Glenn Beck: Firefighters Right to Let Home Burn

[DiveCon]

In that case the fire department committed gross negligence. They knew a nearby house was on fire. They should have known the risk of that fire spreading. They were, after all, trained as fire fighters. They failed in their job to contain the fire. Because you said that was the reason they were there. How then did they do their job other than poorly and shamefully?

There's also the possibility that they could have failed at putting out the man's house if they tried. What's your point?

So both doing nothing or doing something and possibly failing are standards of due diligence and not to be considered negligence? How is this possible? Are the good people of Tennessee expected to pay for essential fire fighting services and then get a department that's playing Hamlet with emergencies?

"To douse, or not to douse? That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to aid my neighbor, or take five, and watch the fire spread?"

if THEY TRIED and failed, wouldn't that open them up for litigation?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At least we now know what a "Tea Party" America would look like.

It seems Obion County thinks other people should pay for them to get coverage.

Firefighters And Obion County Mayor Speak Over Fire Controversy - WREG

Do you think firefighting is a free service? At least we know what a "Coffee Party: America would look like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And if your house catches fire because the firefighters refuse to put out the fire next door because he didn't pay his bill, do you still think they were doing what was right? Imagine if it burned so hot that once it got started it took out the whole neighborhood because the firefighters refused to put it out when it started in a house that hadn't paid their bill.

There is no excuse for this.

That is the reason the firefighters were there, to contain the fire. They did their jobs. Sorry if you think their job is to provide service to someone who didn't pay for it.

Another person's house caught fire, at which point they finally did their job. Why should that neighbor have to deal with damage to his home which could have been prevented, he paid his $75.

Umm

He didn't. The fire department showed up before his property was damaged, and made sure the fire did not spread to his property, or the property of anyone else who had paid their fee.

Nice strawman though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another person's house caught fire, at which point they finally did their job. Why should that neighbor have to deal with damage to his home which could have been prevented, he paid his $75.

The $75 is to put out your house if it catches fire, not to prevent it from catching fire. If there were some way to prevent fires, we wouldn't need a fire department.

In that case the fire department committed gross negligence. They knew a nearby house was on fire. They should have known the risk of that fire spreading. They were, after all, trained as fire fighters. They failed in their job to contain the fire. Because you said that was the reason they were there.

That is the reason the firefighters were there, to contain the fire. They did their jobs.

How then did they do their job other than poorly and shamefully?

Gross negligence?

They did prevent the damage from spreading. Instead of getting your facts from message boards you should check out some more credible sources.

 

[Ravi]

A volunteer fire dept is normal for small communities that absolutely do not have a tax base to support a fire dept.
However, the volunteers can't fight the fire without equipment...equipment that cost money.
The $75 is to pay for that equipment.
If people didn't pay and they put the fire out anyway, then...wait for it...more people wouldn't pay and...wait again...they couldn't buy equipment and then there would BE no fire department to put anyones house out.

It isn't a volunteer fire department.

 

[Ravi]

You pass the test. Good Conservative. Sit. Stay.

Who taught you your values? Limbaugh or Beck or Reagan?

Certainly not Lincoln or Washington or Jesus of Nazareth.

And who taught you your values?
Was it the kind witch of the east? Casper the friendly ghost, or maybe it was the fairy who made Pinochio a real boy?

Personally I would have helped and then when the local newspaper came I would have made a statement to the effect "Well they can thank their neighbors and friends who paid the $75, perhaps now they will rethink that gamble in the future".

actually, the likely outcome is that nearby town will cease to offer assistance to that area at all

nice how this publicity will leave even those willing to pay for the service without it

This is possible since it is a heavily conservative area and apparently everyone in charge of the government in that county are vindictive Republicans.

 

[Jon]

There's also the possibility that they could have failed at putting out the man's house if they tried. What's your point?

So both doing nothing or doing something and possibly failing are standards of due diligence and not to be considered negligence? How is this possible? Are the good people of Tennessee expected to pay for essential fire fighting services and then get a department that's playing Hamlet with emergencies?

"To douse, or not to douse? That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to aid my neighbor, or take five, and watch the fire spread?"

if THEY TRIED and failed, wouldn't that open them up for litigation?

A good point, Dive, and one I had not considered. And as litigious as people in this country are, I wouldn't take the risk for someone whom I was not obligated to serve.

 

[Leweman]

Anyone who thinks this is okay is pathetic. So what some of you people are saying is that you don't help your fellow person in need. Its okay to let this happen in order to teach this person a lesson and to make an example of them? I'm not against making them pay a fee. But I bet if these guys would have put out the fire this guy would be paying the fee and then some for the rest of his life. And it could still be made an example of because the department could say that he hadn't paid his fee but we couldn't in good conscience let his house burn. But it would reiterate the importance of the fire department and the importance of the fee. Has no one here ever helped someone because its the right thing to do?

 

[DiveCon]

Anyone who thinks this is okay is pathetic. So what some of you people are saying is that you don't help your fellow person in need. Its okay to let this happen in order to teach this person a lesson and to make an example of them? I'm not against making them pay a fee. But I bet if these guys would have put out the fire this guy would be paying the fee and then some for the rest of his life. And it could still be made an example of because the department could say that he hadn't paid his fee but we couldn't in good conscience let his house burn. But it would reiterate the importance of the fire department and the importance of the fee. Has no one here ever helped someone because its the right thing to do?

and that would tell people they dont need to pay the fee
and many wouldnt continue to pay
thus they would all lose

 

[Immanuel]

You can whine all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that this guy thought he was entitled to something he did not pay for. He got his just dues. I have no pity or sympathy for him. If that makes me callous, so be it. It's who I am, and I see no reason to justify it.

Now, ask me if I were a firefighter in the same situation, what I would have done. I probably would have done what I can to help, but I don't fault those that didn't, either. The homeowner took a risk, and it didn't pay off. Lesson learned, at a great cost.

More often than not, I agree with you. In this case, I think you are just plain wrong... but then that is my opinion.

Immie

So be it. I'm just pointing out the fallacy in the homeowner's logic, and the logic of those defending his actions.

The fallacy in his logic? For all we know the city does not even send out bills, but just expects those living on its outskirts to remember to send in their $75 once a year.

The jackass that decided to let anyone who forgot to forward him the $75 die a cruel death is nothing short of a prick. That is exactly what he did... basically he said, 'if you forgot to forward that money and your house catches on fire then you can die in that fire for all we care' (paraphrased) In my book, that makes the jackass an absolute prick.

Immie

 

[Againsheila]

That is the reason the firefighters were there, to contain the fire. They did their jobs. Sorry if you think their job is to provide service to someone who didn't pay for it.

Another person's house caught fire, at which point they finally did their job. Why should that neighbor have to deal with damage to his home which could have been prevented, he paid his $75.

The $75 is to put out your house if it catches fire, not to prevent it from catching fire. If there were some way to prevent fires, we wouldn't need a fire department.

Really? You've never had a fireman tell you how to prevent fires? Forgot the saying "Remember, only you can prevent forest fires." have you? That was put out by the fire department.

So you are saying if the whole block didn't pay that $75 they should have let the whole block burn in spite of the fact that by then the fire would be out of control and dozens of people who paid the taxes would have lost their homes.

 

[Againsheila]

Even worse, 4 pets died in the fire. Would they have been just as callous if those were people?

 

[Cal]

YouTube - Beck On Family's Whose Home Burned Down As Firefighters Watched

(sarcastically) Compassion, compassion, compassion.

They guy who lost his house was interviewed last night. He said he forgot the 75 bucks, but paid all his other taxes. He tried to pay the Firefighters and neighbors came out and offered the Firefighters even MORE money.

Worse, several of the firefighters were reported sick and crying. Some simply went home.

Is this the "Moral America" Glenn is talking about? Tea Party "morals"?

What if Social Security is privatized? And those people lose their money? Do they live on the street?

Is this what the right is pushing? Every man for himself?

Is it easier for someone like Glenn Beck who makes 32 million a year watch someone else's house to burn down?

Anyone else notice the irony of the "Charity" sign behind his head?

 

[Cal]

After all, he points out, “if they did put the fire out and make an exception for your house and you didn’t pay,” then “would anyone pay their $75?” (His producer helped Beck along in his explanation by mimicking Cranick’s accent for nearly the entire segment.) The fee is “to pay for the fire department to have people employed to put the fire out,” Beck continued, and to use fire services without paying the fee “would be sponging off of your neighbor’s $75.”

Oh, and..

Is gonna "Restore Honor" to our nation.
This guy is such a fucking fraud.

 

[Againsheila]

Anyone who thinks this is okay is pathetic. So what some of you people are saying is that you don't help your fellow person in need. Its okay to let this happen in order to teach this person a lesson and to make an example of them? I'm not against making them pay a fee. But I bet if these guys would have put out the fire this guy would be paying the fee and then some for the rest of his life. And it could still be made an example of because the department could say that he hadn't paid his fee but we couldn't in good conscience let his house burn. But it would reiterate the importance of the fire department and the importance of the fee. Has no one here ever helped someone because its the right thing to do?

Apparently a whole lot of people here are selfish bastards that care only for themselves.

I've put out a neighbors fire before my family and myself, before the fire department got there. I would not pass a house on fire without calling for aid and doing what I could in the meantime. One of our neighbors chimney caught fire and they had no less than 5 calls to 911 from various neighbors and then we were all over there to do what we could to help.

I can't imagine living in that man's neighborhood. If I had that city to count on for my fire protection, I'd gather my neighbors together and start our own volunteer fire department and forget paying that city $75.00. I would do no shopping in that town, and I would have demonstrations against that Major to assure he is NEVER re-elected to ANY position.

The more I think about it the angrier it makes me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Anyone who thinks this is okay is pathetic. So what some of you people are saying is that you don't help your fellow person in need. Its okay to let this happen in order to teach this person a lesson and to make an example of them? I'm not against making them pay a fee. But I bet if these guys would have put out the fire this guy would be paying the fee and then some for the rest of his life. And it could still be made an example of because the department could say that he hadn't paid his fee but we couldn't in good conscience let his house burn. But it would reiterate the importance of the fire department and the importance of the fee. Has no one here ever helped someone because its the right thing to do?

No, we are saying that a person is obligated to pay for a service or good if he wants it. I did not see anyone in this thread insist that the fireman should be kept from putting out the fire if they wanted, nor did I see anyone trying to hold them off with guns.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone who thinks this is okay is pathetic. So what some of you people are saying is that you don't help your fellow person in need. Its okay to let this happen in order to teach this person a lesson and to make an example of them? I'm not against making them pay a fee. But I bet if these guys would have put out the fire this guy would be paying the fee and then some for the rest of his life. And it could still be made an example of because the department could say that he hadn't paid his fee but we couldn't in good conscience let his house burn. But it would reiterate the importance of the fire department and the importance of the fee. Has no one here ever helped someone because its the right thing to do?

I'm pretty sure we're saying we're not OBLIGATED to help someone who can't be bothered to help himself and just expects the rest of the world to bear his responsibilities, and the costs thereof, for him.

Why is leftist compassion always directed at selfish bastards who think the world owes them a living, and never at the world that's being expected to purchase that living for him?