Kiwi Bills fan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 News story I just saw this story on the news here in New Zealand. I'm so shocked I don't even know what to write. Is something like this common back there now? WTF? I'll tell you one thing... if my house was on fire and these mother f'ers showed up just to watch it burn... I'd be sent to prison for murder. Unbelievable. I was so PO'd that I phoned them up and told them exactly what they can do with themselves. (I probably just put myself on the "do not fly list") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Dumbest.Policy.Ever. I wonder if some of the people in the Bills front office are related to this idiot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) Honestly, I don't see the problem. Edited October 5, 2010 by Faustus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) See this is the thing. It sounds like the fire started away from the house at no negligence by the homeowner that lost their house! I see the FD losing this one in court. "The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house." Again, sounds like the fire started AWAY from the house, which I think the FD is liable for fee or no fee paid. The courts will decide this one. Now if the fire started at the residence, I can possibly see the FD getting of the hook... Even know IMO opinion it is morally and ethically wrong. What if life was an issue? Could the FD be charged with good samaritan laws that may be on the books? Honestly, I don't see the problem. Really? To a certain extent, I can see your point... But that quickly disolves in what I said above. The problem is even more compounded in that they came and watched. If you want your point to hold, they should have never come at all. Edited October 5, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Really? To a certain extent, I can see your point... But that quickly disolves in what I said above. The problem is even more compounded in that they came and watched. If you want your point to hold, they should have never come at all. I think there's a lot of jumps to get to the conclusion you came to. And the fact that they came only proves they were doing their job. There was a fire that could spread to the houses that paid for their services. They were there to make sure they could stop that from happening. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick. This is what I need to know. He thought he'd save his money and get the service anyway. I can hear him now, "Hell, I"m not paying that crap. What are they gonna do, let my house burn??" Hope for his sake he didn't have the same attitude on his home insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) The fire started in a field and spread to the house... Sorry, the FD is liable for this one fee or no fee. They have to contain the field fire and protect everything else even without a fee. See what I am getting at? Again... I can see the FD playing hardball if the fire started at the residence. It did not, the fire was at no act or negligence by the homeowner... The field fire was the responsibility of the FD and they let it get out of control. This of course means they purposely let the house burn. The FD in this situation is no more than an arsonist. I wonder what the sleazy insurance company will do? This is what I need to know. He thought he'd save his money and get the service anyway. I can hear him now, "Hell, I"m not paying that crap. What are they gonna do, let my house burn??" No. The family's logic is correct. The FIELD fire spreading to the house was the FD responsibility fee or NO fee. They had a fire to fight... IE: the field fire and they purposely let it spread to the house. To me that is an act of arson. The FD committed an act of arson. The FD is gonna lose big time on this one unless they can prove they had a heck of time putting out the field fire and the other house fire (which I recall was reported)... Which looks like they did not. If I was the family lawyer, I would try and get a charge of arson against the FD. Where is HogBoy when you need them!! Edited October 5, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The fire started in a field and spread to the house... Sorry, the FD is liable for this one fee or no fee. They have to contain the field fire and protect everything else even without a fee. See what I am getting at? Maybe you're reading an article that I'm not reading. There's nothing that said this was a fire that started in in a field off property. It said he wanted them to stop the fire before it spread to their house, and given how the article reads I'm assuming the fire still started on their property. When the fire hit the field on the neighboring property (whose owners paid the FD for thier services), they put it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) Maybe you're reading an article that I'm not reading. There's nothing that said this was a fire that started in in a field off property. It said he wanted them to stop the fire before it spread to their house, and given how the article reads I'm assuming the fire still started on their property. When the fire hit the field on the neighboring property (whose owners paid the FD for thier services), they put it out. I am not. I noticed the "field thing" on the news blurb video in the link. Yes, I just assume it was off property... If not, the FD has slighter leg to stand on. Now what if the risk of life was an issue and the 911 call? They are still ignoring plea for help, fee or no fee they are still bound ethically like doctors... Did they have paramedics on duty? Should they answer the call just in case life is a threat? The family's logic is 100% correct. As much as the FD wants to be dicks (and did act like a dick)... They will not have a leg to stand on legally in this case, IMO. There was a plea for help (911 call) and they ignored it. This is a tort issue. With what I am going to say below, yes I know I am extending this to property damage. The FD didn't even make an attempt to question if life was a factor. Duty to Rescue "...This does not necessarily obviate a moral duty to rescue: though law is binding and carries government-authorized sanctions, there are also separate ethical arguments for a duty to rescue that may prevail even where law does not punish failure to rescue..." Clearly the FD violated human decency by not responding... Even know the guy did not pay and was between a rock and hard place with the FD for not paying. "...Legal requirements for a duty to rescue do not pertain in all nations, states, or localities. However, a moral or ethical duty to rescue may exist even where there is no legal duty to rescue. There are a number of potential justifications for such a duty. One sort of justification is general and applies regardless of role-related relationships (doctor to patient; firefighter to citizen, etc.). Under this general justification, persons have a duty to rescue other persons in distress by virtue of their common humanity, regardless of the specific skills of the rescuer or the nature of the victim's distress..." Now, would the FD have helped if there was a person in trouble? Given this case... I don't hold my breath they would have. That IMO will damn them because of how they responded. Edited October 5, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 [/b][/color]Now, would the FD have helped if there was a person in trouble? Given this case... I don't hold my breath they would have. That IMO will damn them because of how they responded. Again, your jumping to way too many conclusions, including the one you pointed out of extending your link to property (just because you pointed it out doesn't all of sudden make it good logic). People are used to FD services being paid for by taxes, that isn't the case here. Obviously this fire department isn't required to fight fires everywhere in a certain area. If you have a problem with the way the town works, take it up with them. They decide that there is a seperate fee to pay for fire services, so either pay them or move. These people are expecting the FD to put their lives in danger to save their person or property and are offering nothing in return. I say they got exactly what they asked for, now they need to live it with it. Next time maybe they won't be so foolish to NOT PAY for emergency services. BTW, based on the article, the FD has nothing to worry about as far as legal action goes. This is a city/town issue. The FD followed the rules set out before them. If legal action is taken, it will have to be against City Hall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 If I don't pay for garbage pickup, should the garbage men take my trash anyways since they're going right by my house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) Again, your jumping to way too many conclusions, including the one you pointed out of extending your link to property (just because you pointed it out doesn't all of sudden make it good logic). People are used to FD services being paid for by taxes, that isn't the case here. Obviously this fire department isn't required to fight fires everywhere in a certain area. If you have a problem with the way the town works, take it up with them. They decide that there is a seperate fee to pay for fire services, so either pay them or move. These people are expecting the FD to put their lives in danger to save their person or property and are offering nothing in return. I say they got exactly what they asked for, now they need to live it with it. Next time maybe they won't be so foolish to NOT PAY for emergency services. BTW, based on the article, the FD has nothing to worry about as far as legal action goes. This is a city/town issue. The FD followed the rules set out before them. If legal action is taken, it will have to be against City Hall. They offered to pay the money... But that is another matter. The FD wanted to be dicks and teach these "people a lesson." IMO, that is not being decent. Whatever happened to cheerdul service even if the person or department feels they are "being played?" I am just arguing the point of decency. Obviously, this FD and City Hall did not have any decency... Either did the workers who would not risk their own job and take matters into their own hands by leading. That's what is all about. Helping people in need. Leading. A sense of honor. You may be right. Again, I am looking at it from a decency issue. Given the situation myself, I can't say I would call 911 and ask for help. The problem is they attempted to fight the fire before it spread to the house and were over-matched. That was a poor choice they made (not paying). Nobody "gets exactly what they asked for in this situation." That is just cold. We really are losing our ideals and way when it comes to unselfish service to others. This FD should have taken this opportunity to crystallize the habit of helpfulness. It should be everyone's life purpose of leadership in cheerful service to others no matter how much people are paid. The truly sad part is, this FD and City Hall lost so much more than the 75 bucks they would have gained if the family "did it right" in the first place. They have lost their way. The FD and City Hall lost their way as leaders in the community. This is what we are supposed to teach our youth? What this FD and City Hall did. We are really in trouble folks... If I don't pay for garbage pickup, should the garbage men take my trash anyways since they're going right by my house? No. Yet, if it became a health hazard after a few weeks... Yes. Then send them the bill. Edited October 5, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 This is what we are supposed to teach our youth? What this FD and City Hall did. We are really in trouble folks... Of course not. We're supposed to teach our youth they don't have to do the right thing, but should expect everyone around them to do so when they need to be bailed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Of course not. We're supposed to teach our youth they don't have to do the right thing, but should expect everyone around them to do so when they need to be bailed out. You haven't answered the question about what ever happened to cheerful service to others no matter how daunting the task is or irksome. Yes, I would classify this family as not paying the town: irksome. Wow, I guess you live in a perfect world Faustus. I guess there is no more to say with regard to this argument than: "Good Morning." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) Here is what somebody said about this and I agree: "If one chooses to not pay the subscription fee, they're on their own. *BUT* should the need arise, they can call the FD and the FD should put the fire out as best they can. As a moral and professional responsibility. Then they should place a lien on the property for the full cost of putting the fire out." Anyway... I looked into it... I didn't know it was the owner's fault for burning trash that got out of hand. Yet, my argument is still the same with regard to the FD having a moral and professional responsibility if the need arises. Afterall, an out of hand fire is a public safety issue. Also: I guess at a later time, somebody (other than the families innvolved) went to the fire station, walked up to the fire chief and cold cocked him. Edited October 5, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) These people were trying to get by with the "itll never happen to me attitude" which can do just as much, if not more damage to society then the firefighters lack of service with a smile in this situation. If they do bail out these people then how many other people will leach off the system the following year? Also, the common decency of helping someone across the road, shoveling a neighbors driveway, and running into a burning building are hardly comparable (i know they werent in this thread, but i think expecting some friendly help, and risking ones life are in two very different categories). I also imagine there are numerous issues with insurance, liability etc... What if one of the FD was injured? Or the person claimed that the water caused damages to the house? It is a sad state that things like that have to be asked, but you wont see me argue that someone that declined to pay for emergency fire services, and then was burning trash on their yard, is somehow wronged when the fire department doesnt bail them out. Unfortunately this was a lesson learned the hardest of ways, they should be thankful that no one was hurt by their bad choices. Edited October 5, 2010 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 It's like those who go without health insurance and then cry when something happens and they're stuck with huge bills. You took the risk, you live with the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 This is what I need to know. He thought he'd save his money and get the service anyway. I can hear him now, "Hell, I"m not paying that crap. What are they gonna do, let my house burn??" It's a little cold hearted, but if this is how the local fire department is funded in that community, what excuse would someone have for not paying the $75? It's called insurance and this guy stupidly elected not to purchase any. If they put out his fire anyway, who would bother to pay up next year? Now people know they are serious -- I bet they get 99% participation next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Looks like one of the homeowner's relatives wasn't too happy about the situation - went to the fire house, found the chief and punched him out: Tempers Flare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Bills fan Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 I honestly can't believe some of you are supporting this policy. American's are not only losing compassion when it comes to their worldview but now towards their own neighbours. Trust me... I'm not the only one to say this. The almighty dollars rules everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I honestly can't believe some of you are supporting this policy. American's are not only losing compassion when it comes to their worldview but now towards their own neighbours. Trust me... I'm not the only one to say this. The almighty dollars rules everything. Oh, the irony! For a measly $75, Cranick would still have a house today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts