Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag359
There's a simple principle in contract law. No contract is above the law. The fact that this county and fire department is allowed to ignore a house fire should be a crime. Just like it's illegal for a police officer to ignore a person in need. The closest scenario I can think of is having an illegal alien getting robbed of their belongings right in front of an officer and the officer does nothing. And why should he? The illegal alien doesn't pay his salary.
On top of that the firefighters were way to cocky in this story. A house is burning, that's a hazard. You don't know if something is going to blow up, like a gas line or a propane tank, and do more damage (and you can't say they knew it was safe to let the house burn because they didn't show up when they were initially called). Instead they waited for the fire to approach the neighbors property and then only fought the flames approaching the neighboring property. Someone could have been hurt due negligence. As sick as it sounds, they're lucky that the only casualties were the pets. It's not much different then us taking for granted that we were going to beat the Rams this year.
Protect and serve is not a suggestion based on capitalism. It's a basic right that keeps the citizens of this country safe. You don't get to make an example of people who skimp on payments like that. You find another way to remedy the situation. Actually above all else it's obvious that this method of paying for fire protection is obviously broken. This should have never been an issue to begin with.
Check out the video to see what another local fire chief had to say.
Woman Says Firefighters Blameless In House Burning - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports |
If you create a legal responsibility for them to provide a service regardless of payment what incentive exists for the citizens to pay the money that the service costs?
I want to make clear that I am not for them having let the place burn down necessarily. I simply don't know enough about the specifics economically, logistically and administratively. So my opinion is more from a general point of view.
In this case they were denied a service they had no legal right to. The fire-fighters have a responsibility to the people who pay for their service. What they do simply isn't free or even cheap...someone has to pay for it. And a system has to be in place that efficiently collects the money needed to provide the service to those who pay for it. Railroading the process by inserting real incentives to NOT pay for the service is irresponsible. The solution here isn't to make a service a legal right regardless of payment. It is to make the payment a tax and create other real incentives to pay. Like jail. Don't pay your taxes..go to jail.
But here they had to make a call. Put out a fire and create the impression and precedent that paying the fee is not only NOT mandatory but economically stupid or let the fire go. Anything that realistically puts the necessary funding of public safety at risk in the general community is way more irresponsible and unethical than letting someone's house burn down in my opinion. I can see a very realistic situation that endangers proper funding here. That is a huge problem.