Firefighting Fee

You know hugo, most of the time you are a hardazz but you still seem fairly smart most of the time if just a little misguided, but then sometimes you say something like this and I wonder if all that copy/pasting you do with other people's words is why you seem smarter than this drivel shows.


Emergency situations were time is an element of the decision process is given complete legal status for verbal contracts. Even people who are unconsious and flown to a hospital to save their life are held accountable for the bill to fly them because it is assumed any reasonable person would agree to the flight for those emergency reasons. There is not one Judge in America who would not enforce an emergency contract in this situation.

Other ways the fire department can help to cover their behinds is to send a information letter to the area homes and put it in the paper describing exactly how their policy and fees are set up and letting everyone know ahead of time. This kind of informed decision is how the fire fighters are now using to give them an excuse as to why they just stood there and watched the home burn.

Well it is a good thing that nobody here is wanting anything done for free then right?

There is no legal ground for the owner to refute the charges at a later date and the Government just leans the land and is paid before anyone can ever live on the property again so they will be paid for services rendered and the Government does not have to put firefighters in the possition of being uncaring buracrats who would just sit there and watch a family home burn to the ground just because their name is not on a list.

Another thing to consider is what if the people did pay their fee but some lazy Government worker who took the fee forgot to put their name on this list? What kind of liability does the City now put itself in because of a mistake made by one person? The logical and reasonable action is to put out fires, that is what fire fighters are supposed to do. Let the buracrats be the buracts.



You know, it was not that long ago that we never had professional fire fighters. Communities just put our fires because they just thought helping each other in a time like that was the right thing to do. Could we call this new development of people just watching someone's home burn down and not lifting a finger progress?

 

The point is nothing was set up in advance covering this situation unlike your example when standard ambulance fees are already in place. When the firefighters got there there is no way they could have entered into a legally binding agreement with the mobile home owner.

 

You are walking in the mall holding a pint of orange juice, suddenly a diabetic starts having seizures because of low blood sugar. You tell him "For 10K ya can have my orange juice , just sign this contract." The contract is voidable.

If you value your family, pets and property you should do the responsible thing and pay the $75.

 

Yeah. They were in the neighborhood. Because someone PAID THE FEE IN ADVANCE. The lesson: Pay the damn fee. Be responsible.

And they didn't put it out because the guy hadn't paid the fee. It's not like he didn't know the fee was there. He forgot. Guess next time he won't forget, eh?

And they showed up because the neighbor paid. The firefighters did their job. They stopped the neighbors house from burning down.

Perhaps. Still doesn't change the fact that the firefighters did their jobs. They followed the law.

 

So we spend even MORE money going through a bureaucratic process to put a lien on this guy's land? So now not only have his irresponsible actions been no burden on him, the people in that city now have to help support his inability to follow the law.

Also, the "sending out the pamphlet" thing would have some relevance if he hadn't PAID IN PREVIOUS YEARS. He knew it was a necessity. It slipped his mind. He doesn't have a house. Now he needs to take responsibility. He wanted something for nothing, and he got nothing for nothing.

That's what receipts are for.

 

The receipt was in the house when it burned to the ground. :geek:

 

Bullsh!t hugo, the person is dying and unconsious, there was no informed decision or authorization, there is an assumption by the courts that because this is the only option to save their life it is "assumed" they would agree to it and people are forced by the courts to pay those fees all the time. Sure, the city putting out a notice of the fee both ways would go a long way to proving peopel were informed of the higher charge to pay "as needed" but under the law, emergency services have always enjoyed the protection of knowing they are there to help society.

Once again you show that maybe you are not as bright as I have been giving you credit for all this time.

These things go before a judge, a judge will look at the guy trying to scam $10,000 out of the people and toss him out on his ear, while the same judge will look at the fire department acting in good faith as a community service and they being the only option available to respond to this kind of emergency and there is no way that judge will toss that out.

Emergency services have long held the right to charge for services, consider that people have been charged for mountain rescues and fires that got out of a back yard and spread costing a lot of time and money to fight the fire so the person who lost control of their fire gets charged.



So your belief that the peopel would get something for "free" is dead wrong hugo.

Say it with me....F I R E F I G H T E R.....not buracrat. As a child many kids will see firefighters as their heros because they put their life on the line to help people. Now we want them to be nothing more than a money grubbing greedy group of people? Democrats spend most of their time screaming about how evil companies and business people are because they are only motivated by "GREED", but it is okay if our Government is only motivated by greed? When does human life and safety attain a greater value than a $75 fee?

Um....you ever actually file a lien? It takes 5 minutes to file a lien, the Government workers who process these things are already sitting there, it would only cost the Government the price of the paper to make it official.

Now you are pulling a hugo, nobody said anything about not charging the homeowner, he should be charged a higher fee because he failed to pay the fee in the proper time. The Government has been doing this for years for things like paying your taxes and such. Stop trying to lean on the crutch that the guy will get anything for free because that is not the case.

Humans are not robots, we don't do everything perfect. Yes, he should pay a price for not paying, but as with all mistakes in life, the punishment should fit the mistake. We don't execute people for speeding because that would be considered too harsh.

All I am trying to say is it seems a tad harsh to just sit there and watch his home burn down just to punish him for not paying his $75. If the fire fighters are there anyway, why not make some extra money in the process for the City? The homeowner has to pay a huge fee as punishment, the fire is put out ensuring the safety of even the whole community, the firefighters get to keep their image of being motivated to help people instead of just being motivated by greed........everyone wins.

When your home is on fire, every second counts. If a buractatic mistake had the family not on the list but they did pay, their home burns down anyway even if they paid. As OS said, the receipt is in the burning house, and taking the time to get it, and bring it down to the fire station would not be very productive now would it?

 

Turns out Cranick "forgot" to pay last year also.

I must admit if I had been a firefighter I would have sprung to action the minute he said three dogs were in the house. I would have let the cat burn.

This guy is right on.

Of course libtards disagree.

Notice the libtard disagreeing with me cannot cite one example where a contract to put out a fire at the time of the fire was held as valid. Cranick was a moocher. Equivalent to an illegal alien crossing the border for healthcare. He should be shot.

 

Another non-libtard opinion.

 

What kind of sorry butt hole does not let his pets out when his house catches fire? I guess he "forgot" they were in the house. When my house caught fire I made damn sure my dog got out. After getting the dog out I figured I better check on the wife.

 

Glenn Beck==warning he is not a libtard

In 2002 the residents of Obion County voted down a measure that would have paid for fire protection out of tax revenues.

It looks like the libtards have something against democracy.

It appears Cranick has "forgot" to pay for many years.

The good news, for the libtards, is that Obama is going to make sure all Americans have access to fore protection.

 

Well, if it were something like that, I'd have like 5 copies made. Keep the original in a fireproof metal box. That way if anything happened, I could go "OH HELL NO" and sue them so far up their ass I could see their spleen.

And those copies? See if a friend will hold one, family, etc. Do the same for them. That way you all can verify.

And yes, if they screwed that up, you'd probably lose your house. But at least you could get some money to build another one, and weren't out on the street. It would be a load of bull if such a thing happened, yes. But sh*t does.

 

To piggyback off of Hugo's posts:

So basically, the guy wanted something for nothing. He didn't pay for the protection he knew he had to in order to make sure his house didn't burn down. And now he's paying the price. It really is as simple as that.

Times, I understand your feelings here, and you're being compassionate, but compassion in cases where people have flaked on individual responsibility leads to a Welfare State, and people getting things for free from OUR tax dollars.

If he hadn't paid, then nobody would pay, as they would see no reason to. Then the FD loses the money it has to fight fires out in the boondocks, and guess what? Then nobody gets fire protection. So this butt hole either: (A) Wants everybody to pay except him, or (B ) wants nobody out there to get fire protection. Sounds like he got what he deserved.

 

Compassionate conservatism is what got us 10 trillion dollars in debt. Libtardism is gonna double it.If ya gonna have government services they must be paid for. There is no free lunch.

 

There is no direct example because up to now, there has not been a need for it.


In my State we even have something called volunteer fire fighters. There is a volunteer fire fighter station about 8 miles from my main home. There is another one 16 miles from my river house. Imagine that, people working together to help community and not being motivated by greed to fight fires........I guess what is happeneing in that County is called progress to the radicals like hugo.




Anyway, I gave you several examples of how emergency services are protected by the courts. One example I offered was how a person can be life flighted and later charged with the cost of the flight "even without a contract, verbal or written". You dodged that point because you know it proves you wrong. You debate exactly like Bender, you simply ignore what proves you wrong while I address every point anyone makes.


Lots of States charge residents for fighting fires they caused such as wild fires, here is one example:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/CostRecovery.pdf


*************************************

Hugo,

Not one person here is claiming the homeowner shoudl get fire fighting services for free. You are spending a lot of time copy/pasting (as usual) other people's words on a point not one person here is supporting.


What we have said it there should be a path that allows firefighters to remain firefighters and not buracrats. By allowing the home owner to pay a much increased fee you both fight the fire and tell the other residents that there is a huge cost for not paying the lower fee should they need fire fighting services.


There are things the city can do to make the emergency contract more solid such as letters to the residents and information in the local news papers, but there is not one Judge who would not uphold an emergency services need to act quickly to fight a fire.



Look at it this way hugo, you say the homeowner made an informed decision not to pay, so it stands to reason they would also be making an informed decision as to the greater cost for paying at the time services are needed. Most Courts take the "reasonable person" approach and paying a higer fee if you refused to pay the lower fee ahead of time is certainly reasonable.



***********Again, let me say that I nor anyone else wants the homeowner to get fire fighting services for free, that is not at issue or discussion here. The homeowner should pay a much higher penalty for not paying ahead of time. What I am saying is that there should be a path that allows a firefighter to fight fires, not watch as homes burn to the ground just because the home is not on a list.**************



If the only motivation to fight fires is for money, then something in this world is moving the wrong direction in my opinion.

 

he did pay a higher penalty.

He lost his house.


bet he pays up next time...

 

True eddo, there was a huge penalty, and I am sure it was a glaring example to the rest of the County residents who don't want to pay up as well. I was trying to say that there could be some middle ground here, some place where we can say it was a bad decision not to pay the fee, and at the same time say that just watching a family home burn down is a tad harsh.


Many Countries find it very successful to punish a thief by cutting of the hands. While this method is very successful at teaching a lesson that stealing is wrong, I find that sucess in sending a message is not the only standard we should be living our life by eddo. There is more than just standing on the legality of things. Sure, I admit the firefighters and the city was well within their right to just watch the home burn, but were they showing a true spirit of community and fairness by imposing the most harsh penalty imaginable with no steps between?

I know without doubt that I could not watch a home burn and do nothing. I would help and lose my job if necessary but I would not just stand there and watch it burn down.

How about you eddo? You are the firefighter standing there watching the home burn, do you keep your hands in your pockets and refuse to help?

 

Actually, unless he valued his pets which I have seen little indication he did the penalty is basically the deductable on his home insurance policy and the loss of his priceless Billy Beer can collection. What surprises me is the free market does not act. That insurance companies don't require county residents to pay that fee or the fee is paid for by the insurance companies.

Boys snd girls, once you have entered an area with a governing body you are required to follow there rules. This may include having to pay for emergency services if you are injured. Now, boys and girls, if you are not in the area a governing body covers neither they, or an individual, can entice you to enter a contract while you are under duress. That is a good thing. No 10K for a drink of orange juice.

We got to 11 trillion dollars in debt mainly because of Republicans who decided taxes were bad but spending was good. The city has acted responsibly. Cranick did not. Responsibility is good. Be responsible. Don't "forget" to pay your fire protection insurance year after year after year.


The city of South Fulton has a duty to their citizens not to give services away to outsiders.

 

Gasp! You mean they shouldn't bail him out because he's been irresponsible for several years and is now paying the price for his lack of responsibility?

Seriously though, the dude "forgot" for multiple years. He obviously knew about it. He just didn't pay it. So he's now suffering for it.

You and I seem to understand this, Hugo. What I can't understand is why Times is all about bailing this guy out who was irresponsible on purpose, then "charging him extra". There is no such thing as compassion for willfully neglectful people. If it was an actual "oops", then yes. Feel bad. Boo hoo. But it wasn't. Something along these lines had happened before, and he knew about it. They let him pay after they put it out, which was actually quite nice of them. So they gave him a chance to make a mistake, and they let him. But then he took advantage of them and did it again. WILLFULLY NEGLECTING THE FACT THAT IF HE DIDN'T PAY IT, HIS HOUSE WOULD BURN. Actions have consequences. You make bad choices, they come back to haunt you. Simple.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...0tdxWoStirdC9tycATygD9IML9VO0?docId=D9IML9VO0

So his own wife doesn't blame the FD for DOING THEIR DAMN JOB? Freaking amazing.

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801

They were called and notified. They had been sent mail. This means that they were notified multiple times. When you don't immediately pay it, or pay it damn soon, that's irresponsible.

Doesn't help that the dumbass grandson who WENT AND PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED THE FIRE CHIEF started the fire by putting trash in a barrel to burn, then left the fire unattended so he could take a shower. So he beat up the guy who wouldn't solve the problems he caused because nobody in the family had been responsible? Sounds like it's a family trait, like being black or dying of cancer.