Originally posted by zeeblebot
the guy tried to game the system and lost. his own fault.

Yeah, just like those adulterers in Iran.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
the guy tried to game the system and lost. his own fault.

The purpose of fire departments is not to weed out people trying to "game" the system. Their purpose is to put out fires. All of them. If there was to be a penalty applied to the individual in question, the appropriate time to levy it would be AFTER the fire had been put out, not during it. In any event, the penalty FAR exceeded the magnitude of the offense. I repeat: if you think letting the man's house burn down was a just outcome, then you are a morally bankrupt individual with no coherent understanding of what justice is.

Originally posted by rwingett
.....I repeat: if you think letting the man's house burn down was a just outcome, then you are a morally bankrupt individual with no coherent understanding of what justice is.

its like the wajomastani's that are okay with free enterprise introducing sometimes dangerous objects like toys or household appliances into the home, where eventually its only the toll of maimed, injured or dying people that eventually leads to those objects being discontinued and these company's go under due to consumer backlash....assuming a fair and unbiased news service that would actually bother to report on these *accidents*

[edit]
btw, it will come as no surprise, that the wajomastani's from wajomastan, are not likely to be able to spot the similarity between these two situations. A result of overzealous, rational literalism no doubt.
[/edit]

Originally posted by rwingett
The purpose of fire departments is not to weed out people trying to "game" the system. Their purpose is to put out fires. All of them. If there was to be a penalty applied to the individual in question, the appropriate time to levy it would be AFTER the fire had been put out, not during it. In any event, the penalty FAR exceeded the magnitude of the offense ...[text shortened]... then you are a morally bankrupt individual with no coherent understanding of what justice is.

In short: a modern American conservative.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
oops, found it, open on another tab, at a different site.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/when-your-house-is-burning-down-how-good-is-a-public-good/?apage=5#comments

104. October 7, 2010 4:51 pm Link

It would be great if this blog or the linked articles told the whole truth about the situation, but then it just wouldn’t be as much ...[text shortened]... you want, but if you don’t live here or pay taxes here, then you don’t get a vote

— BillyBob

if the city of South Fulton truly decides it will no longer put out any fires outside of the city limits: I would imagine that people living outside the city will have a very difficult time obtaining fire insurance -- perhaps this might make them inclined to pay the tax dollars needed to fund a county-wide firefighting system.

Other issues -- what if a sudden gust of wind had spread the fire at this gentleman's house to the rest of the neighborhood? Or what if something inside the house exploded and let loose a mass of toxic fumes? Or what if someone was inside the house that no one knew about until it was to late? It's nice that the firefighters doused the neighbor's property, but by letting this guy's house burn, they were still playing with fire (groan intended).

Originally posted by Melanerpes
if the city of South Fulton truly decides it will no longer put out any fires outside of the city limits: I would imagine that people living outside the city will have a very difficult time obtaining fire insurance -- perhaps this might make them inclined to pay the tax dollars needed to fund a county-wide firefighting system.

Other issues -- what if a ...[text shortened]... y, but by letting this guy's house burn, they were still playing with fire (groan intended).

Did the victim and I use that term loosely know he had to pay for coverage?

Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens
Did the victim and I use that term loosely know he had to pay for coverage?

according to various reports including comments appended to the reports from people claiming to live in the area and to be familiar with the case:

the 'victim' previously was in arrears on his $75 fire dept. subscription.

he had a chimney fire and swore to local fire dispatcher that he'd bring himself current if they'd come out and put out the fire. they did, and he may or may not have brought himself current.

at present he wilfully refused to pay the subscription, and told people (maybe a reporter) he'd expected that the fire dept. would come out and put out any fires for him anyway.

then with this most recent fire, the fire dept. refused to put out the fire on his property when they learned no people were in danger. they did come out and protect his neighbor's place because his neighbor was paid up.

the fire dept. has to budget for training, equipment, and ready time. i see no reason for people who are paid up, either through city taxes or the fee paid by subscribers who live outside the city but in the same city, to subsidize freeloaders.

if he can't afford to pay a $75 fee he should sell the property.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
.....if he can't afford to pay a $75 fee he should sell the property.

Can't resist it : ..would it then be deemed to be a fire sale ??

skeets

Originally posted by skeeter
Can't resist it : ..would it then be deemed to be a fire sale ??

skeets

harsh, but funny well played.