"Taunting a factor in tiger attacks"

[BYC]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080119/ap_on_re_us/tiger_attacks

My favorite part is when the three guys have marijuana and high blood alcohol.

The moral of the story is not to f#@^ with animals.

[rick]

I've got to say that it really doesn't matter how big a set of idiots those three were, there is no excuse for having a tiger enclousure that only holds the tigers in when it wants to stay.

Sure these three were jerks, but the zoo is still at fault and should be held responsible.

However with the lawsuit that the zoo is going to face, I can certainly understand why they are trying so hard to start influencing the jury pool as quickly as possible.

[kmeyers]

I've got to say that it really doesn't matter how big a set of idiots those three were, there is no excuse for having a tiger enclousure that only holds the tigers in when it wants to stay.

Sure these three were jerks, but the zoo is still at fault and should be held responsible.

However with the lawsuit that the zoo is going to face, I can certainly understand why they are trying so hard to start influencing the jury pool as quickly as possible.
Seriously. Unless these idiots jumped into the tiger pit, and yelled at the tiger in its face, the Zoo is totally at fault.

How many people have tapped/banged on the glass to get the reptiles to respond?

If the tiger can jump the fence, the zoo better get a higher fence.

[Dan Apodaca]

I disagree. The zoo is wholly responsible for making sure that all the fences meet safety requirements, yes.

But the dumb fuckers are responsible for provoking a tiger to attack. It's not like this was the very first day that the tiger had ever been in that exclosure while people were around.

Dumb fuckers.

[kmeyers]

I disagree. The zoo is wholly responsible for making sure that all the fences meet safety requirements, yes.

But the dumb fuckers are responsible for provoking a tiger to attack. It's not like this was the very first day that the tiger had ever been in that exclosure while people were around.

Dumb fuckers.

If the tigers can jump the fence...there's a problem...I don't care how many faces some jackass makes...the zoo is responsible.

[Dan Apodaca]

If the tigers can jump the fence...there's a problem...I don't care how many faces some jackass makes...the zoo is responsible.

Look, we can back and forth on this all night, but I'm not gonna agree with you. The zoo is responsible for the tiger being able to escape. The dumb fuckers are responsible for the tiger choosing to actually do so. And let's not forget that these idiots were climbing up on top of the railing. They thought they were invincible and that they could just treat a wild animal like shit without recompense. They learned an important lesson.

I guess it all comes down to how you play the blame game. I go with what was the direct cause, rather than the indirect one.

And the tiger does care how many faces some jackass makes, clearly. Or maybe that's just karma. Or natural selection. Doesn't really matter now, because the tiger and the dumb fucker are both dead.

[rick]

I disagree. The zoo is wholly responsible for making sure that all the fences meet safety requirements, yes.

But the dumb fuckers are responsible for provoking a tiger to attack. It's not like this was the very first day that the tiger had ever been in that exclosure while people were around.

Dumb fuckers.

Reread what you wrote.


The zoo is wholly responsible for making sure that all the fences meet safety requirements.....


And since the zoo had the tigers inside an enclosure that had walls 4 feet lower then the very minimum recommendations from the American Zoological Society that’s pretty much that.

I just don’t get this reaction from so many people.

Sure these three were complete idiots, but it stuns me to see how many people are trying to place the blame on them when it is the zoo’s responsibility to keep the animals safely in their enclosures.

I don’t care how badly these dinks agitated the tiger, the tiger shouldn’t have been able to climb out after them.

[rick]

I guess it all comes down to how you play the blame game. I go with what was the direct cause, rather than the indirect one.



Well then that means you should be coming down clearly against the zoo, since their inadequate enclosure allowed a tiger to escape.

[kmeyers]

[QUOTE=rick;6187860]Reread what you wrote.



And since the zoo had the tigers inside an enclosure that had walls 4 feet lower then the very minimum recommendations from the American Zoological Society that’s pretty much that.

I just don’t get this reaction from so many people.

Sure these three were complete idiots, but it stuns me to see how many people are trying to place the blame on them when it is the zoo’s responsibility to keep the animals safely in their enclosures.

I don’t care how badly these dinks agitated the tiger, the tiger shouldn’t have been able to climb out after them.[/

You better build a better fence.

[Dan Apodaca]

Well then that means you should be coming down clearly against the zoo, since their inadequate enclosure allowed a tiger to escape.

That would be the indirect cause.

[Dan Apodaca]

I don’t care how badly these dinks agitated the tiger, the tiger shouldn’t have been able to climb out after them.

Well, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I do care how badly they agitated the tiger.

[kmeyers]

Look, we can back and forth on this all night, but I'm not gonna agree with you. The zoo is responsible for the tiger being able to escape. The dumb fuckers are responsible for the tiger choosing to actually do so. And let's not forget that these idiots were climbing up on top of the railing. They thought they were invincible and that they could just treat a wild animal like shit without recompense. They learned an important lesson.

I guess it all comes down to how you play the blame game. I go with what was the direct cause, rather than the indirect one.

And the tiger does care how many faces some jackass makes, clearly. Or maybe that's just karma. Or natural selection. Doesn't really matter now, because the tiger and the dumb fucker are both dead.

Climbing on the railing is very different from jmping into the pit...

[rick]

That would be the indirect cause.


No, you are mistaken.

The direct cause is that the tiger was able to get out of its enclosure because the zoo had it in one that was inadequate for containing it.

How badly these guys pissed it off is simply irrelevant, the zoo had an obligation both legally and morally to cage its animals inside of enclosures that meet the proper standards and most importantly, keep the animals where they belong.

[Dan Apodaca]

Climbing on the railing is very different from jmping into the pit...

No it's not. If you're up on top of the railing, you're clearly taking a risk to interact with the animal in some way that is not intended by the zoo.

The only difference is that being up on the railing makes you feel impervious to the animal and encourages you to continue taunting, instead of fleeing for your life. It's the coward's way of showing off.

My position is that the zoo is responsible for the tiger being able to get out, but the guys are responsible for the tiger attacking them.

[kmeyers]

No it's not. If you're up on top of the railing, you're clearly taking a risk to interact with the animal in some way that is not intended by the zoo.

The only difference is that being up on the railing makes you feel impervious to the animal and encourages you to continue taunting, instead of fleeing for your life. It's the coward's way of showing off.

My position is that the zoo is responsible for the tiger being able to get out, but the guys are responsible for the tiger attacking them.

You haven't been to the zoo for awhile...

[rick]

Well, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I do care how badly they agitated the tiger.


The difference between me and you is that while I think that these guys did probably deserve to have been arrested for being drunken assholes, I clearly recognize that it is a zoo's responsibility to keep their animals contained.

[Dan Apodaca]

No, you are mistaken.

The direct cause is that the tiger was able to get out of its enclosure because the zoo had it in one that was inadequate for containing it.

No, Rick. The direct cause is the one that cause the situation most directly. The zoo is responsible for the fence. The fence is responsible for the tiger being able to interact with the person. The person is responsible for the tiger being motivated to do so. That's three steps.

As opposed to the other situation at hand: Guys taunt a tiger. Tiger attacks.
That's direct cause.

How badly these guys pissed it off is simply irrelevant, the zoo had an obligation both legally and morally to cage its animals inside of enclosures that meet the proper standards and most importantly, keep the animals where they belong.

It's not irrelevant, because it was a factor in the attack. The fence was not the sole motivation for the tiger's escape. If it was, this would have happened a lot sooner.

[Dan Apodaca]

The difference between me and you is that while I think that these guys did probably deserve to have been arrested for being drunken assholes, I clearly recognize that it is a zoo's responsibility to keep their animals contained.

You're not giving me the respect of reading what I write, so I'm ducking out of this.

Post #14.

[kmeyers]

You're not giving me the respect of reading what I write, so I'm ducking out of this.

Post #14.

Fight or flight...Don't go! You make great points.

except...Tiger vs fence, and people yelling at tiger...

[rick]

It's not irrelevant, because it was a factor in the attack. The fence was not the sole motivation for the tiger's escape. If it was, this would have happened a lot sooner.


I understand the point you are trying to make, but it’s a point that really doesn't matter.

I have no doubt these idiots pissed off the tiger.

I have no doubt that they pissed it off enough to put in a killing rage.

But the zoo is still responsible for the attack by not doing their job properly in the first place by enclosing the tiger in an area that was secured.

And because the zoo mismanaged their primary responsibility to display the animal in a secure manner there’s one dead idiot and one dead tiger.

I am not excusing these guys behavior and I’m not ignoring that they brought their trouble on themselves, but the tiger should never have been able to get out in the first place, and that is the fault of the zoo.

[rick]

You're not giving me the respect of reading what I write, so I'm ducking out of this.

Post #14.

Well you can leave if you want to.

But I have read your posts and I do understand what you are saying.

I just don't agree.

So lay off with the "disrespect" BS, okay?

[StoneGold]

Does anyone think a tiger has to be pissed off to eat a dude? It's a friggin' tiger!

[rick]

Does anyone think a tiger has to be pissed off to eat a dude? It's a friggin' tiger!


In fact the same tiger took off half of a keepers arm during a feeding "accident" only a year earlier.

[kmeyers]

In fact the same tiger took off half of a keepers arm during a feeding "accident" only a year earlier.

I'm pretty sure Chris Rock made a good joke about a tiger...going TIGER ON YOUR ASS...

Surprise!

[Jack Zodiac]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/longbarreljones/seal.gif

Animals will be animals and humans will be assholes, but regardless, improper maintenance of a facility that cages animals is unacceptable.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Does anyone think a tiger has to be pissed off to eat a dude? It's a friggin' tiger!

I suppose posting this video is in bad taste....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4VO_cV-7M

[rick]

I suppose posting this video is in bad taste....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4VO_cV-7M

Buck Owens is never bad taste.

Well unless it's Hee Haw.

But even that's fun.

[Mike Pothier]

I'm totally with rick here. Unless the zoo made people sign waivers detailing the fact that the wall keeping in predators was lower than the industry standard, they are legally at fault here. I don't feel sorry for these morons who feel the need to feed their macho egos by taunting animals, but I also don't feel that keeps the zoo from having to pay any damages.

[Donald M.]

I've also got to throw in my agreement that the zoo is primarily responsible for what happened. Idiots taunt animals in zoos all the time. Animals getting out of their cages and killing idiots, not so common.

I don't feel much sympathy for the moron who got mauled, but it was the zoo's responsibility to make certain that their enclosures are capable of actually keeping potentially dangerous animals inside.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that zoos shouldn't exist in the first place. Wildlife preserves yeah, but not closing up wild animals in steel and concrete boxes so people can stare at them.

[Michael P]

I'm not entirely sure how or why this has turned into a blame pissing contest. It seems pretty simple: Zoo built shitty fence, idiots gave tiger reason to jump shitty fence. Ergo, blame is shared. End of story.

[Puma]

I'm not entirely sure how or why this has turned into a blame pissing contest. It seems pretty simple: Zoo built shitty fence, idiots gave tiger reason to jump shitty fence. Ergo, blame is shared. End of story.

Money.

The surviving young men & the family of the dead man, or their lawyers, will make a lot of money.


I see fault in all parties actions but as the zoo is suppose to maintain a reasonably safe environment I think the courts will ultimate fault the zoo for this occurrence. Doesn't mean I don't think the young men don't share some responsibility but again where were the zoo employees to stop the taunting/teasing?

I enjoy zoos and preserves. I like to learn about the animals and know that for many animals, zoos may be the only way to keep the species alive. What I don't like about zoos are some of the visitors who look at the animals as 'entertainment', something there for there amusement and pleasure. These are often the same people the tap (or pound) on the glass trying to get the animals attention, scream/yell, or try to provoke the animal into a reaction. There needs to be a lot more public contact between zoo employees and the visitors in educating people about the animals, rather than just having open viewing areas to the enclosures. Good zoos do this. Unfortunately SF zoo seems to have some serious management problems.

[Michael P]

Money.

The surviving young men & the family of the dead man, or their lawyers, will make a lot of money.


I mean in this thread, not in real life.

[Donald M.]

I mean in this thread, not in real life.

Good question.

It seems to be just two people who turned it into a pissing match. Not sure why. It's a silly thing to get worked up about.

All parties involved clearly share the blame, but regardless of what those young men did the zoo is more to blame, at least in terms of liability, for failing to have a proper enclosure for the tiger.

[Puma]

I mean in this thread, not in real life.

When does this not happen?

[K'Nort]

In my opinion, the zoo does not hold full responsibility for this attack.

But if they were discovered to have inadequate fencing during an inspection or due to a no-fault attack, they would be penalized and they still should. For the too-low fence, not for the dead and injured attendees.

It's a goofy/unreasonable part of our legal system that the dollar amount on a penalty depends on how cute/sympathetic the victim is. There's less of a fine for killing a drunk, obnoxious college student than for killing let's say a five-year old and her grandfather who just happened to be in the area when an animal decided to go for it. (And I get the vague feeling that happened somewhere too.) I mean, one case will get more sympathy from the public than the other. But the legal system really should be more impartial than that.

A zoo is supposed to have safety measures adequate for preventing any attack. They shouldn't get lucky because the inevitable victims were jerks. They would have been fined if no one died.

[Puma]

It's a goofy/unreasonable part of our legal system that the dollar amount on a penalty depends on how cute/sympathetic the victim is. There's less of a fine for killing a drunk, obnoxious college student than for killing let's say a five-year old and her grandfather who just happened to be in the area when an animal decided to go for it. (And I get the vague feeling that happened somewhere too.) I mean, one case will get more sympathy from the public than the other. But the legal system really should be more impartial than that.


You're right about the cuteness factor swaying the system. Reading the articles, and watching the interviews, it is telling that the zoo's lawyers refer to the men as men, their lawyer however, refers to them as boys. One is 19 and the other 23, the dead victim was the only 'boy' at 17.
Their lawyer is also trying to keep their previous run ins with the law fairly quiet to present them as good boys. The other side keeps bringing up the run-ins and drugs and alcohol.

[K'Nort]

You're right about the cuteness factor swaying the system. Reading the articles, and watching the interviews, it is telling that the zoo's lawyers refer to the men as men, their lawyer however, refers to them as boys. One is 19 and the other 23, the dead victim was the only 'boy' at 17.
Their lawyer is also trying to keep their previous run ins with the law fairly quiet to present them as good boys. The other side keeps bringing up the run-ins and drugs and alcohol.

I blame science fiction.

If the legal system decrees "each human life is worth x dollars, period," then all kinds of dystopian scenarios instantly arise.

But making it subjective brings out all sorts of inanity.

[Nick Soapdish]

I think that the zoo is mostly at fault, not only for the fence, but also for not providing a safe environment for the tigers. The "boys" should've been kicked out or arrested immediately.

I gotta say that I don't like the idea of the families financially profiting because the "boys" were stupid assholes. It sounds like a Darwin Award to me. But legally, I think that's what's gotta happen.

I sorta see the money as recompense for all the articles that they'll have to read about them being idiots and that being the cause of death. Which they'll be getting more of since it's going to court.

[sherlockbones]

I blame science fiction.

If the legal system decrees "each human life is worth x dollars, period," then all kinds of dystopian scenarios instantly arise.

But making it subjective brings out all sorts of inanity.

i think that is deeply rooted in the european feudal justice system.
you kill someone=you pay for the labour that cannot be done anymore, compensate.

you steal=it is a crime against the landlord, therefore against god (order)=harder punishment

[Paul McEnery]

I think that the zoo is mostly at fault, not only for the fence, but also for not providing a safe environment for the tigers. The "boys" should've been kicked out or arrested immediately.

I gotta say that I don't like the idea of the families financially profiting because the "boys" were stupid assholes. It sounds like a Darwin Award to me. But legally, I think that's what's gotta happen.

I sorta see the money as recompense for all the articles that they'll have to read about them being idiots and that being the cause of death. Which they'll be getting more of since it's going to court.

Any decent lawyer should be able to make the case of contributory negligence against the idiots; and not only should they get nothing, they should go to jail for trespass and destruction of public property.

[rick]

Any decent lawyer should be able to make the case of contributory negligence against the idiots; and not only should they get nothing, they should go to jail for trespass and destruction of public property.


I have no love for these guys, but certainly you can't be saying that the zoo doesn't hold its own share of responsiblity for the tiger getting loose.

[K'Nort]

I think one major problem with the legal system these days is that punitive damages go to the victim. And really, they have nothing to do with them. They get actual damages for that. The fines have nothing to do with them. But it does increase the greed factor. That money should go into something along the lines of legal services or something.

[darkkeeperjr]

Sure the zoo had a shitty fence,but who let the tiger know about it?

[StoneGold]

Sure the zoo had a shitty fence,but who let the tiger know about it?

Fucking overactive zoo public relations department!

[Ronald Bryan]

Fucking overactive zoo public relations department!
I think the idea was, the guys climbed up on the fence. Then, the tiger thought "You can climb that shit? Awesome! Let me try!"

[StoneGold]

I think the idea was, the guys climbed up on the fence. Then, the tiger thought "You can climb that shit? Awesome! Let me try!"

But it still ends up being the zoo's fault. One of the things about zoos, they create the illusion of safety. That animal won't eat me, it's in a fucking zoo! So the idea is to protect morons as much as it is to keep the animals inside. Morons shouldn't be able to put themselves in a position where they can be eaten.

[Donald M.]

Morons shouldn't be able to put themselves in a position where they can be eaten.

That's the magic of morons though; they can be surprisingly resourceful when they get it in their head to do something really, spectacularly stupid.

[StoneGold]

That's the magic of morons though; they can be surprisingly resourceful when they get it in their head to do something really, spectacularly stupid.

Granted. But they shouldn't be helped by building a substandard wall. Don't aid morons in getting themselves killed. It's bad for your insurance rates.

[Ronald Bryan]

Granted. But they shouldn't be helped by building a substandard wall. Don't aid morons in getting themselves killed. It's bad for your insurance rates.
Oh, it still is totally the zoos fault that the tiger could climb the fence. I was just trying to ruin your joke.

[Donald M.]

Granted. But they shouldn't be helped by building a substandard wall. Don't aid morons in getting themselves killed. It's bad for your insurance rates.

Yes, but there have been cases where people have climbed walls the animals can't is my point.

But then, if one of these idiots had actually climbed into the cage, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[darkkeeperjr]

Yes, but there have been cases where people have climbed walls the animals can't is my point.

But then, if one of these idiots had actually climbed into the cage, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Sure we would.If morons can climb a 30ft fence then the zoo should of had a 50ft fence.

[Gilda Dent]

Yes, but there have been cases where people have climbed walls the animals can't is my point.

But then, if one of these idiots had actually climbed into the cage, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Sure we would. Last year or the year before a kid climbed past a restraining fence and got bit by a meerkat. Because of the kid's negligence, the meerkat had to be destroyed to check it for rabies.

Not too long before that, a woman jumped a restraining fence and reached through a second fence into a wolf cage and nearly got her arm torn off.

People do incredibly stupid things regardless of how careful zookeepers are.

In this case, the zoo clearly screwed up, but there is also a great deal of contributory negligence on the part of the men who taunted the tiger. I hope the men and their families get actual medical expenses and nothing more, but I suspect we'll be seeing otherwise eventually.

Regardless of the zoo's failure, these people shouldn't be rewarded for their misbehavior.

[StoneGold]

Sure we would. Last year or the year before a kid climbed past a restraining fence and got bit by a meerkat. Because of the kid's negligence, the meerkat had to be destroyed to check it for rabies.

Not too long before that, a woman jumped a restraining fence and reached through a second fence into a wolf cage and nearly got her arm torn off.

People do incredibly stupid things regardless of how careful zookeepers are.

In this case, the zoo clearly screwed up, but there is also a great deal of contributory negligence on the part of the men who taunted the tiger. I hope the men and their families get actual medical expenses and nothing more, but I suspect we'll be seeing otherwise eventually.

Regardless of the zoo's failure, these people shouldn't be rewarded for their misbehavior.

Or, alternatively, zoos need to be people proofed as much as animal proofed.

Hell, look at it as protecting the animals.

[Rachel Grey]

Is it wrong of me that I read the OP and the story and just thought "lol pwnt"?

[Gilda Dent]

Or, alternatively, zoos need to be people proofed as much as animal proofed.

Hell, look at it as protecting the animals.

Sure. Trusting people to behave rationally is overestimating people as a whole, but we shouldn't reward the idiots for being idiots.

[StoneGold]

Sure. Trusting people to behave rationally is overestimating people as a whole, but we shouldn't reward the idiots for being idiots.

But if you don't, then the zoo feels no reason to protect idiots, and we're back at the start of the argument again. Really, it's a no-win situation either way.

[Paradox]

Feh. Everyone in this is at fault except the tiger.

[BYC]

But if you don't, then the zoo feels no reason to protect idiots, and we're back at the start of the argument again. Really, it's a no-win situation either way.
If we got rid of animals in the first place, none of this would have happened! Animals = bad.

Those idiots got exactly what they deserved.

[StoneGold]

Feh. Everyone in this is at fault except the tiger.

Yes. The tiger was just being tiger. But being that the tiger was being a tiger around people, it need killin'.

[Puma]

Yes. The tiger was just being tiger. But being that the tiger was being a tiger around people, it need killin'.

you could turn that around and say a moron was just being a moron around tigers, they needed a lesson.

[Donald M.]

Sure we would. Last year or the year before a kid climbed past a restraining fence and got bit by a meerkat. Because of the kid's negligence, the meerkat had to be destroyed to check it for rabies.

Not too long before that, a woman jumped a restraining fence and reached through a second fence into a wolf cage and nearly got her arm torn off.

People do incredibly stupid things regardless of how careful zookeepers are.



I meant in reference to this specific case and these specific circumstances (disregarding the inadequate enclosure).

There have been stories in the past of drunken idiots climbing into animal enclosures and getting mauled/eaten and they generally don't inspire this kind of debate.

The only reason this story has inspired such debate is because these particular drunken idiots were outside the enclosure, this bringing into question the zoo's level of liability.


Sure we would.If morons can climb a 30ft fence then the zoo should of had a 50ft fence.

Nonsense. The zoo's top priority is in keeping animals in, not keeping morons out. They should make make every effort to ensure it isn't easy for someone to get inside the area with the animals, but as I said before, morons can be surprisingly resourceful when they decide to do something really stupid.

An animal might see a 50ft wall as an impenetrable barrier, but a certain kind of person only sees it as a challenge.

[Shellhead]

Feh. Everyone in this is at fault except the tiger.

Agreed. If these idiots had been hassling a professional boxer and got their noses broken in "self-defense", everybody would have laughed at their stupidity. Sure, the zoo should have taken more precautions. And these morons should take some personal responsibility for public intoxication and disturbing the peace and drug possession.

[spoon_jenkins]

Any decent lawyer should be able to make the case of contributory negligence against the idiots; and not only should they get nothing, they should go to jail for trespass and destruction of public property.
Doubtful. Almost all the states, including I'm pretty sure California, have switched from contributory negligence to comparative negligence. That means that the zoo doesn't have a complete defense if the mauled dudes were at fault at all. Rather, their liability is proportionally reduced in proportion to how much the plaintiff is at fault.

[K'Nort]

The poor local zoo has been fund-raising for their first big cat exhibit for about a decade now (they're going the habitat route instead of just cages, so that's expensive) and the first resident arrived this week. All they can talk about is fences. With a little to the side about how snow leopards can handle our current below zero temps just fine. But mostly fences. I feel sorry for them.

[Michael P]

Is it wrong of me that I read the OP and the story and just thought "lol pwnt"?

For lots of reasons, yes.

[literally exaggerated]

There will always be idiots, prepping for them beyond the point of any legal liability is an institution's responsibility. That doesn't mean idiot-proof, because thats impossible, but it does mean, you know, meeting basic safety requirements like fence height regulations. They might still climb the higher fence, but build it high enough and no one is gonna blame you if some moron happens to be a damn good, determined climber with a de facto death wish. The idiots have already faced consequences for their stupidity- one of them is dead. Punishing negligence is the job of the court, though I do wish there was a way to do it that could send a strong message to the zoo without rewarding these people (though I imagine the pr fallout alone is giving zoo management nightmares). Its like if some fool runs and tries to slide on a newly waxed floor and breaks his neck. Now, its fucking stupid regardless, but legally the floor owners better hope they have a warning sign up, because otherwise it creates the possibility in the court's mind that such an accident could have happened even if the "victim" wasn't being stupid. Same shit with the tiger. A jumpable fence sends the message that, taunting idiots or no, the tiger might have eventually busted out anyway. Whereas if it was built so high that the victim actually had to climb over to the other side to get his ass eaten, then all the court thinks is "shouldn't have climbed over, dumbass".

[gary bolt]

"Clearly there's the lesson to be learned here," said zoo spokesman Sam Singer. "The lesson is that it's not a good idea to drink, it's not a good idea to be high on dope, and it's not a good idea to taunt a man-eating tiger."

Thank you Sam Singer. I knew that there were risks associated with the consumption of drugs and alcohol but I may end up quiting now that I know that I might end up being mauled by a tiger.

[rick]

Thank you Sam Singer. I knew that there were risks associated with the consumption of drugs and alcohol but I may end up quiting now that I know that I might end up being mauled by a tiger.


Apparently Mr. Singer missed the lesson that when you have a zoo you need to keep the animals secured.

[rick]

One other thing here to think about gang......


San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/MNKDUHQRQ.DTL)

S.F. Zoo mauling investigation winding down

The police investigation into the tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo will soon be reclassified as "inactive" after a search failed to turn up evidence that the victims taunted the animal or committed other crimes, authorities said Friday.

Sources close to the case said the investigation into the Christmas Day attack could be shelved as soon as next week and will not be reopened unless new information comes to light. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the department.

A police spokesman, Sgt. Neville Gittens, said that "right now, (the investigation) is still open and active."

On Wednesday, police investigators searched the car and the cell phones belonging to the two brothers who survived the attack that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. of San Jose. They recovered no direct evidence to support a theory that either Paul Dhaliwal, 19, or Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, of San Jose had taunted the Siberian tiger before it attacked, authorities close to the case say.

On Friday, a Superior Court judge in Santa Clara County allowed the San Francisco city attorney's office to inspect a two-hour span of activity on the cell phones, but not Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW. Lawyers wanted to check the items to prepare for expected lawsuits over the attack. Judge Socrates Manoukian found the city and zoo arguments to preserve possible evidence in the car were at best speculative.

In an inventory of what they found in their search, police said the car contained a partly filled bottle of Grey Goose vodka and a kit commonly used to defeat drug testing, which included a vial of unisex synthetic urine.

Police conducted the search after the case had stalled for other reasons. The Dhaliwal brothers, who talked with investigators several days after suffering head wounds in the attack, would not agree to further questioning. Also, the zoo's operations director, Jesse Vargas, blocked police from talking to zoo authorities after initial interviews, citing attorneys' advice, police said in their search warrant affidavit.

A spokesman has said the zoo simply wants attorneys present when zoo officials are questioned.

According to the search warrant statement, Paul Dhaliwal reportedly told Sousa's father that before the attack the three young men yelled and waved at the tiger while standing atop the 3-foot-high railing of the tiger's exhibit.

However, Paul Dhaliwal denied throwing anything into the enclosure or otherwise antagonizing the animal, and police were unable to find any evidence to contradict that account.

An attorney for the Sousa family, Michael Cardoza, said it was clear police had been pressured to conduct their search despite a shortage of evidence that the Dhaliwals and Sousa had committed a crime.

"You wonder who is pulling the strings here," he said. "If they were looking at bringing manslaughter (against the Dhaliwals for Sousa's death), that is unbelievable."

Police said all three young men had been drinking and smoked marijuana before going to the zoo. Cardoza, however, ridiculed the idea that their condition had anything to do with the attack.

"Come on, how many people go out there to the zoo a little stoned?" he said. "This is ridiculous. Is that a reason to dirty the kids up?"




So let's be clear.

The young men deny taunting the tigers.

The police have found no evidence to support that the young men taunted the tiger.

The people who are accusing the young men of taunting the tiger are part of the corporation with the most to lose over their liability for the tiger getting out.

But come on gang, let’s not let anything as silly as the legal evidence get in the way of everyone cheering that these guys were attacked

After all, who are any of us to not fall blindly into the narrative that the Zoo wants us to believe in to save their asses.

[darkkeeperjr]

Nonsense. The zoo's top priority is in keeping animals in, not keeping morons out. They should make make every effort to ensure it isn't easy for someone to get inside the area with the animals, but as I said before, morons can be surprisingly resourceful when they decide to do something really stupid.

An animal might see a 50ft wall as an impenetrable barrier, but a certain kind of person only sees it as a challenge.

Seems like the zoo need to plan for morons when they designed the place. still not the zoo fault that morons feel the need to show how smart they are by over coming the zoo's defenses.

[rick]

Seems like the zoo need to plan for morons when they designed the place. still not the zoo fault that morons feel the need to show how smart they are by over coming the zoo's defenses.


Well first off they have found no evidence to show that these guys taunted anything.

Secondly, nobody, not even the zoo is saying that these guys made any attempt to enter the tiger enclosure or to get past any kind of safety wall.

[gary bolt]

The taunting accusations are nothing more than a smoke-screen set off by the zoo. It is clear that their containment wall doesn't comply with modern height standards but they prefer to call attention to the victims teasing the tiger. Fuck, if every person who teased a zoo animal were killed they'd have to set up an in-house crematorium.

[darkkeeperjr]

Well first off they have found no evidence to show that these guys taunted anything.

Secondly, nobody, not even the zoo is saying that these guys made any attempt to enter the tiger enclosure or to get past any kind of safety wall.

But,the guys at work said...the radio announced that......:mad: :sigh: Duped again!

[StoneGold]

Agreed. If these idiots had been hassling a professional boxer and got their noses broken in "self-defense", everybody would have laughed at their stupidity.

No, then it's a case of my, these psychotic boxers and their roid rage. Because like we haven't gone through that a few times with Tyson.

[Ronald Bryan]

But Tyson usually keeps his biting and beating up to either someone in the ring, or in the bedroom.

[StoneGold]

But Tyson usually keeps his biting and beating up to either someone in the ring, or in the bedroom.

I swear there was a bit where Mike was getting into some out of the ring fights.

[Donald M.]

Well first off they have found no evidence to show that these guys taunted anything.


Well then, there's no more question as to who is at fault, is there.

Like I said earlier, idiots taunting animals at the zoo is common (and these guys apparently weren't even doing any taunting) animals getting out isn't. Regardless of what these young men did or didn't do, liability in this case lies entirely with the zoo. The tiger shouldn't have been able to get out, end of story.

Secondly, nobody, not even the zoo is saying that these guys made any attempt to enter the tiger enclosure or to get past any kind of safety wall.

Nor is anyone in this thread, unless someone got confused by a purely tangential discussion inspired by this case. Back when it was assumed the young men taunted the tiger. If they didn't then going off on tangent about past cases of zoo animal related injuries/deaths and questions of who is at fault have no place in the discussion.

[Rabid Trekkie]

If these guys taunted the tiger then I don't feel sorry for them. However that doesn't change the main fault being with the zoo. We have safety requirements for a reason, and yeah part of that reason is to protect idiots as well. Now if idiots go above and beyond the call of duty in their stupidity, well that's too bad. But the last thing we need to do is give the idiots a helping hand.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Darwin at work.

[Guapo Méndez]

Darwin at work.

Indeed. I don't taunt tigers. I could be behind 2 inches of bulletproof glasa and I'd still say "how do you do" to the feline.

[StoneGold]

Indeed. I don't taunt tigers. I could be behind 2 inches of bulletproof glasa and I'd still say "how do you do" to the feline.

Just by being there you'd be taunting them. You think tigers know insults? They're fucking tigers!!!

[bfrank]

Well then that means you should be coming down clearly against the zoo, since their inadequate enclosure allowed a tiger to escape.

didn't the zoo pass it's inspection a few years back.....

[rick]

didn't the zoo pass it's inspection a few years back.....


Actually that brings up a good question.

Just what agency is it exactly that oversees zoos?

[Donald M.]

Actually that brings up a good question.

Just what agency is it exactly that oversees zoos?

Apparently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is who oversees these things on a Federal level, but the inspections at this particular zoo that somehow overlooked the inadequacy of the enclosure were performed by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a non-profit accreditation and lobbying group. They inspect zoos and aquariums to make certain everything is up to their guidelines, but unlike the Federal government they have no power to implement those guidelines or demand that they be met.

When they actually notice the violations.

[gary bolt]

Just by being there you'd be taunting them. You think tigers know insults? They're fucking tigers!!!

Feline-ist!

[Huh?]

The obvious solution to this problem is to close all zoos. Or, we could kill all the tigers, or all the teenagers, or both...

Or... if there was some way we could link either the tiger or the teenagers to the attacks on 9/11...

We shouldn't be caging wild animals for "display purposes" and then act shocked when the animals get out and kill the things that put them in the cage. If someone put you in a cage would you just sit there until you die?

[StoneGold]

We shouldn't be caging wild animals for "display purposes" and then act shocked when the animals get out and kill the things that put them in the cage. If someone put you in a cage would you just sit there until you die?

Except you have it a little backwards there. We should be shocked because we are humans, and have the greater brain capacity to create native terrariums that cannot be escaped.

[Winslow]

If someone put you in a cage would you just sit there until you die?

"Take your stinking paws off me you damned dirty ape."

[Gilda Dent]

If someone put you in a cage would you just sit there until you die?

No. I would live out my live and then evolve into a being of pure energy and then travel the earth spreading the seeds necessary for the rest of the species to likewise evolve into a higher state of being.

But that's just me.

[Nick Soapdish]

So let's be clear.

The young men deny taunting the tigers.

The police have found no evidence to support that the young men taunted the tiger.

The people who are accusing the young men of taunting the tiger are part of the corporation with the most to lose over their liability for the tiger getting out.

But come on gang, let’s not let anything as silly as the legal evidence get in the way of everyone cheering that these guys were attacked

After all, who are any of us to not fall blindly into the narrative that the Zoo wants us to believe in to save their asses.

And the father of the boy that actually died who stated in an affidavit that Paul Dhaliwal told him that the "boys" shouted at the tigers and waved their arms. That's still taunting even if it's not throwing rocks at the tigers (which isn't necessarily going to show up as evidence since the tiger's enclosure probably already had some rocks ... and by the same token, it's not any kind of proof that they did throw stuff).

The original police report (that said that taunting was probably a factor) noted that there were several complaints to the police about taunting of animals that day. And that Yahoo article that started this thread notes that 20-25% of zoo visitors do some sort of taunting of the animals.

So if they did something, there isn't any evidence that it's anything extraordinary. And it doesn't mean that the wall shouldn't have been at least 4 feet higher.

But it's not just the zoo that's saying that the three taunted the tiger and the zoo isn't the only biased party in this.

[rick]

And the father of the boy that actually died who stated in an affidavit that Paul Dhaliwal told him that the "boys" shouted at the tigers and waved their arms. That's still taunting even if it's not throwing rocks at the tigers (which isn't necessarily going to show up as evidence since the tiger's enclosure probably already had some rocks ... and by the same token, it's not any kind of proof that they did throw stuff).

The original police report (that said that taunting was probably a factor) noted that there were several complaints to the police about taunting of animals that day. And that Yahoo article that started this thread notes that 20-25% of zoo visitors do some sort of taunting of the animals.

So if they did something, there isn't any evidence that it's anything extraordinary. And it doesn't mean that the wall shouldn't have been at least 4 feet higher.

But it's not just the zoo that's saying that the three taunted the tiger and the zoo isn't the only biased party in this.


And yet the police report states clearly that they found no evidence to prove that the guys were taunting anything.

No witnesses, no pictures, no statements from anyone on the scene.

The narative that the zoo is putting out, just doesn't hold up to the evidence on hand.

[Dee3]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/longbarreljones/seal.gif

Animals will be animals and humans will be assholes, but regardless, improper maintenance of a facility that cages animals is unacceptable.

True personally I think both parties were at fault. the zoo for improperly enclosing the animals and the two jerks for taunting the Tiger.

Hey does your video say
kamira hi cho/tsu something

[rick]

True personally I think both parties were at fault. the zoo for improperly enclosing the animals and the two jerks for taunting the Tiger.

Hey does your video say
kamira hi something

Don't get me wrong, because you are welcome to think what you want, but the evidence does not support that claim.

[Nick Soapdish]

And yet the police report states clearly that they found no evidence to prove that the guys were taunting anything.

No witnesses, no pictures, no statements from anyone on the scene.

The narative that the zoo is putting out, just doesn't hold up to the evidence on hand.

So you're thinking that the father of the boy that got killed is lying?

How busy is the zoo on Christmas? Right before closing at that.

I'm not saying that it absolves the zoo of blame and I also agree that there isn't any evidence of unusual degrees of taunting - anything above what millions of jackasses do to animals in zoos every year, more if you count how people treat animals in pet shops.

The boy's father isn't direct evidence which is what the police state that they don't have. After all, he's not a witness, but only talked to one. But I'm inclined to believe him unless somebody gives a reason why he shouldn't be believed. Like witnesses that say that they weren't taunting the tigers.

Right now, there isn't any direct evidence either way. Just the boys' account that they weren't taunting and the other boy's father's account that says that one said that they were (and whose attorney considers the idea of charging the other boys with manslaughter laughable - understandably since to my knowledge, he's the first to have brought it up).

[rick]

So you're thinking that the father of the boy that got killed is lying?


Actually what Carlos Sousa SR. said is not quite clear.

A police affidavidt states that the father said the boys were "yelling" and "waving" at the tiger.

The father has not spoken to the press to confirm that.

[Nick Soapdish]

Actually what Carlos Sousa SR. said is not quite clear.

A police affidavidt states that the father said the boys were "yelling" and "waving" at the tiger.

The father has not spoken to the press to confirm that.

Yelling at the animals is taunting - a point that the first article makes when it notes that nearly a quarter of all zoo visitors taunt animals (according to a study from back in the '80s).

You don't have to be throwing rocks at them or saying insulting things about their parentage.

[rick]

Yelling at the animals is taunting - a point that the first article makes when it notes that nearly a quarter of all zoo visitors taunt animals (according to a study from back in the '80s).

You don't have to be throwing rocks at them or saying insulting things about their parentage.


My point is that whatever the dead kids dad has to say really doesn't matter since he was not there.

And even then, at best his statement if true implies that the guys did not do anything that doesn't happen a dozen times a day.

[Nick Soapdish]

My point is that whatever the dead kids dad has to say really doesn't matter since he was not there.

And even then, at best his statement if true implies that the guys did not do anything that doesn't happen a dozen times a day.

If that was your point, you didn't need to bother respond. I mentioned both of those points in each of my prior two posts. I thought that I took some pains to emphasize those points by repeating them.

The original article mentions that the taunting is hardly above what nearly a quarter of all zoo visitors do in the second sentence, although I'll admit to glossing over the "hardly above" part.

[rick]

If that was your point, you didn't need to bother respond. I mentioned both of those points in each of my prior two posts. I thought that I took some pains to emphasize those points by repeating them.

The original article mentions that the taunting is hardly above what nearly a quarter of all zoo visitors do in the second sentence, although I'll admit to glossing over the "hardly above" part.


I don't see any reason for you to get snarky Nick.

[Paradox]

Gilda Dent is Wundaar!:

No. I would live out my live and then evolve into a being of pure energy and then travel the earth spreading the seeds necessary for the rest of the species to likewise evolve into a higher state of being.

But that's just me.

It certainly is! Because I'd probably DEvolve into those monkeys who you have to hide the kids' eyes from. :p

[Suzanne]

The Darwin Award for Stupid Shit With Animals goes to....