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.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

As opposed to the so superior European mentality, such as suing anyone who even slightly offends you?

I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.

F- the fire dept. Do your job you lazy moochers. 3dogs and a cat died in that fire, and i hear they were wiener dogs.





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.

Redbeard wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

As opposed to the so superior European mentality, such as suing anyone who even slightly offends you?

I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.

I find it interesting that most of the people who commented on that article were American. Do they look for news stories about British 'political-correctness-gone-mad' to make themselves feel better about their own country or something? Because, I'll tell you what - take the piss all you want, but here in the UK, if my house was on fire the Fire Brigade would come and put it out, no questions asked. I will take a 'nanny state' that protects people's life, health and property over of the shambolic situation in which this man's house was allowed to burn down, thank-you-very-much. Disgraceful.

Albatross wrote:
I find it interesting that most of the people who commented on that article were American. Do they look for news stories about British 'political-correctness-gone-mad' to make themselves feel better about their own country or something? Because, I'll tell you what - take the piss all you want, but here in the UK, if my house was on fire the Fire Brigade would come and put it out, no questions asked. I will take a 'nanny state' that protects people's life, health and property over of the shambolic situation in which this man's house was allowed to burn down, thank-you-very-much. Disgraceful.

QFT. The state is doing its job.

fire4effekt wrote:F- the fire dept. Do your job you lazy moochers. 3dogs and a cat died in that fire, and i hear they were wiener dogs.





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.

Aren't you high and mighty. No one got hurt. The Fire Department is not going to risk its men to rescue the animals of someone who doesn't even pay for their service.

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.

They have no duty to this mooching pond scum.

I restate Cardinal Rule #1. him.

Frazzled, I don't think I've ever respected you less. I don't even think I could.

Does one have to respect something to enjoy and be amused by it's presence? Frazzled's straight forwardness is honset at least.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.

They have no duty to this mooching pond scum.

I restate Cardinal Rule #1. him.

Frazzled, I don't think I've ever respected you less. I don't even think I could.

That probably made him cry.

Go back to glorifying the brutal murder of Heer soldiers.

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.?

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.?

It's all about control! They're spending all on that their evil forces, ready to bring the Terrific Triumvirate of Texas crashing down into socialism!!!

Amaya wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If somebody had died in that fire the Fire Department would be in the deepest possible kind of gak. They lucked out. the fire department stands to lose alot more than a couple $75 fees in a wrongful death suit.

They have no duty to this mooching pond scum.

I restate Cardinal Rule #1. him.

Frazzled, I don't think I've ever respected you less. I don't even think I could.

That probably made him cry.

Go back to glorifying the brutal murder of Heer soldiers.

The hell are you rambling about now? What are Heer soldiers? WW2 german soldiers? I don't remember ever doing that. I hope you're talking about frazzled here, otherwise you should hit the little X on your browser.

djones520 wrote:In America, we haven't quite gone as socialistic as you guys have.

How in the hell does socialism get mentioned in a thread about fire services?

What is turning US political dialogue into such complete nonsense?

Frazzled wrote:You have to understand, Britain is physically smaller than my backyard. In most states (Louisiana is a foreign country) the state is broken into counties, and within those counties municipalities/towns/hive cities. Unincoirporated areas, is a term that generally describes areas of a county that are not within the jurisidiciton of a municipality (I am simplifying a bit). These can be vast swaths of area and have no services. Often municipalities will offer services to nearby areas, and smaller towns/villages will often opt in as an entity to such as well.

Dude, you want to talk about space then you come to Australia. Compared to us even Texas is high density.

Thing is, we learned a long time back that it's a really stupid idea to leave fires unattended. Even fires on the properties of people who don't pay surcharges. Before djones starts freaking, we don't believe it out of any dream in a socialist utopia, we do it because when you leave fires unattended they spread. One guy might be a complete idiot who doesn't pay for coverage, but his neighbour shouldn't suffer for that.

If you read the story you’d see the fire department did respond… when the fire spread to a neighbour's property. That neighbour has a right to be pissed, while the fire department was stuffing around with the first guy the fire spread to his property. Every other nearby resident should be pissed as well, as it could easily have . State wide emergency services should be even angrier still, as fires left unattended have a nasty habit of getting wildly out of control. It seems like every other year Australia sends firefighters to the US to help with out of control fires, so it isn’t as though just letting things burn is a sensible option.

So why would you build a system where people can 'opt in' for fire protection? Ever? It’s ridiculous.

Make the charge mandatory, and you make sure neighbours and the greater community doesn’t suffer because one guy is a derelict. Simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:Those who choose to live in unincorporated areas do so because they don't want to pay these fees and taxes. In essence, they don't want to contribute to the society around them, and are opting out.

That's "their right", and their choice.

And when fires burn unattended in the unincorporated region... and spread and get out of control, and threaten the town, and force it to be abandoned... then you can spend all day talking about everyone's rights but it's all a load of nonsense.

It's stupid to leave fires unattended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Firefighters weren't "watching".

They were busy, y'know...fighting a fire at his neighbor's house.

Umm, no. They responded when the original fire spread to a neighbouring property. Had a sensible system been in place the fire would have been put out on the first guy's house, and the neighbour who paid his $75 never would have his property damaged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Firefighters weren't "watching".

They were busy, y'know...fighting a fire at his neighbor's house.

Umm, no. They responded when the original fire spread to a neighbouring property. Had a sensible system been in place the fire would have been put out on the first guy's house, and the neighbour who paid his $75 never would have his property damaged.

Frazzled wrote:Well rumors around here are that Aussies have a tendency to steal aboriginal babies away from their parents so you can raise up all proper. Is that true or did you quit doing that?

Okay, first up mad props on knowing something about another country. It’s a shame that knowledge is around 50 years old, but it’s still good to see you try.

As a tip, next time you want to have a go at Aussies to protect your national ego… try something more recent. Aboriginals are a good line, but the stolen generation thing is about as relevant as broken treaties with American Indians. Try targeting aboriginal deaths in police custody, it’ll look a little less farcical.

Redbeard wrote:I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.

A country can have a sensible approach to fire control and not be a nanny state. Pretending one requires the other is silly.

Albatross wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wow, I've noticed a lot of American posters have a 'Me not We' sort of mentality on this. Reading back through these post it's quite hilarious really.

As opposed to the so superior European mentality, such as suing anyone who even slightly offends you?

I'm English, living in the US, and I far prefer the 'ooops, you screwed yourself' American mentality to the nanny state that the UK has turned into. I don't want government to act as my mother.

I find it interesting that most of the people who commented on that article were American. Do they look for news stories about British 'political-correctness-gone-mad' to make themselves feel better about their own country or something? Because, I'll tell you what - take the piss all you want, but here in the UK, if my house was on fire the Fire Brigade would come and put it out, no questions asked. I will take a 'nanny state' that protects people's life, health and property over of the shambolic situation in which this man's house was allowed to burn down, thank-you-very-much. Disgraceful.

Property is completely secondary to human life.

Notice that the 911 operator asked "if anyone was still inside the property". If someone had still been inside, the fire department would have responded to it.

They're not required to give a flying feth about someone's property, especially when they have to travel 45 minutes(at least) just to get to the scene of what could possibly be a fire that a yahoo with a fire extinguisher could have put out.

Responding to fires isn't cheap nor easy. Especially not when it's someone who opts out of coverage. And for every minute they spend traveling to put out a fire in the friggin' boondocks, it leaves the incorporated parts of the town at risk with the firefighters out in the middle of nowhere saving precious property.

Kanluwen wrote:Property is completely secondary to human life.

Notice that the 911 operator asked "if anyone was still inside the property". If someone had still been inside, the fire department would have responded to it.

They're not required to give a flying feth about someone's property, especially when they have to travel 45 minutes(at least) just to get to the scene of what could possibly be a fire that a yahoo with a fire extinguisher could have put out.

Responding to fires isn't cheap nor easy. Especially not when it's someone who opts out of coverage. And for every minute they spend traveling to put out a fire in the friggin' boondocks, it leaves the incorporated parts of the town at risk with the firefighters out in the middle of nowhere saving precious property.

If you’d read the article or half of this thread, you’d see that they had to respond in the end when the fire spread to a neighbouring property. Not responding to the fire saved the fire department no resources. Because fires spread.

Leaving fires unattended is stupid.

sebster wrote:
Leaving fires unattended is stupid.

Exactly!!

I don't quite understand the "bite the nose to spite the face" mentality that some have shown in this thread.

Let it burn...because we want to make a point....yeah real smart.
GG

generalgrog wrote:Exactly!!

I don't quite understand the "bite the nose to spite the face" mentality that some have shown in this thread.

Let it burn...because we want to make a point....yeah real smart.
GG

I think it’s the same old story of people liking their ideology a whole lot more than they like reality. People wanted to start sounding off on how people need to take responsibility and face consequences and that was a whole lot more exciting than thinking about the possibility that fires left unattended might spread, so an opt in system is really, really stupid.

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Exactly!!

I don't quite understand the "bite the nose to spite the face" mentality that some have shown in this thread.

Let it burn...because we want to make a point....yeah real smart.
GG

I think it’s the same old story of people liking their ideology a whole lot more than they like reality. People wanted to start sounding off on how people need to take responsibility and face consequences and that was a whole lot more exciting than thinking about the possibility that fires left unattended might spread, so an opt in system is really, really stupid.

No one has ever accused Tennessee of being a state renowned for it's brains.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Property is completely secondary to human life.

Notice that the 911 operator asked "if anyone was still inside the property". If someone had still been inside, the fire department would have responded to it.

They're not required to give a flying feth about someone's property, especially when they have to travel 45 minutes(at least) just to get to the scene of what could possibly be a fire that a yahoo with a fire extinguisher could have put out.

Responding to fires isn't cheap nor easy. Especially not when it's someone who opts out of coverage. And for every minute they spend traveling to put out a fire in the friggin' boondocks, it leaves the incorporated parts of the town at risk with the firefighters out in the middle of nowhere saving precious property.

If you’d read the article or half of this thread, you’d see that they had to respond in the end when the fire spread to a neighbouring property. Not responding to the fire saved the fire department no resources. Because fires spread.

What's your point?
The Cranicks aren't the responsibility of the fire department, specifically due to where they chose to live. It's not like the fire department doesn't remind them of that fact every year when they collect the $75 from their neighbors.

Leaving fires unattended is stupid.

Living in the ass-end of nowhere and not paying your fees to the fire department to be put under their umbrella of responsibility is stupid too.

Where's your hate for Cranick?
If you live in an area which is not under the purview of a fire department(going to go out on a wild limb here and say it's a heavily forested area) means you're SOL if a brushfire starts. That's the Forestry Departments' job, not the Fire Department.

And the Forestry Department doesn't give a flying feth about your property, just like the Fire Department won't.
Also, as an aside?
The Fire Department doesn't exist to save your property. They're there to save your life. Your property is just a bonus, which you're actually supposed to be smart enough to have insured.

I think it’s the same old story of people liking their ideology a whole lot more than they like reality. People wanted to start sounding off on how people need to take responsibility and face consequences and that was a whole lot more exciting than thinking about the possibility that fires left unattended might spread, so an opt in system is really, really stupid.

Do you want to know something else that's really stupid?

The city having to mobilize resources to come to the aid of some spanker who moved out in the boondocks to get away from the community.
Fighting a fire in unincorporated parts of most counties isn't a matter of simply plugging into a fire hydrant.
The biggest problem they face is having to get specialist trucks(which incidentally alot of places don't actually have more than one or two of) that carry enough water for every truck responding to the call out there.
That alone chews up hundreds of dollars, just to fill up one of these trucks.

So, why the hell would the city of Bumfeth, TN waste that for some jackass who couldn't be bothered to make sure he paid the $75?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also worth noting there's an update to the story:

SOUTH FULTON, Tenn. - An area fire department felt the heat Thursday after a department policy allowed a home to burn to the ground.

The focus remains on what's called subscription fire service. Some people living in Obion County, Tennessee must pay a $75 fee to a city fire department if they want firefighters to respond in an emergency.

On Wednesday afternoon, a home in Obion County burned to the ground because the home's owners, Gene and Paulette Cranick, didn't pay the fee.

"Well, I don't mind the home. I know it can be replaced, but other things I got in there can't be," Gene Cranick said. "Other than that, we're doing fine, nobody got hurt that's a good thing, everybody is okay. We're going to live over this."

South Fulton police arrested one of Gene Cranick's sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge. When officers arrived at the firehouse Wednesday, South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was in an ambulance receiving medical treatment.

Police said Cranick was upset firefighters weren't putting out the fire and attacked the chief. The South Fulton city manager said Wilds was treated and released and will recover just fine.

The incident is shining new light on a policy that's got a lot of people upset. But Union City Fire Chief Kelly Edmison is defending the firefighters in South Fulton.

"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department."

And with no fire department, people living in the county rely on nearby city or volunteer fire departments in an emergency.

In Obion County there are eight municipalities. South Fulton, Union City and Kenton are the only ones on subscription service, meaning if you don't pay, you don't get help.

That's exactly what happened to the Cranicks Wednesday. It's a situation Edmison said isn't ideal but a necessity to keep fire departments operating.

"If we just waited to charge when we went out there, you'd be working on a per-call basis," he said. "With no more calls than there are, the money wouldn't be there in a sufficient source to buy the equipment you need."

He and other fire chiefs in Obion County who charge subscription fees for county residents know they're in a tough spot.

"It's like car insurance," Edmison said. "I wish I could wait until I have an accident until I pay my premium on my car insurance, but it doesn't work that way. So why should the fire service be looked at anything different?"

Again, if the fire situation is life threatening, fire departments will respond. However, that was not the case with the fire in South Fulton Wednesday.

Edmison said Obion County has entered into a letter of intent with all eight fire district municipalities, so all eight departments will soon respond to county residents through subscription service only.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

What's your point?
The Canicks aren't the responsibility of the fire department, specifically due to where they chose to live. It's not like the fire department doesn't remind them of that fact every year when they collect the $75 from their neighbors.

Not relevant to his point.

Living in the ass-end of nowhere and not paying your fees to the fire department to be put under their umbrella of responsibility is stupid too.

Not relevant to his point.

Where's your hate for Canick?
If you live in an area which is not under the purview of a fire department(going to go out on a wild limb here and say it's a heavily forested area) means you're SOL if a brushfire starts. That's the Forestry Departments' job, not the Fire Department.

That differs by local ordinance and house fires are not the purview of the forestry department anywhere. As an aside, it's local firefighting forces that are typically used to control wildfires, the forestry service doesn't maintain a large enough force to do so.

And the Forestry Department doesn't give a flying feth about your property, just like the Fire Department won't.
Also, as an aside?
The Fire Department doesn't exist to save your property. They're there to save your life. Your property is just a bonus, which you're actually supposed to be smart enough to have insured.

Incorrect. Fire control agencies exist to prevent the spread of fire. Period. Property damage is just as harmful to a community as loss of life, often times moreso.

Do you want to know something else that's really stupid?

I bet you're about to say something stupid, so i'll see it regardless.

The city having to mobilize resources to come to the aid of some spanker who moved out in the boondocks to get away from the community.
Fighting a fire in unincorporated parts of most counties isn't a matter of simply plugging into a fire hydrant.

Thats why the trucks have water tanks.

The biggest problem they face is having to get specialist trucks(which incidentally alot of places don't actually have more than one or two of) that carry enough water for every truck responding to the call out there.
That alone chews up hundreds of dollars, just to fill up one of these trucks.

HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS!. As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property damage that the community incurs by the loss of the structure and damage to the surrounding areas due to unattended or ill attended fires.

So, why the hell would the city of Bumfeth, TN waste that for some jackass who couldn't be bothered to make sure he paid the $75?

Other then the sheer concept of human decency? Because it's economically unsound, locally unsafe, and financially idiotic for the community to do that to itself. It creates stratified areas of high fire risk in the exact areas where fires are more likely and it logically will always cost the community more then simply maintaining a standard fire fighting force through the loss of property value and the logical uptick in insurance payouts or homelessness.

They would do it because not doing it is fething idiotic in every way. Something Tennessee is great at.

If you know that you have to pay a certain fee for a service, and don't pay that fee, where does the surprise come from when you don't receive that service?

That said...

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.

I just saw the news footage of this on ABC about 5 minutes ago. They barely touched on the point that the guy was out of regular juristiction, saying he was "close to the city of (whatever)", and interviewed the dumbass, but not any member of the fire department. Nothing was mentioned about the firefighters' insurance, costs, legal worries and such that you guys have brought up. The broadcast seemed to sympathise with the dumbass in a very one-sided bit they did on it. People nowadays in this kind of economy love a victim and a government faceless institution to blame and it seems the news wants to suck up to that mentality.

Guitardian wrote:I just saw the news footage of this on ABC about 5 minutes ago. They barely touched on the point that the guy was out of regular juristiction, saying he was "close to the city of (whatever)", and interviewed the dumbass, but not any member of the fire department. Nothing was mentioned about the firefighters' insurance, costs, legal worries and such that you guys have brought up. The broadcast seemed to sympathise with the dumbass in a very one-sided bit they did on it. People nowadays in this kind of economy love a victim and a government faceless institution to blame and it seems the news wants to suck up to that mentality.

Often I'd agree with you about media hype, but in this case there's a problem with the institution. It's clearly the choice of the State of TN to have things this way, but hopefully this will change in light of this incident. Section 21 of their Bill Of Rights dictates that no man shall demand service without paying due compensation. Section 23 allows people to peaceably apply for redress of grievances. I myself wouldn't be satisfied with a state government that doesn't provide such a basic service, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the people of TN 'dumbasses'.

He was ignorant of the policy - that's a costly mistake under the circumstances. Calling him a 'dumbass' is unfounded, unless you're his neighbour or actually have an interest in his business. When the situation arose, he tried everything he could to save his home. He didn't realise that the emergency services in his state or county are exclusive to private customers.

Folk can piss and moan about him not paying the same taxes all they like, but most of the yanks here don't live in TN or pay any of their state taxes either. It's as good as another country as far as the rest of us (and the rest of the US) are concerned.

To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?

Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?

Why is a population center that they DO commonly service, but is under a separate tax payment plan somehow outside of it's legal jurisdiction? Wouldn't that imply that they don't actually have a duty to respond to calls in that area, something that is clearly not the case here?

Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?

I'm rather more interested to hear what the legal responsibilities of Houston's Volunteer Fire Departments are - being volunteers and all.

Kanluwen wrote:What's your point?

My point, that I've now explained several times in plain English, is that leaving a fire to burn is stupid. It is likely to spread and cause far more damage.

The Cranicks aren't the responsibility of the fire department, specifically due to where they chose to live.

The Cranicks are irrelevant. A fire could well be on state land where no-one will be paying $75. The point is that you don't leave fires unattended, and any line of thought that leads to the conclusion that you should leave a fire unattended is a stupid line of thought.

You are right that if you offer an opt in payment system but provide fire services anyway then people will opt out, knowing they will get covereage anyway. The answer then is to look at the ad hoc system that's been developed, that's caused the fire department to let a fire burn, and realise that is a stupid system. You then look at building a statewide system of financing and coverage where that ensures the whole state is covered.

That'd be pretty hard though, and wouldn't involve judging anyone. And we all know how much fun it is to judge people. So instead people just call that Cranick guy an idiot and move in with their day thinking everything is fine.

Living in the ass-end of nowhere and not paying your fees to the fire department to be put under their umbrella of responsibility is stupid too.

The neighbour paid his fee. But Cranick didn't, the dept let the fire burn until it damaged the neighbour's property, which is plainly not fair for the neighbour. The effect of people's approach here is not only should we be accountable for our own stupidity, we are to be held to the whims of our neighbour's stupidity also.

What if that neighbour hadn't paid either? Nor the next guy along the street? How many non-payers should the fire dept stand and watch, before a house fire becomes a blaze that sweeps across the county?

Where's your hate for Cranick?

He's just some guy. I don't care about him. What matters is the system, and having a system that doesn't leave fires unattended.

What amazes me is how few people in this thread are capable of realising there are more important things than blaming some random guy in a news story.

Do you want to know something else that's really stupid?

The city having to mobilize resources to come to the aid of some spanker who moved out in the boondocks to get away from the community.

Well yeah, fires have to be fought, where ever they are. And yeah, it costs money. But it will cost more money to let them burn, because fires spread.

Fighting a fire in unincorporated parts of most counties isn't a matter of simply plugging into a fire hydrant.
The biggest problem they face is having to get specialist trucks(which incidentally alot of places don't actually have more than one or two of) that carry enough water for every truck responding to the call out there.
That alone chews up hundreds of dollars, just to fill up one of these trucks.

When I lived in the country I was volunteer firefighter. As the accountant for the local government I oversaw the budget for the service. The costs you mention exist, but are largely trivial compared to the cost of requiring extra capital equipment. Despite the volunteer status of its members, fighting fires was much more expensive in the country than in the city.

Despite all that we attended every fire, no matter how remote. Because leaving fires unattended is stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:I just saw the news footage of this on ABC about 5 minutes ago. They barely touched on the point that the guy was out of regular juristiction, saying he was "close to the city of (whatever)", and interviewed the dumbass, but not any member of the fire department. Nothing was mentioned about the firefighters' insurance, costs, legal worries and such that you guys have brought up. The broadcast seemed to sympathise with the dumbass in a very one-sided bit they did on it. People nowadays in this kind of economy love a victim and a government faceless institution to blame and it seems the news wants to suck up to that mentality.

Several media outlets have attempted to speak to the mayor, but he's not willing to talk. They're likely formulating their strategy.

It makes sense that the media won't spend much time talking about insurance and travel costs, that stuff is pretty irrelevant. The story that matters is that the system broke down to such an extent that a government body with the resources to stop a fire elected instead to let it burn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?

As far as the resourcing available to them allows. Why wouldn't they?

If the resourcing model produces blind spots that will allow fires to burn unattended, then there should be serious drive to reform that model.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:To everyone who thinks the fire department of Podunk County, Texicania, should go outside its legal jurisdiction to put out fires, I would ask, how far?

Why is a population center that they DO commonly service, but is under a separate tax payment plan somehow outside of it's legal jurisdiction? Wouldn't that imply that they don't actually have a duty to respond to calls in that area, something that is clearly not the case here?

As it is unincorporated, legally it is not part of the county.

The residents have no obligation to pay taxes to the county, and the county has no obligation to extend its community services outside its borders. The county fire service only goes out to the unincorporated places which have paid for service, which is done on an individual basis in this case. In other words, it isn't a tax, it is a voluntary payment.

This sort of arrangement is not uncommon in rural/small town USA. It is often uneconomical for a village to establish their own fire department or police department, and they communally buy in the services from a larger town nearby.

That becomes a lot more complicated when you are dealing with not a community, but a bunch of individuals, which is the situation in this case.

The ethical issue of whether you should let one house burn down, because endangers the neighbouring house, is part of the reason why most communities normally incorporate, and make communal arrangements for fire service and so on.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It could be seen as the final expression of individualism, and demonstrates a disadvantage of that situation.

The Onion once again demonstrates its genius.

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department

The Onion April 21, 2004 | ISSUE 40•16


CHEYENNE, WY—After attempting to contain a living-room blaze started by a cigarette, card-carrying Libertarian Trent Jacobs reluctantly called the Cheyenne Fire Department Monday. "Although the community would do better to rely on an efficient, free-market fire-fighting service, the fact is that expensive, unnecessary public fire departments do exist," Jacobs said. "Also, my house was burning down." Jacobs did not offer to pay firefighters for their service.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/libertarian-reluctantly-calls-fire-department,4651/

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. There were no human beings in danger, and it also safe to assume that they made sure the fire was contained to Cranick's premises before leaving. So they didn't make the extra effort to save the house, so what? I've seen firefighters arrive at a burning house, ask if everyone was out, and then just wet the areas around the house and let the fire burn itself out because the home was already too far gone. If someone had been inside the home, the fire department would have responded immediately to Cranick's call. No one wasn't, so it is just an ordeal of saving property; and Cranick didn't pay for that service.

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.

djones520 wrote:

Wolfstan wrote:

What about law & order? Does he have to pay a surcharge for that? Or if not can he have his own justice?

County Sherriff is responsible for law enforcement in the county. There are several differant levels of Law Enforcement. City Police, County Sherriff, State Police, then you have your Feds (FBI,ATF,ETC).

Now this may sound rude, but believe me, i'm not trying to be. But you guys really outta learn a bit more about our governmental system before you start bashing it. It's a lot more expansive then just the Federal Government.

Did I bash it? I was just asking as I found it fascinating how it all works... or not in this case.