Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn
The Examiner ^ | 10/7/10 | Joe Speranzella SFO

Posted on 10/07/2010 7:04:54 AM PDT by Catholic Examiner

Greed over need. What would Jesus do?


TOPICS: Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: opinion; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-228 next last
To: UCANSEE2

If the fire department had no permission to enter the property because the home owner paid no fee, could they have been sued for trespassing?


141 posted on 10/07/2010 10:33:02 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
Lots of IFs in this situation.

Not really. Those "ifs" are actually simply stipulating the conditions as laid out in the story. According to the story, the Fulton City fire department did have a signed agreement whereby it would extend services to the rural county residents who paid a fee for fire protection services. To extend the service to someone who didn't pay would violate the terms of that agreement. The FD DID have liability insurance, and the terms of the liability coverage would be violated by extending services outside the scope of the FD service area.

142 posted on 10/07/2010 10:35:08 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Jesus called us to be Salt and Light, not Vinegar and Water.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
In need? This is the part I don't think we can assume.

Oh, I don't assume that this particular fellow was in need. That's just something I threw in my answer to your question.

It appears this homeowner had the money, but refused to pay.

It that is true, would you have paid the fee for him?

If it is true that he refused to pay (we'll see as this story develops), then that would change everything, IMO. In that case, I would just mark it up to a sad ending to a stupid decision.

If I was in a situation like this guy is in, I'd pay the fee to guarantee that there would be a FD there to assist in case of fire. That's a no-brainer to me.

143 posted on 10/07/2010 10:38:45 AM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: blarney
Everyone deserves decency $75 is not a barometer for who should be treated decent and who should not.

It's not about decency. It's about a city fire department extending service to rural residents who pay for the service. There is no county fire department for these rural residents so some of them asked the city to provide fire protection beyond its jurisdictional borders. The city FD came up with an agreement with the county that it would provide the fire protection service to those residents who paid a $75 fee for fire protection. The only way that the FD could legally provide this service and still be in compliance with its agreement with the county and in compliance with its liability insurance policies is to limit that service to those rural residents who paid the fee to subscribe to the service.

144 posted on 10/07/2010 10:42:22 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Jesus called us to be Salt and Light, not Vinegar and Water.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

“The state should have a law everybody is covered!”

Food
Water
Housing
A job
Education
Police
Fire services
Disability
Pension

I think they tried that before. Cuba, Russia and China have all been trying to tell us the USA that it doesn’t work.


145 posted on 10/07/2010 10:44:06 AM PDT by listenhillary (A very simple fix to our dilemma - We need to reward the makers instead of the takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Hodar; johngrace

I’m thinking that the real Nanny Staters are the owners of the house.

ENTITLEMENT. They thought they were ‘entitled’ to FD services, even though it was clear that there was a yearly fee.


Or, it could be that this man just never found the time, or spare money, to pay the bill, and kept procrastinating in the belief that his house wasn’t likely to catch fire soon, and now he’s mad at the firemen because reality happened.


146 posted on 10/07/2010 10:45:13 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

I’m not demanding anything. In this situation, considering the area and population, I think they should have helped. I’m not saying this is how it should be everywhere, I’m responding to the thread title.


147 posted on 10/07/2010 10:48:07 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

I said that because a lot of the comments here start out with or have a big IF in them.


148 posted on 10/07/2010 10:50:18 AM PDT by stuartcr (When politicians politicize issues, aren't they just doing their job?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

LOL!!! I did not vote for Foe Obama! LOL !!! I do not believe in nanny state!


149 posted on 10/07/2010 10:52:49 AM PDT by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
"The FD DID have liability insurance, and the terms of the liability coverage would be violated by extending services outside the scope of the FD service area. "

Which, IMO, completely justifies the FD's decision in this case. If the firefighters put out the fire, and one of them were injured or died in doing so, they would not be eligible for medical care or survivor's benefits.

I wouldn't be cavalier about risking my men's lives or health to save 'property' they weren't responsible for saving.

150 posted on 10/07/2010 10:53:55 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

I also read on another thread that the community had voted down a property tax to pay for fire service.

If you want all of the services of a city, it might be wise to move there.


151 posted on 10/07/2010 10:56:03 AM PDT by listenhillary (A very simple fix to our dilemma - We need to reward the makers instead of the takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
If the fire department had no permission to enter the property because the home owner paid no fee, could they have been sued for trespassing?

I really do not know. I think it would be a 'real stretch'.

152 posted on 10/07/2010 10:56:26 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
"Or, it could be that this man just never found the time, or spare money, to pay the bill, and kept procrastinating in the belief that his house wasn’t likely to catch fire soon, and now he’s mad at the firemen because reality happened. "

From what I saw on tv yesterday, the wife (or mother) of the homeowner stated they had "forgotten" to pay the fee.

153 posted on 10/07/2010 10:56:59 AM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: al_c
In that case, I would just mark it up to a sad ending to a stupid decision.

I would agree.

154 posted on 10/07/2010 11:00:38 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender

They don’t place much value in their property if they forgot.

My dad didn’t ever forget to buy a fire tag. It would have been irresponsible to put his family at risk. Government has made being irresponsible not such a big deal. Get pregnant before finishing school? We’ll take care of you.

Rewarding irresponsible behavior? We are rewarded with more irresponsible behavior.


155 posted on 10/07/2010 11:01:46 AM PDT by listenhillary (A very simple fix to our dilemma - We need to reward the makers instead of the takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Until missing pieces are provided they are indecent. Seems the media people there thought so and were threatened by the firechief.


156 posted on 10/07/2010 11:05:14 AM PDT by blarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

Once they were there with their firetruck watching it burn it’s all about decency. No way to try to color it. No different than a cop watching a woman get raped just because it’s not in the city he’s a cop in.

Nobody knows about these insurance policies it was just a guess by the guy who wrote the article he was clear about that. Folks sure like to take his noted assumption and make it real tho. LoL


157 posted on 10/07/2010 11:07:12 AM PDT by blarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: blarney; VRWCmember
Once they were there with their firetruck watching it burn it’s all about decency. No way to try to color it.

To say that responding to VRWCmember posts begs the question, did you really read the posts?

No different than a cop watching a woman get raped just because it’s not in the city he’s a cop in.

If a debate can jump the shark, this post was it.

158 posted on 10/07/2010 11:14:25 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender
From what I saw on tv yesterday, the wife (or mother) of the homeowner stated they had "forgotten" to pay the fee.

Yes. She also said she doesn't blame the firefighters.

The fire was started by Gene Cranick's GRANDSON, who apparently set some barrels on fire that were NEAR the house.

Apparenly, Mr. Cranick watched the barrels burn until the fire reached the house, and did nothing but bitch to the Firefighters. Even though the whole family had plenty of time to evacuate the house ( the fire didn't start INSIDE the house), they somehow couldn't get the pets out of a DOUBLE WIDE TRAILER.

159 posted on 10/07/2010 11:16:09 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: blarney
No way to try to color it. No different than a cop watching a woman get raped just because it’s not in the city he’s a cop in.

It is entirely different from your cop scenario. Cops actually have a duty to intervene and prevent a crime even if not on duty or in their jurisdiction. Not only do firefighters not have that same duty, they are usually prohibited from doing so by their liability policies.

160 posted on 10/07/2010 11:17:01 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Jesus called us to be Salt and Light, not Vinegar and Water.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-228 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson