• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://news.yahoo.com/chimp-attack-...makers-permission-sue-142602180--finance.html

A woman whose face and hands were ripped off by a friend's pet chimpanzee in 2009 came to the Connecticut State Capitol on Friday to ask permission to sue the state for $150 million in damages.

Charla Nash, who has undergone a face transplant and many other surgeries, including a failed double-hand transplant, spoke to the Connecticut General Assembly's Judiciary Committee, her head wrapped with protective white gauze.


"My name is Charla Nash and I'm hoping you can make a decision based on the fact that the state knew what was happening and failed to protect me," said Nash, 60.

On one hand, the state knew there was a dangerous animal in this man's house and did nothing about it. On the other, she knew perfectly well this man kept a dangerous animal and should have stopped visiting. Some expect governments to deal with threats to communities (like this animal) and there are those who argue on behalf of personal responsibility. This case blurs the line between those opinion.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/chimp-attack-...makers-permission-sue-142602180--finance.html



On one hand, the state knew there was a dangerous animal in this man's house and did nothing about it. On the other, she knew perfectly well this man kept a dangerous animal and should have stopped visiting. Some expect governments to deal with threats to communities (like this animal) and there are those who argue on behalf of personal responsibility. This case blurs the line between those opinion.

No, the government is not liable. The person who had the chimp is.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/chimp-attack-...makers-permission-sue-142602180--finance.html



On one hand, the state knew there was a dangerous animal in this man's house and did nothing about it. On the other, she knew perfectly well this man kept a dangerous animal and should have stopped visiting. Some expect governments to deal with threats to communities (like this animal) and there are those who argue on behalf of personal responsibility. This case blurs the line between those opinion.
No blurring. Your safety in the end is your responsibility.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/chimp-attack-...makers-permission-sue-142602180--finance.html



On one hand, the state knew there was a dangerous animal in this man's house and did nothing about it. On the other, she knew perfectly well this man kept a dangerous animal and should have stopped visiting. Some expect governments to deal with threats to communities (like this animal) and there are those who argue on behalf of personal responsibility. This case blurs the line between those opinion.

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.

$150,000,000 though . . . I'd like to meet the guy who thinks up these numbers.
 
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.

$150,000,000 though . . . I'd like to meet the guy who thinks up these numbers.

Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.
 
Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.

I respond to the societal structures and power relationships that exist, not the ones that I think I should have.

The woman buys into public services. The state tasked an agency with removing animals deemed dangerous, an agency people made their living on and presumedly retire off of. This organization helped other taxpayers, but due to whatever bureaucratic red tape, not this woman.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/chimp-attack-...makers-permission-sue-142602180--finance.html



On one hand, the state knew there was a dangerous animal in this man's house and did nothing about it. On the other, she knew perfectly well this man kept a dangerous animal and should have stopped visiting. Some expect governments to deal with threats to communities (like this animal) and there are those who argue on behalf of personal responsibility. This case blurs the line between those opinion.

She may have a case, even if I agree that the government can't possibly ensure everyone's personal safety, in this case it seems as though "DEEP" already deemed the animal dangerous, and should have taken steps to remove it.

"Her legal team has said that before the attack, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environment Protection (DEEP) had described the illegally owned, 200-pound (90 kilogram) chimp as a serious threat to public safety."
 
I respond to the societal structures and power relationships that exist, not the ones that I think I should have.

The woman buys into public services. The state tasked an agency with removing animals deemed dangerous, an agency people made their living on and presumedly retire off of. This organization helped other taxpayers, but due to whatever bureaucratic red tape, not this woman.

Real life exists, the monkey exists, and that womans hands and face really existed. What did not exist-was any protection by the state. This is fact, not how you believe things should be.

And now that the woman has likely millions in bills-its time to go after the deep pockets-thats all this is. The courts have already ruled that the state has NO requirement to protect any individual. Again, this is fact, not your dream of how things work.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/chimp-attack-...makers-permission-sue-142602180--finance.html



On one hand, the state knew there was a dangerous animal in this man's house and did nothing about it. On the other, she knew perfectly well this man kept a dangerous animal and should have stopped visiting. Some expect governments to deal with threats to communities (like this animal) and there are those who argue on behalf of personal responsibility. This case blurs the line between those opinion.

That was such a horrendous event that, you're right, it causes one to want to blur the line. I think I'll leave it to the judge. I'm torn.
 
If the state regulatory agency knew there was a danger and had the means to address it (ie. knew where the chimp was being kept) but chose not to do their job without a very good reason, she has a good case against the state.
 
That was such a horrendous event that, you're right, it causes one to want to blur the line. I think I'll leave it to the judge. I'm torn.

We had a similar case here in socal. A chimp mutilated a woman, and I believe she tried to sue unsuccessfully as well. I think she was giving the monkey anti-depressants to keep it from getting aggravated. We used to stop by as see the guy, she would have put him in her front yard, and it was near a hospital I was always at. Keep wild animals at your own peril.
 
Real life exists, the monkey exists, and that womans hands and face really existed. What did not exist-was any protection by the state. This is fact, not how you believe things should be.

Actually, what exists is the failure of the state to the job for which this agency was being funded.
 
The state has no responsibility to protect you. Read that again.

Actually, the state has a responsibility to protect people from dangerous animals once it creates an agency funded to do just that.
 
Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.

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!
 
Actually, the state has a responsibility to protect people from dangerous animals once it creates an agency funded to do just that.

since you cannot sue the police for the harm caused by a criminal attack why should she be able to sue the state even if controlling dangerous animals was its responsibility?
 
since you cannot sue the police for the harm caused by a criminal attack why should she be able to sue the state even if controlling dangerous animals was its responsibility?

If the state has labelled the criminal as dangerous knows that the dangerous criminal lives in X place, and refused to use its tax payer funded agencies to deal with it, then they clearly failed to do the job for which they were commissioned and should be sued. This is no different than a state refusing to deal with waste by companies until people start dying from polluted waterways.
 
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!

I like it.
 
A general responsibility-not a specific one.

This became specific when it dealt with the animal on a different incident and realized that the animal was

1. Illegally owned.
2. Posed a threat.
 
This became specific when it dealt with the animal on a different incident and realized that the animal was

1. Illegally owned.
2. Posed a threat.

Im sorry, but its just not true. The woman with no face is looking for a payout, she wont get it.
 
If the state has labelled the criminal as dangerous knows that the dangerous criminal lives in X place, and refused to use its tax payer funded agencies to deal with it, then they clearly failed to do the job for which they were commissioned and should be sued. This is no different than a state refusing to deal with waste by companies until people start dying from polluted waterways.

actually you are wrong. cop agencies can only be sued for a failure to protect when you are identified as more vulnerable


for example, you testify against "willy the pipe" before the grand jury under a subpoena and willy says publicly-that rat fink Hatuey ain't making it to trial. Then the police usually have a specific duty to protect you.
 
actually you are wrong. cop agencies can only be sued for a failure to protect when you are identified as more vulnerable

for example, you testify against "willy the pipe" before the grand jury under a subpoena and willy says publicly-that rat fink Hatuey ain't making it to trial. Then the police usually have a specific duty to protect you.

Didn't take you long to ad hom? Here Turtle, did the state have a duty to remove this animal once it realized it was a threat? Yes or no?
 
Im sorry, but its just not true. The woman with no face is looking for a payout, she wont get it.

The animal wasn't illegally owned and the DEEP didn't know about it? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom