justin0469 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMT-5ygCxaM[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMT-5ygCxaM][/ame] sad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaysonL Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I saw that video the other day and was shocked.... it's really sad to see someone obviously suffering so bad. I do have one problem with this though....Who thought it would be a good idea to try to domestocate a wild chimpanzee and give it xanax and other prescription drugs?!I think the situation as a whole is messed up.I also feel bad for "Bubbles Jackson", he's gonna be the target of a LOOOOOOOT of personal attacks now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 there are some things people weren't meant to survive...we're at a time in history where we can 'save' people from dying, but we can't yet preserve their quality of life. It raises some serious ethical questions.sad for that poor woman. it was her friend's chimp, no? If it was hers, I don't feel quite as bad. i wouldn't go so far as to say she deserved it, but "what was she thinking?" is unavoidable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaysonL Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 ^rekow97Ya, apparently she was trying to help get her friend's chimp back in its cage and that's when it attacked her.And I totally agree about your thoughts on 'saving' people, I think this is another controversial example of complex medical situations related to the ethics involved with sustaining an individual's life despite future consequences. Personally, I wouldn't want to live like that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that dude Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 id rather die Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I wouldn't want to live like that either. I used to enjoy a good face sitting session every now and again...but looking like that, someone may try to shit on me.Sad story. The chip basically pulled her eyelids off...her nose...her lips..RIPPED her hands off, and beat her face like a drum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that dude Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 didnt know they were that strong. how big was this guy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 200 lbs I believe. She obviously knew the chimp was dangerous...giving it Xanax? Wow. Now she and the city are getting sued for $50 million. I hope they every bit of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 i had forgotten that she didnt' have hands either... that makes it even worse. What CAN this woman do for herself? run into things? :-/why is the city being sued? did they fail to enforce some kind of ban on chimps?but even if the victim wins her $50 million - what's she going to do with it? without a face and hands, what good does the money do her? In her place, I'd only be looking for enough cash to make sure my medical expenses were covered (including a live-in care provider), and that my family wasn't burdened by me, financially or otherwise.it's not like she's going to be able to enjoy any money she wins... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhallam85 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Its really sad that happen to her and I dont wish that on anyone. In other news I just want to say Kelli Zink is hot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 The owner is probably suing the city too for killing the chimp. I don't get what the lawsuit is for either, unless it was illegal to have a chimp... in which case why would she have been helping?Really not any sympathy from me here... if my pet bites me tomorrow I'd chalk it up to instincts and the risks I take... if my cat bites a visitor I'll apologize and if they want to sue it's under my homeowner's policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 The point of the $$ is not so she can enjoy herself...it's to punish the people who were negligible. If I remember correctly, the city was warned several times about that animal. It had even gotten loose once or twice before this. The owner is negligible as shit. Yeah..she can't enjoy the money, but she can sure pay her legal fees, her medical fees, and any ongoing care/bills with it. Oh yeah. pain and suffering. I think she qualifies for 'pain and suffering'.Normally, I poo poo large settlement amounts like this, but this woman's life as she knew it is over. She doesn't even look like a human any more...all because some chimp fanatic didn't know when to throw in the towel. I'm sure some lawyer will argue that she willingly went over to help her, knowing the risks. blah blah blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Here's the problem, let's say tomorrow you are attacked by Joseph Smith. Many people called the police because Joseph Smith is a violent person and they think he should be locked up...You can't blame the city because they didn't do anything about Joseph.Now, if it's illegal to HAVE the chimp, then I'd agree the city is partially liable, but it's her own damn fault for helping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFM Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Negligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 The suit is against the state I believe. They're filing because the state was warned that the animal was dangerous, and did nothing. That could be construed as a public safety issue.Yeah, it's her fault for going over there..especially if she knew the animal was dangerous...but the owner doesn't get to get off. This chimp bit two other people before. Dogs have been put down for less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 The suit is against the state I believe. They're filing because the state was warned that the animal was dangerous, and did nothing. That could be construed as a public safety issue.Yeah, it's her fault for going over there..especially if she knew the animal was dangerous...but the owner doesn't get to get off. This chimp bit two other people before. Dogs have been put down for less.Ahh, well yah, dogs usually get 1 previous attack.... 2 and they go down I thought.BUT, if she wasn't breaking the law, no reason the state should be involved.... if we went off that case then almost all of us SHOULD be arrested because we MAY speed or break the law later.You have to wait for someone to break the law to arrest them, that's the way this country works, someone I work with tried to argue that anyone carrying a firearm should have the police called on them and arrested because he THINKS anyone with a gun is dangerous.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Um, the chimp bit two other people. That's not dangerous?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Um, the chimp bit two other people. That's not dangerous?!?To be clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you there, by any account, IF it's true I just hadn't seen any facts about it so if this is a fact apologies.Either way though, she's partially liable, shared responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 The suit is against the state I believe. They're filing because the state was warned that the animal was dangerous, and did nothing. That could be construed as a public safety issue.Yeah, it's her fault for going over there..especially if she knew the animal was dangerous...but the owner doesn't get to get off. This chimp bit two other people before. Dogs have been put down for less.IF the state knew about teh animal and didn't do anything, they MAY be found partially liable, but I think the state has a pretty strong argument in the fact that this woman knowingly and willingly broke the law. the state didn't create the dangerous situation, and in fact took reasonable measures to prevent the attack by outlawing the animal. The stat's failure to act on the dangerous situation (if they were indeed aware) is the only real point of contention, but as mentioned, it doesn't necessarily make the state liable, and definitely not fully liable.arguing that going to help your friend contain her wild chimp is "assumed risk" would be tenuous at best. Unless the owner can show that the victim knew the extent of the potential consequences of her actions, it's not going to fly.if i go to help my friend calm down his pet, I assume I can be bit, and maybe scratched - definitely NOT having my hands bitten off and face clawed to shit. I didn't assume that risk.the $50 mil figure is ridiculous though. you think the chimp owner has $50 mil?? Do you really think the state's failure to enforce an animal law is worth $50 mil? if the chimp had escaped and gone on a rampage, maybe, but this woman entered the house willingly. The chimp owner is primarily responsible for what happened, and the state's actions (or lack thereof) were not significant contributing factors.my prediction: a jury will award $25mil or so, and then the amount will be knocked waaaaay down on appeal, if the state isn't cleared completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InyaAzz Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Here are the facts. There was a law on the books against keeping primates over 50 pounds. The law was created AFTER the chimp got loose once. The STATE Department of Environmental Protection did NOT ENFORCE THE LAW because they thought the chimp was 'safe'.So...the way I look at it, everyone is at fault. But there is no way I would let the state skate on this one when they didn't even enforce their own rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that dude Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 thats not even a person. shoot me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.