21
   

Fire sale: Fire Department lets home burn over $75.00 fee.

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:46 pm
@ehBeth,
jfc, since you had trouble spotting it first time round, and some firefighters apparently have trouble remembering it ...

ehBeth wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
[ Is there some sort of "firefighter's code" that obliges a firefighter to turn on the hose, no matter what? I am not familiar with such a code.


Quote:
Firefighter Code of Ethics
The International Association of Fire Fighters, in its Manual of Common Procedure and Related Subjects, contains this code which helps union firefighters uniformly remember their career mission and goals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a firefighter and member of the International Association of Fire Fighters, my fundamental duty is to serve humanity; to safeguard and preserve life and property against the elements of fire and disaster; and maintain a proficiency in the art and science of fire engineering.


Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 12:53 pm
@joefromchicago,
What obligates them to fight the fire isn't a code which is written down, but a basic sense of decency.

Were I one of those firefighters, and had been on the scene, I would have ended up a Fired Firefighter, because there's no way in hell I'd show up and then just stand there and watch a house burn down. No way.

Cycloptichorn
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 01:56 pm
@ehBeth,
Again, I don't see how anything in that code of ethics obligates a member of a subscription-based fire department to fight the fire of a non-subscriber. That's a fine code of ethics for a firefighter who belongs to a department that offers its services to anybody, but that's not what we have here.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 01:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Like I said, I have no problem with the department fighting the fire gratis. But it certainly had no obligation to do so.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 02:03 pm
NPR is scheduled to have a report on this story in the 1st hour of All Things Considered.
HexHammer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 02:51 pm
@failures art,
They should have put out the fire and charge a huge fine, specially considering they could have made an administrative mistake and let the wrong house burn.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 02:51 pm
@realjohnboy,
Nothing new to us in the NPR story. False alarm. The homeowner claims he forgot to pay the $75.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 03:01 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

They should have put out the fire and charge a huge fine, specially considering they could have made an administrative mistake and let the wrong house burn.

Interesting point about the administrative part.

What if you have paid, and you have to spend 5 to 10 more critical minutes on the phone while they locate your account. Then it turns out that the delay was because someone misspelled something.

A
R
T
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 03:36 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

They should have put out the fire and charge a huge fine, specially considering they could have made an administrative mistake and let the wrong house burn.

Interesting point about the administrative part.

What if you have paid, and you have to spend 5 to 10 more critical minutes on the phone while they locate your account. Then it turns out that the delay was because someone misspelled something.
One must always consider the principle of uncertainty, that one can be wrong in an administrative process, thus you should do your duty and only after consider the punisment.

What if there was children in there? Neighbours children who have had paid fire fees?

The "ifs" outweights the "selfrighteousness".

Besides, the 75$ is a pityful excuse to let an entire house burn down.

I have seen too many administrative mistakes been made, that it should be a legal reason to allow such abhoral cynical action to take place.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 03:57 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Like I said, I have no problem with the department fighting the fire gratis. But it certainly had no obligation to do so.


Not as professionals, but as humans, they certainly did.

Cycloptichorn
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Oct, 2010 07:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
They had an obligation as professionals. Their job is to put out fires. Watching a fire, instead of putting it out, is simply unprofessional.

This is true of any emergency profession. Doctors and trained medics are duty bound to help in emergencies. Police officers are supposed to stop crime or help in emergencies even when they are off duty. These fire fighters failed to do their duty.


High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2010 11:19 am
@maxdancona,
That town has only one fire truck. If the house of someone who had duly paid his fees had gone up in flames while the firemen were busy "volunteering", the fees-paying customer would have sued - possibly pushing the county to bankruptcy, as no insurer covers gross negligence.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2010 01:44 pm
@High Seas,
This legal dilemma is addressed by simply paying a fire tax.

A
R
T
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Oct, 2010 02:32 pm
@failures art,
Fire fighting is a community event. To reduce it to private, profit making activity is foolhardy at best and criminal at worst.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2019 at 12:50:55