Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
THE MATRIX

Tennessee family home burns while firefighter

82 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

THE MATRIX

i think it's appalling that there is even a fee. I certainly hope it's because this is a rural area with only a volunteer fire department. If its not, then this situation is insane. what if someone was dying in there? would they not go in then either?

Isn't Tennessee a Conservative State, one of the most Conservative? Don't Conservatives believe that one should not be able to take from others that are not their own. Don't Conservatives believe that one should be able to themselves up by their own bootstraps otherwise they are just lazy and are just leeching of others. So why is this any different? It's is perfectly Correct for the Fire Dept to let the Family trailer park burn. Giving a moral and ethical reason is nothing but a FLIMSY and Pathetic excuse to justify the family from leaching off of other peoples hard work. The area wanted this. They have to live with it. Tough S***! I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
randym23

Isn't Tennessee a Conservative State, one of the most Conservative? Don't Conservatives believe that one should not be able to take from others that are not their own. Don't Conservatives believe that one should be able to themselves up by their own bootstraps otherwise they are just lazy and are just leeching of others. So why is this any different? It's is perfectly Correct for the Fire Dept to let the Family trailer park burn. Giving a moral and ethical reason is nothing but a FLIMSY and Pathetic excuse to justify the family from leaching off of other peoples hard work. The area wanted this. They have to live with it. Tough S***! I say.

blocked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I can't believe they stood around and let it burn just fer spite. ... a might peculiar.

Most unlikely. and the fee thing was most probably a communications error (which is why professional fire departments have professional public relations people). Look at it from the practical view: How would the fire department determine whether a house owner, whose house is burning, has a homeowners fee receipt? The first would be to get there and put out the fire and ask the questions later.

Unless of course the place was known as not paying (as most of the real poor don't) and they just went to avoid damage to their "customers", but even if that were the case they would hardly say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conspiracybeliever

I've lived in places where they have volunteer fire departments and I was told if you don't pay the fee they won't come out. I've never heard of it happening so I don't know if it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Yania Vs Bigan (Penn 1956) denies that and Castle Rock v. Gonzales does, so does People v. Beardsley.

They have a duty within the terms of their employment. If their terms of employment seez that they don't have to help those who have not paid the fee it falls under the Good Samaritan law at best. They have to call whoever is responsible to rescue and that is the end of it. If there is nobody responsible, well, tough luck.

The only ones with a definite obligation to rescue are common carriers but that is limited to their patrons (de Vera VS. Long Beach Public Transportation), property owners have to rescue invitees (but not trespassers see Buch VS Amory), spouses have the duty to rescue their spouse, parents the duty to rescue their children (that also applies to all professionals acting in place of parents, babysitter, teacher and so on), creators of a peril have the obligation to rescue whomever fell into it and professional rescuers within the scope of their obligations (wherein their obligation does not extend to just anybody anywhere as ruled three times by the Supreme Court.)

Now, I would not know whether the South Fulton rules say that thy have to rescue people but not douse fires. If that was the case you would be right.

I have never heard of any term of employment for a firefighter not being responsible for the safety of occupants. As far as I know they all take basically the same oath, which was posted earlier.

71% of all firefighters are volunteers so it would kind of negate the purpose if the majority weren't required to attempt rescue.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Isn't Tennessee a Conservative State, one of the most Conservative? Don't Conservatives believe that one should not be able to take from others that are not their own. Don't Conservatives believe that one should be able to themselves up by their own bootstraps otherwise they are just lazy and are just leeching of others. So why is this any different? It's is perfectly Correct for the Fire Dept to let the Family trailer park burn. Giving a moral and ethical reason is nothing but a FLIMSY and Pathetic excuse to justify the family from leaching off of other peoples hard work. The area wanted this. They have to live with it. Tough S***! I say.

Every state has regions that charge firefighting fees, you troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I have never heard of any term of employment for a firefighter not being responsible for the safety of occupants. As far as I know they all take basically the same oath, which was posted earlier.

Which made me look up the firefighter regulation of Tennessee and I am afraid if taken strictly the people are out of luck:

7-303. Oath of office. The fire chief shall before entering upon his duties, take and

subscribe, before the mayor, an oath or affirmation that he has all the qualifications named in

the charter for the office of employment he is about to assume and that he will support the

Constitution and laws of the United States, and the State of Tennessee, and the charter and

ordinances of the city, and that he will faithfully discharge the duties of his office or

employment. Other members of the fire department shall take this oath from the fire chief.

(Ord. #1989-61, Feb. 1990)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Which made me look up the firefighter regulation of Tennessee and I am afraid if taken strictly the people are out of luck:

Did you miss this part?

7-307. Police powers at fires. The fire chief or any assistant of such chief in charge

at any fire shall have the same police powers at such fire as the chief of police, under such

regulations as may be prescribed by ordinance and in the duly adopted fire codes of the city.

The fire official conducting operations in connection with the extinguishment and

control of any fire, explosion or other emergency shall have full power and authority to

direct all operations of the fire extinguishment or control and to take all the necessary

precautions to save life, protect property, and prevent further injury or damage. In the

pursuit of such operation, including the investigation of the cause of such emergency, the fire

official may control or prohibit the approach to the scene of such emergency by any vehicle,

vessel, or thing and all person

In this case they are there to protect adjacent properties.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Did you miss this part?

7-307. Police powers at fires. The fire chief or any assistant of such chief in charge

at any fire shall have the same police powers at such fire as the chief of police, under such

regulations as may be prescribed by ordinance and in the duly adopted fire codes of the city.

The fire official conducting operations in connection with the extinguishment and

control of any fire, explosion or other emergency shall have full power and authority to

direct all operations of the fire extinguishment or control and to take all the necessary

precautions to save life, protect property, and prevent further injury or damage. In the

pursuit of such operation, including the investigation of the cause of such emergency, the fire

official may control or prohibit the approach to the scene of such emergency by any vehicle,

vessel, or thing and all person

In this case they are there to protect adjacent properties.

So why could they get away with not protecting property because they did not pay?

Right, that is the point. Because, as non-payers it does not fall in their jurisdiction. Outside their jurisdiction they do not have to do squad (though it would be noble if they did). And there it is quite irrelevant whether it is a life (see Yania Vs Bigan or Castle Rock v. Gonzales) or a trailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

So why could they get away with not protecting property because they did not pay?

Right, that is the point. Because, as non-payers it does not fall in their jurisdiction. Outside their jurisdiction they do not have to do squad (though it would be noble if they did). And there it is quite irrelevant whether it is a life (see Yania Vs Bigan or Castle Rock v. Gonzales) or a trailer.

You're right...they should just raise everyone's taxes so when anyone can't pay those the state can simply take away their homes. Then there wouldn't be all of this self righteous, holier than thou indignation for the people that choose not to pay the fee because they live 45 minutes away...too far for a fire to be put out before it is a total loss.

Sounds like a good trade off to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

The first order of business is to ensure pets and people are safe. That is the extent of their commitment if the fees have not been paid.

Couldn't help but notice how odd I thought it was to have said "pets and people" as opposed to "people and pets". Mewonders if you are actually michelle's cat.

You're right...they should just raise everyone's taxes so when anyone can't pay those the state can simply take away their homes. Then there wouldn't be all of this self righteous, holier than thou indignation for the people that choose not to pay the fee because they live 45 minutes away...too far for a fire to be put out before it is a total loss.

Sounds like a good trade off to me.

:tu: If you don't like the way we're set up; or enjoy paying extra state tax; then don't move to Tennessee.

I can't help but think there's more to this story; the part I bolded in your post could be what actually happened for all we know.

I said it my last post. Why be a volunteer fire fighter, then turn your back for what is for most, a tiny fee(annual right?). It doesn't make sense.

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

You're right...they should just raise everyone's taxes so when anyone can't pay those the state can simply take away their homes. Then there wouldn't be all of this self righteous, holier than thou indignation for the people that choose not to pay the fee because they live 45 minutes away...too far for a fire to be put out before it is a total loss.

Sounds like a good trade off to me.

They could also do something really shocking: Take taxes from those who can afford to pay them instead of from those who cannot.

But I guess that would be too socialistic.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Couldn't help but notice how odd I thought it was to have said "pets and people" as opposed to "people and pets". Mewonders if you are actually michelle's cat.

:tu: If you don't like the way we're set up; or enjoy paying extra state tax; then don't move to Tennessee.

I can't help but think there's more to this story; the part I bolded in your post could be what actually happened for all we know.

I said it my last post. Why be a volunteer fire fighter, then turn your back for what is for most, a tiny fee(annual right?). It doesn't make sense.

Well, my husband and I can get out, anywhere in the house, fairly easily but my puppy dog would be freaking out so he would be the first on my mind. :blush:

If nobody paid the fee then there wouldn't be a fire department at all to be complaining about. I wonder how much the added taxes would be compared to the moderate $75 fee? Where my mother lived it was $35 but it was a more populated area and she was closer to the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

You're right...they should just raise everyone's taxes so when anyone can't pay those the state can simply take away their homes. Then there wouldn't be all of this self righteous, holier than thou indignation for the people that choose not to pay the fee because they live 45 minutes away...too far for a fire to be put out before it is a total loss.

Sounds like a good trade off to me.

However, my point is purely academic and as I don't live in Tennessee nor intent to do that also irrelevant.

As for the thing itself, as I said before it must have been a communication error with somebody putting his foot in his mouth. Even if the non-payment was the reason for dragging action they would hardly say so causing this debate (which does not only rage here). They knew that there was nothing left to do and let it burn. And, if they live 45 minutes away (something that is also reported nowhere I have seen) a trailer would be done for long before the fire department arrives. Besides, if they have already wasted the gas to drive 45 minutes they might as well have spayed some water once there.The economical damage was already done.

So it comes down to the "liberal" media again....:devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

Well, my husband and I can get out, anywhere in the house, fairly easily but my puppy dog would be freaking out so he would be the first on my mind. :blush:

If nobody paid the fee then there wouldn't be a fire department at all to be complaining about. I wonder how much the added taxes would be compared to the moderate $75 fee? Where my mother lived it was $35 but it was a more populated area and she was closer to the city.

Ha, makes sense with the dog.

God forbid people actually having to pay directly to the services they use. Or being able to decide whether you even want a particular service or not; or feel as though you'd rather buy something else than fire department responsiveness for a year. Or gasp ask someone to loan it to you if you can't spare it.

It's much better to have a portion of your money taken away by beaurecrats and doled back out to you as they see fit(minus their cut); also the ammount of the portion is what they see fit as well. That way I've freed my enormous capacity for thought and reason for better things.

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

They could also do something really shocking: Take taxes from those who can afford to pay them instead of from those who cannot.

But I guess that would be too socialistic.....

Or if you seriously can't afford that; one could ask someone who can, to spot them.

Do you not think it odd that your first thought is to take something from somebody if it's needed; instead of asking?

Methinks me and you would have quarreled over the fair ammount of time on the monkey bars at recess. :lol:

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

So it comes down to the "liberal" media again....:devil:

I forget what I was watching; or reading. But it had an excellent explanation on the nature of the media, and how it is "naturally liberal". In so much that you should never really expect it to be otherwise. If I find or remember it I'll have to post it.

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

However, my point is purely academic and as I don't live in Tennessee nor intent to do that also irrelevant.

And, if they live 45 minutes away (something that is also reported nowhere I have seen) a trailer would be done for long before the fire department arrives.

So it comes down to the "liberal" media again....:devil:

As I said earlier...every state has areas where there is a fee to be paid for fire service. I'd love for you to show me one that doesn't.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The wildfire season in California has been tame so far, but that isn't stopping lawmakers from trying to make sure the cash-strapped state has enough money to fight future fires.

They already have a solution: charge an annual firefighting fee to people who live in or near forests.

Neighboring states have been using similar fees for years. As more people move closer to forests and wildfires become more costly, a fee may prove more attractive to legislators when the alternative is to cut programs elsewhere in the budget.

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_42a6d0aa-b4d7-11e0-a83a-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1g5DKrd8r

I didn't say this particular house was 45 minutes away so don't start twisting my words, liberal. :innocent: I was using that as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Or if you seriously can't afford that; one could ask someone who can, to spot them.

Do you not think it odd that your first thought is to take something from somebody if it's needed; instead of asking?

Methinks me and you would have quarreled over the fair ammount of time on the monkey bars at recess. :lol:

Oh there is a tool, in fact several, that point out those who cannot afford the $75... like being on food stamps, not been asked to pay anything to the IRS or...

But I would not say take, I would say that paying a lot of taxes is as much a status symbol as having a Mercedes in the driveway, at least for me (ain't got no Mercedes, need something else to brag with). Maybe that is why the Europoean tax system (where the poor don't pay and the rich for that three to five times as much in percent as those paying minimum taxes ) does not drive me crazy.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Ha, makes sense with the dog.

God forbid people actually having to pay directly to the services they use. Or being able to decide whether you even want a particular service or not; or feel as though you'd rather buy something else than fire department responsiveness for a year. Or gasp ask someone to loan it to you if you can't spare it.

It's much better to have a portion of your money taken away by beaurecrats and doled back out to you as they see fit(minus their cut); also the ammount of the portion is what they see fit as well. That way I've freed my enormous capacity for thought and reason for better things.

I can remember another instance when the fire department let a house burn. My mother lived in Georgia and the house down the street was let burn to the ground only protecting the neighboring houses. It was a small, three bedroom house where a mother, her two daughters, their two husbands and their five kids lived. It was a total dump and brought down the value of every house on the street. Only one son-in-law worked, even though they were all able bodied, and this was in the 80's when there were all kinds of jobs available. They had plenty of time to stand around in the yard drinking beer, smoking cigs and tinkering with their muscle cars, but apparently couldn't come up with $35 a year to pay the fee.

It seems they didn't have insurance either, or they took the money and ran with it, because the lot was sold to the neighbor so he could enlarge his yard. Not one person in that neighborhood was sad to see them go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

Oh there is a tool, in fact several, that point out those who cannot afford the $75... like being on food stamps, not been asked to pay anything to the IRS or...

But I would not say take, I would say that paying a lot of taxes is as much a status symbol as having a Mercedes in the driveway, at least for me (ain't got no Mercedes, need something else to brag with). Maybe that is why the Europoean tax system (where the poor don't pay and the rich for that three to five times as much in percent as those paying minimum taxes ) does not drive me crazy.

I can see where and how that thought process would come about.

I would see it as a status symbol too if I didn't disagree with the majority of the way tax money is spent by my government.

Currently I see it as being duped, or robbed; into paying for things I don't want; find inherently wrong; or being done in a stupid/corrupt/wasteful way.

If I felt it was being used efficiently for the long term benefit of my country and fellow citizens I would gladly fork over even more than I do now. With a smile even.

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I can see where and how that thought process would come about.

I would see it as a status symbol too if I didn't disagree with the majority of the way tax money is spent by my government.

Currently I see it as being duped, or robbed, into paying for things I don't want; find inherently wrong; or being done in a stupid/corrupt/wasteful way.

If I felt it was being used efficiently for the long term benefit of my country and fellow citizens I would gladly fork over even more than I do now. With a smile even.

Maybe next year I join you in moaning as I plan to move back to the US. Gettiung old and soft....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

Maybe next year I join you in moaning as I plan to move back to the US. Gettiung old and soft....

Haha. Maybe it'll be getting better here by the time you return; and we won't have anything to moan about.

That reminded me of something I read. It said the only true form of ethical and fair taxation is one that is given voluntarily; where spending never exceeds it's means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Haha. Maybe it'll be getting better here by the time you return; and we won't have anything to moan about.

That reminded me of something I read. It said the only true form of ethical and fair taxation is one that is given voluntarily; where spending never exceeds it's means.

There is another aspect to it: Taxation has to be at least as high as the costs of the services citizens demand from its government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

I forget what I was watching; or reading. But it had an excellent explanation on the nature of the media, and how it is "naturally liberal". In so much that you should never really expect it to be otherwise. If I find or remember it I'll have to post it.

Just a little joke...

A Harley biker is riding by the zoo when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'

The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.' The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!

:devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.