[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Per the article the offer to pay the fee was after the the fact. Suppose I were to offer my home insurance company my annual fee after my house burned down? As a business would you take my offer? No. Now the guy did offer to pay wherever it costs to put out the fire but what assurances do I have the guy is going to pay? His only know collateral is on fire. Not worth the risk.

If everyone offered to pay the expense of putting out the fire after their house is on fire you wouldn't have a fire department.

We are free to choose and the Fire Fighters made the right business choice. This is a teachable moment.