Some years ago, Charla Nash thought that chimps were amusing, too. She was friends with a nitwit bag who owned a chimp called Travis. Here's Charla cuddling with Travis:
We all know what happened to the poor woman. At 14, Travis the chimp was being given drugs, ice cream, champagne, and treated like a little boy/lover by her psycho owner. One day the owner called Charla and asked her to come over and help her deal with Travis. Charla came over, the chimp attacked, and the woman suffered just about the most gruesome and horrific injuries a person could survive...and live. If you call it living.
The woman who owned the chimp, and moaned its loss, probably dropped dead from the stress of losing her beloved chimp AND knowing what Charla Nash looked like. PS, even after a full transplant, she ain't a pleasant sight.
Charla was able to get a chunk from the woman's $4 million estate but has been petitioning Connecticut courts to allow her to sue the state. Why? The state should've known that the chimp was dangerous. The state should've protected her. At this point, Connecticut IS one of the states that prohibits the ownership of certain dangerous animals...including chimps. But I guess it didn't have that law when Charla was attacked or...the law didn't apply to chimps already owned...just people trying to buy a new one
Fact is, if Charla's loony friend wasn't TAKING BATHS with the chimp, feeding it Xanax, and otherwise tampering with it, it may have survived just fine in its cage, which is where it belonged. However, many chimps do eventually go nuts from confinement, improper diet, weird relationships with humans and lack of a normal life with its own kind.
I find it very strange that Connecticut, or any state, can be so Fascistic as to prohibit the filing of a legal action. Why not let the woman spend her money and have a judge hear her argument? Why silence her? Let a judge take a few minutes to tell her to her fake-face, "Sorry, you lose."
That said, I don't see that she has a case. The government is not your fucking parents. YOU were the one playing with the fucking chimp for years and years. The government is supposed to guard you against crooks, against companies that put bad things in your food, against grifters calling you up with phone scams. And, Christ, they don't do a good job of THAT. So when they finally do come up with a law, like the anti-chimp and wild animal law in Connecticut, thank them and understand that the wheels of justice move slowly. And who's to say that the woman who owned Travis would've obeyed the law, and not snuck a chimp into her home? And who's to say Charla wouldn't have thought, "Yeah, this chimp IS harmless, I love playing with him, he'll never turn on me..."
Bottom line? Wild animals are NOT amusement, and it's a disgusting fact that in most places in the world, you can own most any wild animal you can hide in your home. Alligators. Poisonous snakes and insects. Pumas and leopards. Who knows how many of these, and more, are in "private zoos" run by well meaning, or just psychotic "animal lovers." How about "legal" animals like roosters and dogs owned for "fighting purposes" only..."entertainment" for monkey-like people who bet on the winner and laugh at the loser who lies dead?
PS, Connecticut, how about a law against the ownership of dogs? They might not rip off your face, bite off your hands and blind you, but they sure can KILL you. Pit bulls, anyone? The fact that dogs are kept as "entertainment" is VERY disgusting, and probably half the dogs owned in Connecticut are owned by psychopaths playing God, using the beast to guard property, or as a sex partner. And so we end this piece on chimps with a feeble request that all dangerous dogs (over a certain weight) be BANNED in CONNECTICUT. And every yappy little chihuahua simply get punted into Massachusetts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.