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?
That's a good question: did Jesus weigh-in on people who expect to live off of the charity of their neighbors?
Too bad they didn’t work out something along the lines of ‘if you don’t subscribe to the $75, and then need us, you will be charged $1000, or something like that.
But then...maybe most people wouldn’t pay the $75 playing the odds that their house wouldn’t catch fire.
The least the firemen could do would have been leave rather than sit and watch the house burn down.
Good grief. I think whoever wrote that needs to pick up his bible and read about the good Samaritan.
Would it have hurt the FD to fight this fire? No. Put the darn thing out, then fine the guy for not paying his fee. Case closed.
From what I’ve heard - 3 dogs and a cat died in that house fire!!!
Funny how people like to order Firemen to go into a Burning house - a house that is outside of their taxbase, a house where the owner decided to both drop Fire Department coverage, as well as declined to install any fire prevention system to replace the Fire Department’s protection.
I do believe we are expected to assume some personal responsibility.
But no; let’s demand that the Firemen go into this house.
At their own risk (if they fight a fire outside their assigned jurisdiction, they forfeit medical and life insurance). If the homeowner decides they didn’t put the fire out ‘fast enough’ or caused water damage to non-burned areas of his home, he can sue the individual firemen - personally.
Yep, that’s right. When you are a certified fireman, you assume certain protections. You are protected medically, and have life insurance for this dangerous profession - if and only if you are fighting in an area you have been assigned. You cannot go crusading across the nation, putting out any house fire you see - and maintain this coverage.
Now let’s look at the financial facts. This idiot homeowner took a risk. The Fire Department (FD) is not supported by tax revenue, so they must charge $75/yr to the homes in the area they can support. This idiot had previously supported the firemen, but decided that he would take a gamble this year. He lost.
If the FD had put his home out; who would pay $75 for protection next year? Why pay, if they will serve your home, at personal risk, anyway? So, the FD would go bankrupt and no one would have coverage. It’s just that simple. It takes money to run a FD, even a 100% voluntary FD.
This is a simple test ... do you want a Nanny State or are you willing to accept personal responsibility. In the USA we have the right to be as stupid as we want. It is not the Government’s job to fix stupidity - stupidity has consequences, and this is an example of stupidity in action.
I suspect that this idiot’s misery is only starting. If I were the insurance company, I wouldn’t pay - because the homeowner was probably in violation of his lending agreement in not providing adequate Fire Safety. I’ll bet that there are clauses in his Mortgage Agreement concerning maintaining minimal safeguards against fire, flood and other damage. Stupidity should be painful, perhaps other idiots will learn from this idiot and write that $75 check.
They could have put it out and sent him a bill. It would hav been a lot more than $75.
I am curious as to whether they had homeowners’ insurance. It would seem that you would not be able to get it unless you had fire protection, such as, could prove you paid your $75 each year.
Please tell me how you get fiancing with any bank with this clause? Let's see ... we have 1,000 homes in this area - and if 10% of them catch fire, we'll make some money....
Couldn't you make the legal arguement that any charge above $75 is now 'gouging' or 'extortion'? You don't walk into the insurance company after your home is flooded and waive around a $125 check, demanding retro-active Flood insurance coverage, do you?
They could at least have hosed it down, while they were standing around watching. How much could that have cost? They were already there, no one would have had to enter it.
Then why would ANYONE pay $75/yr to the FD? The FD is not supported by tax dollars, so the money has to come from somewhere. If no one pays the 'insurance', then the FD will go broke - and then NO ONE will have fire protection. Do you want a Nanny State - which is essentially communism - or do you subscribe to the basic principle of Personal Responsibility? It's really that simple.
Yes, it would. If their insurance caught wind of them putting out a fire outside of their jurisdiction, and outside of customer agreements, they'd probably lose their insurance, and be put out of business.
Put the darn thing out, then fine the guy for not paying his fee.
Fine someone for not paying a voluntary fee? Sounds Democrat to me.
I have watched this article for a couple of days now,and heard all of the arguments in another forum.
The situation is a bad one and the solution they have come up with sucks. One must wonder how the argument would go had it been a poor black person’s home they allowed to burn down, but that isn’t reallt germane either.
These people need to come up with a new plan for fire protection in their community.
As a retired career Firefighter, I have seen the ravages of fire. The personal losses that cannot be replaced. Photographs, papers, inheritance ,that cannot be bought at any price destroyed by fire Irreplacebale items.What if Grandma had been in the fire they refused at first to even respoond to.
I have heard all of the arguments and know for a certainty that I would have fought that fire with a shovel and dirt if that was all I had to fight it with.
Sitting there with a functional piece of Fire Apparatus and a crew and watching this mans home burn is not the act of Christian people and certainly not the act of Firefighters.
I dont care to argue this point, nor will my mind ever be changed. No matter how cheap or rotten a person the man was, it doesnt excuse this action.
If even a Charles Manson deserves to have a lawyer, even a cheap sumbugger like this deserves to have some effort made to save his home.
If it’s the fault of the system, Change the system, but this is a sorry sin this community has committed.
***Too bad they didnt work out something along the lines of if you dont subscribe to the $75, and then need us, you will be charged $1000, or something like that.***
Our fire dept has that kind of an arangement. Often rural houses are uninsured as they are too far away from a fire hydrant. As a result, fire ins companies will not insure them, and only the water the fire truck has on it is used, which often is not enough.
When the city water lines came through I had a fireplug put in my front yard, and got lower ins rates. I also pay my fire dues.
I don’t buy life insurance. I do expect the insurance company to pay my survivors anyway. It’s the Christian thing to do.
As for auto insurance. I cancelled my policy last year. That said, if I have an accident I expect the company to pay for the damages.
I doubt they have the authority to fine anyone!! The author is exactly right about this.IMHO
If the FD engages, they accept responsibilty for any damages.
Again, if you can depend on being a parasite to the FD - then so can EVERONE else. The fact that the FD was optional is a very basic exercise in Personal Responsibilty - one that both the home owner and you fail to grasp. Stupid action have consequences.
If he doesn’t have to pay for FD protection, then neither does anyone else. If no one pays the $75/yr payment - how do you suppose the FD is to be financed? Who pays for the Fire Engine, maintenance, equipment, training, the station, utilities, ect? The entire FD would go bankrupt - and then on one would have fire protection.
This concept is Ben Franklin’s brainchild. He established the first private fire department. Those who paid the fee received a plaque to put on their homes. If your home caught fire, the fire department would come to the rescue. No fee, no plaque, no home!