Yeah, have to say this is a load of crap. This isn't a cable bill or anything similar. This was this guy's home and life. Not to mention family pets, I would have done more than punch the guy if they stood by and let not only my things, but my animals burn. They should have put out the fire and billed the guy. It's one thing if they said no we aren't coming, but they were THERE. Which means the money, time and resources were being used anyhow. Which would mean that the only cost would have been water. Anyhow, I'm veering off. EMTs and ambulances work this way. Ever taken a ride in one? If you're hurt and unconscious they come get you, take you to the hospital, and bill you ~1500 for the ride. The fire department could easily work the same way.

As a matter of fact that IS how it works in my hometown in TN. The fire department asks for something around 150 a year. If you pay it and have a fire the response doesn't cost you anything. If you don't pay it then you get billed something in the $1000 range and it increases per truck and manpower. Pretty simple solution with some very poor management by the local officials. Their procedure walks a fine line anyhow. What do they do to a block of non payers? Just not respond and let it burn? They wouldn't know if anyone was in it or anything, and not responding could mean someone dying. So, they pretty much have no choice but to go out regardless of that fee.

I think i'd personally put the fire out. Id fight my termination to my grave. Could you look a man in the eye as everything he has is destroyed? I couldn't. Not when its at my fingertips to stop it.

Humanity has died a little more.

Exactly. I understand where he ****** up, and he did **** up. But where do you draw the line?

Chris, I also understand where you're coming from, but this isn't a five or six digit payout on an insurance policy that's lapsed.

This is what really bothered me about this story: Could the water and resources that were used to "protect the neighbors' houses" have been used to actually, I don't know...put the fire out?

Damn.

I want to know exactly how long it takes to determine if the person calling for help, is paid up in full. I'd be beyond pissed, if more of my property burned, simply because they were making sure I was caught up in my subscription.

Also, why doesn't that area have a volunteer fire department? We have several in my area, along with the city department.

**** the fire depot and **** socialism. At least get your **** out of your *** and do the RIGHT thing whether they didn't have to or not. So this guy lost everything over what 75 bucks? I'm sure he learned his lesson when he saw it catch on fire. How hard is it for people to do the right thing. Just turn the nostle up and woola its spraying on the house. This country is going to hell I swear, stupid *** laws.

There's two sides to this story, and I see both sides. I hope none of you feel I'm completely heartless, but I still feel this guy PURPOSELY did not pay his bill so he kind of got what he deserved. It's exceptionally sad, and I know no one should lose their house.

Chris, I also understand where you're coming from, but this isn't a five or six digit payout on an insurance policy that's lapsed.

True, but I can tell you of real life experiences that have happened in my office that ruin people lives just as much as this, all because they refuse to pay their bills.

One man got into a serious accident, it was his fault, and severely injured another couple. His policy had lapsed (he made it frequently known in our office how much he hated insurance and shouldn't have to pay his bill, etc). He got sued. He had no coverage.

I'm talking like $500k+. Guy lost everything he had. They took it all. House, cars, retirement funds, everything.

And that's just ONE example. I have many and they're all sad. I feel bad for all of them, but the scale of how bad I feel is affected by their attitudes.

Chris is right about this .. if you choose not to pay for a service and understand the consequence then anything that happens is your fault.

And that's all I'm saying Kev, is that it's his fault. I'm not saying it's not a horrible situation, and I'm definitely sad it happens, but as I said where I sit on that scale of sadness/sympathy for the person is highly dependant on their attitude/actions.

Yeah, no. They could have handled his house, and then placed a lien against whatever equity he had. Could have even billed him for services rendered, PLUS a major penalty for not being paid up on his stupid subscription.

When we deliberately turn our backs on our own kind that are suffering, we become less and less human. His fault, their fault. This wasn't about bills and payments. This was a mans livelihood and home. Regardless if he neglected to pay $75 or not, I hope he sues and wins. It's BS that city employees would stand and watch a mans home burn. Even more BS, that they enacted a city law that demanded yearly subscriptions.

It's only a matter of time before we're all faced with city wide subscription tiers. Will you be having the bronze law enforcement, with a silver fire service this year, Mr. Smith?

We as a people, need to aim higher.

One man got into a serious accident, it was his fault, and severely injured another couple. His policy had lapsed (he made it frequently known in our office how much he hated insurance and shouldn't have to pay his bill, etc). He got sued. He had no coverage.

I'm talking like $500k+. Guy lost everything he had. They took it all. House, cars, retirement funds, everything.

I still think there's a difference between that and standing in front of a guy's house spraying water on the perimeter of the neighbors' lawns while watching it go up in flames.

I still think there's a difference between that and standing in front of a guy's house spraying water on the perimeter of the neighbors' lawns while watching it go up in flames.

This is true, and I agree that it's a heartless thing in the end. I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that the man KNEW he had to pay the bill and refused to do so.

Yes, it was heartless on the parts of the firefighters but in my mind they were doing the job they were contracted to do. Regardless of the stupidity of the idea that homeowners in that municipality have to PAY an annual fee, it was what it was. If the man did not agree with that he should have taken steps to change/petition to dismiss that law/ordinance instead of simply refusing to pay the bill.

Or, the privatized company serving the areas the city fire department didn't cover, could have set up a penalty clause. One that drastically punished any that didn't pay the $75 in full. You receive fire services and aren't paid up on your sub? Bam! $1,000 + service call.

The man still somewhat has a home, and can now reflect back on why it would have been a good idea to be caught up in his fire protection racket (sub).

Or, the privatized company serving the areas the city fire department didn't cover, could have set up a penalty clause. One that drastically punished any that didn't pay the $75 in full. You receive fire services and aren't paid up on your sub? Bam! $1,000 + service call.

The man still somewhat has a home, and can now reflect back on why it would have been a good idea to be caught up in his fire protection racket (sub).

Oh you're 100% right PK and others. I'm totally not arguing with you. I just can't fault the firefighters for doing their job/following orders/obeying the ordinance.

The problem is the way the law/ordinance is set up. There are no clauses like that. If they suddenly made an exception for him under the current wording, and then either didn't or forgot to make an exception for someone else there would be lawsuits in the millions.

I'm pretty sure they'll have one with this case. Major oversight and poor planning.

I'm pretty sure they'll have one with this case. Major oversight and poor planning.

The only lawsuit should be against the town, not the firemen in my opinion.

On a side note, I see it was a doublewide trailer that burnt up. Now let me get into the insurance side.

Did you know, on average for a trailer, when there is a fire the trailer will burn up and be declared a "total loss" generally WITHIN FIVE MINUTES from the time the fire starts. This means the home is destroyed, completely unliveable, and unsafe. This is why insurance for manufactured homes is outrageously high compared to a regular frame/brick built home.

Now since this municipality does NOT have a local fire station, I imagine that the closest one probably would take a minimum of 3-5 minutes to even arrive on the scene.

This guy was losing his house either way, whether the fire department put out the fire or not. The firemen were right at that point to attempt to control the fire from spreading.

What isn't mentioned in the story is if he has insurance or not to cover the damage. Again, if he doesn't, I still blame him for not being responsible enough to secure insurance against his investment (i.e. his dwelling).

This guy was losing his house either way, whether the fire department put out the fire or not. The firemen were right at that point to attempt to control the fire from spreading.

I don't think any of us can decide that, Chris. If he were surrounded by other trailers or modular homes, the flames could have kicked up embers that flew into the air, risking other homes. Saturating his home or whatever was left of it, would have been the way to go. Instead, they protected one home and let another burn to the ground.

Also, the firemen were on orders not to put out that one persons house. If they were right in trying to control the fire, they would have put out the only danger to any other homes. They are fire fighters. Not landscapers.

Also, the firemen were on orders

Ding ding ding.

That is one thing we can definitely agree on. They were ORDERED. That is the true problem here.

Does anyone know what even started this fire.? I read his grandson was burning something in the trash next to trailer. Is that true? If I didn't have fire insurance I sure as hell wouldn't let some one start a fire right next to where I lived.

Does anyone know what even started this fire.? I read his grandson was burning something in the trash next to trailer. Is that true? If I didn't have fire insurance I sure as hell wouldn't let some one start a fire right next to where I lived.

Yes, his 21 yr old grandson was burning trash NEAR THE HOUSE (dumass move #1). Then he went inside and left it unattended to make himself a sammich (dumass move #2).

Came out to find a shed completely on fire and tried to put it out by himself instead of calling the 911 (dumass move #3)

So he was burning trash, lot's of people burn trash, so he made a mistake and was burning it to close to the house. I mean come on. Accidents happen everyday, it could have easily sparked from a light socket in the house. Pk is right they very well could have billed him.

So he was burning trash, lot's of people burn trash, so he made a mistake and was burning it to close to the house. I mean come on. Accidents happen everyday, it could have easily sparked from a light socket in the house. Pk is right they very well could have billed him.

Yes, PK is right, they COULD have billed him, but that is a problem with the law/town ordinance and not the Fire Dept.

Yes, PK is right, they COULD have billed him, but that is a problem with the law/town ordinance and not the Fire Dept.

Yup and the law isn't always right.

Yup and the law isn't always right.

I'm not saying it is.

The only lawsuit should be against the town, not the firemen in my opinion.

On a side note, I see it was a doublewide trailer that burnt up. Now let me get into the insurance side.

Did you know, on average for a trailer, when there is a fire the trailer will burn up and be declared a "total loss" generally WITHIN FIVE MINUTES from the time the fire starts. This means the home is destroyed, completely unliveable, and unsafe. This is why insurance for manufactured homes is outrageously high compared to a regular frame/brick built home.

Now since this municipality does NOT have a local fire station, I imagine that the closest one probably would take a minimum of 3-5 minutes to even arrive on the scene.

This guy was losing his house either way, whether the fire department put out the fire or not. The firemen were right at that point to attempt to control the fire from spreading.

What isn't mentioned in the story is if he has insurance or not to cover the damage. Again, if he doesn't, I still blame him for not being responsible enough to secure insurance against his investment (i.e. his dwelling).

nice.

got any stats on burning animals?

Yeah the whole situation is messed up. If I was one of those firefighters I'd have put the fire out and paid the damn $75 myself if I had to (then get the guy pay me back later when his s*** isn't on fire). It's seventy-five freaking bucks versus someone's entire house and pets.