Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course.......why hold an obviously stupid, neglectful, ignorant person responsible for her actions (or lack thereof) that led directly to some innocent person getting horribly disfigured and having her life ruined? The legal system in this country makes me sick.
Of course.......why hold an obviously stupid, neglectful, ignorant person responsible for her actions (or lack thereof) that led directly to some innocent person getting horribly disfigured and having her life ruined? The legal system in this country makes me sick.
Well, what changes do you suggest to the "legal system"?
Did you find out why the prosecutor chose not to criminally charge the woman?
I'm curious as well since the prosecutors, in my opinion, correct decision not to seek criminal proceedings doesn't preclude the injured party for gaining rightfully earned compensation through a civil action, which by the way is as much a part of the legal system as criminal proceedings.
To hell with all that. The woman was feeding the chimp XANAX for crissakes! She allowed the chimp to get loose. She should have never had it to begin with. I don't care what the law does or doesn't say. People in this country need to start using some GD common sense and realize that just because you CAN do something it doesn't mean you SHOULD. Her ridiculous and irresponsible actions destroyed someone's life and therefore she is a criminal in my book. Tap dance around it all you want.
The article is pretty sketchy so it's hard to determine the basis for the prosecutor's decision. It seems kind of strange to me. The owner of this animal was on notice of how dangerous it was. How is this any different from letting your pet lion or tiger run loose, or leaving several hand grenades lying around?
The article is pretty sketchy so it's hard to determine the basis for the prosecutor's decision. It seems kind of strange to me. The owner of this animal was on notice of how dangerous it was. How is this any different from letting your pet lion or tiger run loose, or leaving several hand grenades lying around?
Absolutely! This was not the first time her “pet” had attacked unprovoked. Now, this poor woman must spend the remainder of her life blind and disfigured. At the very least, she should be compensated.
The article is pretty sketchy so it's hard to determine the basis for the prosecutor's decision. It seems kind of strange to me. The owner of this animal was on notice of how dangerous it was. How is this any different from letting your pet lion or tiger run loose, or leaving several hand grenades lying around?
I don't know, just guessing, but perhaps a criminal charge and a conviction would bolster any civil case against the state in this case.
Meaning money damages.
Absolutely! This was not the first time her “pet” had attacked unprovoked. Now, this poor woman must spend the remainder of her life blind and disfigured. At the very least, she should be compensated.
And it appears that maybe the "deep pocket" in this kind of case would be the state, which means taxpayer money if any big $$$ damages were ever awarded in a civil case against the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
