• 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

US Conservative said:
I dont think we can assign human emotions to animals (though at times it certainly seems that way), but chimps are known to murder, rape, and even take hallucinogenic mushrooms in the wild. And with no clear reason for any of them.
Click to expand...


I'm not a big animal pet fan, the animals I like best are the kinds I put on my dinner plate. If dogs tasted as good as chicken then I'm sure Col. Sanders would have had a recipe for them too.

But I agree with you, animals do not have human emotions. My point was that in captivity they are not as predictable as people think they are. In the wild chimps stay away from humans.
 
I've been doing a massive analysis of stormfront In my spare time lately and let me tell you, the OPs title would take on a whole different meaning on that forum... Almost forgot which site I was on for a second.
 
Morality Games said:
The animal was illegally owned and the state knew about it. She's a citizen and a taxpayer like anyone else. Even if she used bad judgment, she has a right to be protected from the things that her elected representatives determined themselves to be dangerous to her but did nothing about.
Click to expand...
According to the Supreme Court, even cops do not have a constitutional duty to protect you: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

If you purposely wander into a dangerous situation then Im sorry but you will get no sympathy from me.
 
US Conservative said:
Yours. The one where you dont understand that wild animals are dangerous, even if you put them in a cage or your house and call them a pet.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

The state recognized that 'pet' as a danger...and did nothing. So that is their problem...and they are being sued.

Owner, didnt recognize the pet as a danger...and allowed a friend to believe it was safe...and also faced consequences.

Visitor who doesnt know anything about chimps except what she's seen on TV...cute, just like little humans, they wear clothes, they try to communicate....and her FRIEND allows this pet to be unrestrained in her home. Just like a dog or cat. ....Yeah, it was her problem too, but not her fault. And that is why she will still suffer the consequences but ALSO, end up with a ****load of $$ from the state (and the owner).
 
Lursa said:
Visitor who doesnt know anything about chimps except what she's seen on TV...cute, just like little humans, they wear clothes, they try to communicate....and her FRIEND allows this pet to be unrestrained in her home. Just like a dog or cat. ....Yeah, it was her problem too, but not her fault. And that is why she will still suffer the consequences but ALSO, end up with a ****load of $$ from the state (and the owner).
Click to expand...

Baloney! The victim's lawyers are going after the state because they think there are deep pockets to pick. Besides, the victim knew the chimp was a problem before she went over there. The victim went to the house to help the owner with the chimp because it was acting up. The victim had been there before, so she knew full well that the animal was there. It's no different than going over there to help with a pet Bengal tiger that got out if it's cage, or a Pitbull. She has no excuse for her voluntary actions to place herself in danger.
 
Lursa said:
Um, no.

The state recognized that 'pet' as a danger...and did nothing. So that is their problem...and they are being sued.

Owner, didnt recognize the pet as a danger...and allowed a friend to believe it was safe...and also faced consequences.

Visitor who doesnt know anything about chimps except what she's seen on TV...cute, just like little humans, they wear clothes, they try to communicate....and her FRIEND allows this pet to be unrestrained in her home. Just like a dog or cat. ....Yeah, it was her problem too, but not her fault. And that is why she will still suffer the consequences but ALSO, end up with a ****load of $$ from the state (and the owner).
Click to expand...

I doubt a huge settlement, but we will see.
 
US Conservative said:
I doubt a huge settlement, but we will see.
Click to expand...

Well I wont dispute that. Esp. since if the state is smart, they will settle rather than go to court.

No amount of money will help that victim.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Baloney! The victim's lawyers are going after the state because they think there are deep pockets to pick. Besides, the victim knew the chimp was a problem before she went over there. The victim went to the house to help the owner with the chimp because it was acting up. The victim had been there before, so she knew full well that the animal was there. It's no different than going over there to help with a pet Bengal tiger that got out if it's cage, or a Pitbull. She has no excuse for her voluntary actions to place herself in danger.
Click to expand...

Never said she didnt know it was there...dont start making stuff up....as well as going to 'help?' Is that another invention?


Here's a good one:

She knew the danger was there....she went anyway, it's her fault.

The state knew the danger was there....didnt remove it (as was the law).....it's their fault.
 
Lursa said:
The state knew the danger was there....didnt remove it (as was the law).....it's their fault.
Click to expand...

You have to prove it in court, which will never happen. Good luck finding a "nanny state" big enough to make everyday rainbows and kisses.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
You have to prove it in court, which will never happen. Good luck finding a "nanny state" big enough to make everyday rainbows and kisses.
Click to expand...

The state has admitted it. LOLOLOL
 
Del Zeppnile said:
The state has not admitted liability, you are either confused or you are making that up.
Click to expand...

True, they didnt admit to legal liability...they admitted they have a law against keeping chimps, that they knew of that chimp and that they considered it dangerous, and that they did not remove it.

Those are the details of the case so far. A court will have to determine liability. Looks pretty bad for the state. Pretty sure they will settle.
 
Lursa said:
True, they didnt admit to legal liability...they admitted they have a law against keeping chimps, that they knew of that chimp and that they considered it dangerous, and that they did not remove it.

Those are the details of the case so far. A court will have to determine liability. Looks pretty bad for the state. Pretty sure they will settle.
Click to expand...

Details of the case:

Victim decides to put herself in harms way, knowing full well and in advance that a dangerous animal is already upset and going berserk. A prudent person would have called animal control or the police.

I
 
Lursa said:
Those are the details of the case so far. A court will have to determine liability. Looks pretty bad for the state. Pretty sure they will settle.
Click to expand...
I hope they dont, the victim was already paid from the chimp owner's estate (who was the true villain in this) and any money from the state will be paid for by taxpayers. I think the state has a strong case in this if they decide to fight it in court, which I hope they do.
 
Lursa said:
True, they didnt admit to legal liability...they admitted they have a law against keeping chimps, that they knew of that chimp and that they considered it dangerous, and that they did not remove it.

Those are the details of the case so far. A court will have to determine liability. Looks pretty bad for the state. Pretty sure they will settle.
Click to expand...

The monkey was purchased before the law which made it illegal to own.
 
Blue_State said:
The monkey was purchased before the law which made it illegal to own.
Click to expand...

The state still had the right to remove it. And they had declared it dangerous and told the woman to get rid of it. When she did not, it was their responsibility to remove it.
 
PoS said:
I hope they dont, the victim was already paid from the chimp owner's estate (who was the true villain in this) and any money from the state will be paid for by taxpayers. I think the state has a strong case in this if they decide to fight it in court, which I hope they do.
Click to expand...

I agree, it sucks and isnt fair to the taxpayers. But it should be punitive for the state to prevent such things from happening again.

As I've written, no amount of money is going to help the victim.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Details of the case:

Victim decides to put herself in harms way, knowing full well and in advance that a dangerous animal is already upset and going berserk. A prudent person would have called animal control or the police.

I
Click to expand...

From the article and state reports:

"The issue of the private ownership of Travis the chimpanzee continues to be a concern as to public safety," Hinsch wrote in the memo.

"The animal has reached adult maturity, is very large and tremendously strong. I am concerned that if he feels threatened or if someone enters his territory, he could seriously hurt someone."

"As you are aware, this is the same chimpanzee that escaped from the owner's car and led local police on a wild chase for hours in downtown Stamford until the animal could be secured back in the car."


Nowhere in the article did it state that the victim was aware of any danger from the chimp.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is not the issue. the issue is whether she has a right of action against the state. I say not
Click to expand...

What kind of chimp rips your face and hand off? :shock: Too bad it happened in the wrong state.
 
Lursa said:
I agree, it sucks and isnt fair to the taxpayers. But it should be punitive for the state to prevent such things from happening again.
Click to expand...
Asking the state to prevent freak occurrences like this is an impossibility, come on. The victim could have prevented this herself if she didnt come to her friends' house to face a wild animal on drugs.
 
Lursa said:
From the article and state reports:


Nowhere in the article did it state that the victim was aware of any danger from the chimp.
Click to expand...

The owner called her friend to come over to help with the chimp because it was agitated. That would indicate danger to a reasonable person. Neither the owner or the victim were reasonable in their actions and they paid a price for that. It was their choice.
 
PoS said:
Asking the state to prevent freak occurrences like this is an impossibility, come on. The victim could have prevented this herself if she didnt come to her friends' house to face a wild animal on drugs.
Click to expand...

It wasnt a freak occurrance...the state had already identified it as a threat. It has already escaped once. I posted 3 different quotes that showed they knew it was dangerous.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
The owner called her friend to come over to help with the chimp because it was agitated. That would indicate danger to a reasonable person. Neither the owner or the victim were reasonable in their actions and they paid a price for that. It was their choice.
Click to expand...

WHere did it say that? And why is the assumption that she knew it was dangerous? People dont see fangs or claws when they look at a chimp...it could have been just a matter of needing 2 people to round it up and put it back in a cage.
 
Lursa said:
WHere did it say that? And why is the assumption that she knew it was dangerous? People dont see fangs or claws when they look at a chimp...it could have been just a matter of needing 2 people to round it up and put it back in a cage.
Click to expand...

Do you need to see "fangs and claws" on an elephant to know that it is a very dangerous animal?

This is what is so funny about liberals, they live and think in la-la-land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom