Firefighters watch home burn to the ground.

CreepinDeth said:

Of course, now where getting into the realm of whether animals are to be treated the same as humans. I think, if you can, then you should rescue them.

Click to expand...

You need to remember that animals die from smoke inhalation much faster than people do, and they could've been dead before the guy even called the fire dept. the first time. The only way animals have to regulate their body temperature is to pant so they easily take in tons of smoke.

aleeock157 said:

You need to remember that animals die from smoke inhalation much faster than people do, and they could've been dead before the guy even called the fire dept. the first time. The only way animals have to regulate their body temperature is to pant so they easily take in tons of smoke.

Click to expand...

That's true, but that's the thing. Do you risk a firefighters life for an animal that might already be dead? That's a tough call. I, personally, would really like to see the animal be saved.

I also want to mention that this topic is starting to get hot. Let's please remember to respect each other's opinions. We don't want to start handing out bans. Thanks!

aleeock157 said:

Thing is, I don't have to pay a $75 fee to borrow a neighboring county's fire department. So I don't have to worry about that.

He knew about the fee, he CHOSE not to pay it, and he's having a fit over it. It's like getting into a car accident, and going out to the insurance agency after the fact and getting insurance, then expecting them to cover your damages. Or living in an earthquake or flood zone and not having coverage for it and complaining after the fact that you have to pay for your own damages.

Click to expand...

Not even comparable! Both an accident and natural disaster are unavoidable for the most part, somebodies friggen HOUSE burning to the ground was totally avoidable in this case. Again, I don't really care about the logistics of what he should have paid, blah, blah, you don't just stand there and watch somebodies house burn down when you have the means to put it out! But ya know what, I'm just glad I live in a state like Minnesota where this kinda thing would never happen. We still act like Americans here and would never let a fellow Americans house burn down like that. It's that simple.

x2 said:

We still act like Americans here and would never let a fellow Americans house burn down like that. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Well, America is built on Capitalism, so you can still say they were acting like Americans. I will say that it would be the humane thing to put the fire out.

SpartanEvolved said:

My guess is it is a private fire department?

Click to expand...

This is the problem.

Even though they're not technically a private fire department, they are acting as a private institution in this case, which means their interests are divided, to say the least. There's a reason why emergency services are generally publicly funded, to avoid instances such as this one that might arise from separating the capital to run the service from the people whom the service benefits.

The problem is poor politics. Nobody involved wanted to be in that situation. Not the firefighters, nor the fire chiefs, nor the family who lost their house, etc.

The solution: raise taxes to get the money needed to extend the emergency services to the outlying county. The only reason this isn't already in place is because some politician didn't want to lose votes by advocating more taxes. Admittedly, that's a tough sell, which again points the finger of blame directly at a political system that makes providing essential services a tough sell. But I digress.

The situation could have and should have been avoided. It should never have come to that, the fire department's hands should never have been forced, and then when it was they acted unethically towards people in order to maintain their responsibility to the money. A sad state to be in, indeed.

I'm just itching to throw my two cent's worth.

When I was in Arizona, the rural areas had fire departments who would show up, make sure no one was in the house, and watch the place burn to the foundation. So, the hypothetical argument of "what if there were people in the house" is largely invalid because a firefighter's job is not necessarily to put out a structural fire. It is to make sure the residents and local population are safe from the fire. In urban areas, it's logical to put the fire out because it's an immediate danger of spreading. In rural areas, it is not. So this $75 fee is logical.

Here in North Carolina, most departments will attempt to put out a structure fire in rural areas. Especially when such houses are propane or natural gas-fed.

So the man lost some animals. That is unfortunate. But it's not the firefighter's priority to save animals. Only humans.

I guess I don't see this guy's argument at all...

Dart said:

I'm just itching to throw my two cent's worth.

When I was in Arizona, the rural areas had fire departments who would show up, make sure no one was in the house, and watch the place burn to the foundation. So, the hypothetical argument of "what if there were people in the house" is largely invalid because a firefighter's job is not necessarily to put out a structural fire. It is to make sure the residents and local population are safe from the fire. In urban areas, it's logical to put the fire out because it's an immediate danger of spreading. In rural areas, it is not. So this $75 fee is logical.

Here in North Carolina, most departments will attempt to put out a structure fire in rural areas. Especially when such houses are propane or natural gas-fed.

So the man lost some animals. That is unfortunate. But it's not the firefighter's priority to save animals. Only humans.

I guess I don't see this guy's argument at all...

Click to expand...

That is how I see things also.

Dart said:

So the man lost some animals. That is unfortunate. But it's not the firefighter's priority to save animals. Only humans.

I guess I don't see this guy's argument at all...

Click to expand...

That opens a whole lot more for debate unfortunately. Anyone who would watch an animal burn to death without attempting to help (especially a firefighter with a hose in hand) is completely inhumane and void of compassion.

I discovered long ago, and this is supported by the DSM IV, people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse other humans and/or be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

Grindspine said:

I discovered long ago, and this is supported by the DSM IV, people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse other humans and/or be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't think that applies to these type of situations though. Letting an animal burn to death isn't always necessarily because they wanted it to, but because they might've not been another choice. It's not like the firefighters started the fire either.

That's why I mentioned earlier, should someone risk their life for an animal that might already be dead? As much as I would love to save the animals, sometimes it's just not feasible.

CreepinDeth said:

I wouldn't think that applies to these type of situations though. Letting an animal burn to death isn't always necessarily because they wanted it to, but because they might've not been another choice. It's not like the firefighters started the fire either.

That's why I mentioned earlier, should someone risk their life for an animal that might already be dead? As much as I would love to save the animals, sometimes it's just not feasible.

Click to expand...

This hits the nail on the head as far as where I was coming from.

Personally, I don't have any pets. But if I did, I would indeed treat them as a member of my immediate family. However in this case, it is likely that by the time the fire department arrived, the animals were already dead. Like I said before, it is the firefighter's obligation to save anyone from a fire, or any other emergency situation. In doing this, it will provide a means of escape for any animal that is in the house.

I think they should've helped. I BET they would have been in trouble for doing so... HOWEVER, the right thing to do is help. You treat people how you want to be treated.

The guy was more than willing to pay the fee. IMO... who cares if he paid the $75 there or earlier. It's a fire. Letting a house burn for $75 is pretty frickin stupid. I agree he was in the wrong for not paying. Someone to lose a house over $75... idk, that just doesn't seem right. I would understand if it was insurance they didn't buy.

my 2 cents.

†B†V† :hat