Video: Great Debate On The Whole "Firemen Refuse To Put Out Fire" Controversy

The Hope For America ^ | 10/6/10 | Angela McGlowan, Andy Levy

[samtheman]

Great Andy Levy line:

“I’m losing track of the number of Muslims who I have to remember don’t speak for Islam. It’s a long list.”

[GonzoGOP]

I chalk this whole thing up to one of my mom's old sayings. You may have every right to be a jerk, but in the end you are still a jerk. The guy didn't pay the bill so the firemen had every right to not put out the fire. In terms of a business it was exactly what they needed to do. But standing buy laughing while a man's house is destroyed makes you a jerk.

Firemen have always been respected more than insurance agents and lawyers. And there was a darn good reason for that. Lawyers and insurance agents were pure mercenary. They did what they did for the money and didn't give a damn what happened to the people involved. Firemen, even the professional variety who get paid for what they do, were always viewed as something more. It wasn't just about the money, but a duty to the community. That is why firemen ride at the front of a parade, while the lawyers sit on the curb. It is why mercenaries will never receive the same respect as the soldier, even though they do essentially the same job.

By refusing to put out the fire, the volunteer fire company made a shrewd business decision. But they also put themselves firmly into the category of all other ruthless business people. That is well within their rights. But it will never make them beloved. If $75 is worth trashing their reputation in the community, then they made the right decision.

[samtheman]

You may have every right to be a jerk, but in the end you are still a jerk.

Your mother was right. And it sure does apply here.

[Carley]

If you don’t purchase auto insurance and then after an auto accident you tell the insurance company they have to pay for the repairs how far will you get.

[goodwithagun]

Absolutely! What kind of jerk doesn’t pay a mere $75 to ensure fire protection for his family’s home? And then, to top it off, the jerk expects a service for free! What a jerk for demanding welfare!

[Ditter]

You are correct they should have bought the fire insurance. They knew the rules and chose to ignore them.

[Racer1]

They all got paid to stand there and watch it burn so not getting paid doesn’t hold much water.

The auto insurance analogy doesn’t work because firefighting is damage prevention not damage coverage.

This argument is why paid firefighting should be avoided at all costs. It also reminds me why I should donate more time to my local fire company.

[ryan71]

They should have put the fire out then worried about the $75.

[GonzoGOP]

This argument is why paid firefighting should be avoided at all costs. It also reminds me why I should donate more time to my local fire company.

Bad example. They were a volunteer fire company, so the individuals didn't get paid. They demanded a $75 per year fee to cover equipment. They guy didn't pay, so his house burned. A good, if hard nosed, business decision.

But as I said earlier the fire company now gets all the respect that I give the repo man or the lawyer on retainer. If you demand money up front for a service, expect to be treated as a contract employee not a hero. They have demonstrated clearly that they are mercenaries, no more, no less.

[samtheman]

I don’t care enough about this issue to argue about it.

I’m going to go back to the Great Andy Levy line from the video:

“I’m losing track of the number of Muslims who I have to remember don’t speak for Islam. It’s a long list.”

[Domandred]

The part that I missed in this whole controversy is something my wife and I talked about yesterday.

This guy supposedly lives in a rural area that didn’t even have fire service until this new fee came along to provide it.

Given he’s in a rural area how far gone was the house by the time the fire department got there? It’s entirely possible that even if he had paid his yearly fee the house was a total loss anyways.

So one way or another he lost his house, and now just wants to make a big stink about it.

[Cowman]

I think the question here is did the fire company receive funding from local property taxes if so the homeowner should have had the fire put out. If the fire company was essentially a private company providing a service for subscribers THEN and only then were they justified in not doing so.

It seems to me that the property taxes were likely diverted to other things rather than the services they were intended to provide. This happens very often in mismanaged local governments i.e. you won't pay higher taxes so they (the town officials) are going to cut the fire and police service and if you still refuse them they cut the water and sewer services as well. But we'll never cut the town car and drivers for the town officials.

[momtothree]

I unfortunately have actually seen a house burn up in a fire. To be honest, I don’t care if it is a mansion or a shack... it is someone’s home and very disturbing to see. If I lived in a community that I had to pay for this service, I would. That being said, I wouldn’t support one volunteer fire service carnival, raffle etc... AND I wouldn’t stop if I saw a fireman on the side of the road and needed help. I would drive right on by and wave. Why? Where’s MY money? Have a flat tire? Too bad. I would have little to no respect for that department. Just a thought.

[dfwgator]

Why couldn’t they make it so that if they put out the fire, and you didn’t by $75, you get a bill for say, $500.

The problem is that by not putting out the fire on his house, it endangered the other houses in the area that did pay their $75.

[struggle]

Burgess wrote about this and Islam as the disintegrating forces of Britain in his novel “1985”.

The protagonist’s wife dies in a fire the during a fire department strike.

[goodwithagun]

They came to the aid of the house next door because it was in danger. If everybody knew that they only had to pay when the FD showed up, nobody would pay. Without the $75/house up front, they might not have enough $ to maintain their vehicles, facilities, gear, etc. Also, before the $75 fee, no rural homes had fire department protection. Before the fee, any rural house fire went without assistance. The FD was nice enough to provide service for a small, upfront fee. Gift-horse, mouth, get it?

[JoeProBono]

"Two barrels on the family's property caught fire, and that spread to the house."

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13277366

[tophat9000]

Question ...Was this fire crew a private for profit business?... because I find that hard to believe... because when is the best time to sell your services?... when then their in demand.. so good business would be to charge the guy a big price (say $5,000 to $7,500) and put the fire out...lets face it..in a true free marker you can buy and people will sell, anything for a price

I want to know what law prevent them from selling their services at a premier right then and there... because that $75 fee sounds more like a property tax or association fee... and people lose their houses all the time over unpaid propriety tax's or association fee's ... they just take it legally

[goodwithagun]

You would have every right to. If the firefighter is stranded on the side of the road it is because he CHOSE not to pay a small fee to AAA. Of course, now he knows the value of AAA. Even though he never needed it before, now that he is without it the small AAA membership fee would be most valuable. If you feel so badly for this family that CHOSE not to pay a fee to cover possible costs since they paid no city taxes, and then CHOSE to open burn insecurely, send them a check yourself.