• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Connecticut chimp attack victim seeks right to sue state

Already answered, the new law would be retroactive. Retroactive laws would require additional consideration by the state in order to avoid civil liability. Where I used to live I had a wood shingle roof. Over several decades the local government decided that wood shingle roofs in my area were too much of a fire hazard and they made them illegal. Which meant that they could not be put on new houses or new additions and any re-roof would have to be made out of fire-proof materials. However the local government could not force me to change my existing roof before it was time for me to re-roof. To do so would have caused me undue financial injury. So for the time being, my roof was "grandfathered in" even though it was no longer considered a safe roof. Which means I assumed the risk, same with the owner of the chimp.



Most of the time the government does selective enforcement. Not really with murder, but certainly with lesser crimes or infractions. A good example would be someone exceeding the speed limit while driving. Certainly there is a vehicle code violation for speeding, and certainly many people are stopped and ticketed for this dangerous driving. But is it your contention that the police have to stop every speeder and give them a citation? Does the state even have the resources do that? And when a cop sees a guy speeding but may have other pending calls to attend to; if the cop doesn't stop the speeder and the speeder injures someone, do you believe that liability is now transferred to the state?

It just doesn't work that way.

Absolutely spot on. Liberals+Ex post facto law=tyranny. And these thinkers are tripping over themselves to get us there.
 
Hatuey;1063090964 said:
Sure, and if there was a history in that state of ignoring such threats due to roofs grandfathered in on nothing but good faith - I'd support people suing the government for not enforcing the law and you for not complying with it. :shrug:

You completely avoided my post or didn't understand it. When something is "grandfathered in" that means the person still has a preexisting right to it even if they could never have a new right to it later. If you own a 1928 Ford is doesn't have seatbelts, and you are not required to put them in. If you buy a 2014 Ford it must have seatbelts and you can't remove them even if you wanted to, and you are required to wear them. That's how it works.

The woman owned the chimp BEFORE there was a law against owning chimps.


Hatuey;1063090964 said:
This isn't the first time you try dishonest example mixed with murky information. Police officers encounter speeders by random chance, they are not capable of determining where a speeding violation will be carried out. This however was a case where police officers, wildlife officers, state departments and even governments knew where the violation was occurring and refused to act. It'd be like them knowing where an active rapist lives, takes his victims to and then refusing to act on this information and ignoring plights from the public.

What on earth are you talking about? It doesn't matter how police encounter speeders, are you suggesting that all speeders must be arrested every time they are discovered? My point was that the police use discretion in enforcing laws, they don't have the resources to enforce every law. And besides, you rapist analogy is silly. The chimpanzee was not an "active killing chimp" until it was an active killing chimp.
 
Absolutely spot on. Liberals+Ex post facto law=tyranny. And these thinkers are tripping over themselves to get us there.

It's how they justify everything in the super nanny state. Not from reason, not from consent of the governed, but by tyranny.
 
Hatuey - you have made it abundantly clear that humans - in general - have absolutely no responsibility for their actions and that there is always some outside force that dictates your misfortunes and that others should be forced to compensate financially while you lead an insane life -- you're a progressive golden child! the progressive evils did a perfect mold with you.
 
"(03-21) 12:01 PDT OAKLAND -- Oakland has agreed to pay $3.25 million to a woman who was severely injured after she hit a pothole and crashed on her bike.

Dulcey Bower, 35, of Oakland was wearing a helmet while riding her bike on Aug. 7, 2011 when she slammed into a pothole on Mountain Boulevard between the on-ramp to Highway 13 and Ascot Drive........Bower's attorney Carter Zinn said, "We know that allocating such funds in a city with many worthy budgetary priorities is challenging. However, we feel the settlement was fair given her injuries, the dangerous state of the road at the time of the accident and the fact that dozens of citizens had complained about how dangerous the condition was for years before this accident occurred.""

Oakland to pay $3.25 million over bike crash - SFGate

Assuming the chimp case plaintiff's claims are true, they have a better case against the state than this bicyclist did. In the pothole case the city could reasonably claim that they did not have the resources to fix every pothole and that bicyclists know to watch for potholes. In the chimp case I doubt they can make such a claim without a very good reason for not enforcing a violation of the law that they knew about.
 
"(03-21) 12:01 PDT OAKLAND -- Oakland has agreed to pay $3.25 million to a woman who was severely injured after she hit a pothole and crashed on her bike.

Dulcey Bower, 35, of Oakland was wearing a helmet while riding her bike on Aug. 7, 2011 when she slammed into a pothole on Mountain Boulevard between the on-ramp to Highway 13 and Ascot Drive........Bower's attorney Carter Zinn said, "We know that allocating such funds in a city with many worthy budgetary priorities is challenging. However, we feel the settlement was fair given her injuries, the dangerous state of the road at the time of the accident and the fact that dozens of citizens had complained about how dangerous the condition was for years before this accident occurred.""

Oakland to pay $3.25 million over bike crash - SFGate

Assuming the chimp case plaintiff's claims are true, they have a better case against the state than this bicyclist did. In the pothole case the city could reasonably claim that they did not have the resources to fix every pothole and that bicyclists know to watch for potholes. In the chimp case I doubt they can make such a claim without a very good reason for not enforcing a violation of the law that they knew about.

The city put the pothole in - they never gave anyone a chimp.

IMO, that pothole case was frivolous anyways....
 
The city put the pothole in - they never gave anyone a chimp.

IMO, that pothole case was frivolous anyways....

I always thought potholes just happen, I didn't know cities install them. Why do they do that?

Your opinion of the pothole case doesn't reflect what the City Attorneys and City Council thought when they decided to do a settlement rather than go to trial.
 
ignored or wasn't timely?

The 3 quotes I posted showed over a period of time. There were multiple incidents with the animal...one in which it escaped, police captured it...*and returned it to the home.*
 
Well lets just have home inspections to make sure we don't have anything the government doesn't allow us adults, er I mean kids to have.

We need to be safe right?

The govt knew of the animal...where it lived and had a record of dangerous incidents. No home inspection needed.
 
Really there is nothing authoritarian about regulating?

Your twisted logic is so entertaining.

The chimp escaped once...how about if it escaped again and ripped your kid's arms off? Is regulating dangerous animals ok?

Kind of like regulating traffic...it's for public safety.
 
Already answered, the new law would be retroactive. Retroactive laws would require additional consideration by the state in order to avoid civil liability. Where I used to live I had a wood shingle roof. Over several decades the local government decided that wood shingle roofs in my area were too much of a fire hazard and they made them illegal. Which meant that they could not be put on new houses or new additions and any re-roof would have to be made out of fire-proof materials. However the local government could not force me to change my existing roof before it was time for me to re-roof. To do so would have caused me undue financial injury. So for the time being, my roof was "grandfathered in" even though it was no longer considered a safe roof. Which means I assumed the risk, same with the owner of the chimp.



Most of the time the government does selective enforcement. Not really with murder, but certainly with lesser crimes or infractions. A good example would be someone exceeding the speed limit while driving. Certainly there is a vehicle code violation for speeding, and certainly many people are stopped and ticketed for this dangerous driving. But is it your contention that the police have to stop every speeder and give them a citation? Does the state even have the resources do that? And when a cop sees a guy speeding but may have other pending calls to attend to; if the cop doesn't stop the speeder and the speeder injures someone, do you believe that liability is now transferred to the state?

It just doesn't work that way.

The animal was not covered under any 'grandfather clause.' The state left a known dangerous animal in an insecure residence.

And your examples dont cover this, there are many times when a govt can force you to upgrade or make changes according to new laws. Like forcing people to put in more effiicient woodstoves or pay for sewer lines when they already have septic systems.
 
Back
Top Bottom