Private Firefighters In California

[Winchester]

The guy who chose not to pay is quoted saying he thought they would put it out, anyway.

[Mr.Cat]

My brother who lives in an unincorporated area in Texas, ([i]almost right outside of a city jurisdiction[/i]) the city and county will argue responsibility UNLESS its an emergency, then EVERYONE comes ([i]cue banjo music[/i]). Emergency responders, police, the sheriff, and everyone else within a few miles to see what is going on.

If the law is setup the way it is here, I would sue the city/county for not providing adequate protection or benefit from this contracted fire service. Because quite frankly, the fire fighters could of put out the fire and then simply CHARGED the people for the service along with a fee, instead of $75 make it $150?

Sort of like if you don't mow the yard the city will mow it for you then charge you a nonsensical amount of money for it.

This is the incompetency of strict capitalistic services, unable and unwilling until their strictly required to... This all makes me want a private fire service too!!! So they can watch me burn alive as I beg for help.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286241002' post='2177893']

If the law is setup the way it is here, I would sue the city/county for not providing adequate protection or benefit from this contracted fire service. Because quite frankly, the fire fighters could of put out the fire and then simply CHARGED the people for the service along with a fee, instead of $75 make it $150? [/quote]
Actually, they can't unless that's part of the law. Chances are, their insurance also won't cover them if they're injured.
From firehouse forums:
[quote]I am going to preface this by saying that I volunteered with a subscruption only rural department for years. First a question for all that are scolding the department for not responding. How many of you have actually used your own money to put fuel in the apparatus ?
Our policy was to fight any and all fires , members or not. To bill a non member meant taking off work and going to small claims court. The max allowed by state law was $500.oo (since lowered to $300.oo)
When you got a judgement , it was up to the FD to collect. Social security and welfare were un touchable. If they had a job it was up to you to talk his employer to garnish his wages - usually you needed to take off work again and get a order from the judge. The county prosecutor usually was to busy to assist. So most of the time we didnt try to collect. We went door to door and did mail outs and collected on the average 30%.
It was a small community and once the word got out you would respond , few paid. We operated hand to mouth and barley kept our heads above water. By responding for basically free , I feel like we were cheating the loyal dues payers.
The same people that paid their dues were usually the one you saw at your fund raisers also. I stand by the "enabling " analogy - you continue to bail your drunk kid out , or lend your brother in law money , they will never be responsible for their own actions. Agreed it is a bad system - but most of the people that live in the rural South believe in paying as few taxes as possible. [/quote]

[quote]This is the incompetency of strict capitalistic services, unable and unwilling until their strictly required to... This all makes me want a private fire service too!!! So they can watch me burn alive as I beg for help.
[/quote]
They will rescue, but not suppress fires.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286241002' post='2177893']
My brother who lives in an unincorporated area in Texas, ([i]almost right outside of a city jurisdiction[/i]) the city and county will argue responsibility UNLESS its an emergency, then EVERYONE comes ([i]cue banjo music[/i]). Emergency responders, police, the sheriff, and everyone else within a few miles to see what is going on.

If the law is setup the way it is here, I would sue the city/county for not providing adequate protection or benefit from this contracted fire service. Because quite frankly, the fire fighters could of put out the fire and then simply CHARGED the people for the service along with a fee, instead of $75 make it $150?

Sort of like if you don't mow the yard the city will mow it for you then charge you a nonsensical amount of money for it.

This is the incompetency of strict capitalistic services, unable and unwilling until their strictly required to... This all makes me want a private fire service too!!! So they can watch me burn alive as I beg for help.
[/quote]
Like I said, before, this sounds like it isn't a private fire service. It's the City who needs them to pay, because they are not within the City limits. I would guess that the citizens of the City have it included in taxes. The people who live out further don't pay those taxes, so they need to pay seperately.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1286247689' post='2177903']Like I said, before, this sounds like it isn't a private fire service. It's the City who needs them to pay, because they are not within the City limits. I would guess that the citizens of the City have it included in taxes. The people who live out further don't pay those taxes, so they need to pay seperately.[/quote]This is just a misunderstanding of law. For example, to be a police officer you must be licensed by the state your in, something that a city or county CANNOT do. Meaning that a city police officer can technically arrest you outside of their city if warranted, in fact the only thing the law really prohibits them from doing is giving moving violations outside of their jurisdiction. The same mentality in law applies to firefighters and emergency responders, it doesn't matter if they pay the taxes or not... Their responsible and so is their employers.

In fact there are situations, State compacts, that let police agencies go into other States if there is compelling reason to. Like for example I remember reading in one of my political science books that Texas and New Mexico has one of the largest compacts, a few hundred miles. Meaning if your running from the New Mexican or Texan police, go to ANOTHER state... because they can legally keep coming right after you without concern. People who think an imaginary line in the ground or words scribbled on a piece of paper somehow protects them from the rule of law, their incompetent and deluded.

So to put it simply, if their laws are anything similar to the rest of the United States or here, their responsible and liable... To be quite frank, their liable in the case of fire even if the residents didn't call and no one was in danger... To put it more in a private sector situation, if I stroll into a local Wal-Mart and because of my own stupidity collapse on the floor, Wal-mart is responsible and liable regardless if I bought anything or not, regardless of their insured for it or not.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Mr Cat

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286248215' post='2177905']
This is just a misunderstanding of law. For example, to be a police officer you must be licensed by the state your in, something that a city or county CANNOT do. Meaning that a city police officer can technically arrest you outside of their city if warranted, in fact the only thing the law really prohibits them from doing is giving moving violations outside of their jurisdiction. The same mentality in law applies to firefighters and emergency responders, it doesn't matter if they pay the taxes or not... Their responsible and so is their employers.

In fact there are situations, State compacts, that let police agencies go into other States if there is compelling reason to. Like for example I remember reading in one of my political science books that Texas and New Mexico has one of the largest compacts, a few hundred miles. Meaning if your running from the New Mexican or Texan police, go to ANOTHER state... because they can legally keep coming right after you without concern. People who think an imaginary line in the ground or words scribbled on a piece of paper somehow protects them from the rule of law, their incompetent and deluded.

So to put it simply, if their laws are anything similar to the rest of the United States or here, their responsible and liable... To be quite frank, their liable in the case of fire even if the residents didn't call and no one was in danger...
[/quote]
How could they be liable for something they didn't know about? That's ridiculous!

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1286248664' post='2177907']How could they be liable for something they didn't know about? That's ridiculous![/quote]Not that they didn't know about it, but it doesn't matter of the resident requests it or not, adequate fire protection sort of means all uncontrolled fire is frowned upon.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286248215' post='2177905']
This is just a misunderstanding of law. For example, to be a police officer you must be licensed by the state your in, something that a city or county CANNOT do. Meaning that a city police officer can technically arrest you outside of their city if warranted, in fact the only thing the law really prohibits them from doing is giving moving violations outside of their jurisdiction. The same mentality in law applies to firefighters and emergency responders, it doesn't matter if they pay the taxes or not... Their responsible and so is their employers.
[/quote]
Cite for this? Specifically that firefighters are responsible for fires outside their city.

There are all kinds of problems in your argument here. First, while a police officer is licensed by the state, they are employed by a county, city, or state. I do not believe that an unemployed licensed police officer has the constitutional right to make an arrest (other than a citizen's arrest). Second, police being able to arrest in cities and counties they are not employed in is the EXCEPTION to the general rule they are not allowed to (BTW Texas has enacted a statute that lets city police arrest anywhere in the county). Third, even if they are allowed in their jurisdiction to arrest outside their city, if they don't act that will not subject them to liability. Fourth, you still have the 11th amendment to work around. I really question your conclusion that they are responsible whether the citizens pay taxes or not.

By contrast, I thought the only way they might be liable is because a paying citizen alreted them to a fire that was likely to burn his home and they did not respond until it actually damaged his home. Of course 11th Amendment is still going to be tough to work around.

[quote]
In fact there are situations, State compacts, that let police agencies go into other States if there is compelling reason to. Like for example I remember reading in one of my political science books that Texas and New Mexico has one of the largest compacts, a few hundred miles. Meaning if your running from the New Mexican or Texan police, go to ANOTHER state... because they can legally keep coming right after you without concern. People who think an imaginary line in the ground or words scribbled on a piece of paper somehow protects them from the rule of law, their incompetent and deluded.

So to put it simply, if their laws are anything similar to the rest of the United States or here, their responsible and liable... To be quite frank, their liable in the case of fire even if the residents didn't call and no one was in danger... To put it more in a private sector situation, if I stroll into a local Wal-Mart and because of my own stupidity collapse on the floor, Wal-mart is responsible and liable regardless if I bought anything or not, regardless of their insured for it or not.
[/quote]

You're mixing the line that a statute that allows police to cross jurisdictional boundries when responding to a call is the same as liability for inaction for firefighters. Police and firefighters do not have the same jurisidicitional/constitutional restraints. A statute that allows for action does not mandate action, and does not impose liability for inaction.

The Wal-Mart thing has nothing to with this discussion. Wal-Mart's liability, which I doubt there would be any, would be based on presmises liability - something completely different than what we're talking about.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286285555' post='2177945']
Cite for this? Specifically that firefighters are responsible for fires outside their city.
[/quote]
I don't know the actual law, but our SOPs are such that if we are dispatched and find an emergency outside of the city limits we must mitigate the emergency. My territory is at the edges and we've made more than one emergency outside city and dealt with it. Of course, we have a mutual aid agreement with the bordering departments.

Laws don't matter as much as SOPs--you are protected if you follow them. If you don't, you may well be out of a job or in serious financial problems from suspension of pay.

Personally, I would have protected the exposure. I think it would also make sense to have some manner of exterior supression without salvage on the part of the fire department, but from a legal perspective I bet lawyers could then convince 12 people or judges that the fire department caused the damage and hold them liable.

The problem with applying this extra-territorial responsibility is that there is a specific agreement within the territory. Someone who innocently does not contribute to a department that happens across their fire outside the department's jursidiction is not comparable to someone who wilfully avoided paying the fee which helps everyone. He made an active choice.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1286286767' post='2177949']
I don't know the actual law, but our SOPs are such that if we are dispatched and find an emergency outside of the city limits we must mitigate the emergency. My territory is at the edges and we've made more than one emergency outside city and dealt with it. Of course, we have a mutual aid agreement with the bordering departments.
[/quote]

Sorry I meant more that your department would be liable if you did not respond. I was saying you're responsible in that you cannot legally turn it down.

Edited October 5, 2010 by rkwright

[Winchester]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286287208' post='2177951']
Sorry I meant more that your department would be liable if you did not respond. I was saying you're responsible in that you cannot legally turn it down.
[/quote]
Likewise, if we're dispatched, we must respond. However, I doubt the company itself was ever dispatched. I bet the call stopped in the dispatch office.