Firefighters let house burn down

Well, the homeowner made a choice by not paying the $75 insurance. The firefighters made a choice by not putting out the fire.

Besides, if the homeowner would've been accepted to pay on the spot, then everyone in the whole county would've seen that and would've followed, making the $75 insurance obsolete, since you can just pay if and when your house is burning.

Only issue I see with this is...what if there were people stuck in the house? >_> I understand Swerve's standpoint entirely, but... still kinda irks me if human lives were involved in this.

Only issue I see with this is...what if there were people stuck in the house? >_> I understand Swerve's standpoint entirely, but... still kinda irks me if human lives were involved in this.

If there was, then I'd bet the firefighters would've tried to save them. No one is REALLY THAT heartless.

I have somewhat mixed views.

In one way I look at the $75 like insurgence: If you don't keep up with your payments and your house burns down you don't have anyone to blame but yourself. Though in a way that seem a little black and white. I mean according to the article and the video he was willing to pay them right then and there and at any point was willing to pay them "anything".

I suppose if i restrict it to purely looking at it like insurance payments i can see it from the conservative side.
But if he's right there saying he'll pay them... why let it burn down. Seems like a plantain move. I mean put it out and charge him the for the cumulative amount owed, if he doesn't pay you can take him to court. Really there's NO reason they shouldn't have put it out if you factor in the fact he said he would pay them. Hell they could have charged him a late fee and made more money off him.

I mean take a company like apple. Every couple of years you have to pay a payment to extend your coverage on your products (insurance). If you don't pay and you need help they charge you extra for the service. You still get the service but you're billed extra (way extra -_-). Even from a conservative standpoint what they did was bad business sense.

If there was, then I'd bet the firefighters would've tried to save them. No one is REALLY THAT heartless.

There's no promise they would know people where in there. Apparently their pets died.

(somewhat inappropriate side note: I lol'd at some of the people who bash nexon fpr them putting the business ahead of the people/customers in other parts of the forum but stand up for the firefighters over the now homeless man in this thread.)

THose poor Doggies and Kitty

This

Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."

Made me lose all sympathy I had for the man. He knew what he was doing, he took a gamble and lost (assuming an accurate quote). If you want to try to abuse the system you have no room to complain when it bites you in the ass. There should be something in place that enables you to pay for the actual cost of putting out a fire but there wasn't.

(somewhat inappropriate side note: I lol'd at some of the people who bash nexon fpr them putting the business ahead of the people/customers in other parts of the forum but stand up for the firefighters over the now homeless man in this thread.)

I don't see a correlation between treating customers poorly and treating non-customers poorly. If Nexon were in the business of putting out fires the paying customer would have to log a ticket in order to get a firetruck to come out. 6-8 weeks later you'd get a reply letting you know they are looking into the situation and that Firefighter Brad likes watching sunsets.

I don't see a correlation between treating customers poorly and treating non-customers poorly. If Nexon were in the business of putting out fires the paying customer would have to log a ticket in order to get a firetruck to come out. 6-8 weeks later you'd get a reply letting you know they are looking into the situation and that Firefighter Brad likes watching sunsets.

Never said it was restricted to tickets >.>
Or about tickets at all...

Never said it was restricted to tickets >.>
Or about tickets at all...

Simple joke at Nexon's expense, don't read too much into it. The fact that there are a multitude of things I could have applied to the generic "Nexon's business moves that don't go over well with players" is a little telling though, isn't it? This is severely off-topic though, pms would probs be best if you want to continue.

ps: He's not homeless, he's currently living in a trailer on his property and apparently the insurance is going to cover a good portion of the cost of the house.

Does anyone else here agree with say, if they didn't pay the annual $75, but if their house was on fire and the firefighters came, they should be charged a fine of say $1000 (Which would be like 13 years), or maybe say more? I can see where both viewpoints come in, but morally I think it's bad that they didn't put out the fire.

Sincerely, there's one thing I don't get. Sure, the guys did not pay.

But how did the firefighters got to the place then? SERIOUSLY, if the guy didn't pay, they shouldn't even go there. Or even better! Just make it something you HAVE to pay, like included in your taxes. If not, expect this thing to happen. It's ridiculous how a person has to choice to not pay a service that will help EVERYONE. It's something either EVERYONE pays or not. And if the money to get there is fulfilled... Well, there's no loss.

"I'll put the fire out for 75$.". Even if it was in a good sense, since they had to bring them from another town and all. But... What if your wallet gets to be inside the house? Ah, no worries, after you pay them, they'll extingish you, right? Well. This just goes for everyone, but if you can douse flames from the safety of your truck, at least... Well, I think it's a quite nice thing to do. You know, to try to save something from the guys that lost all their stuff.


I simply don't know. This just shows how we, as humans, can be completely stupid overall. Both parties involved.

Sincerely, there's one thing I don't get. Sure, the guys did not pay.

But how did the firefighters got to the place then? SERIOUSLY, if the guy didn't pay, they shouldn't even go there. Or even better! Just make it something you HAVE to pay, like included in your taxes. If not, expect this thing to happen. It's ridiculous how a person has to choice to not pay a service that will help EVERYONE. It's something either EVERYONE pays or not. And if the money to get there is fulfilled... Well, there's no loss.

"I'll put the fire out for 75$.". Even if it was in a good sense, since they had to bring them from another town and all. But... What if your wallet gets to be inside the house? Ah, no worries, after you pay them, they'll extingish you, right? Well. This just goes for everyone, but if you can douse flames from the safety of your truck, at least... Well, I think it's a quite nice thing to do. You know, to try to save something from the guys that lost all their stuff.


I simply don't know. This just shows how we, as humans, can be completely stupid overall. Both parties involved.

Someone else mentioned it but, the FireFighters showed up to put out the fire on the neighbors lawn, who did pay the tax.

But you would think in an emergency they would spend less time "wait don't go yet lemme check if these guys paid..." instead of getting there.

Someone else mentioned it but, the FireFighters showed up to put out the fire on the neighbors lawn, who did pay the tax.

But you would think in an emergency they would spend less time "wait don't go yet lemme check if these guys paid..." instead of getting there.

Well, they sure had the guts to check before putting their fire. I'd say yes, they have a look first.

I don't really know what to think of all this though. This thing should be payed by EVERYONE as a community, to avoid that douchebaggery, from both the firemen and the guy.

I just see the problem as, they keep raising the cost to live, but wages never go up. Thats how it is here anyway. So seeing something like this is horrible because it means that the future of us, will be .. Surviving. If people aren't going to lift a hand when they have the resources to put out a fire. What sort of impression does that leave on others as people? That it's acceptable to watch someones house burn down over money? Over the petty fact that they didn't pay you a piece of paper printed saying '$75'. In my mind it's pathetic.

Only issue I see with this is...what if there were people stuck in the house? >_> I understand Swerve's standpoint entirely, but... still kinda irks me if human lives were involved in this.

If there was, then I'd bet the firefighters would've tried to save them. No one is REALLY THAT heartless.

Well, given the rigid policy of that $75, I'd think they'd just leave them there to die or escape themselves. Yeah it'd still leave a really bad PR impression.

And about the heartless deal, you'd be surprised.

Well, given the rigid policy of that $75, I'd think they'd just leave them there to die or escape themselves. Yeah it'd still leave a really bad PR impression.

And about the heartless deal, you'd be surprised.

Well, I think the average old fireman is that heartless. A fireman joined the agency to extinguish fires, yes?

Interesting. I suppose it was quite naive of me to assume that all 911 services (fires, medical emergencies) were all covered by tax .. as in, you had no choice over it to prevent unforeseen circumstances from happening. What if the house happened to sit in front of a forest or near a gas station? Gas station catches fire and blows up and takes down a good chunk of the city is it still that family's fault 'cause "oh pomegranate its their fault, they didnt pay!" ? Obviously, gas stations arent situated too close to houses, but in the event that it does happen -- like the one time in toronto, what then? (Bad example, i know, i'm talking about extremes)

Is it not legally possible to charge a ridiculously large fee and put it out anyway to prevent said unforeseen circumstances or something?


Although ..

Cranick lives outside of the city limits and he admits that he forgot to pay a $75 annual service fee that would have provided him with fire protection. Firefighters wouldn't lift a finger, much less the hoses that might have saved the house.

The fire reportedly started in some barrels outside. As the flames crept closer to the home, Cranick says he offered to pay whatever it would take. The plea fell on deaf ears. Hours later, the home was gone.

He forgot to pay.

.....he forgot?

Forgot? I was under the assumption he said "pineapple ur tax" and didn't pay. I wish I could have saw it directly from the news.

Your house burned down because you didn't want to pay $75.

Are you going to tell America that you lost everything because you refused to pay a simple $75 fee?

Regardless, he did not to make the payment. I doubt that anyone will ever know his true intentions.

The firefighters have spoken.

Your house burned down because you didn't want to pay $75.

Are you going to tell America that you lost everything because you refused to pay a simple $75 fee?

Regardless, he did not to make the payment. I doubt that anyone will ever know his true intentions.

IMO regardless of how you look at it, this was a bad business move. If all they care about is the money they could have made a killing of this guy (my other post has suggestions of what could have been done)