Tennessee Firemen Ignore Burning House Over Unpaid Subscription Fee

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you're not even close to how this would (or should) really work.

Well then, I guess it's lucky that this is just a message board, all of these are hypothetical situations, and I really couldn't care less what you think.

I was suggesting that could be part of the overall contract (the same one that dictates $75 gets you services). The couple in question begged the firefighters to save their house and they would pay whatever fee it took. That's what made me think of it. No, that's not the best case scenario, there are lots of reasons it wouldn't work, and I'm sure there are loads of better options, possibly including what happened in reality. But, given the fact that a homeless couple who has lost all their possessions is not the best case scenario either, that's the idea I would contribute.

As for the whole "if a fireman died" situation, I don't think the family would be liable for that. For one, just the way people keep saying "you know what could happen if you don't pay your fee," I'm sure people would say "you risk your life with every call, that's part of the job." I think that's pretty callous, but people would go there. Moreover, if it was the department who overrode the "don't save the house" order, then I would think the liability would swing toward them. But I don't know a lot about legal matters and liability, so I'm really not sure.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Well then, I guess it's lucky that this is just a message board, all of these are hypothetical situations, and I really couldn't care less what you think.

That's fine - I think that came off more harsh than I anticipated, but it's not like you're required to listen to what I have to say.

However, this is more what I meant:

I was suggesting that could be part of the overall contract (the same one that dictates $75 gets you services). The couple in question begged the firefighters to save their house and they would pay whatever fee it took. That's what made me think of it. No, that's not the best case scenario, there are lots of reasons it wouldn't work, and I'm sure there are loads of better options, possibly including what happened in reality. But, given the fact that a homeless couple who has lost all their possessions is not the best case scenario either, that's the idea I would contribute.

I see what you're saying - my point was just that the way that it could work and the way that it did work on-site can't really be compared. I'm sure there's a better solution, in a holistic sense, and I'm sure I'm not qualified to judge or determine the "best" scenario. It's the difference between (as you said) a hypothetical and what actually happened.

I think we can say, however, that once the $75 decision had been made in the past, changing the contract situation "on the fly" (while a fire is raging) would be very difficult at best, and might even be untenable/impossible.

If the community/county as a whole decides it would be better to make this decision for each person (and require paying for outside fire protection), that's certainly their right to do so. However, there is certainly something to be said for allowing people to make their own purchase/protection/safety decisions in low-risk scenarios (that generally don't affect the community as a whole) - and there isn't a 100%-sure method to determine where to draw the line. It's going to definitely be an "agree-to-disagree" scenario at that point.