[Kay]

The guy literally says that he thought he could get away without paying and they would still have to put the fire out.

Quote

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

[MrReinhardt]

if the guy has insurance I bet they won't cover his losses either.

[Chriscoffey]

Kay, on 13 October 2010 - 08:07 AM, said:

The guy literally says that he thought he could get away without paying and they would still have to put the fire out.

They should do that to the US welfare system. Lay on your ass long enough and can fully work and you stop seeing any kind of food/housing or breeding millions of kids into it riding the system. I guess the other alternative is them stealing and going to jail so it's a double edged sword.

This post has been edited by Chriscoffey: 13 October 2010 - 10:35 AM

[Wildstriker]

Kay, on 13 October 2010 - 08:07 AM, said:

The guy literally says that he thought he could get away without paying and they would still have to put the fire out.

I understand where you're coming from; 75$ is a small price to pay for your own home and since he chose to live where he's at, he ought to abide the rules of his town and not freeload. However, in the end, his pets died, so I am going to assume the firefighters do not care whether any living thing was actually inside the mobile home.

And that implication is inexcusable and the main reason why my disgust and sympathy are genuine. Fires are unpredictable, they can spread just as quickly and I assure you they bear no prejudices regarding whether or not you paid a fee to a local fire service.

Chriscoffey, on 13 October 2010 - 10:34 AM, said:

They should do that to the US welfare system. Lay on your ass long enough and can fully work and you stop seeing any kind of food/housing or breeding millions of kids into it riding the system. I guess the other alternative is them stealing and going to jail so it's a double edged sword.

Except this isn't like welfare. I don't get how you can even logically equate the two. If you revoke welfare for a lazy person, most of the consequences are contained and even in your case of "robbery", the recipient of welfare made an active choice to steal which is more of a personal flaw rather than solely being an automatic response to the system. If you decide not to put out a fire, you endanger any life within the burning building as well as neighbors.


Edit: The logical connection between person and pets was kind of fallacious, so I changed that.

This post has been edited by Wildstriker: 13 October 2010 - 12:45 PM

[firefeng]

$75. NOT 75$.

Random neurotic twitch assuaged.

[Wildstriker]

firefeng, on 13 October 2010 - 12:32 PM, said:

$75. NOT 75$.

Random neurotic twitch assuaged.

Fuck you guy!


Thanks though, I'd like to avoid that mistake in the future.

This post has been edited by Wildstriker: 13 October 2010 - 12:42 PM