Firefighters watch as house burns to the ground

sanaxe1 · 7 Oct 2010 at 14:00

matt_fsr said:
Yeah, and good luck to the fire brigade ever actually seeing that money. It'd end up being paid back at $2 a week, so he'd probably end up dead long before the fire brigade get their $3000.

End result? Net loss for the fire brigage. Well done to them for sticking to their principles/policies. At the end of the day, occasionally, examples just HAVE to be made.

Americans are on the whole massively against state interference in their business, hence this strange state of affairs. Fair enough, the guy maybe got 10 years without paying his fire insurance, maybe longer! In the end, he paid the price. Silly man.

If these people would let somebody's house burn down for the sake of $75/year do you not think that they would be on this person like a rash for the money and a much larger amount will be required to pay back per week before they call in the bailiffs.

SexyGreyFox · 7 Oct 2010 at 17:34

AND even though they would have already known the owner hadn't paid his money they still drove miles just in case there was a life in danger.

[TW]Fox · 7 Oct 2010 at 17:35

Lucero said:
I can only hope therefore, that the $75 pays the firemans wages and that they are not funded through any other means???

They are funded through taxation as well - but taxation the home owner does NOT pay because he does NOT live in the fire brigades city!

I'd love to know what they would have done if someone was inside...

Rescued them, obviously.

CaptainRAVE · 7 Oct 2010 at 17:47

[TW]Fox;17529021 said:
Rescued them, obviously.

Obviously? I would have thought putting out the fire would have been "obvious" to most :rolleyes:

WobblerJW · 7 Oct 2010 at 17:47

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

What a backward place America is

that's America for you
:< but it is a little outta order going to the house and watching it burn

[TW]Fox · 7 Oct 2010 at 17:51

CaptainRAVE said:
Obviously? I would have thought putting out the fire would have been "obvious" to most

Well no, because there is no risk to life, its only property damage!

SexyGreyFox · 7 Oct 2010 at 18:00

[TW]Fox;17529156 said:
Well no, because there is no risk to life, its only property damage!

And it is likely they have insurance (or not).

GreatAuk · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:23

Well as long as this chap had been informed that he needed to pay $75 a year, but decided not to, then I see no problem in the whole community enjoying a good old house fire. Makes me glad I live over here though, where there's always someone to save me/my property for free*.

*OK, not really free then, but built in so that everyone gets the service.

Phoenixdancer · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:32

[TW]Fox;17529156 said:
Well no, because there is no risk to life, its only property damage!

His life is ruined.. Maybe he will commit suicide now?? They would have effectively ended his life.

[TW]Fox · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:32

Phoenixdancer said:
They would have effectively ended his life.

Errr no, not quite.

Vonhelmet · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:33

Phoenixdancer said:
His life is ruined.. Maybe he will commit suicide now?? They would have effectively ended his life.

If you follow that line of argument, it would be him that ended his own life when he refused to pay $75 that he knew he had to pay to be covered for this sort of thing.

FNGsam · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:36

vonhelmet said:
If you follow that line of argument, it would be him that ended his own life when he refused to pay $75 that he knew he had to pay to be covered for this sort of thing.

Or is it the person who invented currency/trade for goods, which made people have to pay the $75 for the service who ended his life?

Vonhelmet · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:39

FNGsam said:
Or is it the person who invented currency/trade for goods, which made people have to pay the $75 for the service who ended his life?

Negligence, but for test, etc.

SexyGreyFox · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:45

FNGsam said:
Or is it the person who invented currency/trade for goods, which made people have to pay the $75 for the service who ended his life?

I blame the people who invented the fire brigade because before that your property just burnt down.

Rich_L · 7 Oct 2010 at 19:45

Looks like a simple case of putting business (lack of) ethics or morality before common human decency.

I fail to see why they could not have simply acted, and then billed the family afterwards, if not the annual fee then for their costs as a 'non-covered member'.

SexyGreyFox · 7 Oct 2010 at 20:01

Rich_L said:
Looks like a simple case of putting business (lack of) ethics or morality before common human decency.

I fail to see why they could not have simply acted, and then billed the family afterwards, if not the annual fee then for their costs as a 'non-covered member'.

Actually you have a point.
They should have a $75 up front fee or $3000 if you haven't paid and then let the irresponsible homeowner make the choice.

Moley · 7 Oct 2010 at 21:04

I'm sorry but if I was one of those firemen I couldn't just stand idly by and see some poor bloke lose his home over a few dollars, I would have put the fire out no matter what. Then again I'm probably a much more decent person than the average Yankee by the sounds of things.
:mad:

e36Adz · 7 Oct 2010 at 21:46

Moley said:
I'm sorry but if I was one of those firemen I couldn't just stand idly by and see some poor bloke lose his home over a few dollars, I would have put the fire out no matter what. Then again I'm probably a much more decent person than the average Yankee by the sounds of things.

More of a decent person then most on here aswel it seems.

You have to be seriously twisted to think 'well he didn't pay his $75 dollars, let his house burn down'. Fine the guy a few hundred/thousand dollars or anything but how anyone could just stand back doing nothing when they actually have to tools to help, I really don't know.

Vonhelmet · 7 Oct 2010 at 21:54

e36Adz said:
More of a decent person then most on here aswel it seems.

You have to be seriously twisted to think 'well he didn't pay his $75 dollars, let his house burn down'. Fine the guy a few hundred/thousand dollars or anything but how anyone could just stand back doing nothing when they actually have to tools to help, I really don't know.

They're probably not licensed to give fines...

Should insurers pay out if you haven't paid their premiums?

Lopéz · 7 Oct 2010 at 22:00

Not convinced I could have stood back and done nothing in their situation regardless of what the back story was. I don't think I'd like to live in a world where nobody did anything to benefit another person unless some form of recompense was involved.