Invisable Hand Screws up

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Prosecuted for what?

Depending on the state law, malfeasance. I understand that malfeasance isn't even a crime in many states, it's a civil condition that can warrant removal from office only.......whichever......works for me.

I just have this old fashion notion of what a responsible public official should be. In many cases this means looking past the monetary and the so called letter of the law to see the reality of this 75 dollar decision. That is that a person lost a home and their pets in a tragic situation, all for the want and need of a small fee.

I guarantee you that when this policy or fee was debated someone must have asked (let's hope they did) what they would do in a situation such as this?

If someone or some agency made a conscious decision to let someones house burn down, because they didn't pay.....then I have a real problem with that body. And they should answer to someone even if it is the voters.

Don't get me wrong Mack, I get that this guy didn't pay his fee, that his idiot gr son has effectively caused all of the heartache etc. But they came out to the neighbors place and acted in good faith, which truly makes this guys tragedy a matter 75 bucks and that draws a line I am uncomfortable with. Public servants in police and fire rolls have a " duty" that is unique and different than any other in our society . This has been upheld by the courts time and again. In fact there are court cases wherein public officials are compelled by the law to act in a certain fashion soley based on often unique and varied unexpected circumstances. These circumstances often call for what you might call " coloring outside the lines"

Consider if some noble authority figure who was on scene or in command when the call had come in, decided to respond, damn the 75 bucks......we would know nothing of this event and it would be another footnote in a fire dept history file. Doing what is ultimately right is almost always rewarded, almost. I bet the county council would damn sure rather be dealing with a fire chief who went " off the books" a little rather than the firestorm (pun intended) that this current scenario brings. Sometimes when you are standing in the middle of a scenario such as these firemen were faced with.....somebody has to step up at the risk of receipt of an ass chewing, or long winded letter of reprimand. Ulimately these Guys are called leaders..........

[JustRalph]

For some reason could not edit above on the iPad

Change police and fire "rolls" to "roles"

I would like to hear from bluegrass prof on this subject, just for fun

[highnote]

He should have paid his share, but the fact that he didn't shouldn't be enough reason to not fight this fire, in my opinion.

I realize the firemen put their lives on the line, but if he had paid the $75 that is not going to change the risk they faced by any large degree.

Plus, they could have sent him a bill for all the years he owed. Maybe he would have been grateful enough for their efforts that he would have paid up.

They could have at least made some attempt to spray water on the house. How dangerous is that? I'm not a firefighter. Maybe it is dangerous?

One thing for sure, it makes me appreciate our neighborhood volunteer fire dept.

[highnote]

This reminds me of a scenario I read in a law book.

If a person is drowning, you have no legal obligation to try to save the drowning person. However, you may feel you have a moral obligation.

I had a college classmate who drowned because he tried to save someone who was drowning. Both he and the drowning victim died. Had he exercised better judgement he would probably still be alive. Would he have felt guilt for not jumping in the water to save the victim? Is it better to be alive and feeling guilty than dead?

Knowing this, if I saw a stranger drowning -- especially a large adult male, I might hesitate to jump in and instead try to find a rope or a long pole or something that floats. I'd hate like hell to drown and leave behind a wife and two young kids. If a child or small woman was drowning I may be more likely to jump in if I felt like it wouldn't cost me my life, too.

I hope I'm never faced with this situation, but if I am I hope I can find a way to save the person drowning.

Now, as far as the firefighters, I don't think I could stand idly by and watch someone's house burn without at least trying to spray some water on it if I had a hose available. Is that asking too much?

[ArlJim78]

It not a matter of only $75. That doesn't represent the cost to come out and fight the fire. Thats the community cost per household knowing that only a few people will actually require the service each year, and its only valid when people pay the fee in advance. If they made it a practice to come out and fight every fire for the $75 fee, then everyone would hold back paying the fee up front figuring that they can always pay $75 if their house catches on fire. If they did that they would run out of money because $75 does not cover the costs.
again, they were well aware of all of this and chose to ignore it.

[hcap]

Letter of the law should not supersede the spirit of the law.If the FD had accepted the $75 at the site, they would only be out administrative costs. The home owners might be then charged a late fee to cover that.

Meanwhile the monetary damage and loss is way out of line as compared to a $75 payment. So what it amounts to is a late fee penalty totally out of any reasonable range

[johnhannibalsmith]

Well, the good news, I know I can count on a few people not to bitch when I pay the lousy penalty until I really need Obamacare.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

It not a matter of only $75. That doesn't represent the cost to come out and fight the fire. Thats the community cost per household knowing that only a few people will actually require the service each year, and its only valid when people pay the fee in advance.

I understand that. It's kind of like insurance, but even the neighbors are angry:

"A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground."

"Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge."

If they made it a practice to come out and fight every fire for the $75 fee, then everyone would hold back paying the fee up front figuring that they can always pay $75 if their house catches on fire.

I think most people would pay the fee out of principle. Just because certain people don't have common sense does not mean they should not be helped in a time of need.

"This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond."

The firefighters eventually showed up to make sure it didn't spread to a home next door. As long as they were there already would it have been a big deal to spray some water on the house that was burning. They could have claimed that they had to spray the house in order to prevent the flames from burning the house next door.

If I was a firefighter I would have a hard time standing by and watching a home burn knowing full well that my firetruck sitting on the scene had the capability of saving the home.

That would be like the doctors and nurses in an emergency room not helping a dying patient because hospital administrators would not allow them to treat the patient because he let his insurance policy lapse.

I guess it is not surprising that firefighters were not willing to disobey orders.

Have you ever heard of Milgram 65?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

I think most people would pay the fee out of principle. Just because certain people don't have common sense does not mean they should not be helped in a time of need.

Ahhh...and right here is the crux of the issue! However, in this case, I think the FD had a moral duty to not stand by and watch someone's house burn when they could have done something about it. This has nothing to do with the letter of any law (as 'cap suggested) because the law simply requires payment. The homeowner never paid. Period. So, he kept neither the letter or the "spirit". But moral duty should have trumped the law in this case because it was an isolated incident. The FD did not exactly exhibit love for its neighbor, did it? The FD people at the scene didn't exactly do unto that homeowner as they would want done unto them, did they? So, from a Christian perspective, God's law should have trumped man's law. This unfortunate incident is a great example of this.

But should we expect responsible, hard working people to suffer the consequences of the actions of people without common sense or without any real sense of responsibility on an ongoing basis? Do responsible people with "common sense" have a moral duty to perpetually meet the needs of those who don't have any and who probably aren't really interested in acquiring any? (We have two entirely different scenarios here.) And how we address this second scenario pretty much defines us politically. But again, from a biblical perspective the answer is clear on how this kind of situation should be handled. God's Word is really the Rule of Life -- the rule for everyday living.

Boxcar

[Tom]

When I meet my Maker, if he were to ask why I didn't help that man when I was the only one who could, I sure wouldn't be very comfortable saying it was because of 75 frigging dollars.

I would have to lie and say it because he was a liberal.

[redshift1]

Literacy rate in Tennessee is about 50%, rural areas even less.

[highnote]

I agree, Box. If the FD had tried to put out the fire on his home maybe he would have been so grateful that he would have paid double? Or maybe he would have been a jerk and paid nothing. Still, I think the moral duty trumps the law.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Ahhh...and right here is the crux of the issue! However, in this case, I think the FD had a moral duty to not stand by and watch someone's house burn when they could have done something about it. This has nothing to do with the letter of any law (as 'cap suggested) because the law simply requires payment. The homeowner never paid. Period. So, he kept neither the letter or the "spirit". But moral duty should have trumped the law in this case because it was an isolated incident. The FD did not exactly exhibit love for its neighbor, did it? The FD people at the scene didn't exactly do unto that homeowner as they would want done unto them, did they? So, from a Christian perspective, God's law should have trumped man's law. This unfortunate incident is a great example of this.

But should we expect responsible, hard working people to suffer the consequences of the actions of people without common sense or without any real sense of responsibility on an ongoing basis? Do responsible people with "common sense" have a moral duty to perpetually meet the needs of those who don't have any and who probably aren't really interested in acquiring any? (We have two entirely different scenarios here.) And how we address this second scenario pretty much defines us politically. But again, from a biblical perspective the answer is clear on how this kind of situation should be handled. God's Word is really the Rule of Life -- the rule for everyday living.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Tom

When I meet my Maker, if he were to ask why I didn't help that man when I was the only one who could, I sure wouldn't be very comfortable saying it was because of 75 frigging dollars.

I would have to lie and say it because he was a liberal.

I can't even imagine what the national outcry would have been, all the way up to the WH, if this homeowner had been black or a Muslim.

Boxca4

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

I understand that. It's kind of like insurance, but even the neighbors are angry:

"A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground."

"Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge."




I think most people would pay the fee out of principle. Just because certain people don't have common sense does not mean they should not be helped in a time of need.

"This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond."

The firefighters eventually showed up to make sure it didn't spread to a home next door. As long as they were there already would it have been a big deal to spray some water on the house that was burning. They could have claimed that they had to spray the house in order to prevent the flames from burning the house next door.

If I was a firefighter I would have a hard time standing by and watching a home burn knowing full well that my firetruck sitting on the scene had the capability of saving the home.

That would be like the doctors and nurses in an emergency room not helping a dying patient because hospital administrators would not allow them to treat the patient because he let his insurance policy lapse.

I guess it is not surprising that firefighters were not willing to disobey orders.

Have you ever heard of Milgram 65?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

No I had never heard of that, and I'm not sure what the conclusion is.
Hey I understand. Knowing myself, and putting myself at that scene I would have probably done everything to help, even if it meant disobeying orders and perhaps costing me my job. But on the other hand, I don't always make the best decisions when I react instinctively. I'm just trying to see both sides, because I believe that those guys are not evil scum, they were acting according to orders. Not spraying water on a fire isn't the same as thing as the guards who followed orders at the Nazi death camps.
It looked like quite a blaze though, and realistically the house would have been totaled one way or the other. If they had doused it with water it would have just been soggier, but I don't think its a case were it could have been salvaged, or livable, or that items could have been saved.
The real question is why were these people burning in two barrels so very close to their home?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I can't even imagine what the national outcry would have been, all the way up to the WH, if this homeowner had been black or a Muslim.

Boxca4

Note to self.

Dear self, if this ever happens to you, tell them you have a KORAN inside!
And CNN on speed dial.