TOMapleLaughs Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 ALBANY, N.Y. (Reuters) - In the first case of its kind, a New York appeals court has rejected an animal rights advocate's bid to extend "legal personhood" to chimpanzees, saying the primates are incapable of bearing the responsibilities that come with having legal rights. A five-judge panel of the Albany court on Thursday said attorney Steven Wise had shown that Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp who lives alone in a shed in upstate New York, was an autonomous creature, but that it was not possible for him to understand the social contract that binds humans together. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions," Presiding Justice Karen Peters wrote. Wise, representing The Nonhuman Rights Project, which he helped found in 2007, was seeking a ruling that Tommy had been unlawfully imprisoned by his owner, Patrick Lavery. Wise argued that the chimp should be released to a sanctuary in Florida. According to Wise and other experts, it is the first case anywhere in the world in which an appeals court has been asked to extend human rights to animals. Wise was not immediately available to comment. He has said that if he lost Tommy's case, he would ask for it to be heard by the Court of Appeals, New York's top state court. Lavery said in an interview that he agreed with the judges. Tommy, he said, received state-of-the-art care and was on a waiting list to be taken in by a sanctuary. It will be my decision where he goes, and not someone elses, he said. Peters wrote for the court that while chimps could not be granted legal rights, Wise could lobby the state legislature to create new protections for chimps and other intelligent animals. The decision, which upheld a 2013 ruling by a state judge, came after Wise on Tuesday urged a separate court in Rochester to order the release of a deaf chimp named Kiko from a cement cage at his owner's home in Niagara Falls. Wise has also filed a third case on behalf of two chimps that live at a state university on Long Island. The case is Nonhuman Rights Project v. Lavery, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, No. 518336. http://news.yahoo.com/chimps-no-human-rights-n-y-court-171924268.html Tie Domi is appealing the case. The case will likely go downhill fast when he starts flinging his own poo at the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 In 100,000 years the courts will be arguing whether Humans have rights at all. I would totally fling poop if my rights were taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Next up the Chickens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 That ruling is bananas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Looks like they have no choice but to appeal it to the Tim Burton court of appeals for the kind of dumbass verdict they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Awww, I was hoping for the chimp. The asswipe that owns him could just treat him better from what I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 And yet we still allow them into hockey arenas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Calm down now...he had a name. it was Eric garner and I am sure that most civil rights groups would object to the use of that word Oh wait you mean the actual animal, not what the NYPD and American law enforcement see's the coloured community as. My mistake. (Mods calm down, I am poking at the ridiculous ruling in the NYPD killing of an innocent man yesterday nothing more) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Does this mean Lucic has no human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Calm down now...he had a name. it was Eric garner and I am sure that most civil rights groups would object to the use of that word Oh wait you mean the actual animal, not what the NYPD and American law enforcement see's the coloured community as. My mistake. (Mods calm down, I am poking at the ridiculous ruling in the NYPD killing of an innocent man yesterday nothing more) I was going to make a similar sarcastic remark but was worried about a ban LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I was going to make a similar sarcastic remark but was worried about a ban LOL I REALLY had to word that in a way I thought would be ok and I think I might still get in trouble for it. But in all honesty if I get suspended/banned over this as opposed to the things that get allowed on ANY thread about Israel, Muslims Terrorists or religion in general i might just go.... Ape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayStation Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 We'll all be sorry when they take our guns and come on horses to get revenege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 We'll all be sorry when they take our guns and come on horses to get revenege. This is not hollywood, this is life. Was a good movie btw.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Non humans do not have human rights. By definition and at a theoretical level. There are established laws governing their treatment and while no set of laws are perfect for the most part they work as intended. Mess with a chimps brain to the point where he becomes self aware and its a whole new ballgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K. Chesterton Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Some sanity in the legal system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Non humans do not have human rights. By definition and at a theoretical level. There are established laws governing their treatment and while no set of laws are perfect for the most part they work as intended. Mess with a chimps brain to the point where he becomes self aware and its a whole new ballgame. Still wouldn't be "human". Intelligent yes, but not Human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 This is not hollywood, this is life. Was a good movie btw.. I just want to clarify you're not talking about the Tim Burton version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Still wouldn't be "human". Intelligent yes, but not Human. Gotta wonder when an animal sees another animal senselessly killing or befouling the enviroment if they think , behaving like a human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.