Couple doesn't pay $75 fire protection fee. Should the fire department from a nearby city helped them anyway?
Basically, a there was a couple living outside of the city limits. The city required people living outside the boundaries to pay $75/year to have the city’s fire protection. The couple knew about the fee but didn’t pay it. When their home caught on fire, the fire department didn’t help them even though 911 dispatched them.
Should you get services that you don’t pay for? Rather than saying “firefighters let home burn down” would it be more accurate to say “homeowners refuse to pay fire protection fee and don’t get fire protection”?
Is this policy too extreme? Are there times when compassion trumps justice?
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.