Firemen Watch House Burn Down

If you live somewhere where Fire supression / EMS response / Vehicle accident and general rescue are free services, you either live in an area with heavy volunteer activity that recieve money from selling krispy kreme doughnuts, or stand at 4-way's with a jar asking for money, or you are sadly mistaken.

Today, the average "New" Fire Engine costs about $300,000. I, however work on an aerial apparatus that is designed for commercial suppression, high angle rescues, and because of this the truck was $700,000 then comes the cost of getting neccesary gear on the truck. You've got to look at hose, which depending on size is different pice per foot. Usually a residential attack line which is 1 3/4" in diameter comes in 50' sections. Each section costs about $100. If you live in a suburban setting where the house has like a 30' driveway you still need at least 150' of hose to go from the truck and wind through the house as needed, not to mention a secondary line for backup, which is state mandated where I live. You also have the nozzles, which are several hundred dollars. Then you have a set of turnout gear for each firefighter that costs about $2000, with an average crew of 3 men per truck. You still need supply hose to go from a hydrant to the engine. Most trucks carry 1000' of 5". If you're in a rural setting, like these folks, and there are no hydrants, you need a tanker truck to shuttle water back and forth from a water source to the fire scene. There's still the cost of equipment to ventilate as needed, fans, chainsaws, pike poles, haligan tools. You need rescue equipment like the jaws of life, shears, rams, hydraulic power unit. There's another 30 grand. You still need a station, electric service, Water service, station supplies, equipment maintenance costs such as oil changes, tires, repairs on things that break, insurance.

The list of costs of a basic fire department go on and on. Expecting to get it as a courtesy is beyond a joke.

Everything is a business really :/

I don't like that they let the house burn down, but I can understand why they did it.

I guess they were 75$ short of having a hose to put the fire out then.

Common courtesy? Give me a break! Ssomeone has to pay for the firemen, someone has to pay for the trucks. Someone has to pay for it. You are asking the residents of a city in which the guy doesn't even live to take the risk, of footing the bill for this guy. That isn't courtesy, that's arrogance. If a random stranger didn't pay his electric bill , and had no electricity, would you pay for it? Even if you did, would you think someone who didn't wasn't practicing common courtesy??


They went to the neighbors house when the neighbors field caught fire, because the neighbor called them out there looking for the service that he paid for.

Look I'm not saying I don't find this tragic, I feel for the guy, his house burnt down! I just don't see the problem in the fire department saying "hey, you didn't pay, you don't get the service".

LMAO, Fukken save'd!

You are absolutely right. About everything you've said. it really makes a whole lot of sense. On the behalf of the internet I thank you for your great wisdom.

Better? /sigh

The policy is *** up, it should be mandatory, but under the circumstances given, the guy was a retard. He took a gamble and he lost.

If they put his fire out and billed him the $75, it would set an example that nobody would have to pay until their house catches on fire.

The fee IS mandatory.

Not mandatory enough if he didn't pay it, lol.

By mandatory, I mean it should have been included his his taxes, already taken out so there would never be an option whether or not to pay to begin with.

No, not This.

In America, we've seen what happens when people receive emergency care, without having insurance, at hospital ERs. The majority of those patients never pay a dime. Even though this problem pressures hospital budgets and increases health care costs, we as a society willingly underwrite the cost in taxes, health care costs, and insurance costs. Even though it's outrageously expensive, society has deemed it worth the cost so that people are not, on a regular basis, dying or deliveries babies on hospital doorsteps.

In this article, the man in question willingly took risks on his own accord. He did not live in the city limits and therefore did not pay any taxes towards supporting the fire department. I don't know about you all, but my house doesn't regularly catch on fire. Nor does my neighnors' houses. We still pay taxes for fire coverage though. The man in question chose to gamble, save $75 by not paying for fire coverage, and lost the bet when his house caught fire.

From my understanding of the situation, the firefighters had to respond to the fire once called. They were there to prevent loss of life, and to prevent the fire from speading to property owned by people who did pay for fire coverage. Which it did. The firefighters promptly put out the blaze on the covered-individual's property.

As an emotional appeal, it feels right that the man could plead with the firefighters to put out the fire with promises to pay the $75 immediately. This about this though: what if this practice becomes well-known among the people living outside the city limits? How many people will pay the $75 yearly fee up-front if they know the firefighters will put out the fire, without questions, as long as they pay their $75 on the spot?

Answer: none of them.

It's not in their financial self-interest to needlessly pay $75/year if their property doesn't catch fire at least once per year. In this situation, the people living within the city limits pay their taxes every year to support the fire department even in years when they don't benefit from the service. The people outside the city limits would only be paying the $75 fee only when it benefited them (not yearly like the city residents). It's clearly unfair to the city residents.

The cost for the fire department to respond to a fire outside of city limits far exceeds $75. The cost of manpower, equipment, and resources would easily reach a few thousand dollars. We know from the example with hospital care that, no matter how desperate and sincere their pleas, the majority of uninsured people will not pay a dime for services rendered. Such would be the cast with the fire department putting out fires outside the city limits. Their budget would quickly drop into the red, and that would require increased taxes or budget cuts elsewhere to make up for the fire department's budget deficit.

Think of the $75 payments as a fire insurance pool for the people living outside the city limits. Not every person will benefit from their $75 contribution each year, but each person who pays into this fire insurance pool benefits from a local city fire department that can financially afford to respond to fires outside of city limits. For responsible land owners, this will decrease financial losses suffered by fire-damaged property. For the fire department, they can afford to do their jobs, save property, and save lives. Every one, when acting responsibly, wins.

It's also my understanding that the fire fighters allowed the property fire to burn once they knew that no lives were at risk in the blaze. They would act if life was in danger.

I have no problem with the fire fighters allowing the property to burn. I'm sure it was uncomfortable to do so, but it was the correct decision.

3 dogs and 1-2 cats died or something like that, but in the eyes of the law, those are considered property.

And again, the guy is a moron. It took 2hrs for the fire to even get to the house. There's no reason the animals should have even been in the house.

I know this sounds crass, but I wouldn't expect a firefighter to run into a burning structure to save the lives of a few pets. It's not an opinion I like, but I don't feel that the lives of pets are worth the risk of sending in a firefighter.

But yeah, I agree completely. The man in question is extremely irresponsible, and now he's paid for it.

My department also does an ambulance service, I know exactly what you're talking about with the hospital costs. Our return rate is only like 40%, meaning only 40% of the people that want a ride to the hospital pay their bill, which is why i'ts $600 base + $9 / mile.

Which is why I know the very important words "I have the right to refuse medical treatment"

They should have put the fire out, let him pay the fee, have him sign a confidentiality agreement. No one would be the wiser and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Edit: The local government is also irresponsible if they don't have a system for dealing with such an occurrences--other than, let people's houses burn down. For example: a $5,000 charge for using the Fire Dpt.'s services if you aren't up to date on paying your fees. The same people who are currently paying would still pay.

Nah, defeats the purpose of there being a fee.

Ok we have a fee, but every time someone breaks it, we'll let them slide and not tell anyone about it!

I've done it without being asked on several occasions. Even if it's body recovery, giving the family time to bury their pet means a lot sometimes. Most animals run under a bed or something and die from smoke inhalation way before the fire ever gets to them.

Also, in one of the interviews, the man stated he knew of at least 2-3 other occasions where the firefighters refused to put out fires to those who didn't pay, another reason he's a *** moron, because it's not like this would be a surprise to him.

@ Eeek

What if there were people in the house? The firefighters should just stand there and watch them die out of principles? Because to be honest, even if this man's children, wife, grand parents, cousins and all were in the house and were about to die. HE STILL DIDNT PAY 75$!!

haha, reminds me of something I saw the other day. Some dude was lying in the middle of the double yellow lines of the road. No car around, so I know it wasn't an accident. I stop and start to get out but see a police car pull up. Policeman gets out and starts yelling at the dude to get up. He hops right up, and an ambulance shows up in less than a minute and takes him to the hospital. I'm pretty damn certain that dude won't be paying a dime for 1. the ambulance ride and 2. whatever medical treatment he receieved.

If there were people in the house, wouldn't you think that the FIRST THING the man would have mentioned is that his family is trapped in the house?

In this situation, any firefighter would attempt to save their lives. I read an article (I don't know where, sorry :/) on this situation in question where the firefighters stated that would have acted if lives were in danger. Just like paramedics and doctors. No lives were at risk, so the property was allowed to burn.

Again, I have no problem with this.

There isn't an adjective strong enough to begin to describe how irresponsible this guy is. He burns his own garbage either most or all of it. The fire took 2 hours to reach a shed then even more time to reach his house. What was he doing while all of this was going on? Did he really leave his garbage burning while he was off doing some other thing?

In the UK we pay taxes for services like that, its all included, police, fire, ambulance. You cant put a value on human life just because the local mayor wants to make a few extra dollars on the side.

Which is also why you get charged $100 just to have an ambulance show up. I work in central Florida, and not that this is turning into a racial discussion, but there's a LOT of lower class spaish people where I work, and they're, for the most part, not educated. With that being said, i'm assuming that is the reason for 911 being called for non emergency situations such as: nausea, chronic back pain, broken fingers / toes. minor scrapes / bumps, siezures (not for the siezure, but to have us to protect them from swallowing their tongue[multiple occasions on this one lol]) Point being, why call 911, wait 7+ minutes for an ambulance for a non emergency when you have 4+ cars in the driveway, when you could have just either drove yourself, or had one of your family members drive you to the hospital? Honestly, half the calls we just do paperwork en route to the hospital and make small talk with the patient while the family follows 3' off our rear bumper.

"Horacio, the firemen didn't put the guy's fire out and now his two cats are dead."
"I see, maybe the fire would have been put out by..."
<Horacio puts his glasses on>
"Seamen..."
"...Yeah"