i am not 'missing' that point. in fact, if they did put a notice on his door...who knows? perhaps they knocked first, and didn't get a response. i simply think the point is, too many like to point fingers elsewhere, and oftentimes in the wrong direction. yes, this man would more than likely be alive to day if not for a restricter being put on his meter. i understand that, and i do sympathize. however, beyond that there are a LOT of varibles, least of which...this many apparently had no one in his life, he had the ability to pay......and there is other responsibility in the mix here outside the utility company imo. btw - i DO agree "that there is something wrong with a business's pursuit of its profit costing someone their life, regardless of the circumstances"...but i also see, it's not just that simple. what cost this man his life...was his own refusal to pay, and/or to seek out help, etc. it is not solely the responsibilty and burden of the utility imo.
my utility co. knocks on my door once a month to read our gas meter b/c it is inside our home. we rarely are home to let him in, so we read it ourselves and mail or phone it in. someone put the notice on his front door about the restricter and i would imagine they would've knocked too. i don't know how much else one expects. that's all.
What we expect is that a gas company will not cut heat during one of the coldest winters ever until they have done absolutely everything possible to figure out what's going on in that house.
i am not 'missing' that point. in fact, if they did put a notice on his door...who knows? perhaps they knocked first, and didn't get a response. i simply think the point is, too many like to point fingers elsewhere, and oftentimes in the wrong direction. yes, this man would more than likely be alive to day if not for a restricter being put on his meter. i understand that, and i do sympathize. however, beyond that there are a LOT of varibles, least of which...this many apparently had no one in his life, he had the ability to pay......and there is other responsibility in the mix here outside the utility company imo. btw - i DO agree "that there is something wrong with a business's pursuit of its profit costing someone their life, regardless of the circumstances"...but i also see, it's not just that simple. what cost this man his life...was his own refusal to pay, and/or to seek out help, etc. it is not solely the responsibilty and burden of the utility imo.
my utility co. knocks on my door once a month to read our gas meter b/c it is inside our home. we rarely are home to let him in, so we read it ourselves and mail or phone it in. someone put the notice on his front door about the restricter and i would imagine they would've knocked too. i don't know how much else one expects. that's all.
What we expect is that a gas company will not cut heat during one of the coldest winters ever until they have done absolutely everything possible to figure out what's going on in that house.
gotcha.
guess i am a realist. that's all.
let me ask you this:
what IF the utility went to the house, had a face-to-face convo with the man....and he still refused to pay...and they informed him, in detail, about putting on a restricter, or turning off his power., etc....and he said he didn't care? then what? is the utility to get involved to the point of continuing to offer free service, even tho he had the ability to pay...and are they to alert social servivces, and continue to supply power, etc, until something can be done? i am merely asking....how far is a company meant to go? 'absolutely everything possible' is quite a tall order, and as i said.,.....i just don't imagine ANY company doing such. i guess i really don't expect one to either. i am not defending the big, bad corproations...i am merely questioning expectations. as i said, back in the days of a lot more face-to-face customer service, even then..i think there is a line, and doing 'absolutely everything possible'....probably didn't always happen either.
On Jan. 13, a worker with the city-owned utility installed a "limiter" on Schur's electric meter after four months of unpaid bills. The device restricts power and blows like a fuse if usage rises past a set level. Electricity is not restored until the device is flipped back on by the homeowner, who must walk outside to the meter.
Bay City Electric Light & Power did not contact Schur face-to-face to notify him of the device and explain how it works, instead following its usual policy by leaving a note on the door. But neighbours said Schur rarely, if ever, left the house in the cold.
At some point, the device evidently tripped and was not reset, authorities said. Schur's home was heated by a gas furnace, not electricity, but some gas furnaces do not work properly if the power is out.
i will definitely say the company SHOULD have knocked on the door and explained, at the very least. if they do manage to go door-to-door to put out notices, they could knock. i still say there are more 'responsible' than the utility alone tho. just my own thoughts.
let me ask you this:
what IF the utility went to the house, had a face-to-face convo with the man....and he still refused to pay...and they informed him, in detail, about putting on a restricter, or turning off his power., etc....and he said he didn't care? then what? is the utility to get involved to the point of continuing to offer free service, even tho he had the ability to pay...and are they to alert social servivces, and continue to supply power, etc, until something can be done? i am merely asking....how far is a company meant to go? 'absolutely everything possible' is quite a tall order, and as i said.,.....i just don't imagine ANY company doing such. i guess i really don't expect one to either. i am not defending the big, bad corproations...i am merely questioning expectations. as i said, back in the days of a lot more face-to-face customer service, even then..i think there is a line, and doing 'absolutely everything possible'....probably didn't always happen either.
I'm a realist too. Like I said, it's just depressing that this is what we've come to. I'm not surprised this happened like this, just sad that this is what we are to the modern economy... balance sheets, numbers, that's it.
If they had done this, in the middle of winter, they should have filed a lawsuit to recover their money. This can be enforced by subpoena and jailtime and court-ordered payments. There are plenty of ways to recover their money without shutting off heat in the middle of winter.
In return, answer me this... how is saying "pay me now or else" and then cutting heat when it's 30 below zero different from a loan shark saying "you have until Tuesday or we break your legs?" At a certain point, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life or physical safety in your efforts to get your $. Period.
i will definitely say the company SHOULD have knocked on the door and explained, at the very least. if they do manage to go door-to-door to put out notices, they could knock. i still say there are more 'responsible' than the utility alone tho. just my own thoughts.
That's how I understood the scenario initially. I agree there are others that are partly responsible. But when it comes down to it, they're the ones that cut his heat and I think they bear the bulk of the responsibility. In tort terms, they were the last people that acted that could have prevented this. In human terms, when a child is abducted we could all say "how come her parents weren't watching " or "why didn't someone at the mall notice and do something"? But when it comes down to it, the biggest share of responsibility falls on the person that took the actions that resulted in the tragedy.
Actually the heat was never cut... the ELECTRICTY was. It just so happens, that apparently, this man's furance was controlled by electricity (electric ignitor) (mine is as well).
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
i will definitely say the company SHOULD have knocked on the door and explained, at the very least. if they do manage to go door-to-door to put out notices, they could knock. i still say there are more 'responsible' than the utility alone tho. just my own thoughts.
That's how I understood the scenario initially. I agree there are others that are partly responsible. But when it comes down to it, they're the ones that cut his heat and I think they bear the bulk of the responsibility. In tort terms, they were the last people that acted that could have prevented this. In human terms, when a child is abducted we could all say "how come her parents weren't watching " or "why didn't someone at the mall notice and do something"? But when it comes down to it, the biggest share of responsibility falls on the person that took the actions that resulted in the tragedy.
i agree with your example, however......this was an ADULT, not a child. and obviously, the biggest issue there is more than likely dementia/mental illness. b/c in any other scenario that this were to occur, an adult, even at 93 would CALL SOMEONE...the utility company, a friend or family member....someone, and it never would've escalated to this scenario. obviously this man should not have been living on his own, and that makes me think, who's responsibility is that? so while i do hold the utility responsible, i see a lot more than that. obviously, we see it just a wee bit differently.
and chromiam, you are right. i think my post above quoted that point too...or else i just remember it from recently rereading.
let me ask you this:
what IF the utility went to the house, had a face-to-face convo with the man....and he still refused to pay...and they informed him, in detail, about putting on a restricter, or turning off his power., etc....and he said he didn't care? then what? is the utility to get involved to the point of continuing to offer free service, even tho he had the ability to pay...and are they to alert social servivces, and continue to supply power, etc, until something can be done? i am merely asking....how far is a company meant to go? 'absolutely everything possible' is quite a tall order, and as i said.,.....i just don't imagine ANY company doing such. i guess i really don't expect one to either. i am not defending the big, bad corproations...i am merely questioning expectations. as i said, back in the days of a lot more face-to-face customer service, even then..i think there is a line, and doing 'absolutely everything possible'....probably didn't always happen either.
I'm a realist too. Like I said, it's just depressing that this is what we've come to. I'm not surprised this happened like this, just sad that this is what we are to the modern economy... balance sheets, numbers, that's it.
If they had done this, in the middle of winter, they should have filed a lawsuit to recover their money. This can be enforced by subpoena and jailtime and court-ordered payments. There are plenty of ways to recover their money without shutting off heat in the middle of winter.
In return, answer me this... how is saying "pay me now or else" and then cutting heat when it's 30 below zero different from a loan shark saying "you have until Tuesday or we break your legs?" At a certain point, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life or physical safety in your efforts to get your $. Period.
i don't think it's just modern society to blame, i think it's society, in general. has it gotten worse in modern times..perhaps...but i think it's always existed to some extent.
as far as your scenario, they didn't cut his heat, they cut his electricity...and they didn't cut it either...they put a resticter on it that he could've reset himself to turn back on! seriously...read and argue the actual points in the article. :P beyond that, i honestly don't know. the man HAD the $$$, but refused to pay. and if he didn't have the $$$, if he tried to negotiate, i am sure something could've been worked out. i think, again due to demntia, he was more than likely non-communicative with the utility outside of refusing to pay. even landlords, eventually, can evist due to lack of rent payments, etc. as i said, i am not defenind the big bad corporations...but even mom and pop situations have to make their $$$ too, be paid for services, etc....for them to remian in business. would this one man's lack of payment break them? probably not. however, if they actually ent to the point of developing and installing restricters on meters, lack of payment IS an issue, and one they have to take seriously to remian in business. honestly, i am just seeing it - realisitically - from both sides.
btw - you never did answer my Q.....where is the line of doing 'everything absolutely possible' to be for a business? this isn't family or friends...but a business. an important one, yes...but when one refuses to pay, just how much is a company to get involved in their client's lives? as i said, we all agree...it's a tragedy. but let's face it, if dementia or something wasn't in the mix, this never would've happened. people reach out for help. this man didn't.
Electricity and gas companies are the devil.. they don't care if he is 93, served in a war or anything else. They don't give a shit. They are a company, just like the cable. It is sad that they don't at least give people a grace period or simply just calling the customer before its shut off might make a world of difference. (I am almost POSITIVE this isn't the first time something like this has happened)
It is really sad and i feel even worse for the soul less bastards who saw this man as a number.. and not a human being.
btw - you never did answer my Q.....where is the line of doing 'everything absolutely possible' to be for a business? this isn't family or friends...but a business. an important one, yes...but when one refuses to pay, just how much is a company to get involved in their client's lives? as i said, we all agree...it's a tragedy. but let's face it, if dementia or something wasn't in the mix, this never would've happened. people reach out for help. this man didn't.
I did answer the Q, my answer was that the line is that the company doesnt' shut off power in mid-winter, period. Under any circumstances. They can get recourse through the courts if it comes to that. As for the distinction between electric and gas, it's immaterial to me. Electric driven heat isn't exactly uncommon. This is a foreseeable and preventable event.
btw - you never did answer my Q.....where is the line of doing 'everything absolutely possible' to be for a business? this isn't family or friends...but a business. an important one, yes...but when one refuses to pay, just how much is a company to get involved in their client's lives? as i said, we all agree...it's a tragedy. but let's face it, if dementia or something wasn't in the mix, this never would've happened. people reach out for help. this man didn't.
I did answer the Q, my answer was that the line is that the company doesnt' shut off power in mid-winter, period. Under any circumstances. They can get recourse through the courts if it comes to that. As for the distinction between electric and gas, it's immaterial to me. Electric driven heat isn't exactly uncommon. This is a foreseeable and preventable event.
I have gas heat but need electric for the thermostat and electric pilot.
btw - you never did answer my Q.....where is the line of doing 'everything absolutely possible' to be for a business? this isn't family or friends...but a business. an important one, yes...but when one refuses to pay, just how much is a company to get involved in their client's lives? as i said, we all agree...it's a tragedy. but let's face it, if dementia or something wasn't in the mix, this never would've happened. people reach out for help. this man didn't.
I did answer the Q, my answer was that the line is that the company doesnt' shut off power in mid-winter, period. Under any circumstances. They can get recourse through the courts if it comes to that. As for the distinction between electric and gas, it's immaterial to me. Electric driven heat isn't exactly uncommon. This is a foreseeable and preventable event.
and they DIDN'T. a restricter is not shutting off power. it's like a fuse that blows. you go and turn it back on. done. power is back. all this man needed to do was actually open his front door once in awhile and actually SEE the notice. or, again, if he noticed the power went out...CALL the power company and see wtf is up. if this mans fuse blew, and he didn't go to the circuit breaker to turn it back on, ended up without power b/c of it, called no one, etc....we'd all simply say, what a tragedy, that poor man, obviously had some sort of mental issues, no one to check up on him, etc, etc.
so i still don't fault the big, bad utility 100%. imo this man had to be in pretty sad mental shape to not even pick up the phone and call SOMEONE, and instead just lie down to die. there is NO record of him reaching out to ANYone. i seriously cannot even fathom that.
obviously we see it from different sides. and i DO see your point, and i agree to some extent...just not fully.
and they DIDN'T. a restricter is not shutting off power. it's like a fuse that blows. you go and turn it back on. done. power is back. all this man needed to do was actually open his front door once in awhile and actually SEE the notice. or, again, if he noticed the power went out...CALL the power company and see wtf is up. if this mans fuse blew, and he didn't go to the circuit breaker to turn it back on, ended up without power b/c of it, called no one, etc....we'd all simply say, what a tragedy, that poor man, obviously had some sort of mental issues, no one to check up on him, etc, etc.
so i still don't fault the big, bad utility 100%. imo this man had to be in pretty sad mental shape to not even pick up the phone and call SOMEONE, and instead just lie down to die. there is NO record of him reaching out to ANYone. i seriously cannot even fathom that.
obviously we see it from different sides. and i DO see your point, and i agree to some extent...just not fully.
Nobody ever bothered to make sure he knew what was going on with that shut off switch. It's a bullshit argument for you to act like they didn't cut power because they installed a switch that cut power for them. The result is the same... they set it up for his power to go out without ever finding out what was going on with him. That's not ok. If they wanted their money or whatever, they should have gone to the courts, not walked to his building, put in a switch that they knew could result in power loss, taped a note to his door, and split without ever making sure he knew what was going on. It wasn't worth hurting their profit margin to make sure they had all the facts before they jeopardized somebody's physical well being in the middle of winter. That's my point. Yes, it's sad that he had no one to contact and that nobody noticed how far gone he was. But none of those people are responsible for cutting the power that ended in his death. The electric company is. That's a big difference to me.
You discounted my earlier child example by virtue of the fact that that's a child and he's an adult and can care for himself, then argue here that he's demented. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to point fingers at his neighbors and family for not monitoring him close enough to notice his dementia, you can just as easily point fingers at mall shoppers and parents who weren't monitoring well enough to prevent an abduction. They all deserve to be criticized, but the one that bears the final guilt is the one that takes the actions that result in the harm.
and they DIDN'T. a restricter is not shutting off power. it's like a fuse that blows. you go and turn it back on. done. power is back. all this man needed to do was actually open his front door once in awhile and actually SEE the notice. or, again, if he noticed the power went out...CALL the power company and see wtf is up. if this mans fuse blew, and he didn't go to the circuit breaker to turn it back on, ended up without power b/c of it, called no one, etc....we'd all simply say, what a tragedy, that poor man, obviously had some sort of mental issues, no one to check up on him, etc, etc.
so i still don't fault the big, bad utility 100%. imo this man had to be in pretty sad mental shape to not even pick up the phone and call SOMEONE, and instead just lie down to die. there is NO record of him reaching out to ANYone. i seriously cannot even fathom that.
obviously we see it from different sides. and i DO see your point, and i agree to some extent...just not fully.
Nobody ever bothered to make sure he knew what was going on with that shut off switch. It's a bullshit argument for you to act like they didn't cut power because they installed a switch that cut power for them. The result is the same... they set it up for his power to go out without ever finding out what was going on with him. That's not ok. If they wanted their money or whatever, they should have gone to the courts, not walked to his building, put in a switch that they knew could result in power loss, taped a note to his door, and split without ever making sure he knew what was going on. It wasn't worth hurting their profit margin to make sure they had all the facts before they jeopardized somebody's physical well being in the middle of winter. That's my point. Yes, it's sad that he had no one to contact and that nobody noticed how far gone he was. But none of those people are responsible for cutting the power that ended in his death. The electric company is. That's a big difference to me.
You discounted my earlier child example by virtue of the fact that that's a child and he's an adult and can care for himself, then argue here that he's demented. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to point fingers at his neighbors and family for not monitoring him close enough to notice his dementia, you can just as easily point fingers at mall shoppers and parents who weren't monitoring well enough to prevent an abduction. They all deserve to be criticized, but the one that bears the final guilt is the one that takes the actions that result in the harm.
i'm not trying to have it both ways. i am simply saying he was an adult, and obviously couldn't care for himself, and thus should not have been alone - but i do not expect a utility company to know this. ANYone else would've called SOMEONE for HELP! period. ANYone else would've PAID thier bills if they had $600,000+ in savings. so yes, he could not care for himself properly. i truly wonder if the man didn't leave his house, how did he truly care for himself at all? but that's another topic.
and the BIG difference in your scenario is an abducter willing and consciously chooses to do harm. sorry, i do not think ANy utility company wants to kill anyone. they simply want to get paid for the service they provide. they gave opportunity to do so, they put the restricter, et, etc. obviously this man's home is NOT the first to get this restricter device, in fact, after this occured they had to take them off ALL the houses they were put on. no one else had died. and no, i am not saying it's ok this man died....i am simply saying there are MANy factors in play here. i've already said, numerous times, they bear responsibility, but i personally do not seeing them as soley bearing the responsibility. that's my perspective. i think there is a 'bigger picture' to all this.....and it is in regards to elder care, monitoring seniors, etc. idk how it would work, if people would agree to it, etc...but in our increasingly fragmented society, and 'families' growing ever smaller, disconnected, non-existent, so the usual social systems we had in place are disappearing or gone.....this will not be an isolated incident.
and the BIG difference in your scenario is an abducter willing and consciously chooses to do harm. sorry, i do not think ANy utility company wants to kill anyone. they simply want to get paid for the service they provide. they gave opportunity to do so, they put the restricter, et, etc. obviously this man's home is NOT the first to get this restricter device, in fact, after this occured they had to take them off ALL the houses they were put on. no one else had died. and no, i am not saying it's ok this man died....i am simply saying there are MANy factors in play here. i've already said, numerous times, they bear responsibility, but i personally do not seeing them as soley bearing the responsibility. that's my perspective. i think there is a 'bigger picture' to all this.....and it is in regards to elder care, monitoring seniors, etc. idk how it would work, if people would agree to it, etc...but in our increasingly fragmented society, and 'families' growing ever smaller, disconnected, non-existent, so the usual social systems we had in place are disappearing or gone.....this will not be an isolated incident.
The fact that they intended to get paid and not to kill someone does not absolve them of taking actions that had fatal consequences that were reasonably foreseeable. Drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, but they still are guilty when they do because they engaged in actions based on selfish interests that hurt others. Same deal here.
The fact that they have since removed all of these devices is a pretty clear indication to me that they know what they were doing was wrong and they don't want to risk it happening again.
and the BIG difference in your scenario is an abducter willing and consciously chooses to do harm. sorry, i do not think ANy utility company wants to kill anyone. they simply want to get paid for the service they provide. they gave opportunity to do so, they put the restricter, et, etc. obviously this man's home is NOT the first to get this restricter device, in fact, after this occured they had to take them off ALL the houses they were put on. no one else had died. and no, i am not saying it's ok this man died....i am simply saying there are MANy factors in play here. i've already said, numerous times, they bear responsibility, but i personally do not seeing them as soley bearing the responsibility. that's my perspective. i think there is a 'bigger picture' to all this.....and it is in regards to elder care, monitoring seniors, etc. idk how it would work, if people would agree to it, etc...but in our increasingly fragmented society, and 'families' growing ever smaller, disconnected, non-existent, so the usual social systems we had in place are disappearing or gone.....this will not be an isolated incident.
The fact that they intended to get paid and not to kill someone does not absolve them of taking actions that had fatal consequences that were reasonably foreseeable. Drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, but they still are guilty when they do because they engaged in actions based on selfish interests that hurt others. Same deal here.
The fact that they have since removed all of these devices is a pretty clear indication to me that they know what they were doing was wrong and they don't want to risk it happening again.
again, it is still knowingly be at all aware that harm may be caused. a drunk driver KNOWS he/she is working from a point of impaired judgement and should not drive. i am willing to beliee it's quite possible the utility did not forsee such harm, nor meant any harm, etc.
firstly, they were told to remove them...secondly, even if they weren't and did so of their own accord, does NOT mean they thought they were 'wrong' to utilize them, at most, to me means they realize they did NOT forsee ALL possible consequences of these devices, nd now realize, it can do harm. sorry if i don't automoatically think the worst of everyone....and that i don't see this issue 100% clearly, black/white, right/wrong.....but that there are other facets involved. i am not asking for agreement, just expressing my personal perspective. you clearly disagree, i get it....you think i'm 'wrong' in my thinking and clearly i don't. i see shades of grey in this scenario and i acknowledge it. that's all. i see it from a different pov than you. if criminal charges are brought up against the utility and they are found guilty, so be it.
Comments
What we expect is that a gas company will not cut heat during one of the coldest winters ever until they have done absolutely everything possible to figure out what's going on in that house.
gotcha.
guess i am a realist. that's all.
let me ask you this:
what IF the utility went to the house, had a face-to-face convo with the man....and he still refused to pay...and they informed him, in detail, about putting on a restricter, or turning off his power., etc....and he said he didn't care? then what? is the utility to get involved to the point of continuing to offer free service, even tho he had the ability to pay...and are they to alert social servivces, and continue to supply power, etc, until something can be done? i am merely asking....how far is a company meant to go? 'absolutely everything possible' is quite a tall order, and as i said.,.....i just don't imagine ANY company doing such. i guess i really don't expect one to either. i am not defending the big, bad corproations...i am merely questioning expectations. as i said, back in the days of a lot more face-to-face customer service, even then..i think there is a line, and doing 'absolutely everything possible'....probably didn't always happen either.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
On Jan. 13, a worker with the city-owned utility installed a "limiter" on Schur's electric meter after four months of unpaid bills. The device restricts power and blows like a fuse if usage rises past a set level. Electricity is not restored until the device is flipped back on by the homeowner, who must walk outside to the meter.
Bay City Electric Light & Power did not contact Schur face-to-face to notify him of the device and explain how it works, instead following its usual policy by leaving a note on the door. But neighbours said Schur rarely, if ever, left the house in the cold.
At some point, the device evidently tripped and was not reset, authorities said. Schur's home was heated by a gas furnace, not electricity, but some gas furnaces do not work properly if the power is out.
i will definitely say the company SHOULD have knocked on the door and explained, at the very least. if they do manage to go door-to-door to put out notices, they could knock. i still say there are more 'responsible' than the utility alone tho. just my own thoughts.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I'm a realist too. Like I said, it's just depressing that this is what we've come to. I'm not surprised this happened like this, just sad that this is what we are to the modern economy... balance sheets, numbers, that's it.
If they had done this, in the middle of winter, they should have filed a lawsuit to recover their money. This can be enforced by subpoena and jailtime and court-ordered payments. There are plenty of ways to recover their money without shutting off heat in the middle of winter.
In return, answer me this... how is saying "pay me now or else" and then cutting heat when it's 30 below zero different from a loan shark saying "you have until Tuesday or we break your legs?" At a certain point, you're not allowed to threaten someone's life or physical safety in your efforts to get your $. Period.
That's how I understood the scenario initially. I agree there are others that are partly responsible. But when it comes down to it, they're the ones that cut his heat and I think they bear the bulk of the responsibility. In tort terms, they were the last people that acted that could have prevented this. In human terms, when a child is abducted we could all say "how come her parents weren't watching " or "why didn't someone at the mall notice and do something"? But when it comes down to it, the biggest share of responsibility falls on the person that took the actions that resulted in the tragedy.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
i agree with your example, however......this was an ADULT, not a child. and obviously, the biggest issue there is more than likely dementia/mental illness. b/c in any other scenario that this were to occur, an adult, even at 93 would CALL SOMEONE...the utility company, a friend or family member....someone, and it never would've escalated to this scenario. obviously this man should not have been living on his own, and that makes me think, who's responsibility is that? so while i do hold the utility responsible, i see a lot more than that. obviously, we see it just a wee bit differently.
and chromiam, you are right. i think my post above quoted that point too...or else i just remember it from recently rereading.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i don't think it's just modern society to blame, i think it's society, in general. has it gotten worse in modern times..perhaps...but i think it's always existed to some extent.
as far as your scenario, they didn't cut his heat, they cut his electricity...and they didn't cut it either...they put a resticter on it that he could've reset himself to turn back on! seriously...read and argue the actual points in the article. :P beyond that, i honestly don't know. the man HAD the $$$, but refused to pay. and if he didn't have the $$$, if he tried to negotiate, i am sure something could've been worked out. i think, again due to demntia, he was more than likely non-communicative with the utility outside of refusing to pay. even landlords, eventually, can evist due to lack of rent payments, etc. as i said, i am not defenind the big bad corporations...but even mom and pop situations have to make their $$$ too, be paid for services, etc....for them to remian in business. would this one man's lack of payment break them? probably not. however, if they actually ent to the point of developing and installing restricters on meters, lack of payment IS an issue, and one they have to take seriously to remian in business. honestly, i am just seeing it - realisitically - from both sides.
btw - you never did answer my Q.....where is the line of doing 'everything absolutely possible' to be for a business? this isn't family or friends...but a business. an important one, yes...but when one refuses to pay, just how much is a company to get involved in their client's lives? as i said, we all agree...it's a tragedy. but let's face it, if dementia or something wasn't in the mix, this never would've happened. people reach out for help. this man didn't.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
It is really sad and i feel even worse for the soul less bastards who saw this man as a number.. and not a human being.
I did answer the Q, my answer was that the line is that the company doesnt' shut off power in mid-winter, period. Under any circumstances. They can get recourse through the courts if it comes to that. As for the distinction between electric and gas, it's immaterial to me. Electric driven heat isn't exactly uncommon. This is a foreseeable and preventable event.
and they DIDN'T. a restricter is not shutting off power. it's like a fuse that blows. you go and turn it back on. done. power is back. all this man needed to do was actually open his front door once in awhile and actually SEE the notice. or, again, if he noticed the power went out...CALL the power company and see wtf is up. if this mans fuse blew, and he didn't go to the circuit breaker to turn it back on, ended up without power b/c of it, called no one, etc....we'd all simply say, what a tragedy, that poor man, obviously had some sort of mental issues, no one to check up on him, etc, etc.
so i still don't fault the big, bad utility 100%. imo this man had to be in pretty sad mental shape to not even pick up the phone and call SOMEONE, and instead just lie down to die. there is NO record of him reaching out to ANYone. i seriously cannot even fathom that.
obviously we see it from different sides. and i DO see your point, and i agree to some extent...just not fully.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Nobody ever bothered to make sure he knew what was going on with that shut off switch. It's a bullshit argument for you to act like they didn't cut power because they installed a switch that cut power for them. The result is the same... they set it up for his power to go out without ever finding out what was going on with him. That's not ok. If they wanted their money or whatever, they should have gone to the courts, not walked to his building, put in a switch that they knew could result in power loss, taped a note to his door, and split without ever making sure he knew what was going on. It wasn't worth hurting their profit margin to make sure they had all the facts before they jeopardized somebody's physical well being in the middle of winter. That's my point. Yes, it's sad that he had no one to contact and that nobody noticed how far gone he was. But none of those people are responsible for cutting the power that ended in his death. The electric company is. That's a big difference to me.
You discounted my earlier child example by virtue of the fact that that's a child and he's an adult and can care for himself, then argue here that he's demented. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to point fingers at his neighbors and family for not monitoring him close enough to notice his dementia, you can just as easily point fingers at mall shoppers and parents who weren't monitoring well enough to prevent an abduction. They all deserve to be criticized, but the one that bears the final guilt is the one that takes the actions that result in the harm.
i'm not trying to have it both ways. i am simply saying he was an adult, and obviously couldn't care for himself, and thus should not have been alone - but i do not expect a utility company to know this. ANYone else would've called SOMEONE for HELP! period. ANYone else would've PAID thier bills if they had $600,000+ in savings. so yes, he could not care for himself properly. i truly wonder if the man didn't leave his house, how did he truly care for himself at all? but that's another topic.
and the BIG difference in your scenario is an abducter willing and consciously chooses to do harm. sorry, i do not think ANy utility company wants to kill anyone. they simply want to get paid for the service they provide. they gave opportunity to do so, they put the restricter, et, etc. obviously this man's home is NOT the first to get this restricter device, in fact, after this occured they had to take them off ALL the houses they were put on. no one else had died. and no, i am not saying it's ok this man died....i am simply saying there are MANy factors in play here. i've already said, numerous times, they bear responsibility, but i personally do not seeing them as soley bearing the responsibility. that's my perspective. i think there is a 'bigger picture' to all this.....and it is in regards to elder care, monitoring seniors, etc. idk how it would work, if people would agree to it, etc...but in our increasingly fragmented society, and 'families' growing ever smaller, disconnected, non-existent, so the usual social systems we had in place are disappearing or gone.....this will not be an isolated incident.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
The fact that they intended to get paid and not to kill someone does not absolve them of taking actions that had fatal consequences that were reasonably foreseeable. Drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, but they still are guilty when they do because they engaged in actions based on selfish interests that hurt others. Same deal here.
The fact that they have since removed all of these devices is a pretty clear indication to me that they know what they were doing was wrong and they don't want to risk it happening again.
again, it is still knowingly be at all aware that harm may be caused. a drunk driver KNOWS he/she is working from a point of impaired judgement and should not drive. i am willing to beliee it's quite possible the utility did not forsee such harm, nor meant any harm, etc.
firstly, they were told to remove them...secondly, even if they weren't and did so of their own accord, does NOT mean they thought they were 'wrong' to utilize them, at most, to me means they realize they did NOT forsee ALL possible consequences of these devices, nd now realize, it can do harm. sorry if i don't automoatically think the worst of everyone....and that i don't see this issue 100% clearly, black/white, right/wrong.....but that there are other facets involved. i am not asking for agreement, just expressing my personal perspective. you clearly disagree, i get it....you think i'm 'wrong' in my thinking and clearly i don't. i see shades of grey in this scenario and i acknowledge it. that's all. i see it from a different pov than you. if criminal charges are brought up against the utility and they are found guilty, so be it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow