Originally Posted By jonvn "Largely because the boys made a pact not to cooperate with the investigation." We don't know what that "pact" was about, either. They could have been talking about drinking or smoking. Again, NO evidence was found of anything criminal done. "they would fully cooperate and STILL get a big payday." They'd be compensated for their loss, and such. But it might reduce punitive damages, I think, that the zoo is going to eventually have to pay as well.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But, for the most part, it was the responsibility of the zoo to mitigate (lawyer word, sorry) the circumstances.<< I don't disagree. >> I'm just curious as to why the part about blaming the culprits (if there are any) matters so much to you.<< Because I see guys like this all the time in different places. Family destinations get continually driven downward by people that seem intent on ruining things. Jerky public behavior seems to be on the increase. Do I want them hurt or dead? No. But I also am tired of jackasses being rewarded when their antics backfire. We have had a long string of people in this country that do stupid, stupid things and then sue and win financial damages. I know that's how the system works. But it isn't justice, and it runs counter to common sense.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They could have been talking about drinking or smoking.<< Yes, I'm sure that was it. (rolls eyes)
Originally Posted By jonvn The zoo is called "third world" and basically a disgrace by zoo experts... <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/BANEUQJGA.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/BANEUQJGA.DTL</a>
Originally Posted By DVC_dad How can the SF zoo be so bad and the SD zoo be so great? What are the differences?
Originally Posted By jonvn Money. And the SF zoo was built as a WPA project in the 40s. It's very old. And everything in SF is messed up. Everything.
