do you think his dad bought him boobs?

Sure would if my job involved me saving lives of innocent animals and broken homes that have the potential to make decent contributing members to society. I mean I guess being a sales rep is the same as a civil servant and all.... :ws:

You have yet to actually come up with an excuse as to why they failed to do their job that's not related to "money".

Mikey beat me to the punch, as seen below. But my thoughts are that this is "insurance." Do you think the insurance company will let you go without paying, then suddenly pay for repairs after you decide to pay a one year premium JUST because you wrecked your car or your house burned down? No, they're going to tell you "tough cookies." This guy said he'd pay the full amount of the fire department's cost, but that's like telling your insurance company you'll pay the full amount of having your car or house fixed. What's the point, after the damage is already done?

While I don't think the animals should have died because of this, I do see the point, as mentioned above on the insurance comments. And like someone else said, if they let the guy pay the $75 only AFTER his house caught fire, then the rest of the community would stop paying their $75 and only wait for a fire, if it ever happened. Yes, maybe the community needs to change the way it's charged, but that doesn't mean the FD should have done the job anyway.

True, but what if the guy doesn't have the money to pay the hourly rate? You can't get blood from a turnip. By the time they check to figure out if he can afford the rate, the house is already burned down. If they put the fire out before checking and just send the guy a bill, he can simply not pay that one, the same as he didn't pay the $75.

Look at it this way... The fire department in that community had set forth rules that a $75 annual fee is required for them to come put out a fire. The $75 fee is an upfront fee for doing their job. Technically, he never "hired" them to do the job since he didn't pay the retainer. There was no contract in place for them to do any work and bill him later. The "contract" was that a fee needed to be paid annually in order to get the services provided. It wasn't "their job" to put out his house because he never entered into an agreement for such. They did "their job" by keeping the fire away from the neighbor's house, who had entered into the agreement and paid the required money.

In this particular case, their job isn't to just put out any fire. Their job is to put out fires for the people who have paid for the service. See the insurance analogies above.

But again, I think the structure needs to be changed so the fees are included in property taxes, but then you still have the issue of "what if someone doesn't pay their taxes?"

People pay for services rendered, in one form or another. Whether that is through actual payment, through trade, or through taxes.

If they put his fire out, even though he didn't pay the fee, the rest of the community will stop paying the fee, since it's clear they don't have to. If the community stops paying, then the fire department doesn't respond to that community at all.

Thank you Captain Morgan. You have made it unnecessary for me to say any more on the matter :dthumb:

I heard about this yesterday and was infuriated.

I agree with the policy, TO A POINT! Sure, he didn't pay, and I get that, but think about this. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it directly.

We all too often say *poor animals* when something like this happens. I hate it, and it pisses me off that pets were left to die in that house. There's a special place in hell for people that will knowingly do that.

However, what if there were a PERSON inside. Can you imagine the uproar then? Surely those firefighters would not have just let the fire burn knowing there was a person inside. Let's forget firefighter ethics and responsibilities to the community. What the hell happened to BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING?!

I can assure you the town of South Fulton would be facing lawsuit after lawsuit right now if a person had died as a result of that fire.

Something else to consider, since it appears everyone thinks that fire service is standard for where this happened and this guy had a right to services, but these firefighters had to respond outside of their service area to get to this place.

Those folks asked to pay the $75 service fee are outside of the normal service area, and the service is rendered after the fee is paid as an option only, just like the insurance analogy Capt. used.

If the fire department didnt want to, they wouldnt have to respond to fires outside their area of service. So they offer services for a fee. And $75 annually considering the fuel costs alone for driving to the back of beyond to fight a fire outside your service area is a pretty darn good deal.

Someone still should have saved the animals, but do we know that they were told there were pets in there? Or was the owner simply screaming and hollering at them to save his house? Having a few country cousins of my own, they dont give 2 shits about their pets, animals just show up and disappear at will and they just toss out some food...if it came down to it, they'd be hollering about their houses and only realize hours later that a few animals are missing. Do we know the animals were killed in the fire? Or did they run off in fear and just haven't shown back up?

The truth, however, is that animals are not humans. They are generally considered to be property under the law. Sure, they're bastards if they let pets die, but where do you draw the line?

Every now and then, on a local board, I'll butt heads with a self-professed "anarchist" who thinks that he shouldn't have to pay taxes, because he doesn't have the choice of only paying for only the services that he uses. He's one of the few members of that board I've actually met, a student at this university, so I happen to know that he's made extensive use of heavily subsidized education, government backed student loans, etc..

I agree with those who say that his house should have been saved but he should have been hit with a massive bill for it but then again, as others have also noted, how do you guarantee payment?

I also think that his insurance company would be well within their rights to deny him coverage for the incident, based on him not paying the fire department stipend.

Thank you. Very well said, guys.

Yes, it's shitty. But, it wasn't a secret. I wonder how many times this has happened in the past 20-years.

I wasn't talking about doing a credit check on the spot and then deciding to fight the fire :lol:

They charge him whatever hourly rate and then if he can't pay it, they take whatever other steps they'd need (collections, etc). People would probably still bitch about how "it's not fair that they charged him to save his house" but he'd at least have his pets and stuff.

Then they reposess his house and have a cool firefighter hang-out pad :D