Skip to comments.Bryan Fischer: Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn
Posted on 10/07/2010 7:04:54 AM PDT by Catholic Examiner
Greed over need. What would Jesus do?
It’s compatible...the Bible is full of stories and parables about people being punished for their own lack of judgment. The Christian thing is not to expect something for nothing. True Christians would come to help this gentleman after the fact. Since according to the story he was fully covered by insurance he only lost the personal items that can’t be replaced so should require little help!
I understand all that. I was commenting on whether they did the Christian thing or not. They were there already. They could have had him sign a waiver on the spot, and hosed the place instead of watching.
Thanks for saving me from typing all that. You NAILED it! 100% correct!
They 'could' have. IIRC, they showed up, but only to protect other properties .
Put the darn thing out, then fine the guy for not paying his fee. Case closed.
He didn't pay for fire/rescue services.
The firemen legally and technically are not supposed to respond to his address. If they do, they do so at their own cost, and cannot 'FINE' him for anything, as he was given the choice not to pay, and not be covered. If they put out the fire, they would be encouraging other citizens to not pay, since the fireman can't 'charge' or 'fine' you.
The firemen were in a CATCH-22.
Everyone from the mayor on down said NO. If you are the Fire Chief 'on-scene', and this is CITY/TOWN policy, what do you do?
Would you give up your job, to put out that fire ?
Whoa!!! Well said!!!!!Well said!!!! Dittos!!!!
All they would have to do, if that was their concern, would be to re-negotiate their contracts with whatever clauses they feel are necessary. They were there, they could have hosed the place.
Just write a quick waiver on the spot, and have him sign it. There were plenty of witnesses.
I agree; I was pondering this and thought of the parable of the Ant and the Grasshopper.
It seemed to have a lot of parallels to this story; on anther thread I was lambasted for defending the Ant (on a conservative web page, no less).
I don’t know about you, but among the first checks I would write every January 1st would be a $75 check to the FD.
It could. If the Fire Department's liability insurance carrier canceled its liability coverage because it violated the terms of its contract with the county and with the insurance carrier, it would have hurt the FD and it would have hurt all the neighbors who would no longer be afforded fire protection.
No the couldn't.
If they put it out, they would be doing so at their own cost. The Fire Department/City cannot 'charge' him for services he has refused to subscribe to.
They would be better off to sick the EPA on him for violating local air standards because the Fire Department was left with no recourse but to watch it burn.
If it caused them to lose their liability coverage for violating the terms of their agreement with the county it would have cost them plenty.
Hinky post, I my older brother, father are firemen. I asked thim about this forfeiture of medical and life insurance and they said that is not true. There is nothing like that. It has nothing to do with their location they are protected anywhere they go as long as they follow their training correctly.
Too bad decency didn’t come into play in all this and the firemen just did the right thing instead of the heartless thing.
Or if it had been a cute blonde chick's home.
The fire department had to do this. If people don’t pay their fees, the volunteer fire department won’t exist. Everybody burns.
I’ve heard the wife on the news more than once. They replay the clip where she says something close to, “If they waived the fee last year, why couldn’t they waive it this year?”
She wants a service contract without having to pay for it.
I would think that most people would see logically see that it was her responsibility to obtain the contract for the service.
This does not have trigger the “bleeding heart” response.
After all this is equal to saying that “We should get healthcare for free, because it is owed to us.” If we reject Obamacare, we should reject the pleas of this woman.
Are you kidding? Just try to enforce that sort of a waiver in court.
Here in minnesota a police chief burned down his girlfriends bussiness so that he could save it....ahhh he started a fire to impress her by saving her...but it got out of control...and so half a city block burned up...anyway...I had a point....
Elected officials...A few go power mad...and will burn down their own house,city,country?...on a whim?
When I was in detroit every weekend for 2 yrs..I saw many city blocks with only 1 or 2 houses left standing...on weekends the residents..like to start big fires..and then |||PARTY\\\ around them harrass the firemen ect..Who is paying the fee for that?
EVERY one who can afford it should drive through south and west detroit ...then cross the bridge into Winsor...
Bring a Liberal with you.
You are right about the tax payers part.
If 'one' had a second domicile ( say a new girlfriend's place), and the house was free and clear, and obviously 'insured', then one would stand to make a lot of money if the place burned so bad it was condemned.
So, not having FD services would be of benefit in ensuring the house burned to the ground.
Then 'one' could take his new girlfriend on a Cruise ship to the Bahamas, and not even have to pay for 'pet watching' services anymore.
Well, the Bible did come into play, on this. According to the parables of the TEN VIRGINS, and the TALENTS, the firemen were right to refuse to put out the fire.
If this house was 'insured' , and had no mortgage, the owner stands to collect a big chunk of money. I find it awfully convenient that he didn't pay the fire services fee, and that the house burning completely ensures he won't have to spend any money rebuilding it. According to another post, he lost some pets, but maybe he wanted to lose them. Neighbors said he had 20 minutes during which he could have entered and rescued them. If true, something stinks.
It may turn out that this 'homeowner' doesn't deserve any decency.
It would be interesting to follow the outcome of this.