skatingtripods wrote:Motherscratcher wrote:I don't think anyone is asking them to run into the burning trailer to save the cat. But it wouldn't have been a lot to ask for them to turn on the damn hose.
Sets a precedent to the other people paying for the service. It says that they don't need to pay in order to receive assistance.
It's hypothetical, but if people in this area stop paying for the service, then they may fall in to a "dead zone", so to speak, and not be extended fire fighter services from any nearby community. That could be very detrimental everybody, especially the people who contributed the way they were supposed to.
Like most everything else, this'll be interpreted one of two ways. The way I look at it and the way you and CDT look at it. I say the guy should have paid his $6.25 a month and took care of it. You guys say "It's $75 a year, is that really that important to let a man's house burn?"
I'm for the proactive.
I totally get the "need to pay or nobody will" angle. It's tough and Wiz made some very good arguments upthread. I guess I'm tentatively in the "put out the fire and bill the guy" camp. That's what firefighters are trained to do. They should do it.
When a doctor has someone brought to the ER having a heart attack, he doesn't root through his pockets to see how much cash he has or what type of insurance. He saves the guy's life and sends him a bill. I understand the most times the bill never gets paid, but he does it anyway. Because that's what he does. Every time.
But I do get the argument that the guy assumed the risk when he didn't pay, and I don't think it's an unreasonable one.
What I'm absolutely NOT buying the the "why should the firefighters put their own lives in such great peril, risking everything they know and love, to courageously fight the fire in trailer of this evil, horrible, man who wouldn't give them $75?" bullshit that jfiling threw out there.