Firefighting Fee

[jokersarewild]

Lets see....there was no legal contract that the individual had with either the city or county to extinguish the fire. Now if they had agreed to put out a fire for a designated fee at the time of the fire the man would have no obligation to pay it. Contracts initiated under duress are invalid. He was a freeloader. No house. Cry me a river. He should have been responsible.

 

You know hugo, most of the time you are a hardazz but you still seem fairly smart most of the time if just a little misguided, but then sometimes you say something like this and I wonder if all that copy/pasting you do with other people's words is why you seem smarter than this drivel shows.

 

 

Emergency situations were time is an element of the decision process is given complete legal status for verbal contracts. Even people who are unconsious and flown to a hospital to save their life are held accountable for the bill to fly them because it is assumed any reasonable person would agree to the flight for those emergency reasons. There is not one Judge in America who would not enforce an emergency contract in this situation.

 

Other ways the fire department can help to cover their behinds is to send a information letter to the area homes and put it in the paper describing exactly how their policy and fees are set up and letting everyone know ahead of time. This kind of informed decision is how the fire fighters are now using to give them an excuse as to why they just stood there and watched the home burn.

 

 

 

 

The rise of Hitler started with a fire being put out for free.

 

Well it is a good thing that nobody here is wanting anything done for free then right?

 

There is no legal ground for the owner to refute the charges at a later date and the Government just leans the land and is paid before anyone can ever live on the property again so they will be paid for services rendered and the Government does not have to put firefighters in the possition of being uncaring buracrats who would just sit there and watch a family home burn to the ground just because their name is not on a list.

 

So we spend even MORE money going through a bureaucratic process to put a lien on this guy's land? So now not only have his irresponsible actions been no burden on him, the people in that city now have to help support his inability to follow the law.

 

Also, the "sending out the pamphlet" thing would have some relevance if he hadn't PAID IN PREVIOUS YEARS. He knew it was a necessity. It slipped his mind. He doesn't have a house. Now he needs to take responsibility. He wanted something for nothing, and he got nothing for nothing.

 

Another thing to consider is what if the people did pay their fee but some lazy Government worker who took the fee forgot to put their name on this list? What kind of liability does the City now put itself in because of a mistake made by one person? The logical and reasonable action is to put out fires, that is what fire fighters are supposed to do. Let the buracrats be the buracts.

 

That's what receipts are for.

[Old Salt]

That's what receipts are for.

The receipt was in the house when it burned to the ground. :geek:

[timesjoke]

The point is nothing was set up in advance covering this situation unlike your example when standard ambulance fees are already in place. When the firefighters got there there is no way they could have entered into a legally binding agreement with the mobile home owner.

 

Bullsh!t hugo, the person is dying and unconsious, there was no informed decision or authorization, there is an assumption by the courts that because this is the only option to save their life it is "assumed" they would agree to it and people are forced by the courts to pay those fees all the time. Sure, the city putting out a notice of the fee both ways would go a long way to proving peopel were informed of the higher charge to pay "as needed" but under the law, emergency services have always enjoyed the protection of knowing they are there to help society.

 

 

 

You are walking in the mall holding a pint of orange juice, suddenly a diabetic starts having seizures because of low blood sugar. You tell him "For 10K ya can have my orange juice , just sign this contract." The contract is voidable.

 

If you value your family, pets and property you should do the responsible thing and pay the $75.

Once again you show that maybe you are not as bright as I have been giving you credit for all this time.

 

These things go before a judge, a judge will look at the guy trying to scam $10,000 out of the people and toss him out on his ear, while the same judge will look at the fire department acting in good faith as a community service and they being the only option available to respond to this kind of emergency and there is no way that judge will toss that out.

 

Emergency services have long held the right to charge for services, consider that people have been charged for mountain rescues and fires that got out of a back yard and spread costing a lot of time and money to fight the fire so the person who lost control of their fire gets charged.

 

 

 

So your belief that the peopel would get something for "free" is dead wrong hugo.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps. Still doesn't change the fact that the firefighters did their jobs. They followed the law.

 

Say it with me....F I R E F I G H T E R.....not buracrat. As a child many kids will see firefighters as their heros because they put their life on the line to help people. Now we want them to be nothing more than a money grubbing greedy group of people? Democrats spend most of their time screaming about how evil companies and business people are because they are only motivated by "GREED", but it is okay if our Government is only motivated by greed? When does human life and safety attain a greater value than a $75 fee?

 

 

 

 

 

So we spend even MORE money going through a bureaucratic process to put a lien on this guy's land?

 

Um....you ever actually file a lien? It takes 5 minutes to file a lien, the Government workers who process these things are already sitting there, it would only cost the Government the price of the paper to make it official.

 

 

 

So now not only have his irresponsible actions been no burden on him, the people in that city now have to help support his inability to follow the law.

 

Now you are pulling a hugo, nobody said anything about not charging the homeowner, he should be charged a higher fee because he failed to pay the fee in the proper time. The Government has been doing this for years for things like paying your taxes and such. Stop trying to lean on the crutch that the guy will get anything for free because that is not the case.

 

 

Also, the "sending out the pamphlet" thing would have some relevance if he hadn't PAID IN PREVIOUS YEARS. He knew it was a necessity. It slipped his mind. He doesn't have a house. Now he needs to take responsibility. He wanted something for nothing, and he got nothing for nothing.

 

Humans are not robots, we don't do everything perfect. Yes, he should pay a price for not paying, but as with all mistakes in life, the punishment should fit the mistake. We don't execute people for speeding because that would be considered too harsh.

 

All I am trying to say is it seems a tad harsh to just sit there and watch his home burn down just to punish him for not paying his $75. If the fire fighters are there anyway, why not make some extra money in the process for the City? The homeowner has to pay a huge fee as punishment, the fire is put out ensuring the safety of even the whole community, the firefighters get to keep their image of being motivated to help people instead of just being motivated by greed........everyone wins.

 

 

That's what receipts are for.

 

When your home is on fire, every second counts. If a buractatic mistake had the family not on the list but they did pay, their home burns down anyway even if they paid. As OS said, the receipt is in the burning house, and taking the time to get it, and bring it down to the fire station would not be very productive now would it?

[hugo]

Turns out Cranick "forgot" to pay last year also.

 

I must admit if I had been a firefighter I would have sprung to action the minute he said three dogs were in the house. I would have let the cat burn.

 

This guy is right on.

 

Gene Cranick – you made your choice now deal with it

Special note for all you libtards coming here – Mr. Cranick didn’t FORGET to pay his fee, he REFUSED to pay his fee. Get your facts straight!

 

Now…

 

You might be saying ‘who the hell is Gene Cranick?’

 

Well this local story for me has become a national debate of sorts and I have suffered through liberal blog, after liberal blog reading what the idiots on the left are failing to report as they seems to believe everything in life is free, well it’s not! Someone has to pay.

 

Choice have consequences…

 

 

 

The libtards say Cranick FORGOT to pay his fee – not true what Cranick said first was…

 

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground

 

Mr Cranick said: “I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong.”

 

Yes you were wrong moocher … here is the deal the the libtards don’t seem understand – and might I add it caused a headache trying to understand their logic or the lack there of. In the rural country in most areas are volunteer fire departments and if those areas don’t have a volunteer fire department they contract with the city for fire protection for those in the county you have have to pay a fee for protection because that is how the fire department pays for trucks, suits, helmets, hoses, diesel, maintenance, the fire station, electricity and insurance. If no one pays the fee how are they going to pay for all those cost? The people in the city pay a tax, the people in the county pay a fee known as “pay to spray” as the city fire departments are full time tax funded and the fire departments in the county are member fee based volunteers.

 

Not a difficult concept to understand – both have operating cost and mechanisms in place to cover those cost – one is taxes (the urban city) the other is subscriber fees (the rural county).

 

Of course libtards disagree.

 

Notice the libtard disagreeing with me cannot cite one example where a contract to put out a fire at the time of the fire was held as valid. Cranick was a moocher. Equivalent to an illegal alien crossing the border for healthcare. He should be shot.

[hugo]

Another non-libtard opinion.

 

 

The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.

 

And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.

[hugo]

What kind of sorry butt hole does not let his pets out when his house catches fire? I guess he "forgot" they were in the house. When my house caught fire I made damn sure my dog got out. After getting the dog out I figured I better check on the wife.

[hugo]

Glenn Beck==warning he is not a libtard

 

Glenn Beck: Fireman let house burn over $75

Audio Available:

 

October 5, 2010 - 14:52 ET

 

 

Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

 

GLENN: Homeowner Gene Cranick said he offered to pay whatever it would take for fire fighters to put out the flames, but he was told it was too late. They couldn't do anything to stop his house from burning. A county in Tennessee every year says you have to pay $75 if you want fire protection from the city of south fall ton. The Cranicks didn't play didn't pay. The mayor said if the homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck. This is what was on television the night after.

 

VOICE: A house goes up in flames and fire fighters don't respond, despite the homeowner's plea for help.

 

VOICE: I didn't pay my $75 and that's what they want, $75 and they don't care how much they burn down.

 

VOICE: Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department first won't respond, then watches it burn.

 

VOICE: That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight. A local neighborhood is furious after fire fighters watch as an Obion County Tennessee home burned to the ground. The homeowner said he offered to pay whatever it would take for fire fighters to put out the flames but was told it was too late and they wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the City of South Fulton. This family did not pay and the mayor says if they don't pay, they're out of luck.

 

Local 6's Jason Heads joins us now with our top story tonight. Jason, we've talked about this issue before. Homes on fire but the family didn't pay the $75 fee. So, the fire department doesn't respond. What finally got those fire fighters to leave the station?

 

VOICE: Well, Jennifer, this fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property that the fire department would respond. It turns out the neighbor had paid the fee.

 

GLENN: Okay.

 

VOICE: I thought they would come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75.

 

PAT: Well, you're wrong.

 

GLENN: You're wrong.

 

 

Vote and Comment: Is Burning Home Sign of ‘Tea Party’ America?

 

PAT: Even if you pay your 75, I thought they would go ahead and put it out.

 

Glenn: Here's the thing. This is

 

PAT: And then put it out. I thought they would, but they didn't put it out.

 

GLENN: Okay. All right.

 

PAT: I wanted them to put it out, but I didn't pay $75 and they wouldn't put it out.

 

GLENN: Thank you. Here's the thing. Those who are just on raw feeling are not going to understand. It's $75 at the at the beginning of the year. You pay it and they put your house out. If you don't pay it, they don't put your house out.

 

PAT: Yeah, but I thought they were going to put the house out even though I didn't pay.

 

GLENN: Okay. If they did that, would anyone pay their $75?

 

PAT: Well, you would they would think that they were going to put it out, anyway, and when they don't come and put it out and watch your house burning to the ground, that ain't right.

 

GLENN: If they did if they did put the fire out and make an exception for your house and you didn't pay

 

PAT: Then others get bigger house put out, too. That's what the fire department does, put out fires.

 

GLENN: Right. They don't have the money to put the fires out. They can't keep the fire department

 

PAT: What's the fire department for if you don't put out fires?

 

GLENN: You won't have one because you can't afford it.

 

PAT: I thought they put out my fire even though I didn't pay the $75.

 

GLENN: See, this is the kind of argument that America will have.

 

PAT: It is.

 

GLENN: And it goes nowhere if you go on to well, compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion or, well, they should have put it out. What is the fire department for? No. What is the $75 for? To keep the firemen available, to keep the fire trucks running, to pay for the fire department to have people employed to put the fire out. If you don't pay your $75, then that hurts the fire department. They can't use those resources and you would be sponging off of your neighbor's $75 if you they put out your neighbor's house and you didn't pay for it I mean in your neighbor didn't pay for it, you did, and they put out their house, your neighbor is sponging off of your $75 inches and as soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the 75 bucks, no one

 

GLENN: No one

 

PAT: will pay $275.

 

GLENN: Why would you pay the $75? You don't have to. They're going to put it out, anyway.

 

PAT: Yeah. End to the program.

 

GLENN: This is important for America to have this debate because, A, this is the kind of stuff that is going to happen. We are going to start to have to have these kinds of things.

 

Now, if you think that's insane, this is Obamacare. Obama has just changed the system. Now, ask yourself, have this debate with your friends: What happens if they put this fire out?

 

PAT: Well, they would have saved the house.

 

GLENN: Talk to me about the next time that you have to write a check for $75. When you have to write the check for the next and your neighbor's house was put out, even though they didn't pay the $75, are you going to pay the $75, especially when that $75 you can use for something else? Are you going to pay the $57? The answer, if you want to answer honestly, will be know? You will find, especially in tough times, something else to do with that $75.

 

Well, now, after you've answered that question about this fire insurance, let me ask you the same question about your health insurance. If you can get away with not paying for your health insurance because it's too expensive and why should you pay for it and, really, if I get sick, they'll only fine me a thousand dollars and they have to treat me, anyway, and I can just call up an insurance company if I've gotten if I have cancer and I say, Hey, I need to sign up for insurance. Well, do you have any preexisting conditions? Yes. Cancer. And they have no choice but to cover you, that's like calling 9 1 1. Well, did you pay your $75? No, but I'm going to when you get here.

 

PAT: Apparently they offered. Apparently they offered to pay it.

 

GLENN: Sure. Of course they did. That is the idea of insurance. You'll pay whatever when it happens. Well, no. Pay $75 and by paying that $75, it spreads the total out for everybody. Not everybody's house is not going to burn down and if it does, well, the fire department's not going to be able to put them all out.

 

STU: An important point here is that previous to the $75 policy, there was no fire coverage at all for these areas. It was a rural area and they didn't go out there for any reason, for any fire at any time. They implemented the $75 fee to give some access to fire services for these people. Before that both houses burned to the ground, both of them, and now only one of them did. So, I mean, it's a tough decision. I understand that you're there and everything else and it's a there's got to be

 

GLENN: There's no choice. If you put the fire out, no one will pay and then you are bankrupt and there's to pay for any fire insurance

 

STU: And after this everybody is paying the $75.

 

PAT: Everybody

 

STU: Everyone.

 

GLENN: They know.

 

PAT: This is the same argument that we have almost every day. It's social justice or equal justice. Equal justice is you didn't pay your 75 bucks, the house burns to the ground; because your neighbor did pay the 75 bucks, we're going to watch over their house. Social justice is, Well, your house is on fire, we're here, anyway. We're going to put it out.

 

GLENN: And equal justice, then requires you as somebody in the community or church or somebody else that now says we're going to help them rebuild the house, we're going to help them out, we're going to make sure they have a place to stay and a place to eat.

 

PAT: Yeah.

 

GLENN: Social justice takes it and forces the community to do it, but real justice, real justice and real hope, real faith, real charity could have also said these guys could have come and said we know our responsibility for our house and it's $75 of the you go to the church and say, I don't have $75. Can I do anything? I'll work for the whole year on something for $75, but I want to be responsible. Can you help me pay the $75? And I know at least my church would give you they would write the check for you and then you would have to serve and you would work out of that $75. You would work at a soup kitchen or you would work at the pantry or something, that you would earn that money if it was really, truly necessary, you would person the money and they would help you do it and if your church isn't doing that, you need to talk to your church and say, Why aren't we helping each other? We've got to do these things. That's what it's about. But social justice will condemn this fire department. They will say they should have fought it. Social justice will now take it from other people and destroy the system. They will push it up to a government responsibility instead of the individual's responsibility, not just the people in the house but the neighbors and the community and the friends. That's just the way it is. $75 is a lot of money to some people, a lot of money, but if it is the house burning down, I think $75 is a reasonable amount of money to ask and say, I need help, can somebody help me with the $75? And if you if you're willing to work for it, yes, yes, $75? You can't tell your neighbors, your friends, you have no neighbors or friends that you can say, Hey, I'll do that. And can I mow your lawn for $10 this week? Can I mow your lawn for the next seven and a half weeks for $10 a week?

 

STU: You could probably work for the fire department to work out of $75. I mean go to them. They probably have something you could do for a weekend that would make you $75.

 

GLENN: You can work one shift at McDonald's that everybody likes to make fun of. Now, here is the caveat. If there is someone in the house, the fire fighters have a moral responsibility to go in and save people

 

STU: Yeah. You have to.

 

GLENN: But not stuff. As long as there's nobody in the house

 

PAT: What about a dog, cat, pets?

 

STU: Yeah. I say "yes," you've got to save the dogs.

 

GLENN: I say yes. It kills me, but I have

 

PAT: You've got to say "yes" on the dog.

 

GLENN: Unless it's putting the firemen in danger. I'm not going to put the house out, but I will back up the truck, let's get the dog. Let's make sure the dog is okay, unless it puts the firemen in danger. You don't risk lives for a cat or a dog a firemen.

 

PAT: No.

 

GLENN: I mean, I hate to say that because I love my dogs

 

STU: Oh, yeah. Human life is obviously the pentacle here. It's interesting, though. It's not cut and dry as most of these things are. You're sitting there. You have the opportunity. I mean, I would think as a policy, obviously it's, you know look. You didn't pay your money, but as you're standing there with the hose in your hands and all you've got to do is flip, you've got to think the fire fighters were very conflicted over that, standing right there.

 

GLENN: They have to. And fire fighters are heroes, man. They love to do this. They live for that. So, it's not the fire fighters.

 

 

In 2002 the residents of Obion County voted down a measure that would have paid for fire protection out of tax revenues.

 

It looks like the libtards have something against democracy.

 

It appears Cranick has "forgot" to pay for many years.

 

The good news, for the libtards, is that Obama is going to make sure all Americans have access to fore protection.

[jokersarewild]

That's what receipts are for.

The receipt was in the house when it burned to the ground. :geek:

 

Well, if it were something like that, I'd have like 5 copies made. Keep the original in a fireproof metal box. That way if anything happened, I could go "OH HELL NO" and sue them so far up their ass I could see their spleen.

 

And those copies? See if a friend will hold one, family, etc. Do the same for them. That way you all can verify.

 

And yes, if they screwed that up, you'd probably lose your house. But at least you could get some money to build another one, and weren't out on the street. It would be a load of bull if such a thing happened, yes. But sh t does.

[jokersarewild]

To piggyback off of Hugo's posts:

 

So basically, the guy wanted something for nothing. He didn't pay for the protection he knew he had to in order to make sure his house didn't burn down. And now he's paying the price. It really is as simple as that.

 

Times, I understand your feelings here, and you're being compassionate, but compassion in cases where people have flaked on individual responsibility leads to a Welfare State, and people getting things for free from OUR tax dollars.

 

If he hadn't paid, then nobody would pay, as they would see no reason to. Then the FD loses the money it has to fight fires out in the boondocks, and guess what? Then nobody gets fire protection. So this butt hole either: (A) Wants everybody to pay except him, or (B ) wants nobody out there to get fire protection. Sounds like he got what he deserved.

[hugo]

 

Times, I understand your feelings here, and you're being compassionate, but compassion in cases where people have flaked on individual responsibility leads to a Welfare State, and people getting things for free from OUR tax dollars.

 

 

Compassionate conservatism is what got us 10 trillion dollars in debt. Libtardism is gonna double it.If ya gonna have government services they must be paid for. There is no free lunch.

[timesjoke]

Notice the libtard disagreeing with me cannot cite one example where a contract to put out a fire at the time of the fire was held as valid. Cranick was a moocher. Equivalent to an illegal alien crossing the border for healthcare. He should be shot.

 

There is no direct example because up to now, there has not been a need for it.

 

 

In my State we even have something called volunteer fire fighters. There is a volunteer fire fighter station about 8 miles from my main home. There is another one 16 miles from my river house. Imagine that, people working together to help community and not being motivated by greed to fight fires........I guess what is happeneing in that County is called progress to the radicals like hugo.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, I gave you several examples of how emergency services are protected by the courts. One example I offered was how a person can be life flighted and later charged with the cost of the flight "even without a contract, verbal or written". You dodged that point because you know it proves you wrong. You debate exactly like Bender, you simply ignore what proves you wrong while I address every point anyone makes.

 

 

Lots of States charge residents for fighting fires they caused such as wild fires, here is one example:

http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/CostRecovery.pdf

 

 

 

 

Hugo,

 

Not one person here is claiming the homeowner shoudl get fire fighting services for free. You are spending a lot of time copy/pasting (as usual) other people's words on a point not one person here is supporting.

 

 

What we have said it there should be a path that allows firefighters to remain firefighters and not buracrats. By allowing the home owner to pay a much increased fee you both fight the fire and tell the other residents that there is a huge cost for not paying the lower fee should they need fire fighting services.

 

 

There are things the city can do to make the emergency contract more solid such as letters to the residents and information in the local news papers, but there is not one Judge who would not uphold an emergency services need to act quickly to fight a fire.

 

 

 

Look at it this way hugo, you say the homeowner made an informed decision not to pay, so it stands to reason they would also be making an informed decision as to the greater cost for paying at the time services are needed. Most Courts take the "reasonable person" approach and paying a higer fee if you refused to pay the lower fee ahead of time is certainly reasonable.

 

 

 

Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time. What I am saying is that there should be a path that allows a firefighter to fight fires, not watch as homes burn to the ground just because the home is not on a list.

 

 

 

If the only motivation to fight fires is for money, then something in this world is moving the wrong direction in my opinion.

[eddo]

 

Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time.

 

he did pay a higher penalty.

 

He lost his house.

 

 

bet he pays up next time...

[timesjoke]

 

Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time.

 

he did pay a higher penalty.

 

He lost his house.

 

 

bet he pays up next time...

 

True eddo, there was a huge penalty, and I am sure it was a glaring example to the rest of the County residents who don't want to pay up as well. I was trying to say that there could be some middle ground here, some place where we can say it was a bad decision not to pay the fee, and at the same time say that just watching a family home burn down is a tad harsh.

 

 

Many Countries find it very successful to punish a thief by cutting of the hands. While this method is very successful at teaching a lesson that stealing is wrong, I find that sucess in sending a message is not the only standard we should be living our life by eddo. There is more than just standing on the legality of things. Sure, I admit the firefighters and the city was well within their right to just watch the home burn, but were they showing a true spirit of community and fairness by imposing the most harsh penalty imaginable with no steps between?

 

I know without doubt that I could not watch a home burn and do nothing. I would help and lose my job if necessary but I would not just stand there and watch it burn down.

 

How about you eddo? You are the firefighter standing there watching the home burn, do you keep your hands in your pockets and refuse to help?

[hugo]

Actually, unless he valued his pets which I have seen little indication he did the penalty is basically the deductable on his home insurance policy and the loss of his priceless Billy Beer can collection. What surprises me is the free market does not act. That insurance companies don't require county residents to pay that fee or the fee is paid for by the insurance companies.

 

Boys snd girls, once you have entered an area with a governing body you are required to follow there rules. This may include having to pay for emergency services if you are injured. Now, boys and girls, if you are not in the area a governing body covers neither they, or an individual, can entice you to enter a contract while you are under duress. That is a good thing. No 10K for a drink of orange juice.

 

We got to 11 trillion dollars in debt mainly because of Republicans who decided taxes were bad but spending was good. The city has acted responsibly. Cranick did not. Responsibility is good. Be responsible. Don't "forget" to pay your fire protection insurance year after year after year.

 

 

The city of South Fulton has a duty to their citizens not to give services away to outsiders.

[jokersarewild]

Actually, unless he valued his pets which I have seen little indication he did the penalty is basically the deductable on his home insurance policy and the loss of his priceless Billy Beer can collection. What surprises me is the free market does not act. That insurance companies don't require county residents to pay that fee or the fee is paid for by the insurance companies.

 

Boys snd girls, once you have entered an area with a governing body you are required to follow there rules. This may include having to pay for emergency services if you are injured. Now, boys and girls, if you are not in the area a governing body covers neither they, or an individual, can entice you to enter a contract while you are under duress. That is a good thing. No 10K for a drink of orange juice.

 

We got to 11 trillion dollars in debt mainly because of Republicans who decided taxes were bad but spending was good. The city has acted responsibly. Cranick did not. Responsibility is good. Be responsible. Don't "forget" to pay your fire protection insurance year after year after year.

 

 

The city of South Fulton has a duty to their citizens not to give services away to outsiders.

 

Gasp! You mean they shouldn't bail him out because he's been irresponsible for several years and is now paying the price for his lack of responsibility?

 

Seriously though, the dude "forgot" for multiple years. He obviously knew about it. He just didn't pay it. So he's now suffering for it.

 

You and I seem to understand this, Hugo. What I can't understand is why Times is all about bailing this guy out who was irresponsible on purpose, then "charging him extra". There is no such thing as compassion for willfully neglectful people. If it was an actual "oops", then yes. Feel bad. Boo hoo. But it wasn't. Something along these lines had happened before, and he knew about it. They let him pay after they put it out, which was actually quite nice of them. So they gave him a chance to make a mistake, and they let him. But then he took advantage of them and did it again. WILLFULLY NEGLECTING THE FACT THAT IF HE DIDN'T PAY IT, HIS HOUSE WOULD BURN. Actions have consequences. You make bad choices, they come back to haunt you. Simple.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDfgMP_E0tdxWoStirdC9tycATygD9IML9VO0?docId=D9IML9VO0

 

So his own wife doesn't blame the FD for DOING THEIR DAMN JOB? Freaking amazing.

 

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801

 

He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.

At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.

“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.”

Mayor Crocker added, “It’s my understanding with talking with the firefighters that these folks had received their bill and they had also contacted them by phone.”

 

They were called and notified. They had been sent mail. This means that they were notified multiple times. When you don't immediately pay it, or pay it damn soon, that's irresponsible.

 

Doesn't help that the dumbass grandson who WENT AND PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED THE FIRE CHIEF started the fire by putting trash in a barrel to burn, then left the fire unattended so he could take a shower. So he beat up the guy who wouldn't solve the problems he caused because nobody in the family had been responsible? Sounds like it's a family trait, like being black or dying of cancer.

[timesjoke]

You two are still incredibly crazy.

 

I understand why hugo refuses to admit I never wanted the guy to get anything for free, but joker are you also just too scared to admit that there can be some degrees of punishment for messing up?

 

 

Let me say this again for you two idiots:

 

 

I AGREE THE GUY ACTED STUPID AND HIS HOUSE BURNING DOWN WAS 100% HIS FAULT.

 

 

The discussion I was trying to have is how we could still put out the fire and still hold him accountable for his mistake because the way I see the world, we should not be having people like firefighters and policemen watch bad things happen because someone did not pay $75. Someone else had a great point, what if someone was trapped in the burning home? Still just stand there and watch them burn alive? If you think this is good why not do the same thing for the police? It is the logical next step. Police cost money to support too. Should we have a yearly fee outside standard property taxes for police coverage and if we don't pay, we don't get any police services?

 

 

I am sad that you two can't see that there should be more to being a firefighter or a police officer than how much money you can extract from the community.

[jokersarewild]

Times, you do realize that the fire dept. couldn't make him pay anything, no matter how much they shouted or screamed? Cranick and his neighbors aren't incorporated into the city. They're part of the county, but not the city. The city says "Hey, you can opt in to the fire service", but they can't MAKE them because they aren't living in the city. The city couldn't put a lein on his home. The county could, sure, but it's not a county issue.

 

Also, fun fact: The firefighters weren't even notified of the fire by the dispatcher. The dispatcher refused to do it because Cranick hadn't paid for the service. Mind you, when they got there two hours later to the neighbor's house, Cranick's was engulfed in flames. You can't save that. Another fun fact: There are no hydrants out where Cranick lives. They have to put out fires using what water they have in the truck. So they just made sure Cranick's grandson's stupidity didn't burn down the rest of the neighborhood, then went on their way.

 

Cranick got exactly what he paid for: Jack sh t. And the firefighters didn't just stand around like the ever so liberal media likes to say they did, so their bullshit sensationalist news will be popular. They didn't even fucking know. And they sat there while what was LEFT of his house after 2 hours of fire burned to the ground, because there was nothing they could do to save it.

 

Also, Times, was there someone in the house? No? Then your bullshit argument is utterly irrelevant. What if the sky had fallen on Cranick's doublewide? What if he had a meth lab in his house and that was the cause of the fire? What if the Second Coming of Jesus happened right then? Oh hey, those are all hypotheticals. As in, THEY DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN. So your point is to demonize them because they didn't save non-existent people? Yeah. That's the logical thing to do.

 

Another point: Cranick's property taxes DON'T GO TO FUND ANYTHING IN A CITY HE DOESN'T LIVE IN. So he doesn't pay for fire, except with the OPT-IN $75 fee. He didn't opt-in, he didn't get the protection. And they city firefighters have no ability to fight fires in an area where the person didn't explicitly agree to such things. Cranick could sue them for water damage caused to his property, etc, etc. He never opted in for their service, so they're spraying water on his house essentially without his informed consent. And again, as it turns out, CONTRACT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THIS IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING. He was under duress, plain and simple. His decision to pay for this was a kneejerk reaction based on the fact that he had no other recourse. There is no court in the nation that would see this as binding, no matter what bullshit you wish to spout about "emergency services". They weren't dying. Their double-wide was burning to the ground because their grandson lit a trash fire in a barrel. Nobody was going to be hurt.

 

But oh well, it's all the firefighter's faults because Times wants the Obama nanny-state mentality to pervade the minds of the country so people who have no personal responsibility get bailed out for free because the government is made of magical infinite money. Fucking progressives.

[hugo]

There was no legal way to hold Cranick liable, as any sane person knows. That is why the upfront fee. Compassionate conservatism put us in this mess. It is more conservative to tax and spend then borrow and spend.

[ImWithStupid]

1. The dumb ass owner said it himself. He didn't pay because he thought they would still put out the fire his inbred family started. $75 sounds like cheap insurance to me. He gambled and lost..

 

2. If they put out his fire, why would anyone pay the fee?

 

3. If they did work outside their employer's allowed criteria, who pays the bills if a firefighter is injured, or killed?

[timesjoke]

During a wild fire firefighters come from all over the place, and even different States to help fight that fire.

 

In many cases they even get hurt and have to get medical treatments, a few even die while fighting these fires. If "getting paid" while performing emergency services in a place other than where you live as a firefighter was an issue nobody would place themselves at risk to travel and fight these fires.

 

 

I offered the law in California as an example of how States have and do charge people for starting a fire even accidently (as in this case) that requires the fire department to put that fire out. I also offered the example of life flight where clearly the helicopter service is not based in that County but the person is still required to pay for the helicopter ride even though they were passed out and could not even agree to the ride.

 

 

There is nothing that stops a fire department from charging a person for "emergency" services the same way the life flight charges for "emergency" services. The informed consent is there guys, the homeowner who does not pay the fee ahead of time is making an informed decision not to get the lower fee for services and then becomes subject to whatever firefighting rate the city wants to charge on an "as needed basis".

 

 

 

And asking what the fire fighters would do if the building was occupied is very relivent, it would still require them to fight a fire in a home that did not pay the $75 so will they respond or not? It is just a question on what you think is right, don't run from the question.

 

 

 

I see you also did not reply to my question about police emergency services either. If it is okay to have individual charges for emergency fire services why not emergency police services? It all comes down to money right? Money is the only thing that matters to you guys so why not make everytying that way?

[jokersarewild]

During a wild fire firefighters come from all over the place, and even different States to help fight that fire.

 

Irrelevant.

 

In many cases they even get hurt and have to get medical treatments, a few even die while fighting these fires. If "getting paid" while performing emergency services in a place other than where you live as a firefighter was an issue nobody would place themselves at risk to travel and fight these fires.

 

Hm. This wasn't a wildfire. This was a guy who's double-wide trailer burnt down because he didn't opt-in to firefighting services. By the way, DISPATCH DIDN'T SEND THEM TO HIS FIRE. Thought I would reiterate, since that concept seems lost on you.

 

I offered the law in California as an example of how States have and do charge people for starting a fire even accidently (as in this case) that requires the fire department to put that fire out. I also offered the example of life flight where clearly the helicopter service is not based in that County but the person is still required to pay for the helicopter ride even though they were passed out and could not even agree to the ride.

 

Not the same thing. At all. If you accidentally burn down half a forest, you're in a fuckton of trouble. If you don't OPT-IN to your fire protection that the city near you allows, and your house burns down, there's nobody to blame but you.

 

Why are you comparing apples to oranges, Times? Trying to prove you're right by citing examples that have NOTHING TO DO with the situation at hand?

 

There was no "emergency service ride" here. He didn't opt-in to a service provided at a modest amount by the nearest city. Because of that, he didn't get the service. BIG DAMN DIFFERENCE.

 

There is nothing that stops a fire department from charging a person for "emergency" services the same way the life flight charges for "emergency" services. The informed consent is there guys, the homeowner who does not pay the fee ahead of time is making an informed decision not to get the lower fee for services and then becomes subject to whatever firefighting rate the city wants to charge on an "as needed basis".

 

God damn, you are dense. They can't charge him a dime because he didn't opt-in to the service, so he has no contract with the city. The city has no jurisdiction where he lives because he didn't agree to give them such. They have NO RIGHT to put out the fire. There was no emergency here. He lost his stuff. Big deal. Nobody got hurt besides pets.

 

And no, he's not making an informed decision not to get the lower fee, he's making an informed decision not to get the services. Then when he cries about not getting the services, oh well. He didn't get the services he hadn't agreed to.

 

And you keep acting like Cranick was passed out in his home or something. There was no life/death threat there. Thusly, he could make informed decisions, and had already made his.

 

And asking what the fire fighters would do if the building was occupied is very relivent, it would still require them to fight a fire in a home that did not pay the $75 so will they respond or not? It is just a question on what you think is right, don't run from the question.

 

THEY WERE NEVER DISPATCHED THERE. When you dial 911, where does the call go? Not the fucking firehouse. The firefighters themselves didn't deny him this. Why this concept escapes you is beyond me. And I can PROMISE YOU that when they call, dispatch asks if there's someone in danger before they decide to look at the list. They aren't the soulless, corrupt human beings you seem to think they are.

 

Also, you don't have to put out a fire to save someone. They could've saved the person and let the place burn.

 

I see you also did not reply to my question about police emergency services either. If it is okay to have individual charges for emergency fire services why not emergency police services? It all comes down to money right? Money is the only thing that matters to you guys so why not make everytying that way?

 

No, being able to service everyone else is what matters to them. You can't seem to grasp the fact that if they went and spent money they didn't have a lot of on people who didn't pay, they'd run out of money. Or they'd just stop servicing anybody out where Cranick lives and then all of their homes burn. Is that what you think would be better, Times? To have their houses burn to the ground because Cranick is a selfish butt hole?

 

As far as paying the police, here's the thing: If it's out of their jurisdiction, they have to request to go there. They probably have sheriffs out there in the boondocks that respond to calls of that nature. But the city police probably don't respond unless it's necessary, and with supervisory permission. I've seen VERY RARELY a police officer outside of whatever their city is here. There's a reason for that. And hey, the sheriffs probably get county tax money, which is what would help fund them, which means the service had already been paid for. As it turns out, Times, stuff ain't free. Not sure why that baffles you.

 

To recap:

 

The firefighters were never dispatched, so blaming them is fucking asinine.

 

Cranick didn't opt-in to the service, so he didn't get the service.

 

You don't understand the difference between large fires that require multiple fire services to put out, and the burning of a double-wide on someone's property that had opted-out of the fire services.

 

Fire services require funding, and if they don't have it, nobody's fires get put out.

 

The police cost money too.

 

Public services needing funding seems to be a concept you just can't grasp no matter how hard you try.

 

The sheriff is already paid for, so your point is irrelevant, like so many of your other "points".

[timesjoke]

Okay, if you are going to ignore the spirit of the conversation and only resort to flame and childish behaviors like putting words in my mouth I never said then you will be assigned "wez" status by me kid, there really is no excuse for most of what you just posted other then to be a temper tantrum.

 

 

Let me say this again, I 100% agree with you and other people about how this is the homeowner’s entire fault. I do not blame the firefighters themselves for this policy or their refusal to fight the fire. I did say that if I had been there I could not just watch a home burn down but that is just me.

 

 

 

What I was trying to do is offer some discussion and ideas to help keep firefighters doing their jobs and helping people and not having to be bureaucrats who refuse to help people in need just because of $75, to me it diminishes the job to tell firefighters not to fight fires.

 

 

 

 

So I offered the idea to have two charges, the first charge being the "insurance payment" that is a lower fee "just in case" and a second fee that can be called an "as needed charge" for those who did not want to pay the insurance rate but still wanted the service at a later date. There can be many reasons people could not pay their fee earlier and it could even be a government mistake to leave their name off a list even if they did pay and the time to sort those things out is not while a home is burning down and every second counts.

 

There are many ways the city can protect their right to charge a higher fee for "as needed" emergency services such as sending mailers to the homes or just putting it in the newspaper over a period of days. But, I also posted a California law that says any fires that have to be put out because of negligence (as in this case) gives them the right to charge for their services.

 

 

 

I think your biggest mistake was listening to hugo and running with his false notion that there was no way a higher charge for "as needed" emergency services could be enforced. I gave you many examples of how people are responsible for emergency services charges even from agencies and groups outside their county and I also gave you a California law showing you that even in your own State, they reserve the right to charge for emergency services should there be negligence involved that starts a fire. There is a lot of legal foundation that will give full protection to charges for services rendered from emergency services joker, don't fall for hugo's games, the only real smart stuff he posts is what he can copy/paste from other people.

 

 

 

 

I am going to comment on one of your childish rants though, several times you tried to claim I did not understand that things cost money, and considering your support for socialist programs it seems you don't understand that things cost money, not me my young friend. I own two homes and about 200 acres of undeveloped property myself as well as much more land and a subdivision through my company. I actually pay property taxes kid, I know more about the cost of feeding the Government monster than you ever will in your life. Just one recent construction job I ran in Tampa cost me over $100,000 in fees, taxes, and permits so believe me when I tell you, I know things cost money, the problem you seem to be having is you think it would have cost a lot more to fight this man's fire so let me educate you a little bit:

 

 

The paychecks for everyone from the fire chief down to the newly hired fresh recruit is already in the budget as well as an average for the yearly cost for fuel and other expendables they will use. Most states do offer a slight increase in pay for responding to a fire, but as we see in this example, they responded anyway to the neighbor and using logic it is reasonable to believe with some people paying and some people not paying, they will be responding to keep fire from traveling to a covered home even if the original home is not covered so there is no discernable change in cost there either. So where is the higher cost to the city joker?

 

Answer, there is none. Yes, the city should get paid for fighting the fires, I have never said anything other then that, all I was trying to do is offer a way for firefighters to stick with fighting fires and not be forced to sit and watch homes burn just because their name is not on a list.

 

 

 

 

Consider this:

 

You are 11 years old and your home is burning down, the fire truck drives up with lights flashing and the siren blaring and you believe that a real hero has shown up to help save your home.....but they stop short of your house and only wet down the ground between your home and the home next door to keep the fire from spreading......will the firefighters still be your hero?

 

Forgive me for trying to preserve the idea of heroes in our society, if feel losing the few heroes we have is a bigger problem for society than someone not paying $75.

 

 

 

Now, when you dodged my question about a person being trapped in a burning home you got extra silly, the question is pretty simple but you went through crazy loops and excuses to try and dodge that very simple question, either saving a life is important or not.

Under this policy it does not matter if there is a child stuck in the burning home or not, they will not respond to the fire unless their name is on the list, now is that right or wrong joker?

 

 

 

I see you also dodged my question about police services. Should the police charge you a separate fee to protect you from crime or do an investigation? If your home gets robbed is that more or less of an impact on the community than your home burning down?

[jokersarewild]

Okay, if you are going to ignore the spirit of the conversation and only resort to flame and childish behaviors like putting words in my mouth I never said then you will be assigned "wez" status by me kid, there really is no excuse for most of what you just posted other then to be a temper tantrum.

 

Waah.

 

Let me say this again, I 100% agree with you and other people about how this is the homeowner’s entire fault. I do not blame the firefighters themselves for this policy or their refusal to fight the fire. I did say that if I had been there I could not just watch a home burn down but that is just me.

 

The firefighters didn't refuse to fight it, they were never dispatched. Something you seem to dodge to keep thinking the firefighters are bad people.

 

What I was trying to do is offer some discussion and ideas to help keep firefighters doing their jobs and helping people and not having to be bureaucrats who refuse to help people in need just because of $75, to me it diminishes the job to tell firefighters not to fight fires.

 

They didn't tell the firefighters anything. That's the point. And he didn't pay for the service, the firefighters had no right to put the fire out in the first place. He didn't put anybody else in danger, because the other people had paid their fee.

 

So I offered the idea to have two charges, the first charge being the "insurance payment" that is a lower fee "just in case" and a second fee that can be called an "as needed charge" for those who did not want to pay the insurance rate but still wanted the service at a later date. There can be many reasons people could not pay their fee earlier and it could even be a government mistake to leave their name off a list even if they did pay and the time to sort those things out is not while a home is burning down and every second counts.

 

Get him to sign a contract stating that, in such an event, he's willing to pay an extra amount for services rendered, and that's a good idea. He couldn't get out of it because it's a legally binding contract.

 

But there is nothing they can do otherwise.

 

There are many ways the city can protect their right to charge a higher fee for "as needed" emergency services such as sending mailers to the homes or just putting it in the newspaper over a period of days. But, I also posted a California law that says any fires that have to be put out because of negligence (as in this case) gives them the right to charge for their services.

 

Well, for one, they aren't in California. CA law doesn't apply to them.

 

They can't charge him for "as needed" emergency services because they didn't HAVE to put it out. And they didn't. They'd already been paid for what they did, so they had no need for more money, and had no need to put out half a forest worth of fire. They couldn't charge him a thing. Basically, he didn't light PUBLIC property on fire, so they had no reason to charge him a dime. He destroyed his own property.

 

I think your biggest mistake was listening to hugo and running with his false notion that there was no way a higher charge for "as needed" emergency services could be enforced. I gave you many examples of how people are responsible for emergency services charges even from agencies and groups outside their county and I also gave you a California law showing you that even in your own State, they reserve the right to charge for emergency services should there be negligence involved that starts a fire. There is a lot of legal foundation that will give full protection to charges for services rendered from emergency services joker, don't fall for hugo's games, the only real smart stuff he posts is what he can copy/paste from other people.

 

CA law still doesn't apply to TN. Also, see above.

 

I am going to comment on one of your childish rants though, several times you tried to claim I did not understand that things cost money, and considering your support for socialist programs it seems you don't understand that things cost money, not me my young friend. I own two homes and about 200 acres of undeveloped property myself as well as much more land and a subdivision through my company. I actually pay property taxes kid, I know more about the cost of feeding the Government monster than you ever will in your life. Just one recent construction job I ran in Tampa cost me over $100,000 in fees, taxes, and permits so believe me when I tell you, I know things cost money, the problem you seem to be having is you think it would have cost a lot more to fight this man's fire so let me educate you a little bit:

 

A little presumptuous.

 

And I support PROPERLY FUNDED "socialist programs". I don't support our current SS system. I don't support all of the welfare crap we have.

 

The paychecks for everyone from the fire chief down to the newly hired fresh recruit is already in the budget as well as an average for the yearly cost for fuel and other expendables they will use. Most states do offer a slight increase in pay for responding to a fire, but as we see in this example, they responded anyway to the neighbor and using logic it is reasonable to believe with some people paying and some people not paying, they will be responding to keep fire from traveling to a covered home even if the original home is not covered so there is no discernable change in cost there either. So where is the higher cost to the city joker?

 

So they should put all of the fires out, whether people pay? Then why would anybody pay? They would lose a fair chunk of money when people realize they don't have to pay a thing for their fires to be put out.

 

Answer, there is none. Yes, the city should get paid for fighting the fires, I have never said anything other then that, all I was trying to do is offer a way for firefighters to stick with fighting fires and not be forced to sit and watch homes burn just because their name is not on a list.

 

Let a double-wide trailer burn for 2 hours. There will be pretty much nothing of it left. Why waste time putting it out? They don't have hydrants out where he lives. They have the water they have in the truck. That's it. It's more efficient to just wet down the area around it.

 

Consider this:

 

You are 11 years old and your home is burning down, the fire truck drives up with lights flashing and the siren blaring and you believe that a real hero has shown up to help save your home.....but they stop short of your house and only wet down the ground between your home and the home next door to keep the fire from spreading......will the firefighters still be your hero?

 

Forgive me for trying to preserve the idea of heroes in our society, if feel losing the few heroes we have is a bigger problem for society than someone not paying $75.

 

It's not their fault they know how to do their job better than an 11 year old.

 

Now, when you dodged my question about a person being trapped in a burning home you got extra silly, the question is pretty simple but you went through crazy loops and excuses to try and dodge that very simple question, either saving a life is important or not.

Under this policy it does not matter if there is a child stuck in the burning home or not, they will not respond to the fire unless their name is on the list, now is that right or wrong joker?

 

Yes. They are evil, evil people. They would never ask if there was anybody in the building when they got the call. I bet the would tell Cranick to go blow a duck if he said his grandson was in there, because they're Hitler.

 

I see you also dodged my question about police services. Should the police charge you a separate fee to protect you from crime or do an investigation? If your home gets robbed is that more or less of an impact on the community than your home burning down?

 

Irrelevant. Apples and oranges. I'm not dodging this, Times, I'm simply calling it out for what it is: a load of bull.

 

If you live out in the middle of nowhere, and you get told "Hey, if you want police to respond to your calls, give us $50 to pay for gas, etc, etc. If you don't want it, you don't have to pay. It's up to you", and you don't pay, then they don't respond. Simple as that. Now, if they said "You can pay us $50 now, or $500 later when you get robbed or need something", then they should respond no matter what. But if you don't pay for the service, or agree you'll pay if needed, then why should you get it? You can talk about how much you pay in taxes all you want, but if you didn't pay such things in taxes, you wouldn't get certain services because they wouldn't be properly funded, Mr. Property Tax. If nobody paid property taxes, there would be no funding. And because the people where Cranick live don't pay into the fire service via property tax, this is what's been decided they need to do.

[timesjoke]

 

Waah.

 

Look, I didn't make you act like a child and insert words into my mouth kid, all I did was point out what you did, that is not crying, but it is giving you fair warning that if you want to be taken seriously, you have to stay on topic and stop trying to play childish games.

 

 

The firefighters didn't refuse to fight it, they were never dispatched. Something you seem to dodge to keep thinking the firefighters are bad people.

 

There you go again kid, where did I ever say the firefighters were "bad people"? You spend most of your replies commenting on things I never said so why do you bother to post?

 

Yes they were dispatched, to the next door neighbors house to prevent the fire from spreading. They were there and they watched the home burn down. Not because they were evil people but because the powerd that be decided they felt their firefighters needed to be more concerned about a name on a list than helping people.

 

 

They didn't tell the firefighters anything. That's the point. And he didn't pay for the service, the firefighters had no right to put the fire out in the first place. He didn't put anybody else in danger, because the other people had paid their fee.

 

Again you continue to miss the point, I am talking about how things can change for the future, this home is already gone and nothing can change that but we can learn from this example and try to improve things for the future.

 

Making firefighters watch homes burn down simply seems wrong to me, so I am trying to offer how things can change while you seem to not care about trying to improve things and you are more closed off to new ideas than most people I know.

 

 

 

Get him to sign a contract stating that, in such an event, he's willing to pay an extra amount for services rendered, and that's a good idea. He couldn't get out of it because it's a legally binding contract.

 

But there is nothing they can do otherwise.

 

You just can't seem to get past the wrong assertion hugo has offered kid.

 

Do people sign a contract before lifeflight takes them to the hospital? There is no requirement for emergency services to have that kind of contract and do you know why? Well do you kid? Because under emergency situations it is assumed by the law that any reasonable person would want themselves flown to the hospital to save their live and any reasonable person would want ther home fire put out. The reasonable person standard has always been honored in the courts.

 

 

Well, for one, they aren't in California. CA law doesn't apply to them.

 

All states have similar laws kid, stop acting stupid, I showed you the CA law because I know you live there and if that liberal utopia is charging people to fight fires, you can bet everyone is.

 

 

They can't charge him for "as needed" emergency services because they didn't HAVE to put it out. And they didn't. They'd already been paid for what they did, so they had no need for more money, and had no need to put out half a forest worth of fire. They couldn't charge him a thing. Basically, he didn't light PUBLIC property on fire, so they had no reason to charge him a dime. He destroyed his own property.

 

Now what are you ranting about kid? The property being private or owned by a government has nothing to do with this, you seem to waste a lot of time typing about things that have nothing to do with this conversation.

 

I do see you again talked about money though, first you say people should not get services for free, then you say the fire department did not need more money, make up your mind kid.

 

My point is firefighters should always be allowed to fight fires, so how do we get to that point that they don't have to be seen as the bad guys for watching a family home burn down? If you don't like my ideas, offer some of your own, or are you happy to see situations like this?

 

 

CA law still doesn't apply to TN. Also, see above.

 

And as I said above all States have these laws, and this discussion is not restricted to any one state, this could happen in any state so the point is can we let firefighters stay firefighters or are they just another money making venture by the Government?

 

 

 

 

A little presumptuous.

 

And true....

 

 

And I support PROPERLY FUNDED "socialist programs". I don't support our current SS system. I don't support all of the welfare crap we have.

 

Properly funded? Where do you get that word play from? SS is completely funded, for a few more years, and the Government can certainly increase taxes to increase the funding for SS and keep it funded forever, just keep taking more money from the workers to pay to the non-workers, if funding is your only concern then what is the difference between giving someone foodstamps or giving someone firefighting services? The firefighting will cost about a thousand times less than the foodstamps.

 

 

So they should put all of the fires out, whether people pay? Then why would anybody pay? They would lose a fair chunk of money when people realize they don't have to pay a thing for their fires to be put out.

 

There you go again getting all worked up and upset over something I did not say.

 

Why do you constantly put words into my mouth then you use those false words to go on a rant complaining about what I did not say? You need to grow up.

 

 

 

How many times do I have to say I don't want people to get free firefighting services before you will have the ability to understand this fact? Everything I have been taling about is how there can be two seperate fees, one for insurance "just in case" and the other much higher fee for "as needed services"? Is this concept really that difficult for you to understand?

 

 

 

Let a double-wide trailer burn for 2 hours. There will be pretty much nothing of it left. Why waste time putting it out? They don't have hydrants out where he lives. They have the water they have in the truck. That's it. It's more efficient to just wet down the area around it.

 

Go to your mother and ask her if her home burned down what kinds of things she would hate to lose the most.

 

You might not understand how bad a home fire is but talk to a few people who have had to go through it and you will understand that some of the more profound losses are not things like a television, it is family photos, a couple keepsakes your child gave you when they were 7 years old, a pressed flower you keep in a book or an number of of things that can't be replaced.

 

Being efficient is not why we have firefighters, is is about helping people at a time they are the most vulnerable and need someone to help them save what they can save from a horrible situation.

 

 

It's not their fault they know how to do their job better than an 11 year old.

 

You completely missed that point.

 

Don;t you understand the concept of heros? Did you grow up that jaded in life you can't see the value of heros in a society?

 

 

Yes. They are evil, evil people. They would never ask if there was anybody in the building when they got the call. I bet the would tell Cranick to go blow a duck if he said his grandson was in there, because they're Hitler.

 

There you go again, you have no decent reply to my question so you go on a crazy rant trying to put words in my mouth I never said. Hitler? Really? You had to invoke the name of Hitler in your childish rant? People like you actually diminish the reality of the evil of Hitler by trying to compare his level of evil to minor and insignificant things like this Joker. This is not in that arena, stop over reacting and compose yourself.

 

 

 

But I will say that putting money first in every possible way can be evil sometimes. People should always pay their way, in the old days people did not have much money but they felt compelled to pay their way so the barter system was used most of the time. Maybe they have a chicken or maybe you need help fixing your roof, there was always a way to let people help each other and to settle their debts in different ways.

 

Today all we care about is money, does that mean we have evoved for the better or the worse?

 

 

Irrelevant. Apples and oranges. I'm not dodging this, Times, I'm simply calling it out for what it is: a load of bull.

 

If you live out in the middle of nowhere, and you get told "Hey, if you want police to respond to your calls, give us $50 to pay for gas, etc, etc. If you don't want it, you don't have to pay. It's up to you", and you don't pay, then they don't respond. Simple as that. Now, if they said "You can pay us $50 now, or $500 later when you get robbed or need something", then they should respond no matter what. But if you don't pay for the service, or agree you'll pay if needed, then why should you get it? You can talk about how much you pay in taxes all you want, but if you didn't pay such things in taxes, you wouldn't get certain services because they wouldn't be properly funded, Mr. Property Tax. If nobody paid property taxes, there would be no funding. And because the people where Cranick live don't pay into the fire service via property tax, this is what's been decided they need to do.

 

Not irrelivant, it is very much the same thing. You see property taxes used to pay for all emergency services, irresponsible spending by our elected officials have made them look for new ways to get more and more taxes from each of us because they can't learn how to control their spending. So things like garbage, fire, schools, etc have been given their own fees while still getting the same base taxes from property.

 

And still it is not enough. These Government officials can never get enough tax funds to pay the bills, no matter how much they increase taxes, they always find a way to spend it all and fall short each and every year. I understand things cost money kid, my bigger point is in my belief, people are paying enough taxes to receive "basic emergency services" through their basic home taxes, in this case the county is taking that tax money and not providing any emergency services at all, to me that is just sad. If you own property and you pay your taxes the least the Governing body should provide is basis emergency services.

 

 

IMHO.

[hugo]

The residents of Obion County will get another chance to vote for fire services. That is the way it should be.

 

Times is the big government guy here. Seems to think everyone should have fire services whether they want it or not.