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
So post their insurance policy.
If not you guys are just blowing smoke trying to guess a way to be right.
We are right and so were the firemen - the family will tell you that much.
Like Olberman you are looking for a villan. I know why he is, why are you?
There’s a thing called responsibility. Another thing called liability.
The town/municipality that runs the fire department has full responsibility to those who either a) pay municipal taxes; and b) those from outside the municipality who subscribe to their services.
They have no responsibility to those who choose not to subscribe. In fact, they would put the town in jeopardy for any liability that could arise.
If a firefighter were injured or killed, he would not be covered by the town’s insurance plan. The liability would fall to the municipality that would surely face a lawsuit.
It’s not so cut and dry as you might believe. Not by a country mile.
No I never said the firemen were wrong. Hence you show how little knowledge you have even of the current discussion. I keep saying you guys are wrong for your weak stretches into subjects you know nothing about. Yet you keep going.
I said they were callouse, heartless and lowlifes for sitting there and watching someone’s house burn.
Like any of the left wing idiots on the news you are just talking out of your ass. I know why they do and it’s obvious why you are. Pay attention to the topic next time please.
Also good try at deflecting at producing the document you wanted to try to use in your argument. Please be more honest in your approach or just stay out of it.
So your in your rape scenario the police weren't wrong. They were just callouse, heartless lowlifes?
You doubt it would be an issue? On the contrary, it would be the issue that would bbq the defense.
"Your Honor, I was under duress . . . my house was on fire."
"Ok, I'll allow your lawsuit against the fire department to proceed."
It wouldn't even be a speedbump.
Why don't you try an experiment: run down to Home Depot and get yourself a portable power generator, or an emergency sump pump. Take it to the check-out counter, and inform them that you'll pay for it when it is used the first time.
That's a big issue that people are missing. When this homeowner chose not to pay the $75, he instructed the fire department not to put out a fire at his house.
Ever been in TN? There are literally small counties that are so sparse and poor that the tax base can not support a fire department. If your county has only 700 homes, and 95% subscribe to the Fire Dept, you will have a yearly budget of ~$50K per year.
Now if people feel entitled to free fire service, you will have less of a budget next year and the fire Dept goes bankrupt. Now no one has fire protection.
This mentality is why we have an entitlement society. Why pay? You deserve these services just for being you.
Yup no different. They would not have legally been required to do anything but dial 911 if even that much.
I notice you never did produce any of that insurance documentation. LOL, good job of trying and failing miserably.
Can you prove that? I would like to see the specific insurance documentation that these guys have that states this. Since all over this country fire departments go to other districts and help when they need it.
Oh wait I’m sure a firemen has never been killed while doing this. LOL!
If he had run back into the house to get the pets, and become disabled inside, I think the FD would have come in after him.
My pets are like my kids. I would run back into the house to get them.
But then again, I learned very early that you ALWAYS pay your insurance. And paying fire dues is insurance.
What a disgrace, what an embarassment. How could you show up at work the next day if you were a government official responsible for policies like this one?
I doubt it would go to court, but since the whole court thing is just being thrown around on this thread, it doesn’t even matter.
It’s the city FD.
Are you willing to bet your life on that? Until I heard this story I would have thought that anywhere there was a fire there would be a fireman fighting it. One of my friends is a fireman, to hear him talk I can't imagine him and the guys he works with being able to stand by under any circumstances. Remember 9/11 (talk about rhetorical questions) and every fireman in the country heading for NYC without even thinking about it?
Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor, not because of what others may do, but because of ourselves.
Of course fire departments go to other areas outside their jurisdiction when backup is needed. One assumes they have mutual covenants. And riders to protect the participating fire companies. Nothing “LOL” about it.
That isn’t the question here. This is a municipal fire department. They cover a larger geographic area at the option of the homeowners. Its costs, all of them, are covered by taxpayers within the municipality, and by optional subscribers in the outlying area. It would be a safe bet that the municipality’s insurance policies covering the fire department have riders that allow them to service ‘subscribers,’ as the folks outside the city limits are termed. Such riders would not obtain for non-subscribers.
The family whose house burned showed no interest in paying the $75 annual fee to be included in the fire department’s jurisdiction. You don’t call GEICO or AAA after you’ve driven your car into the ditch or another car. They might be sympathetic, but they’re neither going to tow your car nor cover its damage.
So, under the scenario presented, as you would have it, no one in the outlying area would have to pay the optional subscription, but the taxpayers within the municipality would have to pay for their protection? And had the fire department responded, potentially bankrupted the town had something untoward happened?
All our lives require choices, and that family made a regrettable one.
I don't doubt for a moment that if a person was inside that home, someone would not have hesitated to go in and attempt a rescue. But the cold reality now, is they provide a very necessary service and cities are in constant battle with them over wages and benefits. Compared with what they must learn, know, practice and endure they do not make that much. Many are also part of volunteers and they must usually pay for all their own equipment. Paying a fee for that service should be considered an honor, as it doesn't nearly take care of the true cost to help.
It's sad to see your house destroyed, but what is more dear, your stuff or a fire fighter’s life? There is always a risk.
So nothing to actually back up these claims of insurance issues just a guess. Come back when you have something to actually back that up. Till then these guys are lowlifes
This has noting to do with TARP, pay attention to what I have been saying before.
They’re not volunteer firefighters either.
Your screen name describes the quality of your logic to a tee, FRiend.
I fully understand what you have said. You believe that contracts should be null and void when it is convenient to do so.
Good luck with that.
apparently you don’t understand what I have posted. Nice attempt at an insult.
Too bad you aren’t smart enough to actually understand the conversation. I never said anything about nullin any contracts or anything of the such. You are just simple minded and lack the ability to understand so instead of becoming smarter decide that it’s easier to try to be insulting.
It’s obvious how that has worked out for you. Good luck in your sad and lonely little life.
First, to explain a nuance of grade school grammar, my comment about your screen name was in a sentence whose subject was your logic, not you. I do not know you, and therefore cannot comment on you as a person. The quality of your logic speaks for itself.
Second, your lack of mention of the word “contract” is beside the point. The $75 was a fee attached to a contract between a homeowner and the fire department. By choosing not to pay, the homeowner excluded himself from being party to the contract, which eliminated the responsibility of the fire department for fighting a fire at his address.
By not entering into the agreement, the owner specifically instructed the fire department to not respond to a fire at his address. Your position requires the fire department to honor a contract they are not party to.
I’ll not try to reason with you further on this subject. Your stand is unreasonable, and your logic behind it impenetrable. Have a good day.
YOu attempted and failed son, don’t try to take the high road now it just makes you look pathetic.
My lack of mentioning a contract is paramount in this along with the fact I have achknowledged ultimately it was the homeowners fault. You just lack simple comprehension skills.
He didn’t instruct anyone of anything and in fact asked them differently along with other home owners. Again you fail. You just jump in without reading and assume. When you assume you make an ass of just you. I congratulate you on that.
You have no ability to reason you lack the simple intellectual skills to do so. Hell you can’t even read a thread and understand what has been said. That didn’t stop you from jumping in unarmed of knowledge or common sense tho now did it? LoL!
I don’t intend to engage in insults, but would guess that you don’t know much about municipal governance, do you? It’s not my place to produce insurance policies for you. To think this town (and every other similarly situated) didn’t have insurance policies in place to cover this scenario is naive.
And, insurance notwithstanding, the family made its decision; they have to live with it. It was the family’s responsibility to see that their property was protected by a very low $75/year fire protection fee. Maybe the ‘lowlifes’ are the family who decided they could freeload off the town’s taxpayers until they needed its services.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
“The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire department several years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached city officials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside city limits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any rural resident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourself a years worth of fire protection. You dont pay the fee, thats fine too, its your choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to forego fire protection.
“(Its worth noting that, had the fire department responded, it likely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liability insurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into a legally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our compassionate Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreement and put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimited risk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebody violate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the same time.)
“In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
“The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions.”
LoL, I’m betting you don’t know much about municipal governance but want to try this route since you failed to back up your claim. LOL!
Who cares what the family has decided I haven’t disputed that one iota. The lowlifes are the ones who sat there and watched someones house burn down when they had all the tools right there to do something about it.
The judeo Christian mentality also says to help your neighbor. you can’t just pick and choose when and how you want to be a Christian even if it doesn’t support your argument.
it’s also funny how when talking about the insurance they use a very important keyword “likely”. This means the author doesn’t know but is making an assumption. Kind of like what you and others are doing and then thinking your assumption is factual information.
LOL Thats just MAD Max!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.