Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Remo Williams

Hunter Ordered to Pay $18 Million

Recommended Posts

That's bull. He didn't do it maliciously, and we already pay for the fire services with our taxes. Where do our taxes go? So frustrating.

It's just like in San Fancisco. If you call 911, and the fire department comes out. They bill you later for their costs in coming out. That's such crap. Don't our taxes already pay for fire departments services? What, they sit there all day long, collect their paychecks, it's their JOB to go out, they have already been paid for.

Now, in San Francisco, they want to institute a 17c tax charge on paper and plastic bags at stores. Didn't the stores already pay taxes when they purchased those bags to give to the customers for convinence?

They just want to tax everything, even the things that have already been taxed, and double taxed. Now they want to tripple tax them. Maybe one day, we will get rid of all this bull. Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That verdict is a load of Bovine scatterings and typical of the current mindset within our governments and their so called fair and impartial judiciary system.

If the guy made $100,000.00 net a year it would take him 182 years to pay off the fine.

The judge apparently isn't aware that humans don't live that long anymore and most of the common folk don't make that kind of money.

Not to mention the fact that they wasted more taxpayer monies to incarcerate and prosecute the man.

Soback,

As for the fire services in the Bay area, I can only compare that to places where I have lived and the only time someone was charged for a fire run was if there were several false alarms reported by a faulty fire alarm system.

As for stupid taxes, get this one;

Where I live now, the state passed legislation allowing local governments to levy occupational taxes to pay for emergency services. Our local government used to collect $10.00 a year from everyone who has a job.

It was labeled as an OPT...Occupational Priveledge Tax. Only problem is, if you change employer, you pay the tax again.

Now they have upped the ante to, work here, to $52.00 a year and the real kicker is that they are now arguing in session on what type of income they can legally levy this tax on. They want to include all types of income, not just wages. So if a resident lives here and recieves any type of income, they want $52.00 of it a year, for Police and Ambulance services.

I'm thinking that it might be time to pull my Anarchist Cookbook out of the bookcase and start locking and loading.

FIRE FOR EFFECT!

(no pun intended)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

So if a resident lives here and recieves any type of income, they want $52.00 of it a year, for Police and Ambulance services.

Wolferz ..

How do they collect this tax ?

-Kreij

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I think it should be like in the old days. If they have that tax instituted, then people who didn't pay shouldn't get the services. When US was established, it was like this, if you wanted fire services, you go to your local towns fire department and pay the fee and get coverage for a year. If the fire breakes out, they pull out a list, see if you paid, go to your house and put the fire out, if they don't see that you have paid, the go to the site, and just prevent the other houses from burning down, but they DO NOT put your house out.

Which brings around the point, if you pay that tax, and someone doesn't, then those who do not, should NOT get the fire services, let their things burn then.

Wolferz, here in bay area the fire department are the first ones to come out, doesn't matter if it's a fire, an accident, a medical emergency, whatever it is, they are always called in. And because we are so deep in the crapper, and the local governments take the money that are paid in taxes for things like fixing the roads (local city roads are not funded by the state, but by that city, freeways and interstates are funded by state tax), maintaining parks, cleaning the streets etc...and relocate it to social care for unemployed, laser surgery for tatoo removal for gangsters (yep, paid out of your taxes), all kinds of other liberal social bull. Well, then when there's no money left for the things they were supposed to go towards, they institute new taxes, raise existing ones, and pull *&% like they did with this hunter guy, which is similar to what they did last year, old man was having a heart attack, his wife called 911, fire department came out, monitored him, gave him some medicine and whatnot, then the hospital van came out picked him up. A month later a bill shows up for them, demanding thousands for "fire truck call out services". My exact point is, that fire trucks operation was already paid for, for the whole fiscal year. So if it wasn't for the damned beurocrats and their social programs we would have no problems operating the NEEDED services. Ahything else that is just a social "nice" service should be left to be funded with donations from private groups, businesses and individuals, NOT with our taxes beind diverted to them, and NOT with mandatory fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, what the government did is sue this guy for what is a natural event anyway. Old forest becomes dry and brittle and burns down and new growth starts. Been going on since the begining. What's the government going to do next time lightning strikes? Sue God or Mother Nature (whatever your persuasion is)? Actually, suing God is a possibility since there are respresentatives here on earth for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Kreij

How do they collect this tax ?


Usually it's collected through the employer and the employer deducts it from your paycheck. If you change jobs, the new employer will deduct it again, regardless if you show the payroll clerk a pay stub showing that it has already been paid for the current year. There have been several years where I have paid the tax several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe save the paystubs and file in small claims court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

Some very good points here there should be more accountability as to where our tax dollars are going at the city level if its not to pay for these services I would like to know in detail who's getting the damn money.

I think that the forest service sued this guy to try to reclaim some of our tax dollars, so us taxes payers didn't have to pay for the cost of this guys stupidity in handling a camp fire.

That way the funds could be used for other project such as the improvement and maintenance of our National parks. ThatÔÇÖs the only rational I can see for suing the hunter. I for one don't want to pay for is ignorance which is what happened when they went out to put out his runaway campfire.

When lightening sets off a blaze we all pay the cost when some dumb ass throws his cigarette in to the brush or lights a campfire near dry grass and set our forest on fire let him pay the cost of his ignorance why should we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Usually it's collected through the employer and the employer deducts it from your paycheck.

Since this is a municiplity related tax, you can write this amount off on both your federal and state tax returns even if you have to pay this multiple times due to a job change. Keep your receipts.

I am not saying that I agree with all of the forms of taxation that our elected officials come up with, but using my money to support fire and rescue operations is one of the least painful of them, as I actually benefit from the cost.

Back to topic ...

Suing this person for 18 million is just judicial games. I do believe that the person responsible for the event should in some manner be held accountable, but to expect the average "joe" to come up with even 1 million is folly on the part of the courts.

Just my 2 cents.

-Kreij

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

I would like to know in detail who's getting the damn money.

We all do.

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

I think that the forest service sued this guy to try to reclaim some of our tax dollars, so us taxes payers didn't have to pay for the cost of this guys stupidity in handling a camp fire.

I don't really think that's it either. Do you honestly believe they are going to recoop that money from this guy. Unless this guy wins the mega ball lottery, I don't see much hope there. I think he was just made an example of to show the rest of the public to act responsibly in a wooded area and this too can happen to you if allow something like this to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

That way the funds could be used for other project such as the improvement and maintenance of our National parks. ThatÔÇÖs the only rational I can see for suing the hunter. I for one don't want to pay for is ignorance which is what happened when they went out to put out his runaway campfire.

When lightening sets off a blaze we all pay the cost when some dumb ass throws his cigarette in to the brush or lights a campfire near dry grass and set our forest on fire let him pay the cost of his ignorance why should we?

True but that money (as soback has stated) is already collected in taxes and these public servants are already on the payroll. What exactly is this guy paying for? If it's for replanting trees and such, I say to hell with that and just let nature do what nature does best and that is recover very nicely from incidents like this. These forests have evolved this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

I don't really think that's it either. Do you honestly believe they are going to recoop that money from this guy. Unless this guy wins the mega ball lottery, I don't see much hope there. I think he was just made an example of to show the rest of the public to act responsibly in a wooded area and this too can happen to you if allow something like this to happen.


Of course they'll never come close to getting all of our money back.

quote:

True but that money (as soback has stated) is already collected in taxes and these public servants are already on the payroll. What exactly is this guy paying for? If it's for replanting trees and such, I say to hell with that and just let nature do what nature does best and that is recover very nicely from incidents like this. These forests have evolved this way.


Yes the employees of the forest service have been paid with our tax dollars and when its wasted on fighting a fire that one irresponsible person set instead of on improvements to our national parks infrastructure, smoother roads, better visitor center, and other facilities that make my visit more enjoyable it pisses me off.

This guy paid his taxes to, but that doesn't mean he can go out and set the forest on fire with a stupid act and expect the rest of us to cover the cost for putting it out when our money could have went for other uses that benefit all.

So if they want to make and example of what being stupid will cause so be it. If they take half this guys yearly income for the rest of his life at least we get some of our tax money back for other uses by the forest service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

Yes the employees of the forest service have been paid with our tax dollars and when its wasted on fighting a fire that one irresponsible person set instead of on improvements to our national parks infrastructure, smoother roads, better visitor center, and other facilities that make my visit more enjoyable it pisses me off.

This guy paid his taxes to, but that doesn't mean he can go out and set the forest on fire with a stupid act and expect the rest of us to cover the cost for putting it out when our money could have went for other uses that benefit all.

So if they want to make and example of what being stupid will cause so be it. If they take half this guys yearly income for the rest of his life at least we get some of our tax money back for other uses by the forest service.

Very true indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be the resources under the auspices of the US Forest Service that were used, but the monies paid for outside help brought in to battle the blaze that they want the guy to pay for.

It's actually quite hypocritical, seeing as how the Forest service, in the recent past, attempted a controlled burn in one park, that got away from them when the wind changed direction. From the report I saw on that one, alot of residents on the edge of the park lost their homes and a number of Smoke Jumpers lost their lives. I don't know of anyone responsible for that mistake being sued for the cost of putting it out. Or even jailed for involuntary manslaughter. I'm sure our tax dollars went a long way toward rebuilding some homes and now you can add in SSA monies being paid to the families of the firefighters that died.

Granted, it was stupid for the man to do what he did. None of us are perfect. If we have no capacity to forgive others for their mistakes, then we can not expect forgiveness from others for ours.

After you boil it down to the most common denominator, it doesn't replace the trees and it certainly won't pay the damages. Nor will it prevent some other moreoff from acting irresponsibly. Instead it's just more money poured into a judicial system that is controlled by greedy scheisters, for greedy scheisters.

Mother Nature will take care of replacing the forest same as she always does and the rest of us will cover the cost of extinguishing the fire, and now they add insult to injury by spending more money on a kangaroo court case.

I wonder if they have ever considered running a sprinkler line through dried timber? Just enough to create a fire break, not sprinkle the whole forest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone delete my post above. I'm going to repost it. I was having trouble here at my end (I think) I wasn't able to edit the post it just sat there I kept trying to submit edit and still just sat. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I got Wolferz post as well. Sorry about that. Luckily it was in my cache so I was able to recover the text.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolferz:

It may not be the resources under the auspices of the US Forest Service that were used, but the monies paid for outside help brought in to battle the blaze that they want the guy to pay for.

It's actually quite hypocritical, seeing as how the Forest service, in the recent past, attempted a controlled burn in one park, that got away from them when the wind changed direction. From the report I saw on that one, alot of residents on the edge of the park lost their homes and a number of Smoke Jumpers lost their lives. I don't know of anyone responsible for that mistake being sued for the cost of putting it out. Or even jailed for involuntary manslaughter. I'm sure our tax dollars went a long way toward rebuilding some homes and now you can add in SSA monies being paid to the families of the firefighters that died.

Good point, damn I forgot about that myself. Thanks for reminding me. Wasn't that in yellowstone park? hmmm, gotta look that one up.

Originally posted by Wolferz:

1: Granted, it was stupid for the man to do what he did. None of us are perfect. If we have no capacity to forgive others for their mistakes, then we can not expect forgiveness from others for ours.

2: After you boil it down to the most common denominator, it doesn't replace the trees and it certainly won't pay the damages. Nor will it prevent some other moreoff from acting irresponsibly. Instead it's just more money poured into a judicial system that is controlled by greedy scheisters, for greedy scheisters.

1: Agree and he was lost which leads me to another issue it should be a requirement that all hunters be equiped with a GPS before being issued a hunter's licence and they must show their working GPS device to a ranger station before being allowed in any national park. This will solve alot of getting lost issues. Funny though seems like no one, not even grundig, makes a dynamo hand crank GPS device they've got almost every other devices like flash lights, shortwave radios etc.. but no GPS.

2: Got that right, drop your guard down for one second in this society and next thing you know you are dragged into court for one thing or another.

Originally posted by Wolferz:

1: Mother Nature will take care of replacing the forest same as she always does and the rest of us will cover the cost of extinguishing the fire, and now they add insult to injury by spending more money on a kangaroo court case.

2: I wonder if they have ever considered running a sprinkler line through dried timber? Just enough to create a fire break, not sprinkle the whole forest.

1: Yeah, I mentioned that in my other post. All forests become dry and brittle from time to time depending on rain fall one little spark and poof up in smoke. Trees and plants have evolved to handle fires in terms of new growth. Here's one such article to demonstrate this:

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SIGNALS REGULATE GERMINATION IN THE POST-FIRE ANNUAL, NICOTIANA ATTENUATA

quote:

Abstract.The litter of many plant species is known to inhibit germination, and this phenomenon is commonly interpreted as allelopathic inhibition of one species by another. However, an alternative interpretation is that seeds may be using environmental signals to inform the timing of their germination and thereby use dormancy as a mechanism of habitat choice. Nicotiana attenuata Torr. ex Wats. (Solanaceae) is typically found for less than three years after fire in the sagebrush, blackbrush, and pinyonÔÇôjuniper forests of the Great Basin desert of North America. A dormant seed bank is established during this ephemeral post-fire period, and pyrolysis products of α-cellulose (containing only C, H, and O) in wood smoke are known to initiate germination in dormant seeds of this species. We demonstrated in a glasshouse experiment that germination into burned soils (as compared to unburned) results in a 12-fold increase in lifetime seed production, which reflects a minimum estimate of the fitness benefit of making accurate germination decisions. With seed bioassays, we examined the distribution of this smoke signal in the A1 soil layer at several burned areas in southwestern Utah, United States to determine whether the presence of this smoke-derived germination cue predicts the spatial and temporal occurrence of N. attenuata populations after fires.

It is Human meddling with this natural process that has irritated these dry conditions here's another one:

Adapting to Disturbance: Plants Resist, Depend, and Grow with Fire

Pay close attention to very last setence.

quote:

Wildfire in North America is a natural phenomenon that burned millions of acres for millions of years before European settlement. The relationship between ecosystems and wildfire has evolved in such a way, that many species of plants and other processes depend on this natural disturbance to regenerate and maintain a healthy ecosystem. Fire reacts differently according to, environmental factors (topography, climate, vegetation type) or by the present health of the stand (insect invasion, build up of fuel loads). Depending on these factors, fire can burn with minimal damage or can scorch an area severely. Suppressed fires due to agriculture, ranching, or other human development have altered the environment. Fuel loads have increased, and vegetation types have changed, leaving areas susceptible to intense fires.

2: That would be too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×