Kelly

Eyota, MN

#5839 Aug 25, 2009
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Spell much?
Altho you STILL can read it!
Kelly

Eyota, MN

#5840 Aug 25, 2009
moontyde wrote:
First Sheesh wasn't a vet, according to you and your twin Hopeless, although he is in fact a vet. Then I was related to Nash, although I never met any of the people involved in this case. Now Res is Judie's husband, although he clearly can't stomach her.
LOL! Do you "soppose" anyone really takes you that seriously, sweetie? Get real. You're just an ignorant little sh-i-t stirring bumpkin, and you have been from the start.
What?? You really do have a reading comprehension problem dont you? I never said that sheesh wasnt a vet that was others on here and you know it!(show me where I said that)and if I replyed to anything about that ,it was being sarcastic!

Cherry is the one who accused res of being judie's husband..my reply to cherry was AGAIN being sarcastic not an accusation! If anyone here is stirring anything its judie & her 'KIDS' who posted the website in the first place..do you really think that by posting all their family drama on the air that there wouldnt be some kind of feedback? get a clue dipstick!
sheesh ersatz vet

Madison Heights, VA

#5841 Aug 25, 2009
Warm and cozy in here like always!

How is everyone? Been camping in Cherokee. Was nice to sit next to a river for a few days and do absolutely NOTHING!
moontyde

Port Chester, NY

#5842 Aug 25, 2009
Oh please, child, I'm far from it. You however read like you spell ... between some imaginary lines. Play it as innocent as you'd like but I'm still not buying what you are so desperately trying to sell. So just get over it already because your true colors are showing ... and they sure aren't that pleasant to look at, sweetie.
moontyde

Port Chester, NY

#5843 Aug 25, 2009
sheesh ersatz vet wrote:
Warm and cozy in here like always!
How is everyone? Been camping in Cherokee. Was nice to sit next to a river for a few days and do absolutely NOTHING!
Alright, Sheesh, you got to go camping after all. Glad to hear it. Sounds very cool indeed.
former res

Broomall, PA

#5844 Aug 25, 2009
sheesh ersatz vet wrote:
Warm and cozy in here like always!
How is everyone? Been camping in Cherokee. Was nice to sit next to a river for a few days and do absolutely NOTHING!
Hi sheesh - glad you enjoyed your much deserved vacation!(I won't ask if you missed us.) I had a nice trip to NH/ME/CT. The whale-watching in Maine was especially enjoyable. Saw too many to count.
Kelly

Eyota, MN

#5845 Aug 25, 2009
moontyde wrote:
Oh please, child, I'm far from it. You however read like you spell ... between some imaginary lines. Play it as innocent as you'd like but I'm still not buying what you are so desperately trying to sell. So just get over it already because your true colors are showing ... and they sure aren't that pleasant to look at, sweetie.
LMAO
Your WAY too funny!
Lisa

Trumbull, CT

#5846 Aug 25, 2009
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't realize how much I missed the "relationship with a chimp" line. Ahhhh, life is good.
It's called "deep pockets" Lisa. Nash's attorney's are doing their job - getting as much $$$ as possible for her lifetime of care. Even if they clean Herold's financial clock (and I hope they do), it may not be enough.
You're right about one thing though, "The state can't ban stupidity." Herold is living proof.
Yes I understand deep pockets and greed!!!

If by some chance Nash could recover from the state...think of the legal consequences. This would be a case precedent and not just pertaining to chimps.

Pit Bulls have done the same kind of damage and have killed numerous people. CT has not banned pit bulls. If a person was seriously injured like Nash was or killed by a pit bull...then why shouldn't that person sue the state for not banning pit bulls.

The case in Florida where the pet python killed the toddler....why shouldn't the mother of the child sue the state for not banning pythons? It is legal to own pythons in CT.

For the same reasons that a person attacked by a pit bull or a python can't or shouldn't sue the state, Nash should not be able to recover from the state.

Yes the relationship with Travis is a big deal. It defies logic to have a 15 year relationship with a chimp and then blame everyone else when Nash is injured.
moontyde

Port Chester, NY

#5847 Aug 25, 2009
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>Pit Bulls have done the same kind of damage and have killed numerous people. CT has not banned pit bulls. If a person was seriously injured like Nash was or killed by a pit bull...then why shouldn't that person sue the state for not banning pit bulls.
Erm ... because strict liability is written into CT law in regards to dog bites and attacks. Would you prefer that that law be applied towards all animals?
sheesh ersatz vet

Madison Heights, VA

#5848 Aug 25, 2009
In a perfect world, animal owners would be held liable for the behavior of their pets. Where I live, if my dog (a pit) attacks you then I am highly likely to have my feet held to the fire. Just because a place is a bit slow holding owners of other animals responsible for their pet's behavior doesn't mean they shouldn't be.
sheesh ersatz vet

Madison Heights, VA

#5849 Aug 25, 2009
15 year relationship?

Herold owned him and spent almost the full extent of his life with him. Nash was a friend that visited with some degree of frequency. Herold knew him better than any living soul and should have known better about his moods.

She should have also made a career out of learning chimp behavior from infancy well into adulthood instead of finding out by trial and error. Which, BTW, seems to be a fairly accurate description for the way her experiences unfolded with him over his lifespan.
former res

Broomall, PA

#5850 Aug 26, 2009
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I understand deep pockets and greed!!!
If by some chance Nash could recover from the state...think of the legal consequences. This would be a case precedent and not just pertaining to chimps.
Pit Bulls have done the same kind of damage and have killed numerous people. CT has not banned pit bulls. If a person was seriously injured like Nash was or killed by a pit bull...then why shouldn't that person sue the state for not banning pit bulls.
The case in Florida where the pet python killed the toddler....why shouldn't the mother of the child sue the state for not banning pythons? It is legal to own pythons in CT.
For the same reasons that a person attacked by a pit bull or a python can't or shouldn't sue the state, Nash should not be able to recover from the state.
Yes the relationship with Travis is a big deal. It defies logic to have a 15 year relationship with a chimp and then blame everyone else when Nash is injured.
Cars are allowed by law too but people don't routinely sue the state following a car accident.

I don't know if Nash should be able to sue the state. If she cleans Herold thoroughly enough (and provides her with a shopping cart for collecting cans and a grabby tool), that may be enough. I'd be satisfied at least.
Lisa

Trumbull, CT

#5851 Aug 26, 2009
sheesh ersatz vet wrote:
15 year relationship?
Herold owned him and spent almost the full extent of his life with him. Nash was a friend that visited with some degree of frequency. Herold knew him better than any living soul and should have known better about his moods.
She should have also made a career out of learning chimp behavior from infancy well into adulthood instead of finding out by trial and error. Which, BTW, seems to be a fairly accurate description for the way her experiences unfolded with him over his lifespan.
The issue isn't who spent the most time with Travis? Obviously the owner spends the most time with the animal.

That does not diminish all the time over 15 years that Nash spent with Travis which was a real considerable amount of time. Nash knew Travis almost as well as Herold did. And how well do you have to know a 200 lb chimp to realize that it has the potential to seriously harm you. And Nash did state that she had concerns that Travis could seriously harm someone. Most people would not spend any time with a 200 lb chimp. But Nash didn't see anything wrong with it. She enjoyed spending time with and having a relationship with a chimp. She is entitled to her own choices. But she is also responsible for the consequences of her own choices.
Lisa

Trumbull, CT

#5852 Aug 26, 2009
sheesh ersatz vet wrote:
In a perfect world, animal owners would be held liable for the behavior of their pets. Where I live, if my dog (a pit) attacks you then I am highly likely to have my feet held to the fire. Just because a place is a bit slow holding owners of other animals responsible for their pet's behavior doesn't mean they shouldn't be.
We previously discussed the special statutory law regarding dogs. No state has a statutory law about other animals.

Putting aside the statutory law about dogs...what if you had a close friend who visited you on a regular basis every week and who took care of you dog when you went away. And what if your friend worked for you and you brought your dog to work and then years later....your friend comes over your house and your dog attacks your friend.

Yes I know the statutory law would make you liable. But would you honestly feel that you as a person and as the owner of the dog did something wrong which led to this attack?

What if you owned a python which is legal in CT and your friend loved playing around with the python letting the python crawl over her and what if the python killed the friend? Should the owner of the python be liable when the friend engaged in this risky behavior for years?
Lisa

Trumbull, CT

#5853 Aug 26, 2009
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Cars are allowed by law too but people don't routinely sue the state following a car accident.
I don't know if Nash should be able to sue the state. If she cleans Herold thoroughly enough (and provides her with a shopping cart for collecting cans and a grabby tool), that may be enough. I'd be satisfied at least.
A person can only sue the state in very limited situations and only when the state had a statutory duty to do something and the state failed to do it. CT doesn't have a statutory duty to stop people from owning or having a relationship with a chimp. People get injured and killed from lots of different things and many of them are stupid activities they engaged in. The state doesn't have a duty to protect a person from engaging in risky behavior. I look forward to seeing how Nash's lawyers are going to twist and turn things to try to hold the state liable.
soma

Marina Del Rey, CA

#5854 Aug 26, 2009
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>
A person can only sue the state in very limited situations and only when the state had a statutory duty to do something and the state failed to do it. CT doesn't have a statutory duty to stop people from owning or having a relationship with a chimp. People get injured and killed from lots of different things and many of them are stupid activities they engaged in. The state doesn't have a duty to protect a person from engaging in risky behavior. I look forward to seeing how Nash's lawyers are going to twist and turn things to try to hold the state liable.
Has nothing to do with Nash's 'risky behavior' what it does have to do with is the state not enforcing the law and were reminded about this in October prior to the attack and also was warned the situation with Travis 'an accident waiting to happen'.

What is more interesting is how you keep twisting and turning this to put the blame yet again on Nash rather than your pal SH. Interesting indeed.
soma

Marina Del Rey, CA

#5855 Aug 26, 2009
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! There has been so much low class **** posted on this forum especially all the nasty comments about Herold and Judie's kids comments bother you?
LMAO! No reason to get all nasty and attack them. If you are not interested in their comments, skip over them.
Funny how you do not see the difference or perhaps its because you actually do have 'dog in this fight'

Has nothing to do with how 'nasty' their comments are or aren't; apparently I need to draw you a picture. I do not care what they have to say about Judie or vice versa. Let them fight it out among themselves. And yes, dragging out your OWN dirty laundry in public is low class. Unless this is a matter of course in your neck of the Connecticut woods might explain why you dont 'get it'.
moontyde

Port Chester, NY

#5856 Aug 27, 2009
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I know the statutory law would make you liable. But would you honestly feel that you as a person and as the owner of the dog did something wrong which led to this attack?Yes I know the statutory law would make you liable. But would you honestly feel that you as a person and as the owner of the dog did something wrong which led to this attack?
If I owned a dog that did bodily harm to a visiting friend I'd TELL them to sue me because I'd feel awful about it PLUS homeowner's insurance would cover it. No hard feelings. It's all part of owning something ... being personally responsibile for it.
moontyde

Port Chester, NY

#5857 Aug 27, 2009
soma wrote:
<quoted text>What is more interesting is how you keep twisting and turning this to put the blame yet again on Nash rather than your pal SH. Interesting indeed.
Isn't it though, Soma? It really is truly very odd and suspect ...
sheesh ersatz vet

Morgantown, WV

#5858 Aug 27, 2009
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>
We previously discussed the special statutory law regarding dogs. No state has a statutory law about other animals.
Putting aside the statutory law about dogs...what if you had a close friend who visited you on a regular basis every week and who took care of you dog when you went away. And what if your friend worked for you and you brought your dog to work and then years later....your friend comes over your house and your dog attacks your friend.
Yes I know the statutory law would make you liable. But would you honestly feel that you as a person and as the owner of the dog did something wrong which led to this attack?
What if you owned a python which is legal in CT and your friend loved playing around with the python letting the python crawl over her and what if the python killed the friend? Should the owner of the python be liable when the friend engaged in this risky behavior for years?
Dog or snake I'd feel liable. It is my duty to control my pet. If I cannot control my pet I have no business keeping it. If I have a constrictor that is large enough to kill a human I should be a bit more cautious with it. The decision is mine to allow someone to play with it. Constrictors typically won't attempt to kill something that is too large for them to eat. If my constrictor is large enough to eat my friend then I am engaging in risky behavior by permitting my friend access to the animal.

Herold had absolutely no ability to control Travis. She was physically and intellectually incapable of mastering him.

I bring up intellectual as this applies to dogs and especially horses. There is a certain amount of a battle of wits with these creatures.

A larger primate is certainly much more apt to be able to carry on intellectually with a human in the struggle for power and dominance when compared to canids and equids.

If an owner cannot keep the upper hand in that battle of wits then they have no business owning that animal. If they choose to keep it, then all that it does is on their shoulders. Perhaps in certain circumstances this won't amount to 100% responsibility, but, IHMHO, it will amount to the lion's share.

The decision to allow another human to interact is mine and mine alone. If I invite them over to help me I've made a decision to put them in harm's way. The pet is mine. I am responsible. My friend may be partly responsible, but the majority falls in my lap.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greenwich Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Aryan Nations recruiting again in northern Idaho (Apr '09) 1 hr Kanakarican 424
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr rabbee yehoshooah... 71,707
News Pedestrian facing charges after being hit in No... 4 hr Norwalk resistanc... 1
News Cyclists riding to D.C. in memory of Sandy Hook... Sun William Wilhelm Jr 2
News Child dies at Ala. air show as wind topples tents (Jun '08) Mar 26 Commander Bunny 14
I SAW Your Nanny Mar 23 privacy please 1
News Experts discuss senior care - Greenwich Time (Jun '08) Mar 23 jordennancy23 2
Greenwich Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Greenwich People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]