Mo. firefighters refuse to help non-member

modbee ^ | 2-16-06

[LouAvul]

MONETT, Mo. (AP) - Rural firefighters stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner had not paid membership dues.

Bibaldo Rueda - who was injured battling the flames Monday - offered to pay the dues as the fire blazed away, but the Monett Rural Fire Department does not have a policy for on-the-spot billing, Sheriff's Detective Robert Evenson said.

[billbears]

.They probably stood there laughing

An assumption in your attempt to demonize this private firefighting company. No one was drowning, simply property burning. He had the responsibility to learn the rules of his new location and pay the bills accordingly. Since he did neither it was not the responsibility of the private firefighting organization to save his property. If they had, they would have been doing an injustice to those that had properly paid for their services

[listenhillary]

Let's hear it for REASON! Well put from someone who knows the local situation.

[ozarkgirl]

So... they just stand outside and assume that there are no lives at stake, huh?

Who do you suppose investigates arson cases in that county? Same outfit...?

Yep, they have to take off work (several hours unpaid), just to see someone's house burn down without finding out if anyone's life is at stake just because the homeowners didn't pay their $20. That'll teach 'em.

I see you live in Washington state. Use common sense....Nuff said.

[Richard Kimball]

Unfortunately, the people least likely to prepare for an emergency are the people most likely to have one. I just checked the demographics for Monett.

The median home price in 2000 was between $37,000 and $50,000. It's not a rich area. I understand that many on this thread think response should be done altruistically, and payment not be a consideration, but once again, emergency services that do not get compensation eventually go out of business.

[Dust in the Wind]

I thought tax money paid the tab. I've never heard of a membership program to fund firefighters. Is this for real?

That's how it's done in rural areas, where there is no taxing authority to provide the funds.

Not in the two states that I have lived in for most of my life. That falls under fire and rescue taxes levied on all property within the county. If it is populous enough to warrant more than one fire district it is usual funded. And all but the larger towns (5,000 ? or more) are all volunteer. Sure they ask for donations to cover new gear or whatever but grants and tax funds pay for all within that county and then there is that mutual aid thing.

A lot of folks should know that comes into play every time there are wind blown grass fires going. I personally have witnessed four counties in two states on mutual aid calls. Even if the aid is only to provide backup in the local town while their crew is out on a call, it is there. This is so much smoke and mirror political bull its amazing.

[sgtbono2002]

There are such things as moral right and wrong. Morally what they did was wrong. I cant say what I think of this bunch. I cant demonise them enough. Where I come from real Firefighters would tar and feather them.

[sgtbono2002]

I will be glad to help you. Where it say Payee . Print SgtBono C/o Free Republic.

Where it says amount print- Twenty Dollars, then write it in small in the proper place.

Then sign your name and mail it in. LOL

[ozarkgirl]

A lot of the rural ambulance services work on the same principle , pay one amount for a yearly membership or pay a higher fee later for thier services.

I'm not familiar with that. Always then there is a life at stake. I'm not one to pay much on taxes but I do think everyone should be covered for that one. There is a big difference between material possessions and someone's life, perhaps that of a child. Ambulance and helicopter is covered for everyone.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I wonder if any of the nozzleheads drum up business by freelancing the initiation of fires.

The system described in the article encourages this type of behavior. Public safety departmental funding needs to be designed such that trying to drum up business isn't profitable. It's like doctors spreading plague.

[NCLaw441]

You said: It sounds almost like extortion.
***
It would be extortion if the firefighters set the fire, then demanded payment. The system here, which one can like or dislike, is to pay the dues when they are due. If you do so, you get fire protection. If not, then you get what you paid for. Nothing.

This same situation in other contexts usually elicits the "you get what you pay for" response. I am a little surprised at some Freepers on this thread. I guess we should give high paying jobs to dropouts, for example. After all, it isn't fair to extort hard work out of them for low pay, just because they didn't "pay" by working hard in school.

The Hispanic/immigrant issue is overplayed here, too. If the guy paid, he should get fire protection, irrespective of his national origin, or even his legal/illegal immigrant status. If the fire department took his money, they owe the service.

[CindyDawg]

Yeah. That was a typo.

[Species8472]

In colonial America, residents of cities and villages established fire brigades funded by dues. It has been noted that Ben Franklin established one of the first volunteer fire departments in 1736. Located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, it was called the Union Fire Company. If you ever visit a fire museum, you will see displays of "Firemarks"

You would attach your " firemark " to the building that you had paid fire protection dues for to indicate to firefighters that it was a "protected" building. There was strong competition among fire companies for dues.

I am the Chief of a small rural volunteer department in Alaska. Our first responsibility is to the fire protection district that funds us through its tax base. We could never morally refuse to respond outside our district, given equipment and manpower availability. We do have statutory authority and a mechanism in place to bill for such service. Surprisingly, most insurance companies will cover that cost.

[indcons]

I agree entirely. All the man had to do way pay $20/YEAR to receive the service. Yet, he chose not to. Well, he has learned his lessons in personal responsibility now.

BTW, I am pretty surpised (and amused) to see the reactions of the FR conservo-socialists.

[listenhillary]

From the second AP article.

"Rural Monett members have not been asked to choose between memberships and tax support, though they came out strongly against a proposed Aurora Rural Bi-County Fire Protection District, which was voted down in 2001."

It sounds like they voted down a government tax based fire protection district. It could have been the huge Hispanic population that helped vote it down.

You're saying that it morally wrong for the unpaid firefighters to be hesitant to risk their lives to protect property?

It's just property. They did say they would assist if lives were at risk. There is a big difference here. It's just material goods.

[ozarkgirl]

Let's hear it for REASON! Well put from someone who knows the local situation.

I checked your home page expecting a rare person from California who had common sense. Then I saw you also were from Missouri. I shouldn't have been surprised.

[billbears]

There are such things as moral right and wrong

Indeed there are. However this isn't one of those things. The man chose not to learn the standards of his new community. That's his fault and his ignorance. Should we now protect people from their own ignorance of the law?

Morally what they did was wrong.

They did nothing moral or immoral. They were fulfilling their contract to the citizens that had paid for their service.

Where I come from real Firefighters would tar and feather them

Where you come from, if the firefighters are existing off the government teat, their actions are far from moral. I did not ask, request, or demand that any group of men protect my property. However, if I contract them out to do so, their services will be worth what I paid for them as they realize they are in effect working for one of their employers.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I take away that you are a staunch libertarian. I'm not. I think some services such as the police, work best when a tax is levied to pay for them. But their system is their system and the person in question should have paid his dues.

Pretty staunch, yes, at least in regard to public policy such as this. As for tax-paid public services, different communities are better served by different systems; in this instance, folks on this thread have come up with a variety of hypothetical alternatives, but as you say, this was their system. If those hypothetical alternatives were feasible in the real world, they'd exist in this case. Otherwise, we would have to assume that these volunteer firefighters are simply heartless bastards, and the homeowner is some poor deceived victim. I can't buy that.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Lemmee guess... there's a big fire every year or so right about the time to collect fees...

Yeah, that rural volunteer firefighter racket is a gold mine. I hear the Russian mafia's involved.

[listenhillary]

Family's been in the area since 1810. I've been to California.

I'm about ready to ditch the nick, it came from Hillary's "listening tour" when she ran for the senate.

[rwfromkansas]

I am not a socialist.

But, one of the functions of government....one of the very few legitimate functions of government in the Constitution...is TO PROTECT us, not just those who can afford a membership fee.

I am sorry, but it smacks of failing to do that duty if they will not help an American citizen just because he isn't a member.