• 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

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.

NO. Ownership of the animal was illegal, period.

However the state HAD identified the animal not only as illegal, but as dangerous...did you not read the 3 quotes I posted? THey said so specifically.

LOLOLOL Try reading.
 
NO. Ownership of the animal was illegal, period.

However the state HAD identified the animal not only as illegal, but as dangerous...did you not read the 3 quotes I posted? THey said so specifically.

LOLOLOL Try reading.
Here is the actual laws, try reading that:

Chapter 16.30 RCW: DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS

(1) The animal control authority or a law enforcement officer may immediately confiscate a potentially dangerous wild animal if:

(a) The animal control authority or law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that the animal was acquired after July 22, 2007, in violation of RCW 16.30.030;

(b) The animal poses a public safety or health risk;

(c) The animal is in poor health and condition as a result of the possessor; or

(d) The animal is being held in contravention of the [this] act.

And you might want to try reading this too:

The committee is considering a bill that would overrule a decision last year by State Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr., who refused Nash's request for permission to sue the state. It's a last-ditch effort by Nash's attorneys to recoup damages from the state, which generally is immune from lawsuits unless allowed by the commissioner. The panel has until April 2 to act on the bill.

Get it?
 
Here is the actual laws, try reading that:

Chapter 16.30 RCW: DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS



And you might want to try reading this too:
Get it?

Sure. And the quotes I posted earlier ALL fulfilled a).

And the last quote is completely outside of any point you tried to make so far...and is part of the discussion. It has nothing to do with whether or not the state *should* be held liable however....and 16.30 shows why...with the *knowlege they HAD* they should be held accountable.

Get it?
 
Sure. And the quotes I posted earlier ALL fulfilled a).

And the last quote is completely outside of any point you tried to make so far...and is part of the discussion. It has nothing to do with whether or not the state *should* be held liable however....and 16.30 shows why...with the *knowlege they HAD* they should be held accountable.

Get it?
Youre wrong in regards to a):

Nash's petition to sue was denied on the basis that at the time of her attack, no statute existed that prohibited the private ownership of a chimpanzee.

Travis (chimpanzee) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Sure. And the quotes I posted earlier ALL fulfilled a).

And the last quote is completely outside of any point you tried to make so far...and is part of the discussion. It has nothing to do with whether or not the state *should* be held liable however....and 16.30 shows why...with the *knowlege they HAD* they should be held accountable.

Get it?


Lursa, I respect your opinion. I, and people much more qualified have given you evidence that there is no basis to sue.

I understand and agree with why you feel bad, indeed angry about this. But look at the facts. I dont know how this will turn out, but outrage alone is no substitute for law, and we can't go back in time, legally speaking or otherwise.
 
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 state cannot possibly protect every person from every threat. The case is ridiculous.

The lady knew that her friend was an elderly woman who had a bad-ass chimp but she went there anyways.
 
The state cannot possibly protect every person from every threat. The case is ridiculous.

The lady knew that her friend was an elderly woman who had a bad-ass chimp but she went there anyways.

Someone else who didn't read the case. The state actually knew where the animal was, created a law against such animals and still allowed its owners to keep it. In essence, the state REFUSED to follow the laws it set for itself. Suing CT in this case is no different than suing the federal government not doing its job and enforcing immigration law.
 
Last edited:
Here is the actual laws, try reading that:

Chapter 16.30 RCW: DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS

And you might want to try reading this too:

Get it?

That's Washington State... not Connecticut...

• CONN. GEN. STAT. §26-55 - Permit for importing, possessing or liberating fish, wild birds, wild quadrupeds, reptiles or amphibians.

No person shall import or introduce into the state, or possess or liberate therein, any live fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate unless such person has obtained a permit therefor from the commissioner provided nothing in this section shall be construed to require such permit for any primate species that weighs not more than fifty pounds at maturity that was imported or possessed in the state prior to October 1, 2003.

Charla Nash, chimp attack victim, deserves a court hearing of her right to sue state - Hartford Courant

Under Connecticut law at the time of the attack, residents wishing to own a primate weighing more than 50 pounds had to obtain a permit from what is now called the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The law required the DEEP to seize any animal that was illegally possessed and dispose of it. DEEP never issued the Stamford chimp's owner a permit, so the state should have seized the animal, which it didn't.

In 2008, before the attack, Ms. Hinsch put on record that this chimpanzee was an "accident waiting to happen." She detailed in a memorandum to her supervisors the chimpanzee's location, age and propensity for violence. She added that the animal was illegally possessed and must be dealt with. She further cautioned that even the DEEP officers sent to seize the animal would be in danger of bodily harm from this animal. But, Ms. Hinsch insisted, it had to be done to protect the public. Incredibly, Ms. Hinch's superiors at the DEEP ignored her warning.

Given the state law on primates requiring a permit for a chimp of this size and the Hinsch memorandum detailing the dangerous propensities of this animal, the DEEP knew of a discrete and identifiable danger and did nothing. It is our hope that the legislature's Judiciary Committee will read both the statute and the memorandum, as they are critical to an understanding of Ms. Nash's claim.
 
Someone else who didn't read the case. The state actually knew where the animal was, created a law against such animals and still allowed its owners to keep it.
That's 100% irrelevant. The woman broke the law and got away with it. So ****ing what? That happens a kazillion times a day.

All this case is about is some stupid greedy **** trying to rip off the taxpayers. Now I'm glad that chimp ****ed her up.
 
That's 100% irrelevant. The woman broke the law and got away with it.

The woman broke the law and the state ignored its own laws, procedures and statutes. You're showing your ignorance.
 
The woman broke the law and the state ignored its own laws, procedures and statutes. You're showing your ignorance.

ignored or wasn't timely?
 
It's funny because progressives are usually against suing the state - their mommies and daddies.

Do progressives ever blame the individual for their own actions?

Oh yeah in this case we have a government that wasn't authoritarian enough and a f-ing idiot that thought a Chimp was her best friend because she was all into that animal loving feel-good progressive nature-loving ****.

Does it take this case to assert that playing with chimps or other non domesticated animals is ****ing dumb?
 
Someone else who didn't read the case. The state actually knew where the animal was, created a law against such animals and still allowed its owners to keep it.

The animal was the woman's property. She had owned this property before the state created a law forbidding the ownership of this type of property. Any subsequent law which affected her property would be a retroactive law, and the state may not have had any authority to deprive her of her property anyway without compensation.

Are you suggesting that the state has the right to create new laws which can deprive citizens of their property?

You aren't Governor Cuomo are you?



In essence, the state REFUSED to follow the laws it set for itself. Suing CT in this case is no different than suing the federal government not doing its job and enforcing immigration law. [bold mine]


Yeah, how is that lawsuit going?
 
The animal was the woman's property. She had owned this property before the state created a law forbidding the ownership of this type of property.

1) Deprivation of such type of property has precedent in the US as on its own it is capable of seriously injuring humans. It's not a gun or a car which require humans in order to cause injury. This is why there are federal and state laws restricting the importation of such animals.
2) Keeping a wild animal required a permit and appropriate confining measures to ensure the safety of the general public.
3) None of which were obtained/enforced by either the owners or the state.

This leaves us with a few options:

1) You're being dishonest by posting Washington State wild animal laws which have NOTHING to do with this case
2) You're being ignorant of how laws in the US work.
3) You believe that requiring a permit for living beings is a deprivation of said property which in and of itself is laughable as deprivation of living property (humans, animals, plants etc) has precedent in this country - ESPECIALLY - when there is a risk of injury to either the property, the general public or the owners.

Yeah, how is that lawsuit going?

It hasn't been blocked on carry overs from British law...

Arizona, Kansas sue federal government to enforce voter registration laws | TheHill
 
1) Deprivation of such type of property has precedent in the US as on its own it is capable of seriously injuring humans. It's not a gun or a car which require humans in order to cause injury. This is why there are federal and state laws restricting the importation of such animals.
2) Keeping a wild animal required a permit and appropriate confining measures to ensure the safety of the general public.
3) None of which were obtained/enforced by either the owners or the state.

This leaves us with a few options:

1) You're being dishonest by posting Washington State wild animal laws which have NOTHING to do with this case
2) You're being ignorant of how laws in the US work.
3) You believe that requiring a permit for living beings is a deprivation of said property which in and of itself is laughable as deprivation of living property (humans, animals, plants etc) has precedent in this country - ESPECIALLY - when there is a risk of injury to either the property, the general public or the owners.



It hasn't been blocked on carry overs from British law...

Arizona, Kansas sue federal government to enforce voter registration laws | TheHill

Using your logic anyone who is murdered or even injured with "illegal" anything can sue the state given the notion that the state wasn't AUTHORITARIAN enough to prevent such actions.
 
Using your logic anyone who is murdered or even injured with "illegal" anything can sue the state given the notion that the state wasn't AUTHORITARIAN enough to prevent such actions.

Thats the common reprieve of statist liberals. Give the govt your freedom and everything will be rosy.
 
Using your logic anyone who is murdered or even injured with "illegal" anything can sue the state given the notion that the state wasn't AUTHORITARIAN enough to prevent such actions.

Actually, if the state created a law centered around past incidents with that exact same property, ignored suggestions from experts and refused to enforce its own laws? Sure. It should be sued. It'd be no different than the state refusing to enforce laws against murder, theft, etc. You know, for a Libertarian, you miss out the point of a state a lot.
 
Actually, if the state created a law centered around past incidents with that exact same property, ignored suggestions from experts and refused to enforce its own laws? Sure. It should be sued. It'd be no different than the state refusing to enforce laws against murder, theft, etc. You know, for a Libertarian, you miss out the point of a state a lot.

Yeah, sued for not being authoritarian enough?

Maybe we need to raid everyones homes and properties to make sure they have nothing that could potentially harm them or others?

You know - if they have something that can harm another it's the states fault for not being "Stalin enough."
 
Yeah, sued for not being authoritarian enough?

Sued for not enforcing its own laws. Nothing authoritarian about regulating "property" capable of ripping a grown man's arms off,
harboring dangerous diseases, destroying another man's property etc.
 
Actually, if the state created a law centered around past incidents with that exact same property, ignored suggestions from experts and refused to enforce its own laws? Sure. It should be sued. It'd be no different than the state refusing to enforce laws against murder, theft, etc. You know, for a Libertarian, you miss out the point of a state a lot.

Well lets just have home inspections to make sure we don't have anything the government doesn't allow us adults, er I mean kids to have.

We need to be safe right?
 
Sued for not enforcing its own laws. Nothing authoritarian about regulating "property" capable of ripping a grown man's arms off,
harboring dangerous diseases, destroying another man's property etc.

Really there is nothing authoritarian about regulating?

Your twisted logic is so entertaining.
 
Well lets just have home inspections to make sure we don't have anything the government doesn't allow us adults, er I mean kids to have.

We need to be safe right?

Your dilution into absurdity is all I need to know you and the other "sovereign immunity" statists have lost this debate. ;) I've demonstrated ineptitud from the state, criminal negligence and even the attempt by right wingers to murky the issue with laws which have nothing to do with this case - and you've gone the route of leftists who think guns should be banned because of nuclear weapons. Absolutely laughable. ;)
 
Actually, if the state created a law centered around past incidents with that exact same property, ignored suggestions from experts and refused to enforce its own laws?

Already answered, the new law would be retroactive. Retroactive laws would require additional consideration by the state in order to avoid civil liability. Where I used to live I had a wood shingle roof. Over several decades the local government decided that wood shingle roofs in my area were too much of a fire hazard and they made them illegal. Which meant that they could not be put on new houses or new additions and any re-roof would have to be made out of fire-proof materials. However the local government could not force me to change my existing roof before it was time for me to re-roof. To do so would have caused me undue financial injury. So for the time being, my roof was "grandfathered in" even though it was no longer considered a safe roof. Which means I assumed the risk, same with the owner of the chimp.

Sure. It should be sued. It'd be no different than the state refusing to enforce laws against murder, theft, etc. You know, for a Libertarian, you miss out the point of a state a lot.

Most of the time the government does selective enforcement. Not really with murder, but certainly with lesser crimes or infractions. A good example would be someone exceeding the speed limit while driving. Certainly there is a vehicle code violation for speeding, and certainly many people are stopped and ticketed for this dangerous driving. But is it your contention that the police have to stop every speeder and give them a citation? Does the state even have the resources do that? And when a cop sees a guy speeding but may have other pending calls to attend to; if the cop doesn't stop the speeder and the speeder injures someone, do you believe that liability is now transferred to the state?

It just doesn't work that way.
 
Already answered, the new law would be retroactive. Retroactive laws would require additional consideration by the state in order to avoid civil liability. Where I used to live I had a wood shingle roof. Over several decades the local government decided that wood shingle roofs in my area were too much of a fire hazard and they made them illegal. Which meant that they could not be put on new houses or new additions and any re-roof would have to be made out of fire-proof materials. However the local government could not force me to change my existing roof before it was time for me to re-roof. To do so would have caused me undue financial injury. So for the time being, my roof was "grandfathered in" even though it was no longer considered a safe roof. Which means I assumed the risk, same with the owner of the chimp.

Sure, and if there was a history in that state of ignoring such threats due to roofs grandfathered in on nothing but good faith - I'd support people suing the government for not enforcing the law and you for not complying with it. :shrug:

Most of the time the government does selective enforcement. Not really with murder, but certainly with lesser crimes or infractions. A good example would be someone exceeding the speed limit while driving. Certainly there is a vehicle code violation for speeding, and certainly many people are stopped and ticketed for this dangerous driving. But is it your contention that the police have to stop every speeder and give them a citation? Does the state even have the resources do that? And when a cop sees a guy speeding but may have other pending calls to attend to; if the cop doesn't stop the speeder and the speeder injures someone, do you believe that liability is now transferred to the state?

It just doesn't work that way.

This isn't the first time you try dishonest example mixed with murky information. Police officers encounter speeders by random chance, they are not capable of determining where a speeding violation will be carried out. This however was a case where police officers, wildlife officers, state departments and even governments knew where the violation was occurring and refused to act. It'd be like them knowing where an active rapist lives, takes his victims to and then refusing to act on this information and ignoring plights from the public.
 
Back
Top Bottom