Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Okay, the criminal investigation is suspended because they didn't find hard evidence. As OJ showed us, there's a difference between what the criminal system and the civil system might find. <<The zoo has strict liability in this case. That means it is responsible, period. They chose to exhibit a tiger, and they then had the responsibility to ensure the tiger could not get out at all. If it went to trial, a judge would simply direct a verdict in favor of the attack victims. So it will settle out of court.>> jonvn, the point of view that you've expressed so consistently and confidently as a poster on a Disney fansite is in conflict with what I've heard from legal experts in the national media. So you'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't just take your word that you are, of course, correct. Legal analysts are calling this case "interesting" -- meaning that the outcome is far from pre-determined. Outside of your own head, it is apparently not the "open and shut" case that you've maintained it is. Apparently, this case may set legal precedent regarding liability. OF COURSE, the tiger should not have been able to escape. But does that mean that the zoo is entirely responsible? or could other parties bear some (most?) of the responsibility for this incident? It's yet to be determined. [It seems amazing to me -- and somehow cool -- that after 200+ years, our justice system is still finding itself needing to deal with "new" sets of circumstances as regards the law.] If I were the zoo's attorney, I'd go for the "necessary but not sufficient" angle. For the tiger to escape, it was *necessary* for the physical features of the enclosure to allow for it. But was the configuration of the enclosure *sufficient* to allow escape? Probably not. If the physical structure of the enclosure was so weak in itself that the tigers could escape at will, why didn't they do it regularly? They didn't do it, of course, because they needed an external stimulus to motivate them. The pen's configuration allowed for escape, but that, in itself, was insufficient to cause a breach. There's a lot of wood and paper goods in my bedroom. They're highly flammable. The room is a perfect fire trap -- except that there's never a spark. I make sure of that. But what if a burgler were to come into my apartment, drop a lit cigarette into my wastepaper basket, the room lit up, and the fire spread to other apartments here? Would I be solely liable for the fire?
Originally Posted By Mr X **If the physical structure of the enclosure was so weak in itself that the tigers could escape at will, why didn't they do it regularly? They didn't do it, of course, because they needed an external stimulus to motivate them. The pen's configuration allowed for escape, but that, in itself, was insufficient to cause a breach.** You are assuming they needed some external stimulus, in fact you seem hell bent on insisting that's how it must have been. I wonder why you feel the need to somehow justify the situation beyond "the fence was too low". Jon and I keep saying it doesn't matter (I do believe that), but what I wonder is WHY that matters to you so much.
Originally Posted By Mr X **They didn't do it, of course, because they needed an external stimulus to motivate them.** I don't see the "of course" part of it. And even IF it is an "of course" thing, once again if the external stimulus had been a fussy baby what would you say? Can't blame the zoo, it was the baby's fault?
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I'm "hell bent" on this issue? I don't think so. Hell bent implies some sort of passion. And yet I've spent practically no "non-LP" time thinking about the issue. In fact, I'm not sure how I would assign responsibility for the escape. "Zoo is 100% responsible" is a contender in my mind. My point here is: The US legal system, according to some "experts," might allow that the three youths bear a portion of the responsibility for the attack. The whole "necessary but not sufficient" thing is just my suggestion to the zoo's people. (And, okay, okay, my mind is not yet made up. If I were on a jury, I might be swayed by such an argument.)
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<And even IF it is an "of course" thing, once again if the external stimulus had been a fussy baby what would you say?>> "Tastes like chicken?" As K2M has reminded us here, this was NOT a case of a baby doing what babies do innocently and naturally. It was a case of three youths deliberately provoking a wild animal. I don't believe there have been any incidents of tigers escaping the enclosure at the SF Zoo and attacking fussy babies.
Originally Posted By Mr X **I'm "hell bent" on this issue? I don't think so.** Oops...sorry. I thought you were Kar2oonMan (seriously). But yeah, he has said such things many times and so I wonder why he (or anyone) would be so concerned with addressing the "why it happened" part at the EXPENSE of the "it never should've happened" part. I do agree, why it happened is important (if we can ever know)...but the fact that it happened at all, regardless of the instigating factor, is what scares and bothers me personally much more.
Originally Posted By Mr X **this was NOT a case of a baby doing what babies do innocently and naturally** I know. It's hypothetical. If it HAD been because of that, could anyone say "hey, the zoo wasn't 100% responsible 'cause of the baby and all"? That's my point.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Oops...sorry. I thought you were Kar2oonMan (seriously). >> Whoa, X, you must be psychic or something. K2M sent me a frantic text message this evening: "Gotta bowl! Cover Tiger thread 4 me, K? Thx!"
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 On a more serious note... I agree with K2M's posts on this thread. And I believe I understand and share his passion for the topic. It IS wrong that the zoo enclosure permitted escape. But it's also wrong for people to flaunt posted rules. It's wrong that there's a school of thought that goes, "If I shouldn't have done it, they shouldn't have LET me do it! [So if I did it -- even though I KNEW it was wrong -- it's not my fault.]" It's wrong that perpetrators are portraying themselves as victims and being granted any credibility.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<If it HAD been because of that, could anyone say "hey, the zoo wasn't 100% responsible 'cause of the baby and all"? That's my point.>> Okay, okay, maybe I'm going to disappoint K2M here. My mind would be made up in this case. The kids taunted the tiger. That caused it to escape. It had never escaped before. Case closed. Except... Sigfried and Roy's tiger went feral on its 285,479th (or whatever) performance. It had never done that before. And then... it just did. Can you imagine a more powerful spin machine than that of a Las Vegas hotel/casino? And yet the best they could do was to say that a female patron's hair-do must have set the tiger off. That's why there's reasonable doubt in my mind. MY point is... At this point, there should be reasonable doubt in everyone's mind about what happened at the SF zoo.
Originally Posted By Mr X Like I've said, they probably WERE being jerks...sounds like it, anyway. Yet there seems no real proof. And it doesn't matter anyway, cause the animal shouldn't have been able to escape. That's how I feel.
Originally Posted By jonvn "what I've heard from legal experts in the national media" You should read the articles I have quoted. The zoo has no way out of this. The zoo even admits there is "no excuse" for the tiger escaping. None. And while you can say there may be civil issues still, the authorities have said there is "NO evidence" to sugggest they did anything other than they claim. If there is no evidence, then there is no evidence, and you can't just say "Hey, I think this happened." In the OJ case, there was a TON of evidence as to his guilt, and it was presented in court. You can't present no evidence. "But was the configuration of the enclosure *sufficient* to allow escape? " Yes, because it had happened before, tigers have gotten out of the enclosure with NO provocation at all. And again, even if the tiger was taunted in some way, the zoo has to be able to forsee that happening, as it is a common problem, and design the enclosure in such a manner as to ameliorate the problem. That's just how it is. No one is going to expect that by yelling and waving at a tiger, it will be able to escape. This is something that goes on all the time. There really is very little argument that can be made.
Originally Posted By jonvn The thing is the zoo is already on the hook for damages, as they are strictly liable. That means actual damages, medical costs, pain and suffering, wrongful death, like that. That will be millions. Then you go into punitive damages on top of that. That will be on how negligent the zoo was: They put a tiger, known to have attacked a person very recently, into an enclosure that was known to be escapable by tigers. There was no lighting. There was no security. There was no warning. The zoo employees refused to help these men. As opposed to: The guys yelled and waved at the tiger. I think the zoo bears just a tiny shred more responsibility for this than someone who yelled at a tiger.
Originally Posted By Mr X *Yet there seems no real proof. *If there is no evidence, then there is no evidence, and you can't just say "Hey, I think this happened." Is there an echo in here?
Originally Posted By jonvn "this was NOT a case of a baby doing what babies do innocently and naturally. It was a case of three youths deliberately provoking a wild animal." Actually, we really and honestly don't know that. Tigers can attack, as you point out with the Siegfried and Roy show. They are tigers, not people, and they don't think or react like people do.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But yeah, he has said such things many times and so I wonder why he (or anyone) would be so concerned with addressing the "why it happened" part at the EXPENSE of the "it never should've happened" part.<< Good grief. Um, I have said it never should have happened throughout the entire thread. But I also said "the circumstances matter" so that whatever happened can be taken into account in the future (higher walls, more security, cameras, alarm systems, etc.). If the circumstances didn't matter, there would be no investigation. >>K2M sent me a frantic text message this evening: "Gotta bowl! Cover Tiger thread 4 me, K? Thx!"<< LOL!
Originally Posted By Mr X **I have said it never should have happened throughout the entire thread.** I realize that. I hope I never implied otherwise. I'm just curious as to why the part about blaming the culprits (if there are any) matters so much to you. As far as "the circumstances matter", of course they do. But, for the most part, it was the responsibility of the zoo to mitigate (lawyer word, sorry) the circumstances. As Jon said, yelling at a Tiger should not result in the Tiger escaping and attacking you. If it does, something is wrong with the enclosure. Ugh...this seems SO repetitive at this point. Sorry.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Actually, we really and honestly don't know that.<< Largely because the boys made a pact not to cooperate with the investigation. These guys have a history, so it isn't unreasonable to connect the dots a bit. If it didn't matter, they would fully cooperate and STILL get a big payday. But they know it matters, so they keep mum. You're right, there appears to be a lack of evidence. This, too, is the zoo's fault. Had they had ample security, cameras, etc., the entire episode would have been witnessed or on tape -- or more likely, wouldn't have happened to begin with.
