• 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

It's amazing how reliant and irresponsible this nation is... In reality what makes any of you pro "sue the government" folks any better than the damn chimp itself?

This shouldn't even be a debate - it's simple ****ing logic!
 
Mr.Nick said:
If it's even close to the states fault then we must have a guard in every home in the United States so no crazy chimps go nuts - you know just to be safe.
Click to expand...

No, assuming that plaintiff's allegations are correct, the only thing that needed (or needs) to happen is that the responsible state agency should have enforced the law to deal with the seriously hazardous situation that they knew existed. No one is saying that they should be held responsible for situations that they don't know about or can not handle.
 
Hard Truth said:
No, assuming that plaintiff's allegations are correct, the only thing that needed (or needs) to happen is that the responsible state agency should have enforced the law to deal with the seriously hazardous situation that they knew existed. No one is saying that they should be held responsible for situations that they don't know about or can not handle.
Click to expand...

Summery judgment will end that real quick...
 
We'll see, if the state waives its immunity. I'm pretty sure the plaintiff will get some substantial amount of money (over $350K) from the state one way or another.
 
The state is NOT liable for anything...

This is bull**** litigation....

I love these armchair lawyers who are cheering for an outcome.
 
Higgins86 said:
Do you check every bridge to make sure it's safe before you cross in your car? Do you hire engineers to check the bridge for structural damage etc?
Click to expand...

No, but I know that accidents happen, and by taking my vehicle out of my garage I am exposing myself to these risks. Welcome to earth.
 
Del Zeppnile said:
Call me crazy but anyone who would even want to be around one these horrible creatures needs to be in a cage. Chimpanzees are detestable creatures who have a natural suspicion of humans. I recall another chimp incident where a man and his wife were visiting a chimpanzee at a animal shelter that they used to own as a pet (most of these chimps end up in shelters eventually), and they were taking the chimp a birthday cake for the chimp's birthday, when another chimp became angry and tore the man's penis off. Yep, tore his penis off---which apparently is what these chimps may do to other males when angry.

I am not an animal psychologist, but what I believe is that chimpanzees in captivity are basically driven to being psychotic. If you've ever watched chimpanzees in a cage at the zoo you can see the anger and hate in their eyes. Much different from the look a lion has in it's eyes when it looks at you like you are lunch. A chimpanzee has that Charles Manson look in it's eyes that tells me that all it thinks about is ripping your face off because it can. A primate version of Hannibal Lechter.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr.Nick said:
And NO - a state shouldn't be held responsible for anothers stupidity unless they were blatantly negligent (e.g - a cop lets a drunk off the hook and he drives home with someone in his windshield).
Click to expand...
What about if they know that drunk driving is dangerous to the general public. As such, they pass a law against it. Then they in effect, say that a particular person can drive at say .12, whereas everybody else needs to stay under .08? And then, they choose to ignore complaints that person "X" often seen weaving around town in her car. The woman then drives at .12 and kills somebody?

Believe me, I am not a sue happy person, and I realize that this is academic due to sovereign immunity, but what the state did is pretty negligent.
 
Hard Truth said:
Its not entirely the state's fault, it is partially their fault.

If a bridge was structurally weak and the state knew about it but did not repair it or close it to traffic, then the state is likely to be held responsible for the deaths and injuries that result (unless they are completely immune), even if most drivers knew that the state's bridges were poorly maintained. If the transportation department could argue that there were so many brdiges in need of inspection or immediate repair due to prior neglect that they could not obtain the resources to fix them or close them all promptly, then they might prevail in court.
Click to expand...
Let's get some apples, oh wait we're talking oranges here. MY BAD.
 
US Conservative said:
No, but I know that accidents happen, and by taking my vehicle out of my garage I am exposing myself to these risks. Welcome to earth.
Click to expand...

Bollocks you drive your car over bridge's, roads etc because you know its safe to do so.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes yes, we know the "STATE" knew and since the state knew and didn't act it's ALL THEIR FAULT! How could this poor, innocent woman ever EVER have known there was a risk? It was a lovely PET for all SHE knew!

Seriously, plaintiff attorneys love people like you. What if this had been a pit viper attack? Would you feel the same way?
Click to expand...

That is what she knew. She acted on her knowledge.

The state did not.

So who is negligent?
 
MrVicchio said:
Haven't you heard? Individuals are NEVER responsible, it's always someone, or something else. From "affluenza" to "there was no warning label how was I supposed to know ironing my shirt while wearing it was dangerous"? Double appeal to situations where emotionalism can trump common sense. The victimhood must be protected at all costs.
Click to expand...

So then why bother having any regulating agencies at all? I'd be more than happy to save my $$ if they serve no purpose and have no accountability.

I'm all for that. I dont have to worry a bit when I drive across bridges or drink my tap water.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Anyone who thinks the state is responsible should go 10 rounds with a "domesticated" chimp.
Click to expand...

Yes...and the state KNEW that...and left the chimp there anyway.
 
Mr.Nick said:
If it's even close to the states fault then we must have a guard in every home in the United States so no crazy chimps go nuts - you know just to be safe.
Click to expand...

You really are on the ball! You are a sharp one! Truly amazing.

Because we all know there is a chimp in every home in the US. :doh
 
US Conservative said:
No, but I know that accidents happen, and by taking my vehicle out of my garage I am exposing myself to these risks. Welcome to earth.
Click to expand...

And when you drive that vehicle over a bridge that the state has labelled unsafe but not yet fixed (and there are hundreds in many states)...will you just eat the car insurance and medical bills (if you survive) and just forget about your kids that drowned? Or expect the state to be held accountable?
 
I can't really decide on this matter without knowing a heck of a lot more facts (I haven't read the entire thread... sorry if this is redundant). First, did the state allow the chimp to be kept as a pet legally? If not, not the state's problem unless someone can prove that the state was informed about the illegal pet, and did nothing.

If the chimp was kept legally and the state knew about it, was there an oversight board to establish proper permits and routine inspections? If so, was that oversight agency neglectful in its duties, and did that neglect lead to the incident? If there was no such oversight agency, does the lack of one make the state liable?

It's obvious to me that lots of officials, including the local police, were aware of this animal and were aware the animal's owner had been unable to properly contain it in the past. That doesn't necessarily make them liable, though. The victim was also aware of this animal, the danger it posed and the fact that the animal's owner could not properly contain it, and she willingly put herself at risk.

It's a gut-wrenching case because her injuries were so horrific. But lots of people suffer horrific injuries without being able to make the state taxpayers compensate them for those injuries. As bad as I feel for her, my immediate response is that the state would not be liable. However, we'll see where this goes in the future.
 
Lursa said:
And when you drive that vehicle over a bridge that the state has labelled unsafe but not yet fixed (and there are hundreds in many states)...will you just eat the car insurance and medical bills (if you survive) and just forget about your kids that drowned? Or expect the state to be held accountable?
Click to expand...

Thats a poor analogy. This person went to a persons home that she knew had an unsafe wild animal. And now she's not suing him, she's going after the deep pockets. As I stated earlier in this thread, the govt does have a general duty to protect people, but not a specific one.
 
US Conservative said:
Thats a poor analogy. This person went to a persons home that she knew had an unsafe wild animal. And now she's not suing him, she's going after the deep pockets. As I stated earlier in this thread, the govt does have a general duty to protect people, but not a specific one.
Click to expand...

No....please show that she knew the animal was unsafe. It was a beloved pet. That is what she 'knew'. At least that it was a pet...it lived in the home and it was not restrained. SHe visited a friend's home. A friend that had no idea the animal would act that way. If the OWNER didnt even guess the animal would react like that, why should a guest?

And you are not reading very well...it was a woman that owned the chimp...it lived with her like a child. Again...beloved pet. And she HAS been held liable legally and financially as well.
 
Lursa said:
No....please show that she knew the animal was unsafe. It was a beloved pet. That is what she 'knew'. At least that it was a pet...it lived in the home and it was not restrained. SHe visited a friend's home. A friend that had no idea the animal would act that way. If the OWNER didnt even guess the animal would react like that, why should a guest?

And you are not reading very well...it was a woman that owned the chimp...it lived with her like a child. Again...beloved pet. And she HAS been held liable legally and financially as well.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand that a chimp is a wild animal?
 
US Conservative said:
Do you not understand that a chimp is a wild animal?
Click to expand...

No....it is a pet. It was not a domesticated animal but it was not a 'wild' animal. It was 'tame.' It lived in a home. It ATE AT THE TABLE with its owner.

Did the owner not understand the implications of keeping an uncut (assumption here) adult male chimp? Is SHE not the one who is responsible for allowing such an animal to be unrestrained around guests in her house?

If you went to a friend's home and their dog was loose in the house....would you leave? Or assume it was safe? Because a domesticated dog can also attack, with no warning. And it does happen. In that case, the state would not be liable because dogs are not illegally kept exotic animals but if the state had previous knowlege/reports of attacks by the animal and did nothing...would they have any accountability in your death?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom