No pay, no spray: Firefighters let home burn.

thing is.. those blaming the firefighters... don't you think they would have lost their jobs if they went against policy?...thus end up losing their possessions?
 
Originally Posted by OptimusPrimeAPhiA

Originally Posted by Cameron Nelson

Man, ya'll are truly some heartless people. I've never in my life seen a group of people who talk out the side of their *## as much as ya'll. $75 or not, how you could let a man's home burn to the ground is beyond me. I truly hope ya'll never have to eat ya'll words one day.
Click to expand...

WHAT THE HELL COULD HE DO?!

I don't want his stuff to be burned down either

I'm not saying the system is perfect either but its the way it is.

No one here wanted this to happen but he brought it on himself. You have to step outside of the picture and put your enemy in this position. I bet if you thought about it as someone you didn't care about, you would feel that he didn't abide by the rules and mandates set in place and therefore had this outcome awaiting him. Instead you have an emotional connection that clouds your judgment.
Click to expand...
no you don't. i wouldn't wish this on my enemies (assuming i had any)
 
Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

thing is.. those blaming the firefighters... don't you think they would have lost their jobs if they went against policy?...thus end up losing their possessions?
Click to expand...

Man, let me tell you...I've done things at my job that could've cost me my job. I've gone outside of policy NUMEROUS times, because I've got a heart, and it bothers me when I'm in a position to really make a difference and help others folks but don't, all cause I'm tryin to save my own #%!. People live by the policy "every man for themselves", and it sucks....this man lost everything he owns, all cause somebody didn't have enough balls to go against their bosses words. I'd have been fired if I was there, cause NO WAY could I watch that take place. Not at all...
 
Originally Posted by oidreez

Originally Posted by OptimusPrimeAPhiA

Originally Posted by Cameron Nelson

Man, ya'll are truly some heartless people. I've never in my life seen a group of people who talk out the side of their *## as much as ya'll. $75 or not, how you could let a man's home burn to the ground is beyond me. I truly hope ya'll never have to eat ya'll words one day.
Click to expand...

WHAT THE HELL COULD HE DO?!

I don't want his stuff to be burned down either

I'm not saying the system is perfect either but its the way it is.

No one here wanted this to happen but he brought it on himself. You have to step outside of the picture and put your enemy in this position. I bet if you thought about it as someone you didn't care about, you would feel that he didn't abide by the rules and mandates set in place and therefore had this outcome awaiting him. Instead you have an emotional connection that clouds your judgment.
Click to expand...
no you don't. i wouldn't wish this on my enemies (assuming i had any)
Click to expand...
I'm sayin'. I wouldn't wish this on any person I hate. The only people I would wish this on are murderers and child molesters. It's called morals, I'm surprised NT is so by the book on this. You're gonna let another man's house burn down because of $75? Ridiculous.

And Cameron Nelson is 100% dead on with this. Some of you act like you were never late on a bill. Get the hell off your high horse and why don't you dictate what's right or wrong.
 
Policy issues aside, anyone who "forgot" to pay the fire department response fee should be extra vigilant while burning %#%! in their yard. No one said he couldn't stand in the yard with a garden hose in case the yard rubbish fire got a little out of hand...

Common sense is free, no $75 required.
 
i dont agree with letting the guys house burn down, thats just ruthless, especially since his animals died too, but i understand why.

if you don't pay for auto insurance you take and understand the risk that you might get in an accident when your driving. if you don't have insurance and get in a crash can you call up the insurance company real quick and ask for insurance? hell nah. every time that man set trash on fire he took and understood the risk that it could spread.
 
Originally Posted by pokeyneil30

i dont agree with letting the guys house burn down, thats just ruthless, especially since his animals died too, but i understand why.

if you don't pay for auto insurance you take and understand the risk that you might get in an accident when your driving. if you don't have insurance and get in a crash can you call up the insurance company real quick and ask for insurance? hell nah. every time that man set trash on fire he took and understood the risk that it could spread.
Click to expand...

I understand your analogy, but this is apples and oranges. You're right...you can't call and add the policy after/during an automobile accident, but that's COMPLETELY different than sittin on the sidelines watching someone's burn to the ground. THIS was preventable...a car "accident" is just that; an accident. They had an opportunity to have the fire put out w/only minor damage, but chose to sit back and do nothing.

Besides, where are the MORALS in this case? Do ya'll truly not have any?! Ya'll are talkin about priorities to the same people who've eaten Ramen noodles and skipped a light bill so they could afford another pair of Jordans.
 
Originally Posted by mondaynightraw

Policy issues aside, anyone who "forgot" to pay the fire department response fee should be extra vigilant while burning %#%! in their yard. No one said he couldn't stand in the yard with a garden hose in case the yard rubbish fire got a little out of hand...

Common sense is free, no $75 required.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is 20/20. We all say what we would do/should do when we're not in that situation. Hell, they teach you to "stop, drop and roll" as a child when you're on fire....who the hell does that?! Nobody, cause all common sense is out the window when an emergency arises.
 
Originally Posted by pokeyneil30

i dont agree with letting the guys house burn down, thats just ruthless, especially since his animals died too, but i understand why.

if you don't pay for auto insurance you take and understand the risk that you might get in an accident when your driving. if you don't have insurance and get in a crash can you call up the insurance company real quick and ask for insurance? hell nah. every time that man set trash on fire he took and understood the risk that it could spread.
Click to expand...

Actually, a more accurate analogy would be this...

Guy gets into an accident after forgetting to pay his insurance. He goes to an auto body shop asking for service, knowing that he'd have to pay out of pocket for it, but the auto body shop refuses service. instead, they reveal that they work for the insurance company and only do work when the insurance company pays. And there isn't any other auto body shop around.

Nobody thinks the guy should be able to pay insurance rates after the catastrophe happens. But he should still be eligible for a service if he's willing to pay the full cost out of pocket for it.

I think it's sad, but i understand where both sides are coming from.
 
Originally Posted by mondaynightraw

Originally Posted by pokeyneil30

i dont agree with letting the guys house burn down, thats just ruthless, especially since his animals died too, but i understand why.

if you don't pay for auto insurance you take and understand the risk that you might get in an accident when your driving. if you don't have insurance and get in a crash can you call up the insurance company real quick and ask for insurance? hell nah. every time that man set trash on fire he took and understood the risk that it could spread.
Click to expand...

Actually, a more accurate analogy would be this...

Guy gets into an accident after forgetting to pay his insurance. He goes to an auto body shop asking for service, knowing that he'd have to pay out of pocket for it, but the auto body shop refuses service. instead, they reveal that they work for the insurance company and only do work when the insurance company pays. And there isn't any other auto body shop around.

Nobody thinks the guy should be able to pay insurance rates after the catastrophe happens. But he should still be eligible for a service if he's willing to pay the full cost out of pocket for it.

I think it's sad, but i understand where both sides are coming from.
Click to expand...

We can think of diff.analogies all day long, but the fact of the matter is this:  people WATCHED his house burn to the ground. The key word is WATCHED. This isn't like the other analogies of car accidents and +%@+...this was PREVENTABLE. If somebody at the scene had enough balls to do what was right, he wouldn't have lost his home and everything he's worked for...for $75 got damn dollars. Government money gets misappropriated on a daily basis, and they couldn't put some damn water on his house?!
 
Doesn't matter. Home owner wasn't responsible.

It was the home owners RESPONSIBILITY to pay the bill.
It was NOT the company's RESPONSIBILITY to put out the fire.

But here is a quote from a firefighter on a jeep forum

couple facts here... this is getting a bunch of bad press against firefighters, so to clear the air:

a) this was a paid city department, who was contracted to homeowners OUTSIDE their district, who were willing to pay the $75 annual fee. they were not responding in their own district

b) most volunteer organizations would respond in their personal vehicles with buckets if they had to.

c) many city departments answer to the mayor, who sets policy. the mayors orders supersede that of the chief or department Board of Directors. in this case, the firefighters, using CITY OWNED EQUIPMENT, followed the orders of their mayor, the CEO of the city.

personally, if they we already there, I would have pumped water on the fire. it costs nothing. however, the mayor was likely trying to prove a point.

in our department, we have 'no mans land', which is not technically covered by taxes.. i.e. the property owner pays no taxes to support the fire department. our department has a policy to bill the property owner if we respond. there are set rates per piece of equipment, personnel, etc.. and typically, this would be paid by the homeowners insurance company. however, this process is time consuming, and lengthy, (could be years before the department gets paid)... and then there's always the argument of "you didn't save the house.. why should we pay?".

there is also the fact that you have limited resources, and a fire is a time and resource dependent incident. we frequently have multiple calls at once.. imagine if our resources were committed to a fire out of district for someone who refused to pay the trivial fee, and there was a call in district for another emergency? citizens would be furious that we were out of district with district resources and failed or delayed to respond to those we were contracted to service...

right or wrong?

Morally, it was wrong, in my opinion.

but, given the fact that this was a paid department, they followed orders.

look at it this way. if i work for an excavating company, and you want a new pool, would it be 'right' for me to use company heavy equipment and personnel, ON THE CLOCK, to come over and dig your hole for free? sure, id be happy to come over with a hand shovel off the clock and help you, but on the clock, I'm subject to the policies of my company.

these were paid employees of a company, and had heavy equipment that was not their own.. belonged to the company. company policy is not to offer free service to those who are not contracted to them... 
Click to expand...
 
It's the homeowner's fault for not paying, but at the same time, if that was my house, I would be furious as hell.
 
Originally Posted by mondaynightraw

Doesn't matter. Home owner wasn't responsible.

It was the home owners RESPONSIBILITY to pay the bill.
It was NOT the company's RESPONSIBILITY to put out the fire.

But here is a quote from a firefighter on a jeep forum

couple facts here... this is getting a bunch of bad press against firefighters, so to clear the air:

a) this was a paid city department, who was contracted to homeowners OUTSIDE their district, who were willing to pay the $75 annual fee. they were not responding in their own district

b) most volunteer organizations would respond in their personal vehicles with buckets if they had to.

c) many city departments answer to the mayor, who sets policy. the mayors orders supersede that of the chief or department Board of Directors. in this case, the firefighters, using CITY OWNED EQUIPMENT, followed the orders of their mayor, the CEO of the city.

personally, if they we already there, I would have pumped water on the fire. it costs nothing. however, the mayor was likely trying to prove a point.

in our department, we have 'no mans land', which is not technically covered by taxes.. i.e. the property owner pays no taxes to support the fire department. our department has a policy to bill the property owner if we respond. there are set rates per piece of equipment, personnel, etc.. and typically, this would be paid by the homeowners insurance company. however, this process is time consuming, and lengthy, (could be years before the department gets paid)... and then there's always the argument of "you didn't save the house.. why should we pay?".

there is also the fact that you have limited resources, and a fire is a time and resource dependent incident. we frequently have multiple calls at once.. imagine if our resources were committed to a fire out of district for someone who refused to pay the trivial fee, and there was a call in district for another emergency? citizens would be furious that we were out of district with district resources and failed or delayed to respond to those we were contracted to service...

right or wrong?

Morally, it was wrong, in my opinion.

but, given the fact that this was a paid department, they followed orders.

look at it this way. if i work for an excavating company, and you want a new pool, would it be 'right' for me to use company heavy equipment and personnel, ON THE CLOCK, to come over and dig your hole for free? sure, id be happy to come over with a hand shovel off the clock and help you, but on the clock, I'm subject to the policies of my company.

these were paid employees of a company, and had heavy equipment that was not their own.. belonged to the company. company policy is not to offer free service to those who are not contracted to them... 
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Eh, that quote was nothing but what I've said the whole time: people looking out for themselves, instead of others.

I'm happy they've kept their job...too bad somebody is now homeless because of it, or the mayor "trying to prove a point".

Like I said, this world has such a "I'm lookin out for me...screw everybody else" mentality...
 
realistically it is his own fault for starting the fire, and by not paying the $75, he decided he did not want the service offered by that specific company. and i go back to my car insurance analogy because the fire was an accident, he obviously didn't see it coming, much like you can't predict a car accident occurring.

morally however, i definitely agree with you cam, its pathetic that people act strictly on monetary motives and if i were in that same position, i woulda helped, it would have been the right thing to do.

overall, if whoever was in charge was trying to prove a point it could have been done a better way. save the guys house and charge him a larger fee than the $75 and make him do community service.
 
Originally Posted by Cameron Nelson

Originally Posted by mondaynightraw

Doesn't matter. Home owner wasn't responsible.

It was the home owners RESPONSIBILITY to pay the bill.
It was NOT the company's RESPONSIBILITY to put out the fire.

But here is a quote from a firefighter on a jeep forum

couple facts here... this is getting a bunch of bad press against firefighters, so to clear the air:

a) this was a paid city department, who was contracted to homeowners OUTSIDE their district, who were willing to pay the $75 annual fee. they were not responding in their own district

b) most volunteer organizations would respond in their personal vehicles with buckets if they had to.

c) many city departments answer to the mayor, who sets policy. the mayors orders supersede that of the chief or department Board of Directors. in this case, the firefighters, using CITY OWNED EQUIPMENT, followed the orders of their mayor, the CEO of the city.

personally, if they we already there, I would have pumped water on the fire. it costs nothing. however, the mayor was likely trying to prove a point.

in our department, we have 'no mans land', which is not technically covered by taxes.. i.e. the property owner pays no taxes to support the fire department. our department has a policy to bill the property owner if we respond. there are set rates per piece of equipment, personnel, etc.. and typically, this would be paid by the homeowners insurance company. however, this process is time consuming, and lengthy, (could be years before the department gets paid)... and then there's always the argument of "you didn't save the house.. why should we pay?".

there is also the fact that you have limited resources, and a fire is a time and resource dependent incident. we frequently have multiple calls at once.. imagine if our resources were committed to a fire out of district for someone who refused to pay the trivial fee, and there was a call in district for another emergency? citizens would be furious that we were out of district with district resources and failed or delayed to respond to those we were contracted to service...

right or wrong?

Morally, it was wrong, in my opinion.

but, given the fact that this was a paid department, they followed orders.

look at it this way. if i work for an excavating company, and you want a new pool, would it be 'right' for me to use company heavy equipment and personnel, ON THE CLOCK, to come over and dig your hole for free? sure, id be happy to come over with a hand shovel off the clock and help you, but on the clock, I'm subject to the policies of my company.

these were paid employees of a company, and had heavy equipment that was not their own.. belonged to the company. company policy is not to offer free service to those who are not contracted to them...  
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Eh, that quote was nothing but what I've said the whole time: people looking out for themselves, instead of others.

I'm happy they've kept their job...too bad somebody is now homeless because of it, or the mayor "trying to prove a point".

Like I said, this world has such a "I'm lookin out for me...screw everybody else" mentality...



He's homeless now?

He said himself his insurance would pay out.

When whats his name didn't get shoes in the mail he paid more then 75 bucks for you said so what it's not the companies fault they didn't do anything wrong it's policy blame the post office. i said they SHOULD have helped cause it would be the right thing to do and you said no no no if they did that they would go out of business it's the NTer's L to take.

Now this guy doesn't pay a tiny yearly fee so he has no right to expect anything at all but you think the fire dept should go against policy and risk their jobs and livelyhood to help the guy out?

Before it's all about the company and the bottom line but now it's all about helping your fellow man and doing the right thing?


What is the difference? 
One guy lost stuff.
The other guy lost more stuff.
Is their a secret monetary amount that makes it ok to go out on a limb for someone?
Does that unknown dollar figure make it morally wrong to just follow policy and do your job?


  
 
Originally Posted by Cameron Nelson

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

thing is.. those blaming the firefighters... don't you think they would have lost their jobs if they went against policy?...thus end up losing their possessions?
Click to expand...

Man, let me tell you...I've done things at my job that could've cost me my job. I've gone outside of policy NUMEROUS times, because I've got a heart, and it bothers me when I'm in a position to really make a difference and help others folks but don't, all cause I'm tryin to save my own #%!. People live by the policy "every man for themselves", and it sucks....this man lost everything he owns, all cause somebody didn't have enough balls to go against their bosses words. I'd have been fired if I was there, cause NO WAY could I watch that take place. Not at all...
Click to expand...
So the homeowner wasnt living by that policy? "Screw that fire department's salary I need this $75 for myself"
 
If it was privatized, this wouldn't of happened. On another note, I'm sure this guy pays his property taxes otherwise he wouldn't be living in the house. Property taxes pays for police, fire, and schools for the entire State.
 
I'm tired of this talk about "bills" it was $75 ANNUALLY...as in PER YEAR...as in NOT MONTHLY


He could have left off a couple of packs of beer or SOMETHING to cover that. He CHOSE not to pay it. I don't even know when the fiscal year starts in his town but its OCTOBER now.
eyes.gif



He got what he had coming. It really sucks but dude knows he effed up and hes taking it like a man. Anyone who steps out to help him now is just doing it because they feel sorry for him, not because he DESERVES it.
 
It's a sticky situation.  The firefighters of Fulton County do take the oath to protect, and to help those in need.  But they are only taking
the oath for those citizens in Fulton County.  The home that burned was outside of city limits, and the family did have the option to pay
$75 for their home to be covered by the Fulton County FD. 
The home was never covered due to the home owners opting out of exteded coverage, and the home wasn't covered under the Fulton County
firefighters oath since it is located outside of city limits.
Technically, they are not in the wrong.

At this point it's a moral issue, and I do think that they should have put out the fire.
 
Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

interesting...
Mangu-Ward also points out that thefamily in question had failed to pay its fee three years ago andhad a chimney fire put out by the same FD.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
source: http://reason.com/blog/20...-burn-or-not-fulton-fire

Methinks he definitely did not "forget" to pay the bill


I already thought he was lying, but if this bit is true then he definitely took that gamble.
Y'know how people all over the place were saying "if they put out the fire anyway why pay the $75?" this is why. 

So for the morality issue, they already gave his %%+ a freebie. 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

feeninlikejodeci
Tactics to scare Landlord?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Raji Lowenthal
Raji Lowenthal
B
Black woman calls cops only to be killed by cops.
Replies
13
Views
3K
TSCQ
TSCQ
Dave East
Feeling Nostalgic, F IT. NFL Week 3 In Review ! ! ! ! !
Replies
9
Views
562
spacedoodoo
spacedoodoo
eracism
Texas ranked worst state for quality of life
5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
10K
Mark Antony
M

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom