Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         We're explicitly discussing something *not* paid for by taxes.
>   It still sounds to me like illegal extortion.

Actually, the story goes that they were offered money, and they said "too 
late." So no, it wouldn't be extortion. Something else, perhaps, but not 
extortion.

>   People don't put themselves into more or less danger depending on who
> paid money for protection or not. You cannot justify such selection of
> whose life you are going to save or not, based solely on whether that
> person has paid you money or not.

Who said anything about not saving lives?  They just declined to put out the 
fire in his house.

>   Moreover, deliberately not helping in an emergency situation where you
> are capable and able to help is irresponsible and at least here illegal.
> If you, for example, see a car accident and just ignore it, if you get
> caught you will be fined or even jailed. You are refusing to help even
> though you perhaps could. I think the legal term is negligence or something?

Laws vary, certainly. Here there's no obligation to help, except in special 
circumstances. (For example, being a doctor carries certain responsibilities 
that don't hold for non-doctors.) Indeed, we have to pass special laws to 
keep you from being sued in the event that you try to help and fail.

There's no law that requires me to stop and help someone change a flat tire 
if they break down on the side of the road. Not even if I'm driving a 
tow-truck.

>   Moreover, not putting out a fire even though you have the means to, and
> instead letting it go, is extremely dangerous not only for the house in
> question, but all the surrounding houses as well. 

Yet, oddly enough, firemen sometimes also set fires to prevent fires from 
spreading. It's called a firebreak. Since neither of us were there, neither 
of us can guess what level of danger was present. Since I remember it being 
described as "a mansion", it's entirely possible (especially in that area) 
that it was in the middle of acres of open area. Plus, as I said, they were 
there and watching it in case it did indeed spread.

Note that these were the same group that put out a fire in the house I was 
living in and took great care, for example avoiding spraying on the stained 
glass window knowing it would break, etc.

>   So we have a protection racket, extortion, negligence and manslaughter.

Nobody died, so it wasn't manslaughter. They showed up to make sure it 
didn't spread, so it wasn't negligence.  It's a protection racket, but then 
all these sorts of things are "protection rackets" the way you define it 
(having you pay for protection and not protecting you if you don't pay). 
It's not extortion because they didn't force the homeowner to pay, and 
indeed that was the root of the problem.

Now, you can argue it was a bad thing to do, and I'd likely even agree that 
it could be. I probably wouldn't have sat around gloating myself. But I 
think you're reaching if you think it's illegal, especially in the USA.

> Still not enough to make this practice highly illegal?
>   How far it has to go before it becomes illegal?

I would say when you start getting paid as a full-time job by tax money, you 
probably shouldn't sit and gloat. :-) When someone passes a law requiring 
you to provide services regardless of whether they paid you, chances are 
good it's illegal not to.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message