Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground

matthewhotdude · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:10

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-a.html

What a backward place America is

G-MAN2004 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:15

Absolutely ridiculous.

JBuk · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:15

surely the neighbour will now sue the firebrigade for allowing the blaze to damage their house

platinum87 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:16

Firefighters are gangsters, thats what happens when you dont pay protection money.

PinkFloyd · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:17

What would happen if the firefighters now realised they had made a mistake and that hole $75 had actually been paid. lol

Burned_Alive · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:20

Seems fair enough to me really. I'm sure the Cranicks were absolutely aware of how the system worked when they decided not to pay the fee.

apeZ · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:21

A similar story was discussed in one of Michael Sandel's talks on YouTube, I'll see if I can dig it out.

The family made the choice not to pay the fire service to tackle the fire, so the fire service were not obliged to put it out.

Got it!

29.48 onwards.

Greenlizard0 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:21

Lol, I bet he wasn't insured either.

Jokester · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:22

Burned_Alive said:
Seems fair enough to me really. I'm sure the Cranicks were absolutely aware of how the system worked when they decided not to pay the fee.

Indeed, firefighters that aren't responsible for the area the guy lives offer people who live there cover if they pay a fee. Don't see what the big deal is.

cm1179 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:23

ouch. that'll teach them for being so tight.

Greenlizard0 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:23

Lol, I bet if the State stepped in and paid for it they'd moan it was too socialist.

Tefal · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:25

So do they get a tax discount that would normally pay for the fire service?

Greenlizard0 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:26

I think they're in quite a rural area.

Tefal · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:27

Greenlizard0 said:
I think they're in quite a rural area.

indeed but doesn't the fire service like the police get paid for through the normal taxation systems, so presumably they get a discount to compensate for not being covered.

[TW]Fox · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:28

It sounds totally reasonable. They live outside the fire departments area - the fire department do not receiving funding to cover that area so offer the chance of cover at a fee, instead.

This guy didnt pay. Imagine if everyone didnt pay, knowing that if they had a fire they could simply pay $75 and get it put out, rather than paying $75 a year?

Greenlizard0 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:30

It used to be a similar situation to here many many years ago. You'd put the details of who you paid for (often private fire departments) on the front of the house and hope they'd turn up I guess.

benhomer737 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:31

thats unreal!

Wicksta · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:34

[TW]Fox;17522309 said:
It sounds totally reasonable. They live outside the fire departments area - the fire department do not receiving funding to cover that area so offer the chance of cover at a fee, instead.

This guy didnt pay. Imagine if everyone didnt pay, knowing that if they had a fire they could simply pay $75 and get it put out, rather than paying $75 a year?

What they really need to do is make it a compulsary charge.

I find it a bit sickening they let the place burn down though, surely basic human morality should have kicked in here.

jp_bl_68 · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:35

Serves them right for being so tight.

mmj_uk · 6 Oct 2010 at 18:35

Employ a few arsonists and that's a pretty good racket they've got going.