
10/11/10, 09:41 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 416
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Vet
There are two ways to look at this. The moral and ethics way. To be moral the fire department should fight every fire no matter where or whose jurisdiction. The ethics way the Fire department did nothing wrong and was their only to fight fires at a neighbors house. You can argue it both ways. It is like the liberal way versus the conservative way. The liberal way is to fight fires no matter where with out any jurisdiction. But the conservative way is If he didn't want to join the rest that payed then he should have to face the consequent the burning of his house. Lets see If a ambulance is on the way to an accident and happens up on another wreck should he stop at that one or go to the original one?There may be somebody that says stop and treat that one first and transport them to the hospital then go to the original one. I life in a county that has one ambulance in it. The county judge will not have another one. The only way to get another ambulance is to call for one 2 county away. It will be their in about 1 hour if they are not busy. This can be similar to the fire department that was called to a neighbor house when the other house was already on fire. Should the fire department stop at any fire and put it out or go to the original fire? I have had this before and the answer is to go to the original fire. You never know if the second fire is purposely set afire by lawful means or not or if somebody is already responding to that fire. That is where radio are useful.
|
Morals and ethics have nothing to do with this situation. At least not as you portray them. The City of South Fulton has NO OBLIGATION legal or moral to offer fire protection outside the city limits. They decided to offer fire protection to those rural residents through a subscription fee. The residents had a choice to buy the fire protection or not. Tell me was it moral and ethical of Mr Cranick to not protect his family and home by not subscribing and then expecting the fire department to fight his fire anyways?
The other element is the decision whether to fight the fire or not was taken from their hands by a city policy that forbid them to fight the fire. Would it have been moral and ethical of those firefighters to disregard city policy at the peril of losing their jobs, or being injured or killed, while performing duties specifically forbidden by city policy?
I feel no sympathy for the Cranicks, they skated, gambled and lost, while fully informed and aware of the City of South Fulton's fire protection policy.
Last edited by FyredUp; 10/11/10 at 10:19 PM.
|