Quoted: Basic services like firefighting and police protection healthcare should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it.

Still feel that way?

ETA: The point is, you pay for it one way or another.  Voluntarily to a private organization or involuntarily to the government through taxes.

This man was given a choice, something the government doesn't do.  He chose poorly.

Quoted: Quoted: More socialists than I would have thought on this board. Preventing someone's property from burning, with assets on site, does not equate to socialism in The United States. It is more aptly described as humanity and compassion. I expect I'm better covered with insurance that I pay for than most anyone on this board. I still disagree with any kind of firefighting program based on a "privatized" model. This is CLEARLY a government function. This is one of the few government programs you will ever hear me advocate. If you can't understand why this is so.....I won't be able to explain it to you.

In the last century, this is how all fire fighting protection was provided.  I don't agree that this is "CLEARLY a government function".  In a densly populated area, it is more economically feasible for the local government to operate.  However, that is not necessarily so in other areas.  

I don't see any problem for this model... instead of higher taxes that are reapportioned by your local political heros (they locate the newest equipment near where they & their political benefactors live), you pay a "tax" directly to the local fire department for services.  That results in a fire department service that is as good as you are willing to pay for, and it reduces the opportunity for politicos to play with the money.

Also, if I pay for private fire protection, I would be very unhappy if "my" fire department's personnel & equipment were off providing services for non-members.  That is not what I paid my fees for...

In the story, the homeowner offered to pay his dues on the spot and the firefighters refused which is perfectly reasonable.

But if the FD was smart the would charge someone a 10k late fee or something like that.  Or would that be unethical?

Quoted: Respectfully krpind,  if you can't explain it, then you can't support you point in the argument.

Good point.

Answer my question posed earlier in this thread. After that, I will attempt to explain.

Traditionally, Fire Protection is a function of a Local Government (city or town), or an organized Rural Protection District formed as a "subsidiary" of the County.  The whole New Orleans debacle should have made this clear to you.  Emergency Preparedness is a responsibility of the Local .gov.  If neither of these two exists, who is to provide it?  The State? The Feds?  No.  The only Federal Fire Dept's that I'm aware of are on Military Bases or places like that.

A large chemical plant in my area, opposed annexation from my city because they felt the city could not provide adequate fire protection for them. In fact this plant provides training for my city's fire deptment and lot's of various volunteer fire deptment through out East Texas.

I guess I'm opposed to this because here in East Texas, we don't think like this. We pitch in and help people. This would NEVER happen here.

I don't agree with the whole private fire department. I think it is a shitty way to run a fire department.

As stated befor it sets the stage for a protection scheme. Who is to say that the Fire Department did not set the fire to make a point?

And it is just unprofessional, it gives ammo to the IAFF folks who are always trying to put down voulnteer firemen.

And I can guarntee they get some sort of government funding. Be it state or federal grants or even the fact that they use state certified trainers for the firefighters. Some of the money, gear and or training in that department has came from public funds.

I thought we had a right to free everything.

Quoted: Quoted: Basic services like firefighting and police protection healthcare should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it. Still feel that way? ETA: The point is, you pay for it one way or another.  Voluntarily to a private organization or involuntarily to the government through taxes. This man was given a choice, something the government doesn't do.  He chose poorly.

Another good point.



I certainly don't feel that way about healthcare.

I wonder why?

I guess it was the title of the firefighter being onsite and not fighting the fire.

Here, in my hometown, even if the owner wanted it to burn, they would put it out.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Difference: Doctors take an oath... firefighters dont. They don't? No wonder..... I did, I took an oath as a Firefighter. I had to be sworn by a circuit court judge in the county that my department was in.

That is funny...So did I..

Anyway, In my area we have areas that are like that, but it is usually land owned by the state. The occupants are not in the fire district or the County. That being said My dept will respond to any call for lifesafety reasons, We will even respond  for fires but we are not allowed to put a drop of water on them without the OK from DNR, they will pay us back for the run time on the rigs, and the pay the wages of us firefighters...Some of you crybaby's here dont understand, these people dont pay the Tax in the first place, they are lucky to even have a private fire dept. In my area they are small little communities, usually about    10-100 small houses, all over the place. they usually have a small Ford f-350 with a 200 gal tank in the back for brushfire type things, and if they are lucky a some dept donated a old 1975 pumper to them, odds are most of the firefighters are Volunteer's...

I dont blame them one bit for letting it go to the ground, I have been a firefighter for 11 years now. It is not about being a dickhead, It comes down to the cost of doing business. You get what you pay for...

Quoted: Quoted: What you are not realizing is that money for equipment has to come from somewhere, and if the local government don't provide for these services through taxation, then in very rural parts of this country, folks get together, and start thier own fire companies with thier own money and collect dues from members each year. These are not public fire departments, but private fire companies that choose to only put out fires of dues paying members.I do not have problem with it as that is how the fire services was started in this country. If this guy wants to be upset at someone, then he should be mad at his local goverment for not providing fire protection service. 556mm I realize every thing you said. In Texas local entities have the ability to form a taxing authority to prevent this kind of "selective" protection.

The only "selectiveness" that occurred here was the "selection" of the property owner to not pay his fire dues.


If the local community members have such an issue with paying fire dues to a volunteer or corporate fire department then they should form some sort of taxing authority/fire protection district, tax residents accordingly, and subsidize fire protection for those that either can't pay for it, won't pay for it, or are too stupid to pay for it.


This all sounds like the essence of freedom to me. The community members have the freedom to address the situation as they see fit, and the individual has the freedom to contract for fire services on an individual basis if there's no government-provided services.


In fact, I'm surprised this guy's mortage company and/or insurance company let him get away with NOT having some sort of fire service plan in place. The private/corporate fire services model is humming along fine here in many rural communities. IIRC correctly, you can't even get a homeowner's insurance policy or keep your mortgage company happy if you haven't contracted for fire/medical services.



ETA:

Rural/Metro Corporation - Services offered

Owned.

Argueing he cant afford 150$ a year is PATHETIC. If he saved 3$ a week or $12.50 a month he would have the $150 in a years time. All he needs is a little common sense and a little money managing skills to be able to afford that.

Hell, since you who dont like it feel that way about it next time theres a fire in your area quit what your doing and go help put it out for free out of the goodness of your heart. Thats basicly what you want those guys to do. You will prolly loose your job if you did something like that, this IS these guys job.

Tell me, how often do you work extremely hard for free for someone who doesnt support you in any way.


That guy hadnt been supporting those firefighters for how many years? All of a sudden when he needs emm he wants their help? Sounds like he tryed to screw the system and he ended up getting screwed.

Just my opinion on the matter.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: More socialists than I would have thought on this board. Preventing someone's property from burning, with assets on site, does not equate to socialism in The United States. It is more aptly described as humanity and compassion. I expect I'm better covered with insurance that I pay for than most anyone on this board. I still disagree with any kind of firefighting program based on a "privatized" model. This is CLEARLY a government function. This is one of the few government programs you will ever hear me advocate. If you can't understand why this is so.....I won't be able to explain it to you.

It may be a government function - but you seem to be missing the point:

The citizens, the ones that make up the government, have decided that they'd rather have private fire department than a public one.

That's their call to make. Not yours.

The guy who didn't pay his dues knew the rules: Pay and you get fire protection, don't pay and you take your chances.

He took his chances. He lost.

It's not the fault of the PAID fire department he chose not to pay - it's his fault alone.

Quoted: Hell, since you who dont like it feel that way about it next time theres a fire in your area quit what your doing and go help put it out for free out of the goodness of your heart.

This happens ALL the time here in East Texas.

The question is why doesn't it happen where you live?

Quoted: Quoted: Can you imagine a doctor letting someone choke to death in a restaraunt because they had not paid for a visit? Actually, the correct analogy is an insurance company refusing to pay for your elective knee surgery if you are NOT one of their policy-holders. The story clearly said that the fire department WOULD put out fires of non-paying members if a life is in danger.

A better analogy is a physician that won't help you as you go blind because you don't have insurance and your life is not in danger.

A better way would be to fight the fire and settle up after the fact with the homeowner with a higher rate, ie much higher.

Quoted: Quoted: More socialists than I would have thought on this board. Preventing someone's property from burning, with assets on site, does not equate to socialism in The United States. It is more aptly described as humanity and compassion. I expect I'm better covered with insurance that I pay for than most anyone on this board. I still disagree with any kind of firefighting program based on a "privatized" model. This is CLEARLY a government function. This is one of the few government programs you will ever hear me advocate. If you can't understand why this is so.....I won't be able to explain it to you.

I'm referring to the socialist thinking, such as yours, that would have the services that some had taken care of and paid for given to those who had done nothing. That seems like socialism in it's basic form to me, and if you can't understand that, then maybe you ARE a good socialist.

I have lived in a small town where this sort of thing takes place. The citizens normally decide whether they want to pay dues, and have a private fire department for those who keep up their dues, or pay taxes, where even those who don't pay reap the benefits of those that did pay. The decision here was obviously "You don't pay, you don't receive." Apparently, you have a fundamental problem with that sort of philosophy. I don't fault you for it, but don't beat your chest and proclaim me mentally deficient because I don't follow your communistic views.

I'm not missing anything.

I understand it cost money.

I know it was cheap.

I know there was no excuse for this jackass not paying.

I simply think this should be a government function and EVERYONE should pay a tax to ensure that firefighters work just as hard for a stranger as they do their mothers.

My real problem is FIREFIGHTERS showed up with EQUIPMENT and watched something burn.

This is simply something fundametally wrong when this happens.

This is my opinion and I'm sure it has to do with how i was raised. You fucking help people when you can. Worry about the money later.

I'm through with this.

Thanks for the spanking y'all gave me.

Quoted: Quoted: Hell, since you who dont like it feel that way about it next time theres a fire in your area quit what your doing and go help put it out for free out of the goodness of your heart. This happens ALL the time here in East Texas. The question is why doesn't it happen where you live?

Cause most people cant afford to get fired from their jobs, around here they WILL get fired even if its for something like that and our firefighers are payed through taxes.

I think they are too underpayed though, very stressful and dangerous job.




I think not supporting firemen is very foolish, recently the city here voted and ours got a raise through support from the people that live here.

It happen more then needs to. I used to belong to a rural Fire Department in Northern MO. We responded to alot of fires and not once refused to help put one out, Dues or no dues. Alot of fund raisers and a close community, but I hate to see members in a community not helping someone in need.
Its sad but every department seems to have their own policies.

Quoted: I still disagree with any kind of firefighting program based on a "privatized" model. This is CLEARLY a government function. This is one of the few government programs you will ever hear me advocate. If you can't understand why this is so.....I won't be able to explain it to you.

Being from Texas, I would expect you would understand there are some very rural areas, where governments cannot function well, due to the minimal amount of residents.  The only other solution I could see would be state-level funding, and that would be counter-intuitive because most of that money would come from taxpayers living i cities, who already pay taxes to their city for fire protection.

I don't know what the answer is.  Live in the city, maybe?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Basic services like firefighting and police protection healthcare should not be reserved for the elite or the people who can afford it. Still feel that way? ETA: The point is, you pay for it one way or another.  Voluntarily to a private organization or involuntarily to the government through taxes. This man was given a choice, something the government doesn't do.  He chose poorly. Another good point. I certainly don't feel that way about healthcare. I wonder why? I guess it was the title of the firefighter being onsite and not fighting the fire. Here, in my hometown, even if the owner wanted it to burn, they would put it out.

Oh, I'll agree it's kind of obnoxious to do what they did, especially in light of the fact that he offered to pay his dues on the spot.  That being said, he still chose poorly and did not have any sort of right to have them risk injury and equipment to save his property.

It's like anything else, you can't expect people to do something for you unless they have been compensated for it.  If government took over the role, then you compensate the government through taxes, and they compensate the firefighter.   If it's private, then why should they help?  Out of the kindness of their hearts?  That's nice, but it's not a requirement, and certainly not something one should count on in a time of need.

I think the biggest jerk thing they did was not take his money on the spot, other than that I'd say they were completely in line with what should be expected of them.

Quoted: I'm not missing anything. I understand it cost money. I know it was cheap. I know there was no excuse for this jackass not paying. I simply think this should be a government function and EVERYONE should pay a tax to ensure that firefighters work just as hard for a stranger as they do their mothers. My real problem is FIREFIGHTERS showed up with EQUIPMENT and watched something burn. This is simply something fundametally wrong when this happens. This is my opinion and I'm sure it has to do with how i was raised. You fucking help people when you can. Worry about the money later. I'm through with this. Thanks for the spanking y'all gave me.

There's a fundamental flaw in your approach, similar to the flaw in the thought process of most liberals:

You consider intentions more important than consequences.

Your intentions sound nice and make you feel better. But what are the consequences?

In your world, this guy would get fire protection even if he didn't pay for it. Next year when the dues are due, some more people think to themselves "Why should I pay for fire protection when they'll just put out the fire anyway"?

They continue your policy a little more. Every year, fewer and fewer people pay.

After awhile, the paid fire department goes under. Not enough funds to continue operation. No incentive for people to pay their dues if they could just get the service for free.

And everyone who was covered before for a small fee is now completely without fire protection. They are much worse off because 'feelings' were followed instead of cause and effect.

THAT is why you were getting slammed as a liberal.  Your posts followed the thought process of most liberals. They care only about what makes them feel good about themselves - makes them feel morally superior because they 'care' about their fellow man. In the process, they completely ignore the ramifications of their feelings - becuase the consequences of following their emotional path usually leaves everyone worse off than before.

Quoted: Quoted: Who the hell wrote that, a 2nd grader? I copied it out of the local newspaper.  Why?

So that's a YES!

Quoted: I never new there was any such thing as a "private" fire department.

A good portion of the firefighters in CONUS .mil bases are private.  Rural met, the HUGE ambulance company has a lot of firefighter stations also.  I've been a volunteer firefighter since I turned 18 and I've held a hose in my hand, pressurized, packed up ready to go in, not flowing sitting on my feet waiting on my captains order to go in while he was waiting on the homeowner to write a check.  They know of their obligation before hand.  It's on them not the FD.  You wouldn't believe how much a fire response costs, even on a VFD.

Quoted: I don't agree with the whole private fire department. I think it is a shitty way to run a fire department. As stated befor it sets the stage for a protection scheme. Who is to say that the Fire Department did not set the fire to make a point? And it is just unprofessional, it gives ammo to the IAFF folks who are always trying to put down voulnteer firemen. And I can guarntee they get some sort of government funding. Be it state or federal grants or even the fact that they use state certified trainers for the firefighters. Some of the money, gear and or training in that department has came from public funds.

I'm not terribly sure that this rural district is one bake sale away from their own local.

And I'm sure that you accidently even insinuate that some of our brothers did this out ouf spite.  

Is there some reason why they couldn't have put the fire out, and then sent the owner a bill?

They made a spiteful example out of him and that is wrong.

Ok yall drug me back.

My thinking is not being liberal.

It is a simple thing to help someone when they are down.

It is not like they were not already there.

I think it was probably a liberal jackass who made the decision to let the house burn.

I won't change my mind. If it was my decision I would have put the damned fire out. Money be damned.

Quoted: Is there some reason why they couldn't have put the fire out, and then sent the owner a bill? They made a spiteful example out of him and that is wrong.

They followed their rules and most likely their charter.

Ok yall drug me back.

My thinking is not being liberal.

It is a simple thing to help someone when they are down.

It is not like they were not already there.

I think it was probably a liberal jackass who made the decision to let the house burn.

I won't change my mind. If it was my decision I would have put the damned fire out. Money be damned.

Quoted: Answer my question posed earlier in this thread. After that, I will attempt to explain.

Can you repeat the specific question?  There were several offered.  

Quoted: Ok yall drug me back. My thinking is not being liberal. It is a simple thing to help someone when they are down. It is not like they were not already there. I think it was probably a liberal jackass who made the decision to let the house burn. I won't change my mind. If it was my decision I would have put the damned fire out. Money be damned.

Can we not apply this same theory to Housing?  If it were my decision, everyone would have a house to live in, money be damned.  If it were my decision, everyone would have healthcare, money be damned.  It it were my decision, everyone would have a Lexus with 22's, money be damned.

Just who's money are you damning?  Certainly not your own.

oops

I ask everyonewho disagrees with this pratice, to never move to this part of Missouri andchange everything.

They offent try to setup city an county FD but the taxes needed to fund it almost always get turned down, most people know wht they are doing,its just the way it is, if enought people in that distric don't like it they vote on it and change it, Now stop tellin us what to do.

Maybe the notice that you needed to be a paying member for service needed to be bilingual?

Hillsboro, IL, a town where I grew up, had a "membership" policy for houses like ours that were outside the city limits.  As I recall it was $50 per year (70s, 80s).

Sometime around the 80s, they changed from the "No Pay, No Spray" policy to one of billing a non-paying individual something like $2K for responding to a fire, while "members" got response for free or negligible amount.

If you want to be a cheapskate, that's your choice.  But with decisions come consequences.

John

Quoted: Ok yall drug me back. My thinking is not being liberal. It is a simple thing to help someone when they are down. It is not like they were not already there. I think it was probably a liberal jackass who made the decision to let the house burn. I won't change my mind. If it was my decision I would have put the damned fire out. Money be damned.

Ano there is absolutely nothing wrong with the kindness to which you refer...when it comes from the people. When it is required of the community as a whole, or in this case, a representative of the community, it still socialism.  

Quoted: Is there some reason why they couldn't have put the fire out, and then sent the owner a bill? They made a spiteful example out of him and that is wrong.

Yeah there is.  Firefighting is an inherently dangerous profession.  Obviously.  VFDs have extremely limited insurance most don't even have workmans comp.  If your injured fighting fire for a non member, you are FUCKED.  No insurance to bail you out.  Even if you have your own, they won't pay.  Just as your auto insurance likely doesn't cover you when your responding in your POV with lights and sirens.  

Engine cost:  Quarter of a million dollars
Hose:             Up to 14 dollars a foot
Nozzles:         Thousand dollars each for small ones.
Diesel(20 gallons per hour) 150 bucks
Bunker gear:  $1000-$1500 a set
SCBA:            $1250-$4000 each
Extra bottles: $80-$400 each
Cascade system: $5000
CAFS:            UP to ten grand
Foam:              20 bucks a gallon
Assorted tools and fittings per engine $20,000
Generator and lights   up to 10K
Thats for one new engine and doesn't take into account training.  
And that's not even a rescue company with hydraulic tools or medical equipment.  If they are lucky they MIGHT have an AED

Ladder trucks can top a million each.  
Standard structure fire response if you have good hydrants is one rescue engine, one engine, and one tower.  No hydrants ($1500-$4,000 each if your waterlines will support it) and you have to add a $150,000 tanker to that response.  Hell that's 16 guys already, that don't get ANY compensation and you have to pay for their training and gear.  
Hose, engines, turnouts, deisel, foam, gatorade/water, all of it is either gone as you use it or has limited life no matter how well you take care of it.  
Last fire dept I was on had 3 stations.  4 engines, 2 tankers, 2 brush trucks, and a heavy rescue.  Oh yeah, we have all the bills to pay at the station to.  

None of it's cheap.  And besides, 1/3rd of all structures are totaled upon fire dept arrival ANYWAY.  Many depts will not do an interior attack unless they suspect people inside.  Someone thinks they are to good to pay there fire dues, FUCK THEM.  

Quoted: Quoted: Ok yall drug me back. My thinking is not being liberal. It is a simple thing to help someone when they are down. It is not like they were not already there. I think it was probably a liberal jackass who made the decision to let the house burn. I won't change my mind. If it was my decision I would have put the damned fire out. Money be damned. Ano there is absolutely nothing wrong with the kindness to which you refer...when it comes from the people. When it is required of the community as a whole, or in this case, a representative of the community, it still socialism.

 That kindness comes from the volunteers that give up time for fund raisers, station work days, sometimes to testify in court, and run from 3-2000 calls a year, ditching their families, ruining plans, missed dates, upset kids etc etc etc.  That includes their families and how they worry.  Paid firefighter gets hurt and can't work there will still be at least money coming in.  Volunteer gets hurt and their paid job ain't gonna care.  They sure as hell ain't gonna pay em, IF they don't fire them.

The firefighters did the right thing. You either pay for the service or you don't or you don't get it.
The choice was the homeowner's. He didn't pay...So he watched his trailer burn.

In the 12 years I was a firefighter, I must have stopped and rendered aid at 70-80 accidents on my own time using my own gear. Not once did anybody offer to pay to replace the bandages and stuff I used.

Maybe now, people will get the message that they have to pay for services sometimes and that they are not always entitled to whatever they feel they need.

Quoted: In the 12 years I was a firefighter, I must have stopped and rendered aid at 70-80 accidents on my own time using my own gear. Not once did anybody offer to pay to replace the bandages and stuff I used.

Outstanding point!...

I did not even think about all the $$$ I have gone through from my own pocket for such things.

Quoted: In the story, the homeowner offered to pay his dues on the spot and the firefighters refused which is perfectly reasonable. But if the FD was smart the would charge someone a 10k late fee or something like that.  Or would that be unethical?

Let's see, coverage area of say 5000 homes. 5000 x $100 a year. $500,000 budget. Probably barely pays the upkeep on the equipment. If they allow people to pay on the spot, instead of yearly, what percentage of folks will just gamble that they won't get hit this year? Alot, I bet. The fire dept's operating funds would plummet, and they'd be unable to function or plan with no constent funding.

About the only way I could see it working if you didn't pay your yearly dues would be to charge a very hefty fee for services on the spot to discourage the gamblers. Make it 25% of the value of the property, check or charge card? No pay, no put the fire out.

And what would happen to the dishonest fellow who said yes, my grannie is in that house, in order to get them to put it out, when there was no one in the structure. I could see it happening, as many scumbags are there out there nowadays.

If there isn't any local-govt funded fire service, I have zero problem with a subscription-based service area. We have it in health-care, car insurance, home insurance, so what's the big deal with fire?
In my area, there are both tax-funded fire dept and a couple volunteer depts.

Quoted: Quoted: Hell, since you who dont like it feel that way about it next time theres a fire in your area quit what your doing and go help put it out for free out of the goodness of your heart. This happens ALL the time here in East Texas. The question is why doesn't it happen where you live?

Why is this notion odd to URBANIZED IDIOTS?

My house is on fire!.....Sorry bro, I'm downloading shit onto my IPOD.

Ok, I spent time while running errands thinking about this.

I found it strange that I'm on the opposite side from the majority on this issue.

Then it hit me. I think of firefighters and policeman as "hero" types. I can't explain it, it is just the way it is.

I don't normally beat my own drum, but I have over the years donated things (money, two-way radios) to various volunteer firefighter depts. My company repairs pressure washers. No volunteer firefighter dept has EVER paid a dime for any repair to their washing equipment. We do it ALL for free.

I guess I really respect these guys and the job they do.

The action of the Dept in this thread doesn't meet those expectations.

I won't change my mind. They should have put the damned fire out and been heros.

Quoted: You could start a pretty good protection racket with your own fire department.

Wasnt that the way they used to do back in the day.

During Roman times wasnt there some guy who had his own firefighters, and whenever there was a fire he would offer to buy the burning property at a cheap price. If the owner agreed to the sale he would put out the fire to his new property, and if the sale wasnt agreed to then it would be left to burn.

Man i thought you anti-gov, ant-taxation types would love this idea, a tax you have the option to pay or not. But in the end you're just tight wads pretending to be ant-tax. Just remember, if you dont pay you dont play. Should be extended to every other gov service like police.

They have to do it this way. if they put out the fire then people who payed would say fuck paying, they'll  put it out even if i dont pay. then the FD gets NO funding. I bet your as Mr. Homeless will be buying fire services on his next home.

Quoted: I never new there was any such thing as a "private" fire department.

Yep. There are probably hany hundreds of them, perhaps thousands.

If you live in an area covered by a particular dept. and don't pay your "dues" for fire protection, you don't get the benefits provided by the dept.

Pretty simple, really.

Quoted: It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn.

Fine. You pay his dues, then.

Firetrucks, equipment, department insurance, firehouse upkeep costs money. Where's it come from? The fricken easter bunny? Captain Kangaroo?

Quoted: Quoted: It is BULLSHIT that firefighters let anything burn. Fine. You pay his dues, then. Firetrucks, equipment, department insurance, firehouse upkeep costs money. Where's it come from? The fricken easter bunny? Captain Kangaroo?

Wow...WG, you are going to have to do a lot of snipping to get through this thread one line at a time.

Quoted: If I were the DA, every last one of the firefighters that did nothing would be facing charges of felony accessory to arson, at the very least. And I'd push hard for convictions and prison time. Volunteer or not, firefighters are professional public servants.   They're guilty of dereliction of duty, breach of the public trust, and accessory to arson resulting in substantial property damage. I'd nail them to the tree of woe. CJ

Try reading again.

They're not public servants.

They're a private fire department.

Big difference.