Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
Is that the common sense that tells you "those who paid get service" or "put it out even if someone hasn't paid?"
|
Except - per the article you sited - the victim offerred to pay for the cost of the fire company's expense. Not just the missed $75 fee.
I get the whole "gotta pay the fee, dude"
but, as Schneed said, they are just sitting there watching burn while the owner is offering to pay the full cost of the expense. If he is willing to obligate himself to that - fine.
I am conflicted. On one hand I get the hard line - if the fireman break the rules and start putting out the fire, all sorts of liability issues not to mention the potential economic pitfalls (many opt out with the thought they can pay if needed, etc.). On the other, there is just a wrongness to watching something burn when the means to put it out are at hand and absolutely available.