Reply With Quote
Pay or you'll get burned.
No . These guys should risk their lives for nothing? It sounds heartless, but if they accept the $75 at the scene of the fire it would be wholly equivalent to someone who doesn't buy health insurance until he finds out he has cancer. I think it's ridiculous to privatize fire coverage, but the voters are morons.
Pay or you'll get burned.
While I think the manner in which the residents are using their power is completely ridiculous, conceptually I don't see why anyone should have a problem with voters being given a say in how services within their community are provided and funded.
What risks are there that go beyond the non-paying homeowner so long as the fire department shows up and make sure the fire doesn't spread?
Truth. If they get hurt helping somebody who didn't pay, it's entirely likely that their insurance would not pay for it.
Loss of life is one. Does a kid trapped into a fire needs to die because daddy is an idiot that won't fork off $75/year?
Then there's structural damages to city property like sidewalks, not to mention depreciation of properties surrounding what's now literally a dump.
Are they obligated to go in if the owner yells "My daughter is trapped in there!"? Akin to the people who know what to say upon presenting to the ER.... "I have chest pain." "I'm snort of breath"....etc. '
good question
None of this is realistic.
I'm pretty sure a victim trapped in the burning structure would change the equation considerably.
But, on the other hand, if I were a South Fulton loser that wished to save myself a whopping $6.25 a month and my house caught fire; I'd hide Timmy in the trunk of my '62 Chevrolet Corvair and, when I called 911, I be frantic about my missing Timmy not getting out of the house.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-08-2011 at 08:57 AM. Reason: Not a plane but a car.
If a kid is in the structure, is the fire department required to go in and save him/her?
If they weren't, we'd have heard about it by now.
No fire department is required to risk life or assets to save someone from a burning building - contract or no contract, paid fee or not.
Having said that, they do have an obligation to act -- in some way -- to preserve life. That doesn't necessarily mean entering a burning building if, in the judgement of the fire officials, it would be futile or would place fire fighters in unreasonable danger.
Finally, I don't know a fire fighter that wouldn't move heaven and earth to save a child from a burning building.
they let the pets burn according to this:
http://www.change.org/pe ions/tell...-burn-to-death
Paid fee, they're required to put out the fire.
That's really what we're talking about.
Pets aren't kids.
I was responding to your post...
Pets are somewhere between property and human life, though this confirms their staunch stance on not putting out a fire for someone that hasn't paid.
If there is a human life at risk, and they put out the fire for someone that hasn't paid, how would they handle reimbursement?
k.
As an aside, I think that if a paid firefighter is trained in civilian rescue that he/she then has a responsibility to perform the rescue.
Only if it can be done safely.
No one has the responsibility to commit suicide in order to attempt a rescue.
What part isn't realistic?
Obviously they'd re-ignite the fire and then leave.
Who says they put out the fire? Rescuing an occupant of a burning building doesn't require you to extinguish the fire.
All of it.
Not necessarily true. While they might not need to put out the fire, actually controlling the fire can be a necessity before a rescue attempt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
