California, the ADA and Victimology as Self-Image

Jury rejects claim by man in attack on dog by library cat


Why is it that one of the most beautiful of American states is also the most deficient of common sense? Perhaps because liberal democrats encouraged it?

In Escondido, Richard Ramon "Rik" Espinosa sued the local library for $1.5 million after the biblio's feline mascot, L.C. (for Library Cat), attacked his assistance animal, Kimba. His claims were that his civil rights, as well as his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were infringed upon. Sanity, however, won out:

The jury denied Richard Ramon "Rik" Espinosa's claims on all three issues before them: that the city failed to offer him the same right as the general public to use the library; that it failed to offer him equal access; and that it prevented his dog Kimba from acting as an assistance dog.

The city did not dispute that Espinosa has disabilities, that his dog helped him with his disabilities or that the cat, named "L.C." for Library Cat, attacked Kimba the assistance dog shortly after the dog and Espinosa entered the library in November 2000. Both sides also agreed that the attack resulted in a trip to the vet for the dog, a trip to the doctor for Espinosa and about two days' worth of lost wages. Total cost: about $335.

The city offered twice to settle with Espinosa, including one offer of $1,000. Espinosa declined.

Espinosa stressed his own disabilities over the course of the trial, which according to him include "major depressive and panic disorders", and that his civil rights were denied becuase he and Kimba were unable to enter the library. The jury, being uncommonly possessed of wisdom and intelligence, found Espinosa lacking in all areas of claim.

Two questions:

1) Where is Espinosa's concern for Kimba? and

2) For what reason does he have an assistance animal, and what dunderheaded organization gave him this dog?

I give money to assistance dog training organizations, and I can't see any reputable agency giving this a$$hat one of their charges. Secondly, in Espinosa's suit, every single piont of contention concerns himself, not the dog. Espinosa is a classic narcissist, and the inherent victimology espoused in much of the ADA encourages the victicrat mentality (Larry Elder coined the term "victicrat") behind many of the ADA's provisions. No injury was caused to Espinosa, the city had offered him more than three times the actual amount of costs that he had incurred in having Kimba treated (as well as Espinosa's two days lost wages), and yet he was allowed to see his claims through to trial. Only then were his claims called out for what they clearly were: frivolous.

And as for the claim of civil rights violations, one year after the original filing, Espinosa filed an additional claim of being the victim of a "hate crime" because the cat was black, and Espinosa is Latino. Would that I were kidding.