• 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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

not a duty that creates a right of action by the faceless victim

what Ad Hom

I said you were wrong
 
Hatuey said:
The animal wasn't illegally owned and the DEEP didn't know about it? :)
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that numerous police agencies know where "crack houses" are located. There are many reasons why the police don't move on such public nuisances when the police first become aware of said entities. Now lets say crack house operators engage in a gun battle with rival crack dealers and a little girl walking to grandma's is hit in the crossfire

can she SUCCESSFULLY sue the cops

answer NO

so what is different here?
 
US Conservative said:
Stop being thick-its just not true that the agency has any specific responsibility to protect her, or anyone.
Click to expand...

right you are

former federal LEO/Attorney whose duties included defending federal LE agencies from civil suits
 
TurtleDude said:
not a duty that creates a right of action by the faceless victim
Click to expand...

You're being facetious. The state of Massachusetts has laws banning the private ownership of dangerous wild animals. The state came into contact with one and for whatever reason refused to follow its own laws. Its failure to follow the law directly contributed to the attack on the woman.
 
US Conservative said:
Stop being thick-its just not true that the agency has any specific responsibility to protect her, or anyone.
Click to expand...

Did the state have a duty to remove the animal. Yes or no?
 
Hatuey said:
You're being facetious. The state of Massachusetts has laws banning the private ownership of dangerous wild animals. The state came into contact with one and for whatever reason refused to follow its own laws. Its failure to follow the law directly contributed to the attack on the woman.
Click to expand...

well we will see who understands this topic better based on the outcome of the suit

and what law did the state fail to follow? or did it merely take its time?



I guess you backed off the silly claim of an ad hom attack


but being very well versed in the concept of sovereign immunity etc I suspect I am right
 
Hatuey said:
Did the state have a duty to remove the animal. Yes or no?
Click to expand...

the state has a duty to remove known nuisances. what creates a private right of action though

the mandamus act? the APA?

we get this all the time in my former office. Often immigrants applying for "Green cards" or "adjustment of status" claim that USCIS has a duty to adjudicate their applications and when USCIS drags its feet-they sue. Unless the delay is YEARS AND YEARS, the immigrants almost always lose

if the state had a duty to remove the animal-it doesn't require immediacy nor does it create a private right of a action
 
Hatuey said:
You're being facetious. The state of Massachusetts has laws banning the private ownership of dangerous wild animals. The state came into contact with one and for whatever reason refused to follow its own laws. Its failure to follow the law directly contributed to the attack on the woman.
Click to expand...

again, you apparently have little understanding of sovereign immunity, private right of action etc
 
TurtleDude said:
well we will see who understands this topic better based on the outcome of the suit

and what law did the state fail to follow? or did it merely take its time?
Click to expand...

The state created a law prohibiting the ownership of primates over 50 pounds in 2003 because of an event by the same animal....

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusmast131A_1.htm

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person may take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale, buy or offer to buy, nor shall a common or contract carrier knowingly transport or receive for shipment, any plant or animal species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern or listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Click to expand...

I guess you backed off the silly claim of an ad hom attack

but being very well versed in the concept of sovereign immunity etc I suspect I am right
Click to expand...

Actually, I reported it. "Rat fink Hatuey"?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
The state created a law prohibiting the ownership of primates over 50 pounds in 2003 because of an event by the same animal....



Actually, I reported it. "Rat fink Hatuey"?
Click to expand...

that was pathetic given the context. I was using an example where you would have a right of action
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no blurring of lines here - everyone involved in that attack is an idiot. This is nothing more than a case of a moron getting what they deserved all along.

I've seen youtube videos of people lighting themselves on fire and end up burning themselves really bad. Now should be ban matches, lighters, gas or alcohol???

You see, this is just another frivolous lawsuit - just another dummy that wants to blame another (in this case the state) for their stupidity.

Also, all animals are dangerous - or at least have wild instincts, even animals that have been domesticated for thousands of years like dogs or cats. So there is always a risk with any "pet" however a chimp? yeah, a pet chimp that chews someones face off should get the owner of the animal a Darwin Award.
 
TurtleDude said:
that was pathetic given the context. I was using an example where you would have a right of action
Click to expand...

Turtle, if the state creates a law prohibiting the ownership of primates over 50 pounds - and then it allows people to keep them - is the state being negligent in the duties it has created for itself? You're starting to sound like a statist - the state isn't at fault when it does not follow its own laws kind. I wonder what else we can apply this to? Maybe presidents who don't follow the constitution designed to reign their powers in? ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Turtle, if the state creates a law prohibiting the ownership of primates over 50 pounds - and then it allows people to keep them - is the state being negligent in the duties it has created for itself?
Click to expand...

that is not the issue. the issue is whether she has a right of action against the state. I say not
 
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...

And I say she does based on the fact that the state did not perform its duties after it:

1) Created a law designed to prohibit the ownership of apes over 50 pounds because of this chimp..
2) Allowed the owners of this animal to keep him in enclosures that did not follow Massachusetts law..
3) Refused to follow Massachusetts state law and dispose of the animal accordingly..

At every point of the equation the state was negligent and the fact that it was negligent allowed for this attack to occur. As I see it, the state will settle out of court and pay out a large sum of money because it failed to act for 6 years. What are they going to argue? That the same state where it takes days for animal control to put down a pibtull took 6 years to put a chimpanzee in a suitable enclosure?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
And I say she does based on the fact that the state did not perform its duties after it:

1) Created a law designed to prohibit the ownership of apes over 50 pounds because of this chimp..
2) Allowed the owners of this animal to keep him in enclosures that did not follow Massachusetts law..
3) Refused to follow Massachusetts state law and dispose of the animal accordingly..

At every point of the equation the state was negligent and the fact that it was negligent allowed for this attack to occur.
Click to expand...

uh sorry you are wrong

that doesn't create a private right of action anymore than the police can be liable for not shutting down a known public nuisance that leads to injury
 
TurtleDude said:
uh sorry you are wrong

that doesn't create a private right of action anymore than the police can be liable for not shutting down a known public nuisance that leads to injury
Click to expand...

You're being purposely obtuse now. If the state acknowledged the specific danger, created a law because of the specific danger, knew where the danger was and still refused to follow the laws - the state is at fault for not following its own guidelines.
 
Hatuey said:
You're being purposely obtuse now. If the state acknowledged the specific danger, created a law because of the specific danger, knew where the danger was and still refused to follow the laws - the state is at fault for not following its own guidelines.
Click to expand...

obtuse-so you handle these sort of suits and have professional experience

what statute allows the woman to get by sovereign immunity?

you still haven't figured out that when a state violates its own laws, that alone doesn't create a private right of action

is "obtuse" an ad hom attack hatuey?
 
US Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

The legal forcefulness of a judge's opinion doesn't make it somehow more of a fact. The state has an agency for this kind of danger. That agency is paid for out of the treasury. That woman is a tax payer. She is not a beneficiary of the service she was forced to buy into. Compensation is the appropriate response.

That's how societal structures and power-relationships work, no matter what the judge says or what happens.
 
Last edited:
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...

That is not how liability works, the state did not cause this injury.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
That is not how liability works, the state did not cause this injury.
Click to expand...

Liability works a lot of ways.

In this case, the state repurposed money from citizens to task an agency with protecting the citizens from dangerous animals, then failed to act in that capacity when the drawn out process preceding this event indicated intervention was necessary.

The Commissioner even agreed that the agency didn't behave appropriately, but noted that this is the sort of mistake the state is allowed to overlook because making good on the failure would open the floodgates to a stream of lawsuits that would impede its ability to fulfill its greater prerogatives.

In short, the state is too important to be impeded with moral responsibility for its failures.

They key point here is that the state took the victim's money for the treasury under the threat of legal action if she tried to evade taxation. Her money bought her into the package of public services the state provides, including protection from situations of this nature. That is the key. If they hadn't purposed the role of protecting the public from dangerous animals and tased an agency to that effect, the moral obligation would not exist at all because the prerogative of individuals to protect themselves (which conservatives assert exists) would never have been taken away from them.

As it is, the state is arguing that it has the right to collect taxes to provide services and then fail to provide those services without any consequence.
 
Morality Games said:
The legal forcefulness of a judge's opinion doesn't make it somehow more of a fact. The state has an agency for this kind of danger. That agency is paid for out of the treasury. That woman is a tax payer. She is not a beneficiary of the service she was forced to buy into. Compensation is the appropriate response.

That's how societal structures and power-relationships work, no matter what the judge says or what happens.
Click to expand...

That is not how this works.....

The state doesn't owe this lady anything and this case will get thrown out.

There is absolutely ZERO precedent to support anything you said, which was clearly made up on the spot.

The only possible way for this case to even have a chance to proceed would be a) the chimp was illegal and there is proof the state/animal control failed to remove it or b) the chimp was known to be a danger and the state/animal control failed to remove the animal.

Furthermore your pesudo-logic here is quite funny considering dogs (and other animals) bite/kill/injure people every year, yet have you ever seen a party sue the state over a dog bite or even a swarm of bee stings?

This lawsuit isn't going to make it past summery judgement.

The only person responsible for this nonsense is the idiot who thought it was a good idea to have a chimp as a pet - not the state.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the government should only allow people to hold dangerous wildlife animals if they have a permit, have a safe enclosure and keep the animals in a manner that prevents them from becoming a danger (by taking reasonable and acceptable precautions) to visitors or the general public. But I do not think they should be financially culpable in this case.
 
Morality Games said:
The legal forcefulness of a judge's opinion doesn't make it somehow more of a fact. The state has an agency for this kind of danger. That agency is paid for out of the treasury. That woman is a tax payer. She is not a beneficiary of the service she was forced to buy into. Compensation is the appropriate response.

That's how societal structures and power-relationships work, no matter what the judge says or what happens.
Click to expand...

This is how you'd like things to work, but that isn't really important to the case. Its almost a disney channel understanding of the issues involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom