firefighters won't put out house fire

trekkie · **Posted:** October 5th, 2010, 11:35 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20 ... e-ideological-debate

Just about anything can be fodder for an ideological dispute these days. Just consider news of the recent fire at Gene Cranick's home in Obion County, Tenn.

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.

Adbot · **Posted:** October 5th, 2010, 11:35 pm

King Kulla · **Posted:** October 6th, 2010, 12:27 am

Well, it is rather like insurance. If you don't pay your insurance, you don't get insured. Not saying I like model that for emergency services, but if you don't want to be screwed over when an accident happens, might as well pay up.

Another reason to nationalize emergency services.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** October 6th, 2010, 1:29 am

....Does tax not cover these things out there?

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

I think the idea is that the county they live in doesn't have a fire department and they have to pay for the nearby fire department of the city to cover them. You don't pay taxes to cities if you are outside the city limits, only to the county, state, and federal government. Although, it's not that much of a pain to pay $75 to the city, especially when that covers an entire year. But in all honesty, the firefighters should have responded and done something none the less. Sure they didn't pay the money, but they could demand payment later if they really wanted to. The problem with that is that no one outside the city would pay the $75 then if they didn't have to, but the fire department would still have to respond anyway.

In short, I understand the reason why the firemen didn't do anything, but it's a crap reason. It even says in the article the guy would pay to have it taken care of, yet they did nothing. I mean, sure with insurance, you can't just go back and pay money after something has happened and get insurance for that happening. But this...because the guy didn't pay $75, he probably lost thousands of dollars in value in his home. Wonder if he had insurance and if they will look favorably on him or not? Also, it is possible the city and/or fire department could get sued over this.

I mean, I could go on and on about how this type of thing applies to life, but I'll end with one last example cause I think it really drives the point home. In the military, you have orders and you follow them. Regardless of whether or not the orders are right or wrong (standing by and watching innocents die or being sent out to kill innocent civilians), as long as you follow orders, you yourself as a subordinate, can't really get in trouble. Yet, you can get in trouble for disobeying orders, even if you did the right thing or stopped the wrong thing from happening. The moral: doing what's best is still doing the wrong thing, but that's okay...WHAT?! See my point. I'm done beating the dead horse now. Oh wait, the horse is gone now...there's nothing left. xD

trekkie · **Posted:** October 6th, 2010, 8:32 am

well according to the guy duke. he did say that he paid, last year, and the year before that, but this year he just completely forgot.

don't know if it's all true, but that is what he said on the video

Earth · **Posted:** October 6th, 2010, 8:28 pm

Only in Tennessee... Living around people like this just delights me

Slightly related question:Has racist/sexism/ignorance/general ****** become more common in the last couple of years or am I just now realizing it?

Adbot · **Posted:** October 6th, 2010, 8:28 pm

dafin0 · **Posted:** October 7th, 2010, 5:16 am

trekkie wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate

Just about anything can be fodder for an ideological dispute these days. Just consider news of the recent fire at Gene Cranick's home in Obion County, Tenn.

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.

And whos the govenor of tennesee [-X

Any way to getta buck outta ya pocket. That's so unfair. The govenor should make friends with secretary "include fire protection in home and contents insurance".

Cheers, dafin0 :lol:

Warren · **Posted:** October 7th, 2010, 10:32 am

If they are even going to do this then why wouldn't there be an increased fee for those who didn't pay the $75 but need the fire service? Kind of silly that if you don't pay soon enough before a fire that your house is just going to burn down.
And what if there are people trapped inside? Surely the fire department would be responsible for the deaths of anyone if they refuse to dispatch or put out a fire. Unless in the US failure of actions aren't against the law and only actions are. But I am sure they would refuse to dispatch even if you said there were people inside that couldn't get out because what are they going to do if you lie about that? Sue you? But if they can even sue you for that why wouldn't they just make an increased fee for those who didn't pay $75..... much less hassle.

I wonder if renters can pay the fee or it has to be the landlord that does it. What if the landlord doesn't want to pay it and for whatever reason wont accept your money to pay it. Or is like "ok give me the money and I will pay it" but doesn't actually. Then the renter looses all their stuff.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** October 7th, 2010, 10:49 am

Seems to me it should be a tax country wide. Stupid paying it to a city. You must get a **** ton of cases like this all over surely from people outside of cities?

Whats better a bloke with his house, working, paying the bills and doing his part or a homeless guy? As far as i know in the UK council tax covers fire services and the police here.

What covers the police or has this poor sod got to pay out $75 cash in hand to a policeman or he'll stand by a let them rob his house? :lol:

Or does he just shoot him himself to save the money?

Very strange way to handle it.

ryan1 · **Posted:** October 9th, 2010, 6:28 am

Utterly ridiculous. This is what happens when you privatize everything. Some things are best left to the government. We don't want mafia-style protection. Just imagine if the police in your city were privately owned...

As for the firemen who sat there and watched as the house burned down, they should be ashamed of themselves. I don't care what your superior says. If they told you to murder small children, would you do it to keep your job? Not to mention this sounds like a small area (the whole county they live in doesn't even have a fire department?), so I'm guessing the firefighters were volunteers, not full-time paid people.

trekkie · **Posted:** October 9th, 2010, 9:25 am

to be honest. if you are paying for public service, you should get a tax break from it and get the money back. that is what is suppose to happen.

and also they could have prevented all of this years ago just by every tax season just take 75 bucks from the tax rebate.
but then you're suppose to get it back since you are paying for a public service. so either way, sooooo many ways to prevent this from happening in the first place

Kyle · **Posted:** October 22nd, 2010, 4:25 pm

As being Fire Science & Public Safety is my minor ill clear this up rather quickly. What this fire department did is completely immoral and illegal. There is a national law in the United States that any public servant, police, firefighters, emt's know about. It's called the "Duty to Act" law. It states that if your certified and trained and there is an emergency that you can help in and do not help you can and will be held accountable for it. For example, if im riding home from wherever and i witness a car accident by law i have to stop and help unless emergency responders are already on scene. I agree with the fee, my department charges a fee for homes outside of town limits. Regardless if you pay we have to respond. If i was this guy id recover the value of my house from the department.

trekkie · **Posted:** October 22nd, 2010, 5:39 pm

while you are in uniform yes you are required, but if you are off duty there is also the good Samaritan law.

you really do not have to help just because you are a public servant. if you see a crash, and you can see somebody may be hurt, but you have 3 kids on their way to school, you do not have to help. because if you do help, you have to wait until somebody of equal or higher rank than you relieves you. and then there may be the possibility of staying there for an hour for the police to come to write up a report.

Duke Juker · RSBandB Donor since 07/01/2010

trekkie wrote:

while you are in uniform yes you are required, but if you are off duty there is also the good Samaritan law.

you really do not have to help just because you are a public servant. if you see a crash, and you can see somebody may be hurt, but you have 3 kids on their way to school, you do not have to help. because if you do help, you have to wait until somebody of equal or higher rank than you relieves you. and then there may be the possibility of staying there for an hour for the police to come to write up a report.

Seems like a bad example. No matter what, I think I'd have to stop and help. School is minor in comparison to potentially saving a life, don't you think?

Anyways, I had never heard of this "Duty to Act" law. But in trying to do a little research, I cam across this article.Clicky

This case disproves your scenario trekkie. Even if you want to go get a bagel and eat, you are still obligated to help a person in need. I mean it seems rather harsh just to let someone potentially die because you need to get your kids to school or you want to eat a bagel.

Well, I couldn't find any specific mention of a "Duty to Act" law in legal writing anywhere, but if you could point me to what your are talking about, I'd like to learn more about this and talk from there.

trekkie · **Posted:** October 22nd, 2010, 9:28 pm

duke. be a parent and then reread what i wrote.

and about the article, it's not the same as my scenario.
2 fire marshals grabbing a bite is completely different than driving a small car, on the freeway, with 3 children.