If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   U.S. Forest Service: Remember that 2012 Wyoming wildfire you started? Will you be paying the $6.3 million by check or cash?   (usnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 144
    More: Followup, Canadian Forest Service, Wyoming, US Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, wildfires, Bureau of Land Management  
•       •       •

10298 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 7:35 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-09 08:59:41 AM  
Those are some expensive forest rangers...

Load of BS numbers.
 
2014-01-09 09:00:56 AM  

doglover: The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)


Huh?  Bist du ein Nazischwein?
 
2014-01-09 09:02:00 AM  

Wyalt Derp: "Will you be paying the $6.3 million by check or cash?"

No.


That is not a valid answer. I had a friend who hit a bridge while driving drunk and caused about $250k in structural damage. They put him on a payment plan and it took about 26 years to pay it all off but I am not paying was never an option. They will take his house and property (houses in Jackson are not cheap) and go after any other assets he may have. Hopefully he has decent homeowners insurance and it will kick in part.
 
2014-01-09 09:02:24 AM  
Is there precedent of someone getting charged before?
 
2014-01-09 09:02:41 AM  

log_jammin: doglover: a poor old man

how do you know he's poor?


Maybe he's rich. I doubt he has $6,000,000 just lying around however. Hence, sending him a $6,000,000 is retarded. A much better fine is % of net worth.
 
2014-01-09 09:03:28 AM  

kim jong-un: Its also the type of thing that would keep someone from calling 911 to report the small initial fire.


That is the lesson I've learned from this.
Or maybe, call and leave an anonymous tip after I GTFO.  I don't want to be charged $6 million dollars.
 
2014-01-09 09:04:23 AM  

mainstreet62: Is there precedent of someone getting charged before?


Nevermind.
 
2014-01-09 09:04:46 AM  

doglover: Maybe he's rich. I doubt he has $6,000,000 just lying around however.


because you don't have the cash "handy" to pay for your negligence, then you shouldn't have to pay it. got it.
 
2014-01-09 09:07:15 AM  

ReverendJasen: kim jong-un: Its also the type of thing that would keep someone from calling 911 to report the small initial fire.

That is the lesson I've learned from this.
Or maybe, call and leave an anonymous tip after I GTFO.  I don't want to be charged $6 million dollars.


he didn't make the call. it was a neighbor.

Little Horsethief resident John Crook said he called authorities at around 2:30 p.m. Saturday because he believed the house farthest to the north on his street was burning.
"A friend of mine who was working across the street at the LOTOJA race called me and said he thought one of my neighbors' houses was on fire," he said. "I went outside and looked, and I saw black smoke coming from behind that far north house."
Crook's home is about a half-mile south of where he saw the fire, he said.
 
2014-01-09 09:07:16 AM  

SecretAgentWoman: a 77-year-old Wyoming man to pay $6.3 million

Eh - just arrange a payment plan, he won't be paying that long...


Put a lien on his estate.

And his organs.
=Smidge=
 
2014-01-09 09:08:18 AM  

ReverendJasen: kim jong-un: Its also the type of thing that would keep someone from calling 911 to report the small initial fire.

That is the lesson I've learned from this.
Or maybe, call and leave an anonymous tip after I GTFO.  I don't want to be charged $6 million dollars.


or... not farking light a fire outside when there's a ban on outside fires cos of the conditions and likely impact of it getting out of control. how does that sound?
 
2014-01-09 09:08:35 AM  

HighlanderRPI: I'm more interested to see what makes an 'Upscale' Western town? Are the saddles all gilded in silver and gold?


no, there's just herds of middle-age women wearing pink cowboy hats and wearing too tight jeans.

/love that area, farking hate jackson hole.
 
2014-01-09 09:09:29 AM  

HighlanderRPI: I'm more interested to see what makes an 'Upscale' Western town? Are the saddles all gilded in silver and gold?


Ski resort.
 
2014-01-09 09:09:39 AM  

doglover: Punitive legal damages should be assessed at a percentage of one's net worth using a scale where 101% equals the death penalty. Sending a poor old man a bill for $6,000,000 for any reason is retarded.


If these were punitive damages, assessed by a court to teach him a lesson,  I would have some sympathy.

Based on the article, they appear to be actual damages. He is being billed for the direct cost of putting out his fire for him, a fire he was not watching and allowed to spiral out of control before seeking help, costs that will otherwise be carried by innocent people who did not negligently burn down a national forest.

All he had to do was use a proper container. Instead, he used a rusty old barrel.

All he had to do was monitor the fire and stomp on whatever fell out. Instead, he went inside and watched football.

All he had to do was heed the longstanding burn ban. Instead, he said "fark it" and did what he felt like doing that day.

This is an "accident" in much the same way drunk driving fatalities are accidents, except he wasn't even drunk, so you can't even really blame impaired judgment.
 
2014-01-09 09:10:31 AM  

log_jammin: doglover: Maybe he's rich. I doubt he has $6,000,000 just lying around however.

because you don't have the cash "handy" to pay for your negligence, then you shouldn't have to pay it. got it.


A homeless pauper can start a wildfire just as easy as Bill Gates or Paris Hilton. Wasting time sending bills is retarded. If it's too much damage, kill them and seize their assets.

By sending a flat bill based on the price of the damage, rather than a punitive fine based on net worth, you encourage the wealthy to disregard the law. If you can start a wildfire and get off for $6M bucks there's plenty of rich farkers who would just do it for kicks. Worth 1% of your net worth to cross a firestorm off your bucket list. That's not acceptable.

Also, we want the losses recuperated. You can bill a pauper all you want, you'll never get your money. In fact it will cost more money to sent the bills than you'll even be able to collect.
 
2014-01-09 09:11:22 AM  
Oh! Well, if the government is paying for all this stuff that makes it totally a-ok to be negligent, right?

Hell, I might go for a drive this weekend and build a bonfire just for kicks, and if it gets out of control, I don't give a fark, I'm just stimulating the economy, right? I'm getting all those firefighters paid when otherwise they'd just be sitting around waiting for an emergency to happen. It's ok, it's already paid for! The magical money fairy will come pull another 6 mill out of her cooch and make it rain.
 
2014-01-09 09:14:55 AM  

hardinparamedic: This is an outrage that a 77 year old man should get a 6.4 million dollar bill which he can't pay.

A complete outrage that, instead, he isn't in prison rotting the last few years of his life away. He can learn useful shankin' skills.


We wouldn't hammer an arsonist that bad either way. Why we trying to kill a guy over an accident?
 
2014-01-09 09:16:56 AM  

doglover: By sending a flat bill based on the price of the damage, rather than a punitive fine based on net worth, you encourage the wealthy to disregard the law. If you can start a wildfire and get off for $6M bucks there's plenty of rich farkers who would just do it for kicks. Worth 1% of your net worth to cross a firestorm off your bucket list. That's not acceptable.


and now you've completely changed your argument from "he's poor! he shouldn't have to pay!" to "he's rich and he'll get away with not paying!"

also...

this is a house for sale on the same street as the. it's worth a million and a half. I have no doubt his house is worth similar.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/Jackson-WY/12085_rid/43.430749, -1 10.742981,43.404221,-110.798728_rect/14_zm/1_fr/
 
2014-01-09 09:17:48 AM  

stir22: no, there's just herds of middle-age women wearing pink cowboy hats and wearing too tight jeans.


Interesting. That just happens to be my fetish. *fap*

doglover: By sending a flat bill based on the price of the damage, rather than a punitive fine based on net worth, you encourage the wealthy to disregard the law. If you can start a wildfire and get off for $6M bucks there's plenty of rich farkers who would just do it for kicks. Worth 1% of your net worth to cross a firestorm off your bucket list. That's not acceptable.


Intentionally starting a wildfire for kicks would be the felony of arson, and punitive damages, by definition, are over and above actual damages when those actual damages are considered inadequate. It would not be difficult to convince a jury to assign punitive damages to a wealthy wildfire arsonist, and I would not be surprised if it has come up before.

Although in practice, there are actually not "plenty of rich farkers" going around setting wildfires "for kicks" in real life.
 
2014-01-09 09:19:17 AM  

freewill: doglover: Punitive legal damages should be assessed at a percentage of one's net worth using a scale where 101% equals the death penalty. Sending a poor old man a bill for $6,000,000 for any reason is retarded.

If these were punitive damages, assessed by a court to teach him a lesson,  I would have some sympathy.

Based on the article, they appear to be actual damages. He is being billed for the direct cost of putting out his fire for him, a fire he was not watching and allowed to spiral out of control before seeking help, costs that will otherwise be carried by innocent people who did not negligently burn down a national forest.

All he had to do was use a proper container. Instead, he used a rusty old barrel.

All he had to do was monitor the fire and stomp on whatever fell out. Instead, he went inside and watched football.

All he had to do was heed the longstanding burn ban. Instead, he said "fark it" and did what he felt like doing that day.

This is an "accident" in much the same way drunk driving fatalities are accidents, except he wasn't even drunk, so you can't even really blame impaired judgment.


You're missing the point. Who in the fark has $6,000,000 in their entire lives? You can bill him all day, and it will only cost us MORE money.

If he caused too much damage to forgive, kill him. If you can forgive him, bill him. But don't bill him more money than he can possibly pay ever. That's just a disgrace.
 
2014-01-09 09:20:10 AM  

drinkingbeerinpublic: At the time, there was a ban on burning outside that had been in effect for weeks.  It was dry as toast.


/like jo mama


This usually helps with that
i26.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-09 09:20:25 AM  
Who the hell is playing football at 6 am?
 
2014-01-09 09:21:29 AM  

doglover: But don't bill him more money than he can possibly pay ever.


wait...so now you DO know what his finances are?
 
2014-01-09 09:23:09 AM  

freewill: Although in practice, there are actually not "plenty of rich farkers" going around setting wildfires "for kicks" in real life.


bullshiat. the day I hit the powerball, bye bye mark twain national forest.

you know, for the hell of it.
 
2014-01-09 09:26:38 AM  

doglover: freewill: The fact that he did millions of dollars of damage and doesn't have millions of dollars is unimportant

Actually, it's not.

The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)



Seriously, you're going that direction?  Mods?
 
2014-01-09 09:30:11 AM  

hardinparamedic: They don't have thousands of men just setting around somewhere on payroll.


They do--men AND women--but only during the summer months, and they're hired seasonally. These are not full-time jobs with bennies or anything. They're seasonal workers, and after a usually slow start, they're generally working their butts off, since they get sent anywhere in the country where there's fires.

People keep taking these jobs because they're either thrill seekers, or because during a "good" fire season, they can make tons of money (hazard pay, as others pointed out). But if they have few fires, they waste their entire season, which, if you live out west, might be the only time you ever make any money.

Yes, that's why a few seasonal fire-fighters have been known to start forest fires.
 
2014-01-09 09:30:41 AM  

ejpj2000: Seriously, you're going that direction?  Mods?


oooooh. Sens-a-tive.  Everyone knows Jewish lawyers are the best lawyers.  What are you, anti-semitic or something?
 
2014-01-09 09:33:15 AM  

doglover: You're missing the point. Who in the fark has $6,000,000 in their entire lives? You can bill him all day, and it will only cost us MORE money.

If he caused too much damage to forgive, kill him. If you can forgive him, bill him. But don't bill him more money than he can possibly pay ever. That's just a disgrace.


#1) Another house on this street is worth $1,500,000, so there's actually a decent chance that this guy does, in fact, have $6,000,000 somewhere.

#2) He doubtlessly has homeowner's insurance. I'm not sure they're going to be real eager to pay for damage caused by the policyholder's illegal activity (burning during a burn ban), but covering the potentially crippling costs of one's own stupidity is a central reason that people carry such insurance in the first place.

#3) Billing an adult the actual cost of cleaning up the mess they made is not, I expect, what most reasonable people would agree to call a "disgrace". If he can't pay it, he can't pay it, but sending an accurate bill is the first necessary step in lawfully recovering whatever portion of the losses can be recovered, whether through insurance, through his estate, or whatever else. There are actual victims of this guy's "accident", and the state is right to do whatever they can to mitigate their losses. Not doing so would be the real disgrace.
 
2014-01-09 09:38:17 AM  

Heliodorus: xanadian: So, what would the forest service people and the fire fighters have been doing if the fire hadn't happened? Would they still have their jobs and being paid for it, but just not fighting the wildfire?  I think it's wrong that they're getting MY tax dollars *and* charging some old dude at the same time.  It's like being paid twice for doing one job.

No, this is the government seeking reimbursement for what they paid.


As my conservative friends tell me, ALL firefighting / police work / etc. should be done in this manner, because SOCIALISMS!!

Also "actions have consequences"!!
 
2014-01-09 09:39:46 AM  

freewill: If he can't pay it, he can't pay it, but sending an accurate bill is the first necessary step in lawfully recovering whatever portion of the losses can be recovered, whether through insurance, through his estate, or whatever else. There are actual victims of this guy's "accident", and the state is right to do whatever they can to mitigate their losses. Not doing so would be the real disgrace.


Wasting everybody's time is a disgrace.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished somehow, but I'm saying that a $6M bill is. If you can't pay it, it's too high. Waste of resources. If you can pay it, it's too low. Waste of resources.

They should bill him a percentage of his net worth or hang him.
 
2014-01-09 09:44:53 AM  
Ok. We got trolled.
 
2014-01-09 09:47:44 AM  

doglover: kwame: I have to come back to this because it's so incredibly dumb.


How long have you had that? I bet you've just been itching to use it. Any excuse.
 
2014-01-09 09:49:16 AM  

brimed03: How long have you had that?


It's called hotlinks. You just have to know what to put into GIS
 
2014-01-09 09:49:16 AM  
ejpj2000:
doglover: freewill: The fact that he did millions of dollars of damage and doesn't have millions of dollars is unimportant

Actually, it's not.

The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)


Seriously, you're going that direction?  Mods?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *Gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Man, Fark has really gone all PR over the last few years....
There use to be a time when a comment like that would be par for the course.
You know what I read? "I am offended, I am telling mommy."
 
2014-01-09 09:49:59 AM  

doglover: freewill: If he can't pay it, he can't pay it, but sending an accurate bill is the first necessary step in lawfully recovering whatever portion of the losses can be recovered, whether through insurance, through his estate, or whatever else. There are actual victims of this guy's "accident", and the state is right to do whatever they can to mitigate their losses. Not doing so would be the real disgrace.

Wasting everybody's time is a disgrace.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished somehow, but I'm saying that a $6M bill is. If you can't pay it, it's too high. Waste of resources. If you can pay it, it's too low. Waste of resources.

They should bill him a percentage of his net worth or hang him.


...so if you have student loans up to your eyeballs and a negative net worth, they pay you?

Novel idea: let's just bill people what things actually cost and they can make decisions accordingly.
 
2014-01-09 09:50:57 AM  
fark this old guy.  Take every dime that he doesn't need for his immediate survival for the rest of his life.  After he's dead, take every dime of his estate and property.  The government will get only a fraction of the cost, but it's better than nothing and certainly better than "stop picking on this irresponsible bastard because he's old".
 
2014-01-09 09:51:43 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: doglover: The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)

Huh?  Bist du ein Nazischwein?


Hai.

And This.
 
2014-01-09 10:01:08 AM  

ejpj2000: doglover: freewill: The fact that he did millions of dollars of damage and doesn't have millions of dollars is unimportant

Actually, it's not.

The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)


Seriously, you're going that direction?  Mods?


It wont do any good, jewish people are one of the types fark allows people to bash. They used to enforce a no asshat rule, now it's no asshat against some, others are fair game...
 
2014-01-09 10:01:29 AM  

gadian: The government will get only a fraction of the cost, but it's better than nothing


But it's not. It will cost more to get that fraction than they will recoup.
 
2014-01-09 10:04:54 AM  

lemortede: ejpj2000:
doglover: freewill: The fact that he did millions of dollars of damage and doesn't have millions of dollars is unimportant

Actually, it's not.

The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)


Seriously, you're going that direction?  Mods?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *Gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Man, Fark has really gone all PR over the last few years....
There use to be a time when a comment like that would be par for the course.
You know what I read? "I am offended, I am telling mommy."


Great story about the old days, old man! Tell us another, but first, why don't you go take a nap? Remember to put on your Depends, we don't want to ha e to wash the sheets again. And thanks again for sharing about the "good old days!"

/your lawn, we're off it
 
2014-01-09 10:09:32 AM  

doglover: gadian: The government will get only a fraction of the cost, but it's better than nothing

But it's not. It will cost more to get that fraction than they will recoup.


Didn't you read the comments, gadian? Diglover is this guy's CPA, he knows for sure whether this guy can afford it.

And he's totally right. If we can't make things perfect, we shouldn't even try. Hell, let's stop prosecuting murderers. Not like it's going to bring the victims back to life.
 
2014-01-09 10:14:24 AM  

freewill: #1) Another house on this street is worth $1,500,000, so there's actually a decent chance that this guy does, in fact, have $6,000,000 somewhere.


He has money. I just wrote this long post speculating about how much money he has, but here's the story from the Jackson Hole paper from when the fire happened.

Link

His son wrote the apology letter--who also lives in Horsethief Canyon, and has been there for "over 30 years." His father is some old rancher who was gradually selling out his ranch, and he's probably worth quite a bit. It's not right in Jackson Hole, but due to the physical constraints of the area, even the areas outside of town are now worth quite a bit.

You don't fark around with fire if you live out west. There are fire warnings, wind warnings, fire restrictions, "red flag" warnings, rules about not driving your vehicles off-road when it gets dry, rules where you have to carry shovels and sand in case you ignite anything, warnings not to smoke outdoors. No one who lives out here is ignorant of fire danger. That's why this guy is absolutely groveling and falling all over himself to apologize
 
2014-01-09 10:16:57 AM  

ejpj2000: doglover: freewill: The fact that he did millions of dollars of damage and doesn't have millions of dollars is unimportant

Actually, it's not.

The current legal system is set up so a really rich man can flat out murder his neighbor, chop the body into pieces, and toss the pieces into the bay to hide the murder and still afford a lawyer jewish enough he gets off on a SELF DEFENSE plea. (This really happened)


Seriously, you're going that direction?  Mods?


You're seriously offended by that? It's funny. ... Have you ever seen Family Guy? Do you have a sense of humor?
 
2014-01-09 10:21:27 AM  

dittybopper: Katolu: hardinparamedic: xanadian: So, what would the forest service people and the fire fighters have been doing if the fire hadn't happened? Would they still have their jobs and being paid for it, but just not fighting the wildfire?  I think it's wrong that they're getting MY tax dollars *and* charging some old dude at the same time.  It's like being paid twice for doing one job.

Most wildland firefighters are actually volunteers/paid-on-incident that have passed the physical and wildland training which the National Forrest Service requires. (Which is no joke.)

They don't have thousands of men just setting around somewhere on payroll.

Oh, but don't let facts get in the way of outrage!

I'm betting, though, that funds are allocated for it ahead of time.  Unless the government agencies involved are truly incompetent.


Just because my insurance company has money "set aside" in case some uninsured asshole slams into it while it's parked in a parking lot doesn't mean that the person that runs into it shouldn't be held responsible for watching football on the TV in the back of the RV while the cruise control is set.
 
2014-01-09 10:23:40 AM  

kwame: Who gives a f*ck if he gets mad about the bill and starts setting fires? That's not a normal human response to something like this,


How is it not?  It's a mentally stable retaliatory attack.  He's attacked from a distance, he analyzes the situation, he determines that this is a related counter-punch and that he's well-protected (I mean what are they going to do, take away MORE money he doesn't have in the first place?).

They are in control; except they can't inflict any further harm than they already have.  He can inflict much, MUCH more harm.  He's 77, he's going to die soon anyway, and he doesn't much imagine they'll come execute him--just maybe arrest him.  Guess what, schmooze?  Mine's bigger.
 
2014-01-09 10:25:36 AM  
Sometimes it'd be nice to have the insight of a lawyer.  It sounds to me this should be handled in the courts where the guy's culpability could be more accurately and impartially determined, if the USFS is intent on recouping their costs.
 
2014-01-09 10:26:03 AM  

bluefoxicy: kwame: Who gives a f*ck if he gets mad about the bill and starts setting fires? That's not a normal human response to something like this,

How is it not?  It's a mentally stable retaliatory attack.  He's attacked from a distance, he analyzes the situation, he determines that this is a related counter-punch and that he's well-protected (I mean what are they going to do, take away MORE money he doesn't have in the first place?).

They are in control; except they can't inflict any further harm than they already have.  He can inflict much, MUCH more harm.  He's 77, he's going to die soon anyway, and he doesn't much imagine they'll come execute him--just maybe arrest him.  Guess what, schmooze?  Mine's bigger.


In point of fact, many, if not most, states allow anyone to use lethal force to stop an arson in progress. His neighbors could and probably would shoot him in the dick.
 
2014-01-09 10:35:29 AM  

doglover: Punitive legal damages should be assessed at a percentage of one's net worth using a scale where 101% equals the death penalty. Sending a poor old man a bill for $6,000,000 for any reason is retarded.


Whether or not it is realistic, by definition it isn't punitive damages.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/punitive+damages
Punitive Damages:
Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.

They billed less than the fire costs.  Actually, that makes me wonder if there isn't something covering him for close to that amount...  I doubt it's a random discount, even though they'd ask for more than they expect to settle for.  One of the other articles says they've been fairly successful in collecting in the past, but usually end up with whatever the person's insurance is.  It's a bit odd that they comment on the guy's lawyer but have no whining about not being able to afford that.
 
2014-01-09 10:36:18 AM  
Given that he probably doesn't have the money, whatever the resolution to this ends up being, it's essentially moot.  Either they'll drop the bill or send it to a collection agency who can try to hound a 77 year old, but either way, it's unlikely the gov't will end up collecting much.
 
2014-01-09 10:40:41 AM  

bluefoxicy: kwame: Who gives a f*ck if he gets mad about the bill and starts setting fires? That's not a normal human response to something like this,

How is it not?  It's a mentally stable retaliatory attack.  He's attacked from a distance, he analyzes the situation, he determines that this is a related counter-punch and that he's well-protected (I mean what are they going to do, take away MORE money he doesn't have in the first place?).

They are in control; except they can't inflict any further harm than they already have.  He can inflict much, MUCH more harm.  He's 77, he's going to die soon anyway, and he doesn't much imagine they'll come execute him--just maybe arrest him.  Guess what, schmooze?  Mine's bigger.


So he hurts more random people, destroys more neighbors' property, costs the taxpayers some more money, possibly gets someone to shoot him if they see him setting fires, regains zero of the money he was charged... how does that help him again?  They are billing him to reimburse taxpayer expenses.  It's not like it's going into some firefighter's personal bank account.  It doesn't even hurt the people who are billing him at all, it just hurts everyone else, and still doesn't help him in any way.  Getting angry and randomly lashing out in a destructive and possibly violent way toward random uninvolved people and wildlife is NOT "a mentally stable retaliatory attack " just because he might have no more money.
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report