All Pro Ho's

[goodwilltoall]

The firefighters in Tennesee who watched and let a house burn down ought to be shamed. The man in charge of policy should be fired. "The love of money is the root of all evil". People have duties and obligations to do good to others, classic example of following the letter of the law versus being gracious and merciful.

[wardd]

I'm so good that a lil more evil wouldn't be noticeable

[cthippo]

You want to provide a link to some more information? These things are not always what they seem.

Yes, this is one of the few areas where government shud be involved (along with police and national defence). The way the county government was set up there (this is how it was all over the country until some large fires spread and the more common system whereby everyhouse in the service area was protected didn't arrive until the last hundred to one hundred fifty years), the people were required to have bought into the pool to be covered. They had the opportunity and said "No, we don't think the risk is high enuf to spend $75 to support the department" - why shud a firefighter put his life at risk? Look at it a different way. There are a limited amount of firemen and service available and they dig into this house right as another home starts to burn with children trapped inside... but now the firemen are injured or just occupied on the first house and out of water in their tanker. They are no longer at their centrally-located firehall, fueled, watered and rested, but on the wrong end of the rural route and those kids die. There is another side to this and if we are going to sit, comfortably in our not-burning dens, and criticize the firemen for "just standing there and watching" bear in mind that they were acting on orders and there is a risk involved in fighting a fire. A house is just a thing. Change the law in that county if you don't like it. How come the neighbors weren't there with a bucket brigade? What kind of people were they?
Look at this yet another way: You warned people for decades that you got a message from God that the flood was forthwith coming. You build an ark, you loaded it with cockroaches and girraffes, start to float, and you see people coming to try to board. So many are coming that there will not be enuf food and medicine and may even capsize. How cud you turn them away? You have a duty to do good to others.
Another angle: This system is the fairest way to do it. It may not be the smartest because of a spread of fire or a mistake in paperwork but it is the fairest. Why shud somebody with a concrete house having taken every precaution pay for the guy with the cedar shake roof that burns if a fire thinks about lapping it? Wud you require someone else to pay because you want to save money? Sick, shameful.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by mark775

Yes, this is one of the few areas where government shud be involved (along with police and national defence). The way the county government was set up there (this is how it was all over the country until some large fires spread and the more common system whereby everyhouse in the service area was protected didn't arrive until the last hundred to one hundred fifty years), the people were required to have bought into the pool to be covered. They had the opportunity and said "No, we don't think the risk is high enuf to spend $75 to support the department" - why shud a firefighter put his life at risk? Look at it a different way. There are a limited amount of firemen and service available and they dig into this house right as another home starts to burn with children trapped inside... but now the firemen are injured or just occupied on the first house and out of water in their tanker. They are no longer at their centrally-located firehall, fueled, watered and rested, but on the wrong end of the rural route and those kids die. There is another side to this and if we are going to sit, comfortably in our not-burning dens, and criticize the firemen for "just standing there and watching" bear in mind that they were acting on orders and there is a risk involved in fighting a fire. A house is just a thing. Change the law in that county if you don't like it. How come the neighbors weren't there with a bucket brigade? What kind of people were they?
Look at this yet another way: You warned people for decades that you got a message from God that the flood was forthwith coming. You build an ark, you loaded it with cockroaches and girraffes, start to float, and you see people coming to try to board. So many are coming that there will not be enuf food and medicine and may even capsize. How cud you turn them away? You have a duty to do good to others.
Another angle: This system is the fairest way to do it. It may not be the smartest because of a spread of fire or a mistake in paperwork but it is the fairest. Why shud somebody with a concrete house having taken every precaution pay for the guy with the cedar shake roof that burns if a fire thinks about lapping it? Wud you require someone else to pay because you want to save money? Sick, shameful.

Or invest in a good sprinkler system.

[wardd]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

Or invest in a good sprinkler system.

or vote for and invest in good government

[hoytedow]

[cthippo]

OK, finally found some actual information on this.

The fire was started by an unattended burn barrel that spread to the house. The property owner called the fire department but the fire department was not dispatched because the homeowner had not paid the $75 fire protection fee. It wasn't until the fire began to threaten the neighbor's property (who had paid) that the fire department was dispatched. When they arrived the protected the neighbor's property, but not the original house, which was probably a total loss by that point anyway.

I place the blame for this squarely on the elected officials of the city and county. The dispatcher and the fire department followed protocol established by their agency. In this case the county contracted with the city to provide fire protection services, but did not put in place a functional funding mechanism. Instead of finding a reliable way to protect everyone, they created a system whereby only those who paid for it were protected. The city and the county should have worked together to find a way to provide universal coverage, and the citizens should be willing to pay the taxes to fund it.

Another good option would be to start a volunteer department in the county.

I work as an Emergency Medical Technician here in Washington state and by law I cannot pass up someone who is injured and in need of assistance. That would be dereliction of duty and I could lose my license over it. Likewise, when I was on the volunteer fire department we never refused a call, whether it was in was in our district or not. We were occasionally called to provide mutual aid to other districts and we never billed anyone for that. My department was funded through property taxes and we never had a problem, nor did we bill for any of our services. Maybe it's just because I'm a pinko commie libretarian socialist, but I think that is how government should function.