Originally Posted By Mr X **She no matter how long she is captive is a wild animal ** Which is why you would expect the zoo to contain them responsibly. What part of an under-height fence is everyone missing here??
Originally Posted By Mr X **why not order the zoo to use that money to ensure all the fencing is where it should be and make sure nothing like this can happen again** That needs to happen regardless of any lawsuit issues from the victims...or else the place needs to be shut down.
Originally Posted By Mr X **I find it very interesting that with all the people there this tiger only went after those who were *attacking* her** Again with the anthropomorphizing. Do you really think the tiger would differentiate between victims is a slower, more attractive target happened to be in the area at the same time?
Originally Posted By Mr X **I find it very interesting that with all the people there this tiger only went after those who were *attacking* her** Again with the anthropomorphizing. Do you really think the tiger would differentiate between victims if a slower, more attractive target happened to be in the area at the same time?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Do you really think the tiger would differentiate between victims is a slower, more attractive target happened to be in the area at the same time?<< All the more reason these jugheads shouldn't have been standing on the railing taunting the tiger. Their stupidity might have been even more tragic had some totally innocent child been attacked.
Originally Posted By Mr X Of course they shouldn't have (if that's what happened)...but again, it's irrelevant since the animal should've never been able to escape no matter what. And yes, I am very happy that no others were hurt, of course (assuming the three guys were less than innocent). I just think maybe people are reading too much into this tiger "going after" them, as though it was personal. They were nearby, the beast got out and drew blood...after that all bets were off.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> it's irrelevant << *sigh* If it were irrelevent, the police wouldn't have been investigating what exactly lead up to the attack. See, a 24' moat (or whatever height it is) is the industry standard and high enough... until it's not. That's why it's important that everything be understood. Maybe this is a new discovery -- that enraged tigers can jump higher than previously thought. Waving it off and rushing to the conclusion that this is all simply a matter of zoo negligence is a good way to ignore what might be learned from this. If the interest is truly in making zoos safer, then the whole incident must be understood. Maybe, seriously, exhibits need to be altered so that there is zero awareness by the animal that humans are viewing them (one way glass or something). >>I just think maybe people are reading too much into this tiger "going after" them, as though it was personal.<< Maybe. I'm not suggesting this was Shere Khan, plotting meticulously to go after these guys. But tigers also aren't simply mindless eating machines. They have certain known behaviors. And after years of chubby little infants being in view, the tiger went after three young men -- young men who were drawing attention to themselves. It doesn't seem to be some random thing here.
Originally Posted By barboy I wonder how far you two(X and jonvn) would take your argument: "the tiger should have never got out of its pen.... therefore no matter what the 3 did to the animal, no matter how stoned or drunk the 3 were the zoo should be held solely accountable" How about a 20 year old babysitter who was supposed to watch a 2 year old and had the child in a child pen but fell asleep on the sofa and the little one got out, crawled out of the house, wandered in the street and a drunk motorist saw the child and swerved to avoid hitting her but hit a tree instead and died. Should the 20 year old babysitter be held solely accountable for the motorist's death's death since the 2 year old should have never been able to get out of her pen and ultimately out into a busy street? I know the scenario is pretty different but I am just curious as to where you two might draw the line.
Originally Posted By Mr X **the industry standard and high enough... until it's not** But it WASN'T, that's the thing. Here's how I feel...if the enclosure were built to industry standards (at least) and was comparable with any of the know "best" enclosures money could buy, and somehow the animal escaped anyway...THEN I could certainly understand your arguments and I'd probably feel the zoo shouldn't be liable at all. But it wasn't. **the tiger should have never got out of its pen** Yes. **therefore no matter what the 3 did to the animal, no matter how stoned or drunk the 3 were the zoo should be held solely accountable** And yes. The zoo should be held solely accountable for the animal managing to escape, yes. Look, here's the thing too...IF it were proven they did something to the animal (it wasn't), and they caused harm to come to the animal rather than it escaping, then sure they should be responsible for that part of it. But responsible for the escape? No. Because it never should have happened no matter what. They would be responsible for the escape only if, somehow, they actually released the animal themselves (they didn't...the wall wasn't tall enough based on industry standards).
Originally Posted By pecos bill I wonder what PETA's response was to this. Probably pissed that the tiger was shot. It would be a safe guess they were not too sympathetic toward the humans involved.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Which means taxpayers." And the zoo. Yes, that's right. They are the ones responsible, they have to pay. "So you think jon you think they deserve a big payout " A tiger escaped and mauled them. "Along come some boys" You don't get it. The tiger got out. It doesn't matter what they did to "taunt" the animal. I don't quite understand why this has had to be repeated for 300 posts now. It is not crazy to give them money. It is crazy to keep a tiger in a cage where it can get out of. Just be happy the tiger didn't get upset at something else and killed more people.
Originally Posted By jonvn The police were investigating to see what happened. They have also concluded that there is no evidence these guys did anything. If there was, they could have been charged with a misdemeanor. "that this is all simply a matter of zoo negligence" It is, though. You don't seem to get this, either. IT is totally the responsibility of the zoo to keep the tiger in a place where it can not escape from, PERIOD. That's it. Nothing else.
Originally Posted By jonvn "How about a 20 year old babysitter who was supposed to watch a 2 year old and had the child in a child pen but fell asleep on the sofa and the little one got out" What has this to do with anything? Draw the line? What line? You just drew a circle. This isn't rocket science. The tiger escaped from its enclosure, the zoo is responsible.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't quite understand why this has had to be repeated for 300 posts now.<< Because you have concluded it was an open and shut case doesn't mean that it is. If you want to make 1 post and have that be the end of a discussion, start a blog. This is a discussion board. >>It doesn't matter what they did to "taunt" the animal.<< If it "didn't matter" then there would have been no investigation. None. >>Just be happy the tiger didn't get upset at something else and killed more people.<< I am. I wish he didn't kill this boy. It's a tragic way to learn not to do stupid things like stand on a railing and scream at a wild animal. Hopefully some good will come of it -- beefed up security, better safety measures, and possibly, the next drunken fans of Jackass that show up the zoo remember what happened here. For a person that thinks people with tattoos are idiots, you really give these clowns a lot of leeway.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Post 13: >>For some reason, people seem to think tigers are just big kittens. They're not, they're dangerous. And if it is true what is curently circulating, that these guys taunted the animal into attacking, then it's just yet one more indication of how dull witted people have become.<< By Jonvn.
Originally Posted By ElKay Mr. X: "Again with the anthropomorphizing. Do you really think the tiger would differentiate between victims is a slower, more attractive target happened to be in the area at the same time?" You're pretty off base here, Mr. X. It's not anthromorphizing by saying that the tiger could focus on one person or a small group of targets travelling in the same direction and disregarding all other possible prey. Cats, big cat too have color vision as well as the ability to follow a scent. Following your idea, that tiger was attacking random visitors and it just so happened to be the perps. that taunted her. By all accounts, there were enough witness statements at the scene for the tiger to have gone after, instead of just those 3 jerks. I'll bet at least 1 or of 3 of all the visitors were slower children, who might have been easier targets of opportunity, but instead the tiger choose those 3 jerks.
Originally Posted By ElKay jovn: "The police were investigating to see what happened. They have also concluded that there is no evidence these guys did anything. If there was, they could have been charged with a misdemeanor." Let me update your statement from the ContraCostaTimes: <a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8012066" target="_blank">http://www.contracostatimes.co m/ci_8012066</a> "Meanwhile, a criminal investigation has been under way, too. After almost three weeks of what was deemed an inactive investigation, San Francisco police on Tuesday afternoon obtained a search warrant from San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, citing they suspected an unknown felony. Police had previously said that taunting a tiger was a misdemeanor, and police have not disclosed what felony they are now investigating." So the police are in fact looking in to whether or not those brothers can be charged with a felony.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Because you have concluded it was an open and shut case" I have not concluded anything. By law, they are strictly liable. "If it "didn't matter" then there would have been no investigation." For purposes of a civil suit, it does not matter. "For a person that thinks people with tattoos are idiots, you really give these clowns a lot of leeway" What makes you think I feel they are geniuses? I suspect they probably did do something to annoy the tiger into action, that does not mean anything, though. The zoo is still responsible. "that the tiger could focus on one person or a small group of targets " They were injured. The tiger followed the blood trail. This is what tigers do. "Let me update your statement from the ContraCostaTimes: " Yes, thank you for repeating what's already been said 5 times now. I've already pointed to an article that says there is no evidence against them, and the case is basically shutting down. They won't be charged with anything. They will sue the zoo, they will get money, because the zoo is at fault. It won't even go to trial.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Is drug possession a felony in that state maybe?" Contributing to the deliquency of a minor is, so are a few other things. But taunting a zoo animal is a misdemeanor.
