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.
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.
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.
Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.
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.
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.
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.
$150,000,000 though . . . I'd like to meet the guy who thinks up these numbers.
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.
Its a hard thing for many to understand, but in the end you are responsible for your safety. Not the state.
Actually, the state has a responsibility to protect people from dangerous animals once it creates an agency funded to do just that.
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?
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!
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.
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.
Im sorry, but its just not true. The woman with no face is looking for a payout, she wont get it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?