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
click here to read article
If the fire department had no permission to enter the property because the home owner paid no fee, could they have been sued for trespassing?
Not really. Those "ifs" are actually simply stipulating the conditions as laid out in the story. According to the story, the Fulton City fire department did have a signed agreement whereby it would extend services to the rural county residents who paid a fee for fire protection services. To extend the service to someone who didn't pay would violate the terms of that agreement. The FD DID have liability insurance, and the terms of the liability coverage would be violated by extending services outside the scope of the FD service area.
Oh, I don't assume that this particular fellow was in need. That's just something I threw in my answer to your question.
It appears this homeowner had the money, but refused to pay.
It that is true, would you have paid the fee for him?
If it is true that he refused to pay (we'll see as this story develops), then that would change everything, IMO. In that case, I would just mark it up to a sad ending to a stupid decision.
If I was in a situation like this guy is in, I'd pay the fee to guarantee that there would be a FD there to assist in case of fire. That's a no-brainer to me.
It's not about decency. It's about a city fire department extending service to rural residents who pay for the service. There is no county fire department for these rural residents so some of them asked the city to provide fire protection beyond its jurisdictional borders. The city FD came up with an agreement with the county that it would provide the fire protection service to those residents who paid a $75 fee for fire protection. The only way that the FD could legally provide this service and still be in compliance with its agreement with the county and in compliance with its liability insurance policies is to limit that service to those rural residents who paid the fee to subscribe to the service.
“The state should have a law everybody is covered!”
I think they tried that before. Cuba, Russia and China have all been trying to tell us the USA that it doesn’t work.
I’m thinking that the real Nanny Staters are the owners of the house.
ENTITLEMENT. They thought they were ‘entitled’ to FD services, even though it was clear that there was a yearly fee.
I’m not demanding anything. In this situation, considering the area and population, I think they should have helped. I’m not saying this is how it should be everywhere, I’m responding to the thread title.
I said that because a lot of the comments here start out with or have a big IF in them.
LOL!!! I did not vote for Foe Obama! LOL !!! I do not believe in nanny state!
Which, IMO, completely justifies the FD's decision in this case. If the firefighters put out the fire, and one of them were injured or died in doing so, they would not be eligible for medical care or survivor's benefits.
I wouldn't be cavalier about risking my men's lives or health to save 'property' they weren't responsible for saving.
I also read on another thread that the community had voted down a property tax to pay for fire service.
If you want all of the services of a city, it might be wise to move there.
I really do not know. I think it would be a 'real stretch'.
From what I saw on tv yesterday, the wife (or mother) of the homeowner stated they had "forgotten" to pay the fee.
I would agree.
They don’t place much value in their property if they forgot.
My dad didn’t ever forget to buy a fire tag. It would have been irresponsible to put his family at risk. Government has made being irresponsible not such a big deal. Get pregnant before finishing school? We’ll take care of you.
Rewarding irresponsible behavior? We are rewarded with more irresponsible behavior.
Until missing pieces are provided they are indecent. Seems the media people there thought so and were threatened by the firechief.
Once they were there with their firetruck watching it burn it’s all about decency. No way to try to color it. No different than a cop watching a woman get raped just because it’s not in the city he’s a cop in.
Nobody knows about these insurance policies it was just a guess by the guy who wrote the article he was clear about that. Folks sure like to take his noted assumption and make it real tho. LoL
To say that responding to VRWCmember posts begs the question, did you really read the posts?
No different than a cop watching a woman get raped just because its not in the city hes a cop in.
If a debate can jump the shark, this post was it.
Yes. She also said she doesn't blame the firefighters.
The fire was started by Gene Cranick's GRANDSON, who apparently set some barrels on fire that were NEAR the house.
Apparenly, Mr. Cranick watched the barrels burn until the fire reached the house, and did nothing but bitch to the Firefighters. Even though the whole family had plenty of time to evacuate the house ( the fire didn't start INSIDE the house), they somehow couldn't get the pets out of a DOUBLE WIDE TRAILER.
It is entirely different from your cop scenario. Cops actually have a duty to intervene and prevent a crime even if not on duty or in their jurisdiction. Not only do firefighters not have that same duty, they are usually prohibited from doing so by their liability policies.