Firefighters watch home burn

allynfolksjr · Subtle Shift in Emphasis (Posts: 1719)

Clearly they do. Hence this forum thread. Smile

KermMartian · Site Admin (Posts: 64063)

I don't know if this helps the debate at all, but from that article you'll note that the home in question was outside of the fire department's jurisdiction, and in fact in no particular fire department's jurisdiction, it sounds. Them coming out to the fire was more than they're required to do in any case, and it sounds like the $75 fee is for people who are not normally within their jurisdiction to be able to use the fire department's services. By extension, they had no obligation to come to the fire at all, it seems.

CDI · Advanced Member (Posts: 225)

I'd like to know the federal law that mandates fire departments? I mean, I looked and I could come up with city mandates. But not much else. And if you don't live in a city. You are kinda boned. I mean, what about the people that live in the middle of nowhere where there's not a town for a hundred miles, I am sure no fire dept services them.

CDI · Advanced Member (Posts: 225)

Except THAT would be failing to save a person's life. Clearly the people were out of the house in this case. And yes, some pets died. That is indeed sad. But from all accounts I can find of this story. The house was engulfed before the fire dept even showed up to put out the neighbor's lawn.

Now, the fact that the dispatcher didn't send out the fire department when the initial call was placed is REALLY what you all need to be angry at. Because the 911 dispatcher is the person that calls the fire department out. So clearly there is more to the story than you and DShiznit are getting all flustered over.