All Forums | General Discussion

Firemen Watch House Burn Because He Didn't Pay A $75 Fee

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 5947
Posts: 270
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #101

Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:

matt / SS - this is an unwinnable debate for either

if the guy got service for free, then no one would pay the fire fee and townspeople would stop paying their property taxes funding the fire dept

if the fire dept did what they did, then they catch hell for following orders (sort of like good german soldiers from 70 years ago)

humanity has to take over at some point, but there are consequences to that act of humanity like no one paying the service fee and people stopping payment of fire dept property taxes

I see both sides of it, but I think the people that are outraged by this are going with their gut reaction of “OMG why didn’t they put out the fire” instead of looking at the big picture.

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 21
Posted: #102
Is it possible to land on both sides of this?..Put the fire out, resuce the pets, deal with the $75 in court..
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #103
Shooter -- I am not calling the firefighters cowards.  Rather I am saying that the act of sitting in a truck equipped to put out a fire while watching a house and animals burn to the ground is a cowardly act.  I understand that there are bureaucratic issues and laws in place from people above their heads that tell them not to do anything but still it is a cowardly act (by the firefighters and the policy makers in the town in general).  For a grown man equipped to make a huge difference to just sit there and become a spectator is cowardly.  I am sorry but that is how I see it (again it may be above their heads and if so then all involved acted cowardly).

In regards to your animal argument -- you can tell me 100 more times and it does not make a difference.  Your argument is  speculation and not convincing.  Neither you or I know how quickly it spread or how the owners felt about it.  All we know is that animals were involved.  Regardless of who is to blame the point still remains that at that time when the fire was blazing the only people equipped to make a difference were the spectators.      
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #104

Quote Originally Posted by Britnney2:

Is it possible to land on both sides of this?..Put the fire out, resuce the pets, deal with the $75 in court..

Then what would be the point of paying for it in the first place if you could just pay the same fee later if and when you needed the service.

Now if there was a 4 figure fee attached, that would be different.

 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2005
Posts: 66698
Posted: #105
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:

KOAJ

 

Your point about people not paying the fee because he didn't and received help is not a proven point, but a theory. The fact of the matter is they could have really set an example by helping him when he was pleaing for them to do so and then hung him with the bill for the SERVICE they actually performed. This by far would have been the appropriate action and then people would have seen how cheap the $75 is compared to having to flip for the entire SERVICE bill.



but that wasnt the deal. the deal was "buy insurance and you will have fire protection"

im not agreeing with what the firefighters did. i think it was shitty but i understand the precedence it sets as well. tough issue
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #106

Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:

Shooter -- I am not calling the firefighters cowards.  Rather I am saying that the act of sitting in a truck equipped to put out a fire while watching a house and animals burn to the ground is a cowardly act.  I understand that there are bureaucratic issues and laws in place from people above their heads that tell them not to do anything but still it is a cowardly act (by the firefighters and the policy makers in the town in general).  For a grown man equipped to make a huge difference to just sit there and become a spectator is cowardly.  I am sorry but that is how I see it (again it may be above their heads and if so then all involved acted cowardly).

In regards to your animal argument -- you can tell me 100 more times and it does not make a difference.  Your argument is  speculation and not convincing.  Neither you or I know how quickly it spread or how the owners felt about it.  All we know is that animals were involved.  Regardless of who is to blame the point still remains that at that time when the fire was blazing the only people equipped to make a difference were the spectators.      

So a firefighter who is supporting his wife and kids should basically say “fuck you” to his boss and get fired just to save 3 dogs? If you consider someone putting the welfare of his family ahead of the welfare of a stranger’s dogs to be acting “cowardly” then you are pretty ignorant.

Its pretty simple: it is most likely the fire either spread so quickly that the firefighters couldn’t have saved the pets even if they tried OR the fire moved slowly enough that owners had a chance to save their dogs but chose not to.

When you take that into account, as well as the fact that the owners chose to confine their pets in their house when they knew they were going to be intentionally setting a fire nearby , as well as, obviously, not paying the $75 fire department service fee, to blame the firefighters for the pets dying is asinine.

 

 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2005
Posts: 66698
Posted: #107
Quote Originally Posted by Dude_Abides:

No it isn't. This case is an absolute freaking no-brainer...



no brainer as in, you dont have to pay for any insurance in advance of anything. you can just expect service and a bill?

ok great. i'll send you my town's municipal dept phone number. i'll email you my lot and block number. tell them i'm not paying for fire dept via property taxes yet i expect service if i need it
 
Covers Linesmen
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2005
Posts: 66698
Posted: #108
shame on the owners for leaving their pets in the house. my pups would be the first to come with me if something happened to my house
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #109
When you take that into account, as well as the fact that the owners chose to confine their pets in their house when they knew they were going to be intentionally setting a fire nearby , as well as, obviously, not paying the $75 fire department service fee, to blame the firefighters for the pets dying is asinine.

Not blaming them.  Never blamed them -- once again stop thinking so black and white.  Just saying that they were in a position to presumably make a difference.  Do you really not see this? 

And for the record I realize that the issue of not acting on the fire most likely goes well beyond the actual firemen.  Either way to sit in a fire truck (or to be put in a position to be told to sit in a fire truck) while a house and animals are burning just to prove a point is insane.   
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #110
shame on the owners for leaving their pets in the house. my pups would be the first to come with me if something happened to my house

No doubt.  I am not excusing the owners one bit from not assuring the safety of the pets.

But I also think that once it got out of control the fire should of been attended to by the ones who were capable of it.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 2062
Posted: #111
Quote Originally Posted by bsforsale:


beside half his house being burned down?


what if the firefighters insurance does not apply in houses outside the district in houses not paying the $75 fee? (im guessing this is the real reason why they didnt act) so basically if they get hurt or something happens to the equipment they are SOL.

i dont care who you are, you arent going to risk everything (disability, workers comp, life insurance) to put out some idiots fire.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 2062
Posted: #112
on a side note, how have there been 100+ posts on this topic and no one has thought of this ^^^^^ possibility? has no one purchased insurance before?
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #113
good point Steve.   I admit that I have not thought about this and it is a good thought. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #114

Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:


Not blaming them.  Never blamed them -- once again stop thinking so black and white.  Just saying that they were in a position to presumably make a difference.  Do you really not see this? 

And for the record I realize that the issue of not acting on the fire most likely goes well beyond the actual firemen.  Either way to sit in a fire truck (or to be put in a position to be told to sit in a fire truck) while a house and animals are burning just to prove a point is insane.   

Do you honestly not see the long term consequences of them doing this? If they put out this fire then everyone else assumes they don’t have to pay the service fee yet they will still receive coverage. Do you not see the implications that could have for the fire department as well as the people assuming they will have coverage despite the fact they did not pay for it?

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2005
Posts: 6840
Posted: #115
Of course I see the implications.  Which is why I have stated numerous times in this thread that they should of acted like the firemen they are and then went in after the fact and acted accordingly and threw the hammer down if that is what they thought was necessary. 

First address the critical situation at hand and then sharply deal with the consequences later (if that is what they decided to do). 

Once again -- to let the house and animals and everything else inside the house burn to ashes to prove a point is insane.  
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 2062
Posted: #116
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:

Of course I see the implications.  Which is why I have stated numerous times in this thread that they should of acted like the firemen they are and then went in after the fact and acted accordingly and threw the hammer down if that is what they thought was necessary. 

First address the critical situation at hand and then sharply deal with the consequences later (if that is what they decided to do). 

Once again -- to let the house and animals and everything else inside the house burn to ashes to prove a point is insane.  


i think most everyone, myself included, agrees with this general notion. however, we dont know the full story.  has this guy called the fire dept before without paying his $75? have the firefighters performed services for him before even though he hasnt paid?

all im saying is lets not rush to judgement without knowing all the facts.  you dont want to end up like this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LucTPdK8VTc
SFW
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 4864
Posted: #117
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:



what if the firefighters insurance does not apply in houses outside the district in houses not paying the $75 fee? (im guessing this is the real reason why they didnt act) so basically if they get hurt or something happens to the equipment they are SOL.

i dont care who you are, you arent going to risk everything (disability, workers comp, life insurance) to put out some idiots fire.

you know what, you convinced me, no more taxes, let's pay for everything individually. i will be spending lots more time paying the bills writing a couple hundred checks a month, but it's worth it because the govt is so terrible, i don't know how i've lived so long and enjoyed life so much under the oppression my elected officials, i think i'm going to skip my payment to the health department next month, i can deal with a couple hairs in my food and i don't feel like a need that "insurance".

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #118

Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:

Of course I see the implications.  Which is why I have stated numerous times in this thread that they should of acted like the firemen they are and then went in after the fact and acted accordingly and threw the hammer down if that is what they thought was necessary. 

First address the critical situation at hand and then sharply deal with the consequences later (if that is what they decided to do). 

Once again -- to let the house and animals and everything else inside the house burn to ashes to prove a point is insane.  

You see the short term implications. You fail to see the long term implications as well as the big picture.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 4864
Posted: #119
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:



i think most everyone, myself included, agrees with this general notion. however, we dont know the full story.  has this guy called the fire dept before without paying his $75? have the firefighters performed services for him before even though he hasnt paid?

all im saying is lets not rush to judgement without knowing all the facts.  you dont want to end up like this guy


nice! you make a ridiculous assumption without any facts that the guy calls the fire dept all the time, then the next sentence you say, "don't rush to judgement without knowing the facts"?  too fucking funny!m do as i say, not as i do?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2009
Posts: 3041
Posted: #120
Compassionate Conservatism Rocks  
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2004
Posts: 26633
Posted: #121
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:

on a side note, how have there been 100+ posts on this topic and no one has thought of this ^^^^^ possibility? has no one purchased insurance before?
That would be great if it were actually insurance, but it's not an insurance they are buying. It's a service fee. Totally different than insurance.
COVERS allows u to tell someone they are sexually frustrated so long as ur hands are clean
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 2062
Posted: #122
Quote Originally Posted by bsforsale:


nice! you make a ridiculous assumption without any facts that the guy calls the fire dept all the time, then the next sentence you say, "don't rush to judgement without knowing the facts"?  too fucking funny!m do as i say, not as i do?


learn how to read moron.  i was giving hypothetical situations that would have a dramatic effect on ppls perception of the incident if they were true.  maybe i shouldnt have used those question marks at the end of those sentences bc they seem to be completey useless to you (sarcasm-i dont want to take anymore chances with you)

im at a loss of words right now to be honest, i feel embarrassed that ppl can be that stupid
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 23227
Posted: #123

Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:

That would be great if it were actually insurance, but it's not an insurance they are buying. It's a service fee. Totally different than insurance.

He was talking about the firefighters' insurance.

See post #112

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 2062
Posted: #124
Quote Originally Posted by ABooksNightmare:

That would be great if it were actually insurance, but it's not an insurance they are buying. It's a service fee. Totally different than insurance.


you are completely missing the point

the FIREFIGHTERS HAVE INSURANCE that applies for assumedly only certain situations.  if a firefighter is in a house fire, acting outside of his professional capacity and gets hurt, his work supplied insurance assumedly isnt going to cover him.
 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 4864
Posted: #125
Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:



learn how to read moron.  i was giving hypothetical situations that would have a dramatic effect on ppls perception of the incident if they were true.  maybe i shouldnt have used those question marks at the end of those sentences bc they seem to be completey useless to you (sarcasm-i dont want to take anymore chances with you)

im at a loss of words right now to be honest, i feel embarrassed that ppl can be that stupid

aww steve? you call em hypotheticals? i call em assumptions? it's you're little way of infusing complete bullshit untruths that attempt to support your argument? i am the king of sarcasm? but? yours is so lame i couldn't tell? thanks? 
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.