• 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

Del Zeppnile said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, you cant support your claim about her going over there to help with a 'dangerous animal.' Got it.

La la land? Only what's been shown to the public as cute and cuddly on TV for 50+ years. Elephants arent shown that way. Nice try at diversion tho.
 
For the record, you have to be an idiot to get anywhere near an adult chimp of either sex.

Notice on TV...you will NEVER see anyone acting with an adult chimp. Adult chimps have black faces. Juveniles have pink and then pink mottled faces as they age. No one handles adult chimps. No one with a brain. As with ANY sexually mature wild animal, or even stallions and bulls, they are unpredictable and dangerous. People keeping such animals are living on borrowed time....they always end up caging the animals.

As an ex-park ranger I have alot of experience with wild animals, including dealing with exotic escapes and those intentionally released when they got too dangerous or too big. And I lived with a zookeeper for 13 yrs.

But even I see how ignorant most Americans are about this stuff...I did environmental education for years.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...


Aren't snakes and spiders and well anything the state has already identified as threats, still threats, regardless of what action the state has taken to remove the threat? Was owning the chimp illegal? Answer.. No it wasn't and since danger is a subjective characterization, assessed by persons not necessarily qualified to make such assessments, the state is not liable nor should it be. Buyer beware, or put more simply... Watch where you walk idiot.


Tim-
 
Lursa said:
So, you cant support your claim about her going over there to help with a 'dangerous animal.' Got it.
Click to expand...

A 200lb male chimpanzee IS a dangerous animal. Just as the state official warned, right?

So which is it? The animal was dangerous, or it was not? Are you going to now say that the state owes the public an obligation to police common sense?

Lursa said:
La la land? Only what's been shown to the public as cute and cuddly on TV for 50+ years.
Click to expand...

There was also a TV show about a Genie that lived in a bottle, you believe that too? Chimps on TV shows may be anything but cute and cuddly, TV shows are not real. You are aware of that aren't you?


Lursa said:
Elephants arent shown that way. Nice try at diversion tho.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how a thing is "shown" what matter is how it is. If your rebuttal is that the victim did not believe that an angry 200lb male chimpanzee was dangerous because of what she saw on a TV show, then my advice to someone that stupid would be to stay in the house. Heck, someone that dumb should be afraid of flying monkeys..... since everything on TV is real, right?
 
Anyone else think this was going to be another Bush thread from the title. :mrgreen:
 
Lursa said:
For the record, you have to be an idiot to get anywhere near an adult chimp of either sex
Click to expand...

So you think the state owes this idiot 150 million for her being an idiot?
 
TurtleDude said:
another reason for prudent citizens to carry firearms.

When you don't carry firearms you can be attacked by a chimp

when you are attacked by a chimp, it rips your face off

when you get your face ripped off-you suffer horrible pain and disfigurement

when you suffer disfigurement, people treat you like a freak

always carry a firearm and don't be treated like a freak!
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable.
 
Hicup said:
Aren't snakes and spiders and well anything the state has already identified as threats, still threats, regardless of what action the state has taken to remove the threat? Was owning the chimp illegal? Answer.. No it wasn't and since danger is a subjective characterization, assessed by persons not necessarily qualified to make such assessments, the state is not liable nor should it be. Buyer beware, or put more simply... Watch where you walk idiot.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Yes, it was illegal. there was no mention that it was grandfathered in after the law changed and the state had already identified it as not only illegal, but dangerous.


And it's illegal to keep wildlife inside your home, so a snake is illegal whether native or exotic. As for spiders, the state has not identified them as their responsibility nor created any laws regarding them has it? If so, it would need to be accountable if negligent.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
A 200lb male chimpanzee IS a dangerous animal. Just as the state official warned, right?

So which is it? The animal was dangerous, or it was not? Are you going to now say that the state owes the public an obligation to police common sense?


There was also a TV show about a Genie that lived in a bottle, you believe that too? Chimps on TV shows may be anything but cute and cuddly, TV shows are not real. You are aware of that aren't you?


It doesn't matter how a thing is "shown" what matter is how it is. If your rebuttal is that the victim did not believe that an angry 200lb male chimpanzee was dangerous because of what she saw on a TV show, then my advice to someone that stupid would be to stay in the house. Heck, someone that dumb should be afraid of flying monkeys..... since everything on TV is real, right?
Click to expand...

We've covered all this...you can bob and weave all you want....she didnt realize the animal was dangerous. Most Americans dont realize it probably.

Now....how about a source for your comment? No? lololol
 
Del Zeppnile said:
So you think the state owes this idiot 150 million for her being an idiot?
Click to expand...

I never wrote that. I wrote that the state should be held accountable and that from what I read, it was negligent. It should be punished just like the home owner. It might save other people.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Animals are considered property and the chimp owner never asked the state for help, hence the state was powerless to do anything. The chimp got loose a couple of times but it never went violent before. If the owner had begged them to take the animal away then yes, the state was negligent but she never requested it.
 
PoS said:
Animals are considered property and the chimp owner never asked the state for help, hence the state was powerless to do anything. The chimp got loose a couple of times but it never went violent before. If the owner had begged them to take the animal away then yes, the state was negligent but she never requested it.
Click to expand...

LOL

You have no idea how that law works. Many states declare restrictions on or complete bans on exotic animals. I posted 3 quotes from the state that showed they had identified the animal as dangerous...and needed to remove it...and didnt. (Whether the owner liked it or not) The state, under THEIR LAWS, had an obligation to public safety and even said so in the article and in the quotes I posted.

Try to keep up.
 
Lursa said:
We've covered all this...you can bob and weave all you want....she didnt realize the animal was dangerous. Most Americans dont realize it probably.
Click to expand...

The victim not realizing that a 200lb male chimpanzee was dangerous is HER PROBLEM, it goes beyond any test for reasonableness. We cannot protect people who are that stupid. Many people don't realize that the ocean is dangerous; hundreds of people drown every year in the ocean surf because they don't realize that NATURE can kill them.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
The victim not realizing that a 200lb male chimpanzee was dangerous is HER PROBLEM, it goes beyond any test for reasonableness. We cannot protect people who are that stupid. Many people don't realize that the ocean is dangerous; hundreds of people drown every year in the ocean surf because they don't realize that NATURE can kill them.
Click to expand...

It was a pet in the home. A home she was invited into. A home where the state knew a dangerous animal resided, even if the victim didnt.

Where is the quote implying she was aware of any danger that you claimed you had?
 
Del Zeppnile said:
The victim not realizing that a 200lb male chimpanzee was dangerous is HER PROBLEM, it goes beyond any test for reasonableness. We cannot protect people who are that stupid. Many people don't realize that the ocean is dangerous; hundreds of people drown every year in the ocean surf because they don't realize that NATURE can kill them.
Click to expand...

btw, if the chimp had escaped *again* (since it already had once and the state knew about it) and done this to someone...would the state be responsible for that?
 
Lursa said:
It was a pet in the home. A home she was invited into. A home where the state knew a dangerous animal resided, even if the victim didnt.

Where is the quote implying she was aware of any danger that you claimed you had?
Click to expand...

It is not my job to explain everything to you, take the time to look up the details of what occured when the woman was injured. She was a friend of the chimp's owner who had been to the house before. The animal's owner called the victim on the phone to come over and help her with the angry chimpanzee. The victim was not a person who just went to the house not knowing there was an adult male chimpanzee there. This is not a case of the victim being surprised to find out that animal was there, she knew it was there.

You are trying to prove that the victim was not aware that adult chimpanzees were dangerous---- that is her problem. It's like someone pointing a gun at their own head and claiming they did not know that was dangerous.
 
Lursa said:
btw, if the chimp had escaped *again* (since it already had once and the state knew about it) and done this to someone...would the state be responsible for that?
Click to expand...

The state allows people who had prior DUI convictions to get their drivers license restated, show me where the state is held liable for future bad acts by individuals?
 
Del Zeppnile said:
It is not my job to explain everything to you, take the time to look up the details of what occured when the woman was injured. She was a friend of the chimp's owner who had been to the house before. The animal's owner called the victim on the phone to come over and help her with the angry chimpanzee. The victim was not a person who just went to the house not knowing there was an adult male chimpanzee there. This is not a case of the victim being surprised to find out that animal was there, she knew it was there.

You are trying to prove that the victim was not aware that adult chimpanzees were dangerous---- that is her problem. It's like someone pointing a gun at their own head and claiming they did not know that was dangerous.
Click to expand...


LOLOLOL Oh, ok. So I'll take your word for it. Right.

It would have supported your claim the victim knew the pet was dangerous. (Not proven, but supported). Oh well.

And as I pointed out, most people are not aware that TAME adult chimps (such as a pet in the home) are dangerous.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
The state allows people who had prior DUI convictions to get their drivers license restated, show me where the state is held liable for future bad acts by individuals?
Click to expand...

The state is not to be held liable for negligence in enforcing its own laws. Interesting.

And yes, sometimes the 'state' can be held liable for people with prior DUI convictions who get their license's reinstated who do harm again.

Here is an example of a suit recently filed:
Family files $45M claim against Seattle in fatal Wedgwood crash | Local News | The Seattle Times

The city will settle I'm sure but they will have to accept liability. Over the course of the year and investigation, they admitted they were negligent in following up with the driver. All the new policies they are attempting to institute are also evidence that they recognize their error...and hoped to prevent a lawsuit (unsuccessfully, obviously).


Case in point: Multiple DUI driver recently received reinstated license. Driver then wiped out family of 4....killed both grandparents and nearly killed mother and 10 day old baby.
 
Lursa said:
btw, if the chimp had escaped *again* (since it already had once and the state knew about it) and done this to someone...would the state be responsible for that?
Click to expand...

Del Zeppnile said:
The state allows people who had prior DUI convictions to get their drivers license restated, show me where the state is held liable for future bad acts by individuals?
Click to expand...


LOL, that's like saying that if the state knew about the whereabouts of an escaped convict and did nothing to take it in, they wouldnt be liable for any harm the escapee did while free.

Oh...you probably think that's ok too, right? Just let the dangerous criminal remain shacked up with his girfriend, knowing he's there, not worry about it. And when he rapes a friend visiting, the state's not responsible for that either?
 
It's kind of weird to see right wingers arguing that government shouldn't be held liable for its incompetence...
 
Lursa said:
LOL

You have no idea how that law works. Many states declare restrictions on or complete bans on exotic animals. I posted 3 quotes from the state that showed they had identified the animal as dangerous...and needed to remove it...and didnt. (Whether the owner liked it or not) The state, under THEIR LAWS, had an obligation to public safety and even said so in the article and in the quotes I posted.

Try to keep up.
Click to expand...
And Ive already quoted a source that the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement does not have an obligation to protect you in a previous reply.

Looks like youre the one who needs to keep up.
 
PoS said:
And Ive already quoted a source that the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement does not have an obligation to protect you in a previous reply.

Looks like youre the one who needs to keep up.
Click to expand...

That's cops.

This is a law that denies ownership of dangerous animals and the state IS responsible for enforcing that law. The state specifically created the law to protect the public. Duh....

And in this case, the state identified the animal as dangerous. And had the legal duty to remove the animal to protect the public. And was negligent in doing so.
 
Lursa said:
That's cops.

This is a law that denies ownership of dangerous animals and the state IS responsible for enforcing that law. The state specifically created the law to protect the public. Duh....

And in this case, the state identified the animal as dangerous. And had the legal duty to remove the animal to protect the public. And was negligent in doing so.
Click to expand...
There must be probable cause to remove the animal, the cops and animal control didnt see it that way since the chimp wasnt a danger before so no the state isnt responsible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom