firefighters watch a house burn because the owner did not pay annual fee.

[nikond70s]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...servative-ideological-debate#mwpphu-container

this is kind of sad. firefighters arrived at the scene but let the house burn because the owner did not pay his annual fee of $75. someone will say its the mans fault because he didnt pay the annual fee. but isnt it the firefighters job to fight the fires? the goverment pays them not the fee's that peoples pay. i mean what if someone was in the house. next thing you know you gotta pay $100 annual fee if you want cops to come over to your house incase of theif or robbery. now the man may be homeless.

what's your opinion of this story?

 

[Gearhead]

Wow, they should have put it out. The man even offered to pay for the costs for them to put it out. Jerks. All people want is money.

 

[Knowdafish]

"What moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?" Foster wrote.


But Foster's colleague Kevin Williamson took the opposite view. Cranick's fellow residents in the rural stretches of Obion County had no fire protection until the county established the $75 fee in 1990. As Williamson explained: "The South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton's firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives."

The article pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[Chrisplosion]

What kind of inbred backwoods white trash hillbilly kind of place is Obion County? Thats terrible!

 

[studd muffin]

I think its wrong that they did that. Shame on those firefighters.

 

[jlnguyen74]

Just like car insurance... You pay for it in order to get coverage... The only reason for those fire fighter were there, because of the neighbor house paid the fee, thus, they render the service to make sure that the neighbor house didn't get burn down. They're not there for the owner, who didn't pay...

Here's the short version of what happened: In rural Obion County, homeowners must pay $75 annually for fire protection services from the nearby city of South Fulton. If they don't pay the fee and their home catches fire, tough luck -- even if firefighters are positioned just outside the home with hoses at the ready.
Gene Cranick found this out the hard way.
When Cranick's house caught fire last week, and he couldn't contain the blaze with garden hoses, he called 911. During the emergency call, he offered to pay all expenses related to the Fire Department's defense of his home, but the South Fulton firefighters refused to do anything.
They did, however, come out when Cranick's neighbor -- who'd already paid the fee -- called 911 because he worried that the fire might spread to his property. Once they arrived, members of the South Fulton department stood by and watched Cranick's home burn; they sprang into action only when the fire reached the neighbor's property.

 

[jlnguyen74]

but isnt it the firefighters job to fight the fires? the goverment pays them not the fee's that peoples pay.

Correct! However, that area is not within their jurisdiction, thus, the $75 fee was set for the service.

The man even offered to pay for the costs for them to put it out.

For the same reason above, "government pays them," they cannot take money from that guy, or it would be called bribery.

 

[Ash]

I dont care who's responsible for the area, if its not in ones jurisdiction then whater jurisdiction they are in should have been sent out for FREE. This is supposed to be a public service and no one should have to pay a fee for this, cops or anything else....

What if a baby or baby and mom or dog and baby or whatever was in there..... they just ignore that over $75. Thats the most stupidest thing I ve ever heard and I think its rediculous and a pathetic way to make extra money. If they are not in their jurisdiction... then they should send someone who is.... for no fee.. .and if there is no one.... then they need to put someone out there.

It doesnt matter if they were right or not.... its still wrong.

 

[RMorrow]

Jurisdiction is irrelavent. I am a retired firefighter and we had a passion for the job. We even got into fist fights with other firefighters for jumping our working fire calls. I know there are some firefighters on this forum and they will tell you, a real firefighter has one job, and it is not collecting money or bickering about politics. When there is a fire, we put the wet stuff on the red stuff. Anything less and you are not a firefighter, period.

 

[Bhack91]

It isn't the firefighter's fault the man didn't pay the fee or that the fee exsists in the first place. The blame should be dealt to who ever set the 75 dollar fee in the first place, if you feel there is someone to blame. I personally don't believe there is, from the way I understand it there are some people on property not covered by the fire department. They bought this property and I am sure they were aware before they bought wether they were in the jurisdiction or not. These people were offered a 75 dollar fee to be covered even though they were not in the jurisdiction. And it was thier responsibility to be prepared for such a situation, especially when such an offer was made so readily availible.