I hope you know I understand where you're coming from, even if I don't agree with it. Your life/any firefighters life is just as valuable as the lives of the people they are supposed to save. What it comes down to is the difference in people in those situations. Most people approach these situations in one of two ways. There are those who will not perform the task because they've been told not to, and might possible lose their job for disobeying. Then there is the type like me who would have said, "Fuck the rules...I'm doing it!" I've been in those kinds of situations. It's never fun, but it is a personal decision one has to make for themselves when the time comes.
We dont care who or what you paid, if we show up to your house then were gonna put out the fire, regardless if you can "afford" it or not.
I think we both understand each other but we just disagree. We all talk big about the kinds of things we would do, or what people should do but Im sure you wouldnt act the way you would think if you were in the position. If you were to save the dog maybe, and it may just be me, but I dont put much value on property. A house is not worth my job. The anger I see is displacement from the dissatisfaction we have with the government and how the system is set up. The fact that a fee of $75 was stated makes it seem it was just over $75. Think about it. Do you think they forgot to pay it once and this happened? Im thinking they never payed it and for who knows how long. Their bill could have been in the thousands for all we know. Im sure the department knew of the ones that dont pay the fee. Since it eventually happened to one of them, the mayor decided to make an example out of it to hopefully persuade people to pay it.
A few of the articles mention that the staff who checked the payments, when the first distress call was made, saw that they had made the yearly payments on time in the years past, but either the payment was forgotten for the current year, or it was misplaced by the department. They had contributed. They could even have been charged the fee after, or even a penalty fee of $75 x 1.5 or more. But to let their home, possessions, photos, animals, valuables, and other family memories burn, over a misplaced or forgotten fee, while the fire fighters stood around perfectly equipt and capable to pitch in, already having their time and the cost of their time wasted? Why not 'waste' a little water on these poor people and at least douse the flames. It's a little shocking that for some, this is somehow still justifiable.. I mean, that's why it made the news, after all, it's supposed to make you think a little bit. If it was completely normal or ok, we probably wouldn't even have heard of it to be discussing it here.
If you make decent money they tax 30-50% of it already, I think they should stop spending the money on bribes and senseless wars. That way some money is freed up which allows the firefighters to be actual civil servants rather then a shitty business.
Then they're in the wrong profession. This was about their jobs and cowardice, not their lives. If they let a house burn down and animals roast to death on the inside because "my boss told me to" makes them scum, whatever way you spin it. To stand there and watch? I mean if they had a lot of calls and couldn't get to them all in time, so they went to the paying residents first it'd still be sickeng but it'd be more understandable. But the fact that they just stood there while it all happened... It's a piss poor defence of what they done, it's like when you got caught doing something in primary school and said "but Miss, HE made me do it!" It's not the mayors fault or the chiefs fault to any great degree, every single fire fighter there had a chance to ignore them and put out a fire. The chances of them being fired for putting out a fire would no doubt cost the mayor the next election, but that's by the by. The blame lies with the people who stood there and done nothing. I really don't see what more there is to it. If you're a firefighter you're there to put out fires.
You....you're kidding right? You think people are just going to disobey orders just because? When you graduate grade school, Ill tell you how the world actually works. Firefighters must obey orders just like any soldier in the military, and disobeying them is just as severe. If you freelance (do what you want instead what you are told) people die. What if they did disobey orders and put it out anyway and someone died? Would it be worth it? Do you actually think a fucking house is worth a life? You can rebuild a house. The house is nothing. A life is something. You may be saying this stuff now but if you were in their shoes, You would have done nothing as well. This isnt about being a coward. I know you wouldnt risk your life for a house. No sane person would.
No one said they needed to risk their lives. Just aim the hose at the burning building they were all standing around, instead of practically roasting marshmallows over this families tragedy. The fire fighters were already there, their time was wasted and thus their wages spent, the only thing left to 'waste' on this poor family was a little water. The family had paid in years past, and the establishment in charge of checking payments admitted they were not sure if the payment had been made, not made, or if it was misplaced, they only knew their payment wasn't in their system for the current year. I think the real argument here, is how this hard-fast $75.00 rule was even put in place to begin with, and why they didn't at least put the fire out and charge them the $75.00 plus a penalty fee during the after math. I'm sure you'd be congratulating the fire fighters on a job well done, while you watched your own life and everything you worked for burn before you eyes too, hmm? And imagine if you questioned whether or not you'd really made or missed your payment, THAT'S why this system is doomed from the start; one mistake on the paper pushers end, and it's YOUR house that burns alone with your animals and memories. Still worship that system? It doesn't work like that in other countries with this much tax money, I'll tell you that much right now. In many poorer countries than the US who tax on a lower scale, it's still covered by taxes. The ONLY time it should come out of pocket is on a false alarm.
I mean, is the US really the kind of country where you want to picture this: waiting around while burglars burgle your home, or fire destroys it, while you're surrounded by authorities who could easily help, but aren't, because they are instead watching you flip through your check book and wallet? That's the image that comes to mind; a citizen in desperate need of help, time is of the essence, and the authorities are standing around with their hands in their pockets, waiting for a payment. This story made the news for a reason, and it's not because of the fantastic job done by the authorities. It's in the news because it, point blank, shouldn't have happened. Think about it. It was enough of a story to make it into the world-wide news, and people in the US (I like to call them 'future victims') still think it's ok? How very, very odd.
i don't see how cowardice has anything to do with this. Obviously these guys are not cowards or they wouldn't be firefighters. But you're right, it is about jobs. It's easy to say what you would or wouldn't do on a forum but the reality is, a job, or career in this case, is no small thing. Most people don't have the luxury of being a "hero" at the expense of their job. These guys have mortgages, car payments, wives and children who depend on them for support, maybe a parent who lives with them...so they put out the fire, get fired, and fuck their family over royally. Does that make them heroes? Not in my book. My first responsibility is to my family - always. There's no way I would jepordize my family's well being to put out a fire. If I was single with no responsibilities or dependants, maybe but my family always comes first. Blame the system or the higher ups, but don't blame the firefighters.
Yes the reason is the mayor wanted it to be. Here is what I am seeing. You think that firefighters were waiting for payment. That they let the house burn and would have allowed people to die for $75. You think that the firefighters are greedy people who only care about money instead of doing their jobs. That they are cowards or just assholes for not disobeying orders and should have put out the fire anyway. Is this right? At least someone gets it.
Beause it's a fire, and they're firefighters. I'm sorry if I wrongly assumed that they were supposed to actually care about things and living creatures burning. What people are we talking about here? In this situation i'll assume you mean the animals and given that they stood there and watched them burn to death I don't think you can really say they did it so no-one got hurt. You can't rebuild an animal can you? And so fucking what? It's a dangerous job where they put out fires, their lives are constantly on the line, that's part of the job. If they're not comfortable with that it's the wrong career. Are you suggesting that in future, if there is no-one in a building they shouldn't bother to put the fire out? Or should they only put the fire out if someone gives the station a couple of dollars? Maybe skewer some puppys and kittens and have a bbq if they havn't paid?
Im not sure what makes you think they dont care. I guess we should all just go off and do what we want regardless of the consequences. They didnt watch it burn to death. Again, if they went in, they would be disobeying orders. As Ive said, pets arent a priority. I know you feel different. So do I. But thats how it is. Every one of them are seasoned firefighters. I think they knew what the job entails. Its also their job to do as told, and if they cant do that then that career isnt for them. Honestly I dont think you fully understand what this means I think you are over-exaggerating here. We put out fires all the time. They didnt this time because of political bullshit.
I said nothing about the fire fighters themselves. I made a point to use the term 'authorities' as often as possible, meaning those who make the decisions and final calls. Yes, the fire fighters did stand around and watch while someones home, everything they had in life, and all that they and generations of their family had accomplished, burned to the ground, but I accept they were following orders. It doesn't make them appear very noble of course, so I can see why even you yourself assumed I meant the fire fighters, but they certainly aren't at fault nor did I say or imply they were. I never said the fire fighters were standing around waiting for payment, in fact, if you had read what I wrote, you'll notice I said the polar opposite. They already wasted their hourly wage/cost for being present, for needing to guard a neighboring property that had paid the yearly fee, and it was for the most part -wasted-, because they stood around, not putting a fire out. They would have wasted less time and less money, without putting anyone at risk, in fact, had they put the fire out when it was only on the small shed. I see it as an even larger financial waste to make them show up and guard neighboring properties, only to do nothing, when they could have saved the original home, leaving the family with at least something left to repay them with. It shouldn't have happened, when even poorer countries have these expenses covered by taxes. These people owned a home, paid property taxes, paid taxes on the items they purchased to build the home, paid taxes out of their salaries, and yet in many countries with a fraction of the tax income the US has, it wouldn't have been an issue. Or, they would have at least had the courtesy to bill them with a penalty later, even if it was for the -entire cost- of the operation; hourly wages, gas for the trucks, water etc. The town loses nothing, and it's a small price to pay when you don't lose your entire home. And the people who can afford $75, still pay, it to spare themselves the risk of being caught with their pants down. The -only- reason this would be allowed to happen would be to make an example of someone, to muscle other people into paying the $75 fee with fear... that's not the best way, it's only the most cruel. It doesn't guarantee an increase in yearly payments at all, it just terrifies people into worrying what will happen if they don't. I doubt the mayor wanted this kind of publicity or even had much to do with it, odds are he's wouldn't benefit from it even if he did leave town, so that's really neither here nor there.
its 75 fucking dollars. the people living in that double wide probably spent more than that on beer in one month alone. they dont pay for their public serivces, they get denied said services. quite logical. fighting fires is incredibly expensive. someone needs to pay for that shit. freeloading is wrong. contribute to the greatness of your society people (or at least contribute to the budget of your fire dept if you expect them to contribute their services to you)
Then we agree on this The firefighters arent on a on-call basis. They are on a 24-72 hour shift. They get paid even if there is no call. Many of those countries cant afford services like this. I agree. It should be like insurance. If you dont pay the fee, but they are forced to come out there and put out a fire, you should pay for everything. Just like the RIAA when they sued a woman hundreds of thousands of dollars for downloading three songs. Only he could have made the call. Its his office that deals with with the taxes.