Firemen Watch House Burn Down
Firemen watch house burn down
man *** those firefighters they should stay at their Fire Department..and not come at All. Unless to put out the fire at least >.> them charge the guy some fee plus 75$ he own.or more
Cerberus.Zandra said:
Kailana said:
Sylph.Washburn said:
Kailana said:
The same reason some people will have their power bills rated evenly over a 12 month period (200, we'll say for example), while some will just pay them as they come, be they 100 dollars or be they 600 dollars. If you overindulge....or in this case burn your house down, you pay out the *** for it. If you're lucky and careful, you'll save money. Lots of business and services offer options like this. Again, I've never known a policeman or fireman or hospital employee (reminder, some of these employees don't get paid) to do the job and not want to be doing it to help people. Until you get extremely specialized, and that can take many years, it's not even a fantastic paying job, if it pays at all. That's why it sickened me. I don't expect them all to be superheroes, but nothing about this decision made sense. The guy who paids field did not have to burn if they tried to control the fire sooner. They should have been all over that. The only instances that I'm aware of where firefighters let things burn to the ground are controlled burns, or in some instances, the building is just too far gone, and judging from the pictures I'm not entirely sure how much was savable. They coulda saved themselves a lot of bad press if they just said "it was too far gone to save, any spraying we did was just to control it." Besides the too-far gone and the controlled burn concepts, I don't really see any logical reason to allow a fire to burn of that size anyway (besides parties/etc) considering there was open fields all around....fire can spread extremely quickly. This just seemed like all kinds of stupid, to me.
At this time of year it's not that bad, after the first freeze is when yo u have to worry about vegetation taking off like crazy, but i see your point. From the pictures I saw, the house was done dealing. There was nothing to save when the FD got there.
Yeah, if the house was done, then I understand why they didn't put it out. They could have tried to control the burn, but again, I wasn't there.
Really shoulda just said they couldn't save the house so they let it burn (as this is common protocol) but the way they presented it made it seem very mean spirited.
Oh nonono your initial assumption was correct, when this guy called for them to come they said TS you didn't pay your fees. It was only after the neighbor called did they come out to service the neighbor. I would venture to assume that since the fire initially started where he burns his trash, and took 2 hours to get to a nearby shed, then his house, that if the fire dept had come out when initially called they would have been able to do much much more for him.
Yeah, ok. That's kinda where my problem came in. Though it would also kinda seem mean spirited if they showed up to keep the fire on the guys property, and THAT'S IT. xD They still could have helped the neighbor sooner, I guess.
Asura.Dyablito said:
man *** those firefighters they should stay at their Fire Department..and not come at All. Unless to put out the fire at least >.> them charge the guy some fee plus 75$ he own.or more
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Kujata.Akeda said:
Hopefully after this incident the guy learned a valuable lesson. It's now always a good thing to try and 'stick it to the man' or try and beat the system.
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
greed is going around, shouldn't be blaming just one party.
I like the policy but i think they could update it a wee bit.
Maybe have some sort of penalty fee (not 75$ a lot more) that somebody can opt to pay for if they want their house put out.
It's also not like its the firefighters call to put out the fire. They could have been fired or w/e for not following their guidelines.
Guess it depends on how most of the town felt about the fire either way.. if most supported the tax.. they'd have been fired or disciplined, if most didn't mayor probably would have forgiven them to save political face.
Maybe have some sort of penalty fee (not 75$ a lot more) that somebody can opt to pay for if they want their house put out.
It's also not like its the firefighters call to put out the fire. They could have been fired or w/e for not following their guidelines.
Guess it depends on how most of the town felt about the fire either way.. if most supported the tax.. they'd have been fired or disciplined, if most didn't mayor probably would have forgiven them to save political face.
Maybe they should have responded and made him pay a large fine. That would have been more productive.
Shiva.Flionheart said:
Maybe they should have responded and made him pay a large fine. That would have been more productive.
Still would take them some time to get out there, but honestly we don't have enough details so say which where with that ***.
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
greed is going around, should be blaming just one party.
Then put the *** fire out and bill the guy for the 75 bucks, THEN deny him service if he doesn't pay.
Instead they just pretty much ignored him and were outright ***.
I'm sorry, but I feel sorry for the guy.
Carbuncle.Sevourn said:
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Carbuncle.Sevourn said:
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Sylph.Washburn said:
Kailana said:
The same reason some people will have their power bills rated evenly over a 12 month period (200, we'll say for example), while some will just pay them as they come, be they 100 dollars or be they 600 dollars. If you overindulge....or in this case burn your house down, you pay out the *** for it. If you're lucky and careful, you'll save money. Lots of business and services offer options like this. Again, I've never known a policeman or fireman or hospital employee (reminder, some of these employees don't get paid) to do the job and not want to be doing it to help people. Until you get extremely specialized, and that can take many years, it's not even a fantastic paying job, if it pays at all. That's why it sickened me. I don't expect them all to be superheroes, but nothing about this decision made sense. The guy who paids field did not have to burn if they tried to control the fire sooner. They should have been all over that. The only instances that I'm aware of where firefighters let things burn to the ground are controlled burns, or in some instances, the building is just too far gone, and judging from the pictures I'm not entirely sure how much was savable. They coulda saved themselves a lot of bad press if they just said "it was too far gone to save, any spraying we did was just to control it." Besides the too-far gone and the controlled burn concepts, I don't really see any logical reason to allow a fire to burn of that size anyway (besides parties/etc) considering there was open fields all around....fire can spread extremely quickly. This just seemed like all kinds of stupid, to me.
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Also the guy was greedy first for expecting a service without paying
That's the one neat thing about this story. Everyone kinda *** up. He should have paid his money, they should have come out much sooner to keep the fire under control, to protect paying neighboring people before they had damage.
Oh, I forgot to answer a question earlier. Crap. xD Yes, I've worked for free before, I volunteer for a lot of things, hopefully a couple of theatrical preformances this year, and I give lots of time at the animal shelter (someone has to play with the kitties! ^_^) AND at my job, when it's a "donate the days wage to a charity" sort of thing.
Oh, I forgot to answer a question earlier. Crap. xD Yes, I've worked for free before, I volunteer for a lot of things, hopefully a couple of theatrical preformances this year, and I give lots of time at the animal shelter (someone has to play with the kitties! ^_^) AND at my job, when it's a "donate the days wage to a charity" sort of thing.
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Also the guy was greedy first for expecting a service without paying
I think the guy deserved to have his house burned down because he burns his trash.
He gets fined something stupid like $1500. He doesn't pay it he gets jailed or w/e (dunno what you yanks do to people who don't pay fines etc).
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Then put the *** fire out and bill the guy for the 75 bucks, THEN deny him service if he doesn't pay. Instead they just pretty much ignored him and were outright ***. I'm sorry, but I feel sorry for the guy.
Realistically speaking he should've been charged more like $10k
Kailana said:
The bad press bit would just be a bad reflection on the fire department, and nobody needs that. It also probably won't help the mayor come re-election time, assuming his opponent knows how to properly spin a story.
I know when it comes to a person getting lost in places, and a search and rescue team and volunteers are amassed, if the person is found alive, and the only reason they were in danger was negligence on their part, they can be made to pay for gas used in saving them, food/water for the volunteers, renting vehicles, all that stuff. Making people pay for stupid decisions is common practice, and this story is sort of in that vein, although I'm unsure what houses cost there, it's considerably more than what you pay when S&R save your negligent ***. xD
As for the "this was mean spirited" bit, that's just personal opinion based on what facts I do have.
I'm also unsure how long the guy had been living there, but when I suggested the retroactive payment, I meant for as long as he's been there, so (75.00 * years of staying there)*2 = humble pie.
Overall I just feel terrible the animal(s) had to pay for everyone involved (including the owner) and their poor decisions.
bad press for the mayor? absolutely. bad press for the fire dept? I think they made exactly the example they wanted to make.
the thing about the search and rescue team is that the missing person did not just lose their primary asset. almost all homeowners owe more on their homes than they are currently worth.
you lose your home, and you will most likely be a couple hundred thousand in debt with next to no assets. paying 5k for the fire department is going to be dead last on your list. that's why they collect their money beforehand.
a few hundred dollars and humble pie from the homeowner is not going to change the fact that they rely on 25 year old vehicles they have to pray won't break down, making it less safe for EVERYONE.
it's too bad about the animals, but i'd be willing to bet they'd be dead even if the FD responded quickly, considering they were outside of city limits
Shiva.Flionheart said:
He gets fined something stupid like $1500. He doesn't pay it he gets jailed or w/e (dunno what you yanks do to people who don't pay fines etc).
Sylph.Washburn said:
Carbuncle.Sevourn said:
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Carbuncle.Sevourn said:
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Sylph.Washburn said:
Kailana said:
The same reason some people will have their power bills rated evenly over a 12 month period (200, we'll say for example), while some will just pay them as they come, be they 100 dollars or be they 600 dollars. If you overindulge....or in this case burn your house down, you pay out the *** for it. If you're lucky and careful, you'll save money. Lots of business and services offer options like this. Again, I've never known a policeman or fireman or hospital employee (reminder, some of these employees don't get paid) to do the job and not want to be doing it to help people. Until you get extremely specialized, and that can take many years, it's not even a fantastic paying job, if it pays at all. That's why it sickened me. I don't expect them all to be superheroes, but nothing about this decision made sense. The guy who paids field did not have to burn if they tried to control the fire sooner. They should have been all over that. The only instances that I'm aware of where firefighters let things burn to the ground are controlled burns, or in some instances, the building is just too far gone, and judging from the pictures I'm not entirely sure how much was savable. They coulda saved themselves a lot of bad press if they just said "it was too far gone to save, any spraying we did was just to control it." Besides the too-far gone and the controlled burn concepts, I don't really see any logical reason to allow a fire to burn of that size anyway (besides parties/etc) considering there was open fields all around....fire can spread extremely quickly. This just seemed like all kinds of stupid, to me.
either way, the point stands. it's not a case of "even if he paid the house was gone anyway"
there's a good chance he could have saved his house if he hadn't been a moron
thanks for the correction though, i didn't know that
If he refused to pay the $75 yearly fee, he will refuse to pay the additional "FINE" as well.
The best thing that this city can do is to take up a collection and have habitat for humanity build him a new house.
Perhaps some of you will even volunteer to send this homeowner the $75 yearly fee to cover the new property.
The best thing that this city can do is to take up a collection and have habitat for humanity build him a new house.
Perhaps some of you will even volunteer to send this homeowner the $75 yearly fee to cover the new property.
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Also the guy was greedy first for expecting a service without paying
I think the guy deserved to have his house burned down because he burns his trash.
Oh I get what your saying, but really ... getting denied a service and letting a house burn down ... is not worth bitching about 75 bucks.
Fine the guy a good amount (bill him for whatever the "service" cost, as in call out, water etc etc.) if he doesn't pay, jail him.
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Then put the *** fire out and bill the guy for the 75 bucks, THEN deny him service if he doesn't pay. Instead they just pretty much ignored him and were outright ***. I'm sorry, but I feel sorry for the guy.
Realistically speaking he should've been charged more like $10k
Read above statement.
I do agree with you, but I still think what they did was pretty low.
Shiva.Flionheart said:
He gets fined something stupid like $1500. He doesn't pay it he gets jailed or w/e (dunno what you yanks do to people who don't pay fines etc).
i don't think 1500 would cover it
and when you lose a 300,000 house that you still owed 200k on and you didn't have insurance and all your assets just burned up
the only thing you are going to be paying is your bankruptcy lawyer
Cerberus.Nutt said:
Perhaps some of you will even volunteer to send this homeowner the $75 yearly fee to cover the new property.
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Also the guy was greedy first for expecting a service without paying
I think the guy deserved to have his house burned down because he burns his trash.
Oh I get what your saying, but really ... getting denied a service and letting a house burn down ... is not worth bitching about 75 bucks.
Fine the guy a good amount (bill him for whatever the "service" cost, as in call out, water etc etc.) if he doesn't pay, jail him.
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Then put the *** fire out and bill the guy for the 75 bucks, THEN deny him service if he doesn't pay. Instead they just pretty much ignored him and were outright ***. I'm sorry, but I feel sorry for the guy.
Realistically speaking he should've been charged more like $10k
Read above statement.
I do agree with you, but I still think what they did was pretty low.
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Shiva.Flionheart said:
He gets fined something stupid like $1500. He doesn't pay it he gets jailed or w/e (dunno what you yanks do to people who don't pay fines etc).
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Just watching the video made me rage so much.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Not only did they just ignore them when they BEGGED, but then they had the audacity to pussyfoot around be *** to the reporters (as well as the mayor that did the same thing)
Pretty much boils down to greedy people in political offices.
Also the guy was greedy first for expecting a service without paying
I think the guy deserved to have his house burned down because he burns his trash.
Oh I get what your saying, but really ... getting denied a service and letting a house burn down ... is not worth bitching about 75 bucks.
Fine the guy a good amount (bill him for whatever the "service" cost, as in call out, water etc etc.) if he doesn't pay, jail him.
Bahamut.Dasva said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Then put the *** fire out and bill the guy for the 75 bucks, THEN deny him service if he doesn't pay. Instead they just pretty much ignored him and were outright ***. I'm sorry, but I feel sorry for the guy.
Realistically speaking he should've been charged more like $10k
Read above statement.
I do agree with you, but I still think what they did was pretty low.
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Shiva.Flionheart said:
He gets fined something stupid like $1500. He doesn't pay it he gets jailed or w/e (dunno what you yanks do to people who don't pay fines etc).
Unfortunatly, I hate to say it, but I really hate living in the USA.
Siren.Flunklesnarkin said:
I like the policy but i think they could update it a wee bit. Maybe have some sort of penalty fee (not 75$ a lot more) that somebody can opt to pay for if they want their house put out.
Yeah and put a lein agaist their newly aquired ash pile incase they dont pay?
Putting it out when it was too far gone really just piles more cost on the homeowner. They would then have to have a bulldozer or front end loader come scoop up what was left and haul it off. Even if it were standing, a house that's fully involved with active fire with no rescue needed will mostly be deemed a defensive fire and 9/10 times firefighters will set up a 2½" line, protect any exposures and let the fire do it's thing until it's not a threat to anyone. Which is basically what happened here, except they werent alerted until a second problem started, which is pure carelessness, if the mayor wanted to strongarm non payers, he should have at least had the FD there before it got out of control.
Sylph.Washburn said:
Siren.Flunklesnarkin said:
I like the policy but i think they could update it a wee bit. Maybe have some sort of penalty fee (not 75$ a lot more) that somebody can opt to pay for if they want their house put out.
Yeah and put a lein agaist their newly aquired ash pile incase they dont pay?
Putting it out when it was too far gone really just piles more cost on the homeowner. They would then have to have a bulldozer or front end loader come scoop up what was left and haul it off. Even if it were standing, a house that's fully involved with active fire with no rescue needed will mostly be deemed a defensive fire and 9/10 times firefighters will set up a 2½" line, protect any exposures and let the fire do it's thing until it's not a threat to anyone. Which is basically what happened here, except they werent alerted until a second problem started, which is pure carelessness, if the mayor wanted to strongarm non payers, he should have at least had the FD there before it got out of control.
This mainly is what pisses me off.
Sure even if they couldn't have saved the house, at least keep it under control that way no other problems arise.
I'd think at least they could do that.
The fact that they ignored the first plea for help because of them not having that service fee paid is pure negligence on their part, they could have very well made it so the other property could not have been damaged.
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Fines and crap
Idk how it is over there but over here we have the right to refuse most services. Especially on non-compliant non paying people.
Also mind you this was the cities FD. He was outside the city. There are pros and cons to doing this. You get out of things but you get less of the city services that you didn't pay for
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Sylph.Washburn said:
Siren.Flunklesnarkin said:
I like the policy but i think they could update it a wee bit. Maybe have some sort of penalty fee (not 75$ a lot more) that somebody can opt to pay for if they want their house put out.
Yeah and put a lein agaist their newly aquired ash pile incase they dont pay?
Putting it out when it was too far gone really just piles more cost on the homeowner. They would then have to have a bulldozer or front end loader come scoop up what was left and haul it off. Even if it were standing, a house that's fully involved with active fire with no rescue needed will mostly be deemed a defensive fire and 9/10 times firefighters will set up a 2½" line, protect any exposures and let the fire do it's thing until it's not a threat to anyone. Which is basically what happened here, except they werent alerted until a second problem started, which is pure carelessness, if the mayor wanted to strongarm non payers, he should have at least had the FD there before it got out of control.
This mainly is what pisses me off.
Sure even if they couldn't have saved the house, at least keep it under control that way no other problems arise.
I'd think at least they could do that.
The fact that they ignored the first plea for help because of them not having that service fee paid is pure negligence on their part, they could have very well made it so the other property could not have been damaged.
Hell he could have been drunk as ***and been like "I accidentally overdid it with the gasoline on mah trash fiyur and now it's got real big! can you send the FD put it out"
I think it's just ridiculous that it was from a trash fire.
outdoor fires are supposed to follow a few protocols and since it caught fire to other things it probably didn't follow many if any of the protocols.
like water around the fire, distance from burnable objects, don't burn a big pyre on a windy day..all that.
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Leviathan.Catnipthief said:
Sylph.Washburn said:
Siren.Flunklesnarkin said:
I like the policy but i think they could update it a wee bit. Maybe have some sort of penalty fee (not 75$ a lot more) that somebody can opt to pay for if they want their house put out.
Yeah and put a lein agaist their newly aquired ash pile incase they dont pay?
Putting it out when it was too far gone really just piles more cost on the homeowner. They would then have to have a bulldozer or front end loader come scoop up what was left and haul it off. Even if it were standing, a house that's fully involved with active fire with no rescue needed will mostly be deemed a defensive fire and 9/10 times firefighters will set up a 2½" line, protect any exposures and let the fire do it's thing until it's not a threat to anyone. Which is basically what happened here, except they werent alerted until a second problem started, which is pure carelessness, if the mayor wanted to strongarm non payers, he should have at least had the FD there before it got out of control.
This mainly is what pisses me off.
Sure even if they couldn't have saved the house, at least keep it under control that way no other problems arise.
I'd think at least they could do that.
The fact that they ignored the first plea for help because of them not having that service fee paid is pure negligence on their part, they could have very well made it so the other property could not have been damaged.
again i can tell you from personal experience
a journalist who gets forcefully escorted off the premises is going to write a very different report than one who was just given the interview
it may be worth reading between the lines a bit
or at least allowing the possibility that some mitigating factors may have been left unsaid
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.