If they put out the fire, then other people would ask for the same treatment, thus rendering the whole system useless, when the fire spreaded to a neighboors house then they took action (neighboor payed his tax), there was no one at the house, from what i understand, they have the obligation to save a persons life even if they didn`t payed the 75$.
Which begs the question, what if they refuse to put down a fire and the owner decides to jump into the fire filled house?
You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individuals. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful. -Marie Curie
I believe there were 3 puppies inside, if I'm not mistakenOriginally Posted by UChessmaster
Not if, as Deathscythe said, the guy paid $11,000 for them to save him. The people would really take the lesson as to rather just pay the $75 up front.
The fire department is legally obligated to protect human lives. They are not legally obligated to save property or pets, which is what happened.No, they wouldn't take the lesson to heart. It's simple, most people just wouldn't pay that either. Once their house is safe, what do they care? Default on the payment, declare bankruptcy, whatever. Fire Departments can't afford the time and additional money it would take to get them to actually pay up.
The only way you could incorporate that kind of solution is to have the fire dept put a lien on the house, and that's not much of a solution either. The fire department doesn't want to end up owning a half-dozen half-burnt homes.
Not all national parks charge to helicopter rides either, so that is sort of a poor analogy. That recently became an news issue too, when one group of unprepared yuppies called the park service three times, twice because they got themselves lost, and a third time because they freaked out when their water tasted a little salty. Like the firefighters, they can't take the risk of NOT responding in order to save lives. They take stupid risks, but the rescue services can't afford not to. In this fire fighting instance, they could afford not to take any further risk, no additional human beings were inside the house.
Last edited by Ryllharu; Fri, 10-08-2010 at 04:39 AM.
I find it a bit strange that if a rotten tree falls on you and you break a leg, the emergency service would award you with a 5000 dollars bill for saving you (doing their job). I do understand that finding some punks who simply set out ill prepared and think they got lost would be another matter.
The 11000 would be a decent fine to someone who was negligent, but I'm sure in the grand scheme of things the fire department would be far less funded if they only made 11,000 for each fire they put out, rather than 75 per year per household under their supervision.
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
I think the $75 per family is only for the rural families outside the normal service area, and that's a small number of customers relative to the thousands they service in the city who pay for services through taxes.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
So in the end it wouldnt make a big difference if they had just allowed the guy to pay the $11,000 fee since there really doesnt need to be a message sent, SINCE they get most of their money through taxes.
Taxes from their home municipality. The house that burnt down does not reside in the town where the fire department is funded by taxes. That's the whole idea behind the annual fee.
Financially disadvantaged family hasn't been paying the annual $75. House catches on fire, fire department comes, bills them for $11,000. They don't pay it, or simply can't afford it. Suddenly the fire dept is doing work unfunded. Others follow suit, do the same thing. If the fire dept can't collect, they're working unfunded. I fail to see why this is hard to understand.
Fire dept runs out of funds working in a different town that refuses to fund them through taxes of their own. Which the fee essential is, it is an opt-in tax.
Option A: Increase taxes on their home municipality, now one town is funding the rural one, who gets services for free.
Option B: Stop ever coming to rural area, houses burn to the ground, people die.
Option C: Close fire dept, both towns' houses burn to the ground, people die.
The answer is going to be Option B.
Conclusion: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Either pay the fee, or vote for a new fire house (volunteer likely) funded by taxes.
Hotelier leaves home for a week so it can be decorated . . . then 15 jobless Italian squatters move in
And the police can't do anything to stop them.
That is totally fucked. I would burn the house down if I were the owner....with the squatters in there, preferably. Just because you have no money doesn't give you the right to take the property of someone else.
Last edited by fahoumh; Thu, 10-21-2010 at 05:43 PM.
Wow. I didn't think there was a country with a worse collection of laws than ours, but this article proved I was wrong. I don't know if this should make me happy or sad. I guess the UK has no laws concerning burglary. So, if you are sleeping and wake up to noises from downstairs, you can't call the police because they wouldn't be able to do anything about the unwelcome guests. A funny country.
I'm sure glad I live in the US. In many of our states, if someone is in your home without your permission (especially as the case with these students who broke in in the first place), the owner is well within their rights to shoot them. They have to be in your home though, you can't shoot them once they're running away.
The old joke is, "If you shoot a thief who is crawling out your window, make sure you drag the body back in."
There is more to it than that, and certain very real consequences depending on the specific response used, but Judicious Use of Deadly Force is authorized for those kinds of circumstances. If that happened in America, he could simply declare them as a threat to him, and if they didn't leave after that, he could shoot them. You also have to verbally warn them before you take action (assuming there was time for that). It is part of any firearm safety course in the US.
Oh, Castle Doctrine...:3
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...=mostpop_story
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...7_snack28.html
If there's one thing America does right, it's Bloodlust. That and executing teenagers in your trailer.
<@Terra> he told me this, "man actually meeting terra is so fucking big", and he started crying. Then he bought me hot dogs
Bah, don't quote the first part of my post and skip the second part about how there are consequences and that every effort must be made to avoid lethal force if the situation allows for it.
First article, they left his house, that's already past the point where he could have justified it. The second article...that's just Texas, of course they'll acquit the guy.
Pets are not humans. Cruel as it is, that's the way things are. Humans are considered "essential" lives, animals are not.
No firefighter (possibly with a family of his/her own to provide for) should risk their life for a household pet.
Wooooow.
This is ridiculous. If another man breaks into your home and threatens your security, you should have every right to shoot him.
I mean if its an unarmed kid, that's one thing. But for a full adult to break into you house, you should be allowed to defend yourself.
That's the dangerous part, how do you know if the "kid" is armed? Do you really want to give them the benefit of the doubt and then eat a bullet?
I had 2 punks, around age 14-17 kick my front door as a prank. I went outside with my gun looking for them, but they had disappeared. I think they were hiding nearby and saw I meant business, since I haven't seen them around my house the past few months since then. From the size of them they looked like full grown adults, but we've seen them around the neighborhood before and they are teens. I think I posted about it in the bitching thread, but if I had seen them that night, they'd be two dead "kids".
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Lol, and XanBcoo, the forum's bleeding-heart liberal, makes a b-line into the conversation. This is why Texas has the lowest reports of burglary in the country. Meanwhile in other states, a thief can trip and hurt himself in an attempt to break into your house and then SUE you for damages.
Also, when the responder was talking about sending ultras, I imagined these careening through the neighborhood:
Last edited by Assertn; Sat, 10-23-2010 at 12:02 AM.
10/4/04 - 8/20/07
Cold-blooded man, though I agree with you on conservative values and laws governing justice and making the world a safer place. The world is over-crowded anyway, and you and me ain't nuthin' but mammals, and mammals are animals and animals do what we do.
Bwhahah! I also wondered what he meant when he referred to sending "ultras", though I'm not so much of a SC fan to think of 'lisks.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Posting Permissions
KitKat 
