Firefighters let house burn over $75

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by magikot, Oct 9, 2010.

Remove all ads!
Support Terra-Arcanum:

GOG.com

PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!
Page 2 of 2
  1. wobbler

    wobbler Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    wobbler, Oct 12, 2010
    wobbler, Oct 12, 2010
    #21
    Well, they say that the house owner offered to pay the fee to the firefighters, but they refused. So I think it was more a refusal of the third option than a failure to realize it.
     
    wobbler, Oct 12, 2010
    wobbler, Oct 12, 2010
    #21
  2. Jungle Japes

    Jungle Japes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    70
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Jungle Japes, Oct 12, 2010
    Jungle Japes, Oct 12, 2010
    #22
    The world being what it is today, the guy probably would have sued them for inundating his property with water if they had put the fire out.
     
    Jungle Japes, Oct 12, 2010
    Jungle Japes, Oct 12, 2010
    #22
  3. Philes

    Philes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,663
    Likes Received:
    39
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Philes, Oct 13, 2010
    Philes, Oct 13, 2010
    #23
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

    You clearly don't understand the basic concepts of shared risk/insurance.

    If everybody could pay their minimum premium for flood insurance when there was already 4" of water in their basement insurance companies would go out of business. If I could pay $20 for automobile accident coverage while I was laying bleeding in my crappy Honda Civic post-accident I would. That's not how it works though.

    Continuous investment in premiums shares the risk of events like fire across a wide margin, so if everybody pays 20 dollars a month for a year no one person has to pay 200 thousand dollars once a year to pay for a new house.
     
    Philes, Oct 13, 2010
    Philes, Oct 13, 2010
    #23
  4. wobbler

    wobbler Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Likes Received:
    11
    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    wobbler, Oct 13, 2010
    wobbler, Oct 13, 2010
    #24
    I don't see how this is negative as such. I think this points out exacly why you should pay the godamn fee.

    Because if you don't your fucked. Otherwise you would show that even if you don't pay the fee, you can just pay it when it happens and save money.
     
    wobbler, Oct 13, 2010
    wobbler, Oct 13, 2010
    #24
  5. Wolfsbane

    Wolfsbane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Wolfsbane, Oct 14, 2010
    Wolfsbane, Oct 14, 2010
    #25
    They should've put out the fire and fined the family. No sense in letting a house burn to the ground for something as shallow as that.
     
    Wolfsbane, Oct 14, 2010
    Wolfsbane, Oct 14, 2010
    #25
  6. Jungle Japes

    Jungle Japes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,396
    Likes Received:
    70
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Jungle Japes, Oct 14, 2010
    Jungle Japes, Oct 14, 2010
    #26
    They don't have any authority to go imposing fines on people for a service that they aren't signed up for. Again, I have a feeling the fire department would have been sued if they had put out the fire. This is America we're talking about, the place where you can sue McDonalds because you burned yourself with their coffee, or sue a homeowner because you injured yourself while breaking into their home.
     
    Jungle Japes, Oct 14, 2010
    Jungle Japes, Oct 14, 2010
    #26
  7. DarkFool

    DarkFool Nemesis of the Ancients

    Messages:
    4,007
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    DarkFool, Oct 14, 2010
    DarkFool, Oct 14, 2010
    #27
    The fire department and the city have no authority to fine these people. Billed them for the fire department's time? Possibly. But you can't fine someone who isn't within your jurisdiction.
     
    DarkFool, Oct 14, 2010
    DarkFool, Oct 14, 2010
    #27
  8. The_Bob

    The_Bob Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    8
    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    The_Bob, Oct 14, 2010
    The_Bob, Oct 14, 2010
    #28
    I still think they could've signed it off as a preventive measure, to ensure the fire won't spread to other houses, or to prevent the burning home from polluting the air around the protected homes. I mean, burning trash stinks, and that was a whole house. It will smell like ass in that neighborhood for the weeks to come.

    It was up to the fire dept. to spray the house or not, and legally they were equally covered in both cases. They opted for the one that made them look like assholes.

    People should do stuff like that from time to time IMO, so there won't be too many stupid fuckers around who don't pay but still expect to be served. If they had put out the fire and required no extra payment, that wouldn't be news, nobody would know, or care. Except maybe their immediate neighbors, if they found out, and then they'd feel like idiots for paying for what's apparently a free service. If they billed the family for the operation, they'd get sued and the papers would make the firefighters look like the bad guys, even if they saved property worth 100x what they charged for it.
     
    The_Bob, Oct 14, 2010
    The_Bob, Oct 14, 2010
    #28
  9. Grakelin

    Grakelin New Member

    Messages:
    2,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Grakelin, Oct 14, 2010
    Grakelin, Oct 14, 2010
    #29
    Costs more than $75 for the fire department to save your house, so it's not even like they're ripping you off.
     
    Grakelin, Oct 14, 2010
    Grakelin, Oct 14, 2010
    #29
Page 2 of 2
Our Host!