Page 2 of 2

Re: Inexcusable Dereliction of Duty

PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:41 pm
by Dave
trebuchet wrote:Whoever created Schoolhouse Rock deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.


http://www.youtube.com/user/SchoolHouseRockKids#p/u/15/2TBxxPPhzj8

Re: Inexcusable Dereliction of Duty

PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:26 am
by trebuchet
:D

Re:

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:52 am
by Cheryl Rubekohe
Yeah right :)

Re: Inexcusable Dereliction of Duty

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:28 am
by Panda S. H.
While I am in no way agreeing with actions taken by the firefighters, I think I can see a reasoning behind the choice to not respond.

As a first responder, they should have tried to save the pets. As first responders, they should be morally obligated to save lives when possible--even animals. The property, however, isn't as important as saving a life.

There are taxes that would be paid to a county FD to help supply the men and women with necessary equipment, if one existed. As there isn't, I don't see a need to unnecessarily endanger the lives of first responders--especially for individuals unwilling to support them (From a personal stand point this could be interpreted, not a factual one--the article did quote the homeowner as mentioning something about financial difficulties.).

At the same time, their response to the fire should have been containing it to the property, regardless of neighbors, not just because the neighbor paid the fee.

I understand the personal feelings of the firefighters, but I feel that their actions should be reflected by their commitment to helping and saving people. The selflessness that is known of in many first responder professions shouldn't have limits.

Re: Inexcusable Dereliction of Duty

PostPosted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:58 am
by MadCat
I'm kind of confused... you made some good points, but I don't understand exactly what you're saying the reasoning behind the choice was.

Regarding the finances, I have to point out: the homeowner did offer to pay for the cost of fighting the fire- whatever it took to have it put out. He was refused. Given the response of the mayor, I can only conclude that they let his home be destroyed and pets be killed in order to intimidate others into paying the fee on time.

I agree they certainly should have tried to save the animals. Letting creatures die like that is inhumane and horrible. But I don't understand why you're contrasting the importance of saving a life versus saving property. It wasn't like they were having to make a choice, save a life or save a property. And in this case, they did neither.

I definitely agree that firefighting is a selfless, dangerous profession, and people who decide to undertake it deserve some respect for that choice. However, that is part of why I'm so angry at the fire department people involved in this incident, and why I said it was an inexcusable dereliction of duty -- the duty, both of their profession, and self-imposed by the kind of conscience I presume it takes to choose that kind of profession, is to help people.

In this case they did no helping; they stood around and watched a man lose his home, his pets, everything that made up his life... and they did nothing.