come out and said. I agree they were in a no-win situation, but the right thing to do was to throw some water on the fire and avoid becoming a national (now world?) story.

The real lesson here is about the lack of wisdom involved with a "pay if you want coverage" system. Obviously the local government should have just raised taxes enough to cover everyone and avoided putting the fire department -- and the local government, because you better believe there'll be repercussions there too -- in that situation. Allowing people to opt out just means they put their neighbors and communities at risk.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I really didn't want to buy into the generalisations that I hear about Americans all the time. I dismissed them as simple intolerance and rumour mongering. I'm saddened to find that these claims have more weight than I first thought.

Up on that high horse again, are you? Glass houses and stones, buddy.

sebster wrote:You've gotten yourself confused - the original call was to the Cranick's place. The firemen only responded when the fire spread to the neighbours property. Had the fire service responded to the first fire there never would have been damage to the neighbours house.

This is one of the strangest threads I have run into on Dakka. To be clear, Sebster couldn't be more correct on nearly every point he has made.

I know a lot of firefighters. I don't need to ask them about this story, because they have made their opinions entirely clear already. I'd be absolutely ashamed if I were any of the firefighters involved in this story. The assault was absolutely unnecessary, but the fire department should have seen that one coming ten miles away.

The main point in my mind is that I would be outraged as the neighbor whose house caught on fire because the city has some sort of ridiculous checklist.

Opt-out DOES NOT WORK.

When there is a large scale forest fire near residential areas firefighters don't go through a checklist to see whose house they are saving. The department in question needs a goddamn reality check. Unfortunately, because of the crappy system we have in the U.S. it is possible that this department will be shut down over incompetence. Fire does not take sides. The Cranick's house presented a serious threat to the town as a whole, and they should not have had the option to opt-out because of that. Force the payment; problem fething solved.

This thread is full of self-righteous cathartic nonsense. Get over it, because firefighters should not have to deal with this kind of political pissing contest.

What town? There is no town, thats unincorporated. there aint nuttin out there.

Wrexasaur wrote:

sebster wrote:You've gotten yourself confused - the original call was to the Cranick's place. The firemen only responded when the fire spread to the neighbours property. Had the fire service responded to the first fire there never would have been damage to the neighbours house.

There was no damage to the neighbor's house. Just Cranick's.

This is one of the strangest threads I have run into on Dakka. To be clear, Sebster couldn't be more correct on nearly every point he has made.

If by "correct", you mean "wrong", sure.
The fire started in barrels outside of the Cranicks' home. At this time of year and knowing people like the Cranicks, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended. So it's their own damned fault.
Oh, and as an aside?
You need a permit to burn debris like leaves. So that's a potentially illegal act that led to a fire, right there.

I know a lot of firefighters. I don't need to ask them about this story, because they have made their opinions entirely clear already. I'd be absolutely ashamed if I were any of the firefighters involved in this story. The assault was absolutely unnecessary, but the fire department should have seen that one coming ten miles away.

Yeah, god forbid the firefighters just let a house that already burnt to the ground(which, with it not being under their area of responsibility any potential injuries or deaths wouldn't be covered by the firefighters' insurance plan) continue smoldering while they're putting out a fire in a field...

The main point in my mind is that I would be outraged as the neighbor whose house caught on fire because the city has some sort of ridiculous checklist.

The neighbor's house didn't catch on fire. Their fields did, but since they actually paid their fees, the fire department was obligated to try to save their property.

When there is a large scale forest fire near residential areas firefighters don't go through a checklist to see whose house they are saving.

This isn't a residential area though. This is a rural area, quite likely with lots of open space between properties.

The department in question needs a goddamn reality check. Unfortunately, because of the crappy system we have in the U.S. it is possible that this department will be shut down over incompetence. Fire does not take sides. The Cranick's house presented a serious threat to the town as a whole, and they should not have had the option to opt-out because of that. Force the payment; problem fething solved.

You can't force the payment on an area which isn't part of the city offering the fire service. They move out there, specifically so they're not part of the community as a whole.

If anything, this will just lead to the creation of a "county" fire department, or the fire departments that offer coverage to these outlying areas just severing it completely.

I love how all the brits seem to be pointing the finger and saying "for shame" about the U.S. system. I, like Redbeard, am also a Brit living in the U.S., and I have to agree with the perspective of the people who live here. Sorry Brits, but your overbearing socialist-leaning system has its own problems too. Sorry, we don't get housing or health care or expect the dole and free services to wipe our noses for us paid for by other people's taxes either.

As Loki Old Fart pointed out, a good question is that if the United Statesia can afford to buy fighter planes, then why not more fire trucks? This is because our government is compartmentalized. Each juristiction and each segment of each department of each jurisdiction, whether on a federal, state, county, or township level, has responsibilities for its own thing and a budget that is (ideally) suited to its needs.

Fire fighters in NYC don't cross the bridge to fight a fire in Jersey, even though they are right across the bridge, that's not only in a different county it is in a different state. Different regultions, different insurance concerns, different budgets at stake. A fire in Jersey is Jersey's responsibility. They have their resources, and NYC has their resources.

This goes all the way down the ladder to a personal level. Here in the U.S. we do not like the government taking half of our money and spending it how they think best for us. We resist taxes, and favor personal responsibility as much as we can. Some things, granted, are necessary to be governmentally regulated on some level (federal military, state for education and roads, township water treatment, police, fire etc) but we like to be personally responsible for as much as we can, not just trust the government to handle everything for us.

It was clear that this man, in opting not to live in the township, had taken on a personal responsibility to see to his own safety. He failed in his responsibility. It is sad that his house burned down, but as the spokeswoman for the town pointed out, if we let the fees slide until needed, nobody would pay them. You don't wait to pay for life insurance after being diagnosed with a terminal illness and 3 months to live. You pay for it, just in case you need it, not just because you need it.

Lacking for a government provided fire service by living in an area with no local government means taking on that responsibility yourself. For everyone who lives in town paying taxes that fund the fire department, and everyone outside of town not having to, is unfair to the people living in town who are footing the bill for freeloaders. That's why the town offered their services to outsiders for a small fee. He didn't want to pay the fee.

Kilcrazy asked how far should responsibilities of the overnment go. Indeed, this is the point I think most United Statesians question. We don't see governments from southeast Asia rushing aid to clean up an oil spill that affects the north American coast line, do we? Oddly enough, United Statesia tries its best to be wherever it may be needed, whether as a military presence, a humanitarian aid effort, or a diplomatic mediator, stretching itself and it's people's resources very thin by doing what countries with less sense of responsibility fail to do. These very same countries that are always dissing us "Americans" as beeing overbearing and/or lazy and/or fat stupid etcetera etcetera. Funny how these elitist European enlightened cultures quit their codescending "stupid Americans" attitude pretty quickly when you need help.

You don't hear Haiti complaining about the U.S. meddling in its affairs. Or the 2004-05 Tsunami relief effort in southeast Asia. How much aid did you send, "Great" Britain, compared to how much we did? Maybe that's why we have to be paying for our own health care, have a bad debt, have a sense of military responsibility to police countries that nobody can police with only a token gesture of support from other members of the U.N. Maybe we have to be the hated babysitter cleaning up the baby poop of undeveloped countries with despotic or incompetent governments because nobody else will help out if we don't. So the world is a safer place for all the piddly gak little countys that can't help themselves, and us "stupid Americans" have to foot the bill, and as a consequence, don't get the advantages of a happy utopia where the government can provide everything for its spoiled sh!t-talking citizens.

So to all the people who live in more socialist places, don't pshaw our cold-hearted attitude toward this. We are big fans of personal responsibility, something that is quite a strange idea when your government holds your hand and makes all your decisions and sees to all your needs for you. This man did not take care of his self imposed responsibility and hey, sucks for him.

Fire departments risk lives, spend money and effort in doing so. Where does that money and effort come from if people aren't willing to pay for it? I think it's a good lesson for all United Statesians to notice. You get what you pay for.

Ask yourself, would you risk your life to save someone's property who just takes you for granted and wouldn't even cough up the $75 bucks that pay your wages for risking your life?

Kilkrazy wrote:Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.

Yes, a septic tank and a burning house represent exactly the same threat to neighbouring properties.

Well they are both a threat to the neighboring property values.

Wrexasaur wrote:This is one of the strangest threads I have run into on Dakka. To be clear, Sebster couldn't be more correct on nearly every point he has made.

That does make for a strange thread

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.

Yes, a septic tank and a burning house represent exactly the same threat to neighbouring properties.

Yes, because a septic tank leaking into the water system can't make people violently ill or even potentially kill people in neighboring properties who share the same water system as you.

avantgarde wrote:Well they are both a threat to the neighboring property values.

And if there was a system in which people were to opt in to clean up septic tanks, lest they spread across the neighbourhood, it would also be a stupid system.

Amaya wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

So we have a right to services we don't pay for?

your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Septic tanks can leak into ground water, or give off poisonous fumes, so actually they rather alike.

Yes, a septic tank and a burning house represent exactly the same threat to neighbouring properties.

If you had a septic tank spillover you would know, oh yes you would know...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Amaya wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

So we have a right to services we don't pay for?

your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you calld 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF

If you lived in Texas and called the NYPD would that be fair? Its the same thing.

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

They have no legal duty to help you. Here's the fun part, courts all the way up to the SCOTUS have affirmed that the government has not duty to protect you. Police have no duty to protect you. I have no duty to protect you.

Further, using this argument, all nearby persons, in fact all persons would have a duty to protect Mr. Nattering Nabob, and thus he can literally sue all persons in the US, including you and including me. No ing way.

If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him. if I stand by while you get robbed, you have no right to sue me. you know why? the 1st guy is a policeman. I'm not.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Amaya wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:legal claim = rights

No it doesnt, but to humor you, what legal claim does he have?

sure it does. I think there's a general right to not have your house burn down while fire fighters watch, which the law should reflect if it does not already. I don't know the local ordnances of that town, obviously. Beautiful thing about democracy is that most people who see this situation will agree that the firefighters should have put out that fire and the laws, if they do not already reflect that principle, will be rewritten so that they do. If I had to guess. AF

So we have a right to services we don't pay for?

your rights are not based on your ability to pay. your rights are based on the mere fact of being human. so yes, you have rights whether you are rich or poor, whether you can pay your taxes or not. If there was an intruder in your home and you call 911 do you think it would be fair for the dispatcher to ask to see your tax records before sending out a patrolman?
AF

You, in fact, do not have a right to fire departments. There's nowhere in any religion or government charters stating that "And man and his properties shall be protected from fire by his government".

Police officers are a totally different subject, and not relevant whatsoever to this discussion outside of being public servants who exist to protect individual life.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If a policeman stands by while you get robbed, you have a right to sue him.

That was your first mistake. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, you don't.

Again, case law has determined the government has no duty to protect your sorry ass.

Kanluwen wrote:There was no damage to the neighbor's house. Just Cranick's.

That should have read "damage to the neighbour's property" and the point still stands.

If by "correct", you mean "wrong", sure.
The fire started in barrels outside of the Cranicks' home. At this time of year and knowing people like the Cranicks, it's likely they were burning leaves and left it unattended. So it's their own damned fault.

That's some pretty wild speculation. Well, speculation is pretty generous, basically you're just making stuff up to villify people you know nothing about because that's easier than considering the idea that a resourcing scheme is poorly established.

Yeah, god forbid the firefighters just let a house that already burnt to the ground(which, with it not being under their area of responsibility any potential injuries or deaths wouldn't be covered by the firefighters' insurance plan) continue smoldering while they're putting out a fire in a field...

As has been stated clearly in several stories on the event, and explained multiple times in this thread, the firefighters were not busy protecting the neighbours yard - they were doing nothing. They only acted to protect the neighbours house when the fire spread from the Cranick's place.

Please don't make up things to fit your argument.

The neighbor's house didn't catch on fire. Their fields did, but since they actually paid their fees, the fire department was obligated to try to save their property.

Irrelevant. The neighbour's property was damaged, and further damage was risked because of this.

Now, it may well be that facing delinquency across the area the fire department has been forced into this measure, if so their actions are understandable provided they use this event to reform the system. What is not understandable are the thoughts of people in this thread who think what happened was an acceptable course of action - you do not leave fires unattended and systems that allow for that are stupid systems.

This isn't a residential area though. This is a rural area, quite likely with lots of open space between properties.

So? Should they then construct their large scale responses with one eye on who paid on time? Being in a more rural area and more exposed to massive fires is only greater cause to reform the system.

You can't force the payment on an area which isn't part of the city offering the fire service. They move out there, specifically so they're not part of the community as a whole.

More speculation - there are lots of reasons to move into the country besides chasing the dream of rugged individualism. A family might want to have more pets than city by-laws would allow. They might like the peace and quiet. You don't know, so stop making things up.

And if the city can't force payment, then you look at countless other options. A volunteer fire service. Incorporation, generating funds to build their own fire dept or pay another service for blanket coverage. A deal with state emergency services. There are lots of options, all of them quite practical and a whole lot smarter than leaving a fire to burn.