Originally Posted By barboy "Tigers are vicious killers" I agree...... it is kind sickening that they show no remorse after hurting someone--- just natural born killers with no redemption unlike the sinless human race.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I suppose what bugs me is how so many of us are saying these guys got what they deserved when we dont even know what happened.>> IF these guys willfully chose to violate physical barriers that were designed to keep them safe, then they got a logical consequence of their action. They dared it, and they got it. Why would I have for them the same sympathy I have for someone who's innocently hit in an intersection by an errant bus or someone who's poisoned by a terrorist or someone who's gunned down in school? <<I also cant comprehend the outpouring of sympathy for this cat.>> Personally, I don't believe the tiger's life was worth more than the life of any of the cows I've guiltlessly eaten, and I certainly don't believe it was worth the life of a human. But it didn't die to provide food, and it didn't do anything wrong. It died just because it did what tigers do. That's a senseless loss of life, which is sad.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Sure, people do stupid things, and quite often pay dearly for it, but if any one of you can honestly say you have never done anything stupid, especially as a teenager, well, your a better person than me.<< Well, there's teenager stupid. Then there's taunt-a-tiger stupid. I still think there's much more to this incident than a too-short wall.... >>The father of the 17-year-old boy who was killed by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo said Sunday that he would like to hear from the two young men who survived the attack. "I would love to talk to them. I would love to hear from them," Carlos Sousa Sr. told The Chronicle. Sousa was responding to reports Sunday by some news outlets that claimed that brothers Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, and Paul Dhaliwal, 19, had phoned him to say they were sorry and had done everything they could to save his son, Carlos Sousa Jr., in the Christmas Day attack. But Sousa, reached at his home in San Jose on Sunday night, said he had not heard from his son's friends, who were released from San Francisco General Hospital on Saturday. "They have not called me," Sousa said. "Last time I talked to them is when they told me my son wasn't with them, and the next day I found out my son was dead, and that makes me a little angry, but there's nothing I can do." The Dhaliwal brothers have been hostile to police in the death investigation, authorities have said. After the attack, the brothers refused to give their names to authorities or identify Carlos Sousa Jr. They also refused, until Thursday when they were interviewed by police, to give authorities an account of what happened. Police have not revealed details of their interview with the brothers.<< <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/31/BAB2U7625.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/31/BAB2U7625.DTL</a> They aren't exactly cooperating with police, which makes me very suspicious as to what exactly the three of them may have been up to at the zoo near closing time.
Originally Posted By jonvn It really does not matter what they did. The tiger should not have been able to get out under any circumstance. This is not even the first time a tiger got out. In the 1960s, a tiger escaped, but jumped back into its cage when yelled at by the keepers. About 10 years ago, it was reported that a tiger had its front paws over the people side of the moat. It was reported, nothing done. The wall is four feet shorter than what is recommended by the AZA. There have been at least two incidents now, not including the mauling of the keeper last year by the same tiger. The zoo is totally at fault here, and it makes me sick. These guys may have been doing weird stuff to the tiger, but the bottom line is the tiger got out. You never know what can affect a tiger, they are unpredictable. Whatever they did (and there is NO evidence they did anything except perhaps smell like food, since they just came from the cafeteria) is pretty meaningless. The tiger got out. A baby crying or any other thing could have set the animal off. I hope the zoo can recover from this and be made stronger for it. I enjoy going there, but it really is a bit run down to say the least.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>but it really is a bit run down to say the least<< We went there this past summer for the first time in a long while. It actually has been spruced up quite a bit compared to how it used to be. It has a ways to go to be sure, but it's getting much better. >>It really does not matter what they did. The tiger should not have been able to get out under any circumstance.<< I agree with the second sentence, but not the first so much. Yes, it is the zoo's responsibility to make sure that no matter what, the visitors and the animals are protected from each other. Clearly there needs to be fixes made to the animal enclosures to prevent escape. But there also needs to be more staff walking around to stop people from doing dumbass things, especially close to closing time. Having worked at an amusement park, people do all sorts of stupid things close to closing time for some reason, especially teenage boys. Yes, the zoo needs to factor in these sorts of human behaviors and stay on top of any antics. But at some point, personal responsibility comes into play here. The fact is, this wasn't a crying baby that caused this. This doesn't seem to be some random thing. So, it does matter what they did. Getting to the truth of the matter is critical if such incidents are to be prevented in the future.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>and there is NO evidence they did anything<< Being uncooperative as they appear to be with the police investigating this is odd, especially since it appears their lives were saved by the police shooting and killing the tiger that intended to eat them. That is very odd, very suspicious behavior to me. Imagine it's you and your family at the zoo and this incident happens. How do you react when questioned? You tell the police exactly what happened as you saw it, while thanking them profusely for saving you from certain death. That's really the only logical response, if all that happened is you were just enjoying a day at the zoo and an animal went nuts out of the blue.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Can't sue the family. They did nothing wrong.** Jon, in Japan when a kid jumps in front of a train to commit suicide the family is responsible for the cleanup costs.
Originally Posted By Mr X K2M, I'm also trying to figure out what they were doing that would make them so uncooperative...I mean, even if they WERE taunting the animal I'm pretty sure there's no particular law against it. If it were me, (under the same circumstances, having taunted the animal and gotten attacked), I think I'd just tell the truth. Lack of consequences makes that a whole lot easier (someone ranting about suing the kids for the death of some beast though, which is very typically American, might give me pause and maybe that's how these guys feel). Screw the stupid tiger, seriously this is a horrible breach by the zoo and they are entirely at fault, taunts or not.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>this is a horrible breach by the zoo and they are entirely at fault, taunts or not<< It's clear (now) that the enclosure wasn't a proper height, so no disagreement on the main point. But just for the sake of conversation, would you extend that same level of responsibility to a Disney park? In other words, is Disney (or any theme park) ALWAYS in the wrong if a guest is injured? Even if they have put in place all the 'reasonable' safety mechanisms they can, what if a guest decides to jump into the water on Pirates and gets impaled on some underwater mechanism. Is it wrong there aren't shoulder restraints on Pirates because it's conceivable some idiot could decide to stand up and leap one day?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I ask because when Tom Sawyer Island was redesigned, there was much upset over the removal of certain things deemed unsafe. Many people said that risks are just part of childhood and they should have left the classics alone, while others thought it was smart to remove potentially dangerous stuff, classic or not. Bringing it back to the zoo, is there any level of acceptible risk? Do the guests have any responsibility to behave in ways that don't endanger the animalls or themselves? I think it matters what lead up to the attack, because that's how officials can learn what needs to change.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>walking out to the exit from the cafe they just ate at, and so they were smelling like food. It could really have been that simple. The fact that they may be jerks is another issue entirely. << Maybe. But things aren't usually that simple. Add in they are acting like jerks is a factor here, especially in attempting to prevent something similar in the future. I remember going through this butterfly exhibit at the San Diego Zoo. Two parents with a toddler. The parents were oblivious as their little one clapped his hands over this large butterfly, killing it. Exhibits like this butterfly thing are wonderful, but in order for them to exist, there has to be some basic civility among the guests, and attention paid by parents and the zoo staff. The only way to 100% prevent something like that again is to close the exhibit and not have people walking amongst the butterflies. >>No, it depends on the circumstances of each instance.<< Right. Which means that several factors lead to the zoo attack. Some of which "may" have been three guys screwing around in ways that provoked a tiger. I think it's important to know the exact circumstances though before we start saying it's ALL the zoo's fault, or ALL the fault of the victims. Likely it was a combination of things.
Originally Posted By jonvn Really, it does not matter what the factors are here. The tiger can not get out, period. The only way these guys can be at fault is if they did something like open the cage up. They didn't. It's the zoo's responsibility, and it is entirely their fault: 1) It is their fault the tiger got out at all. 2) It is their fault they did not have enough security to prevent poor behavior amongst its visitors. 3) It is their fault for not having sufficient lighting, a warning system, or letting the guys attacked into a place of safety. The place is nicer than it was a few years ago, but this is a disaster for them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Really, it does not matter what the factors are here.<< Well, you've said that, and I've said why I disagree that it doesn't matter at all. It matters so that it can be prevented in the future. We now know the enclosure needs to be altered. We need to know how much more security is needed to eject people taunting animals (if they did). So all factors must be considered. From an article in Time, it isn't easy to get a tiger to want to attack. They generally attack only for food and will avoid a fight if they can, although a captive tiger might behave differently. >>he only way these guys can be at fault is if they did something like open the cage up.<< Or climbed over the barricades, or tried to lure the tiger with a bit of food or whatever. There is a difference if the attack occurs when people are behaving normally vs. acting up. I don't disagree that the zoo is responsible for factoring in stupid human behavior when designing exhibits. I still think the largest factor here is that too much of the zoo is without a visible security presence walking around. Any public venue is going to attract jackasses from time to time. For their own safety, for everyone's safety, for the animal's safety, having a visible, abundant security force in place is the best way to protect the jackasses from themselves.
Originally Posted By jonvn "it isn't easy to get a tiger to want to attack." Actually, tigers attack all the time. Roy Horn was attacked, this same tiger attacked a keeper last year, a tiger attacked someone at Marine World...they are tigers, not people. They don't need to have a logical reason to do things. For that matter, neither do most people. Again, the tiger got out of its cage. Under no circumstances is this acceptable. Animals in zoos get taunted all the time, it is up to the zoo to protect both the public and the animals. And even if they did taunt this animal, whatever that would entail, that would certainly be a behavior that merits ejection, or at worst a fine. Not being savaged by a tiger.
Originally Posted By pecos bill My guess is the lack of cooperation is because they havent consulted a lawyer yet, or possibly because they have. Every bloodsucking personal injury attorney in town will be knocking down the doors for a chance at this case. Like it or not, the only thing those involved are seeing now are $$$$.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm not sure why post 71 was removed. In it, I said that if Disney were aware of a dangerous situation, did nothing to aleviate it, and someone was hurt, then yes, they would absolutetly be responsible. At least that is what I think it said.
Originally Posted By jonvn Oh I think I also said I wouldn't talk to cops under any circumstances, either. With the way you can now be arrested for "Lying to the police" for any little misstatement, you are an idiot if you say a word to them. I don't blame them for not saying anything.
Originally Posted By barboy "Oh I think I also said I wouldn't talk to cops under any circumstances, either. With the way you can now be arrested for "Lying to the police" for any little misstatement, you are an idiot if you say a word to them. I don't blame them for not saying anything." You bet. People need to shut their mouths more often and keep a low profile when there is potential for a criminal investigation. I had the pleasure(or should I say displeasure??) of talking with a criminal defense lawyer and former DA who was lead counsel in a very high profile murder-for-hire case in Marin County(Bay Area, California) back in '96 and he made it clear that one should never talk with police. He told me unless you are sitting in a witness chair compelled to talk under oath never, never, NEVER open your mouth to police, DA or anyone for that matter. Police routinely lie and use trickery to get results---only an alec would trust police.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Again, the tiger got out of its cage. Under no circumstances is this acceptable. Animals in zoos get taunted all the time, it is up to the zoo to protect both the public and the animals. << I think we're saying the same thing basically.
