Originally Posted By Mr X **the only way these guys can be at fault is if they did something like open the cage up** yes. **Or climbed over the barricades** yes. **or tried to lure the tiger with a bit of food or whatever** no. however someone might taunt a dangerous animal or try and provoke it to escape, it simply shouldn't be able to. the only possible way I could imagine something like this not being the zoo's fault would be if they had a state of the art facility and could say "look, we built it just as safely as anyplace in the world, and really had no way to forsee this event occurring". the accreditation people should be somewhat at fault as well for not closing down the place for having an (obvious, now) improper enclosure for the animals. As for the Disney question, I would say there is a big difference between what a customer does within customer areas and in restricted areas is a different issue. The guy walking on the monorail beam? Not Disney's fault. The person hit by some heavy boat equipment on the dock there? Disney's fault. Anyway, there's just no way in hell it could be a patrons' "fault" for getting attacked by an animal IN THE PEOPLE AREA of the zoo. Just scary to think about! I bring my daughter to zoos! The only possible
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I think we've all already agreed that the zoo is at fault: the tiger should not have been able to escape its confines.
Originally Posted By threeundertwo I'm going to throw out another discussion point: I've always thought it was weird that the zoo sells beer. Gordon Biersch I think. Don't get me wrong - I love beer - but not at the zoo. Do you really need to have a few to enjoy the lemurs? These kids have a history of drunk and disorderly conduct. I wonder if they went to the zoo to have a few, and alcohol played a part in this scenario. And yes, I do understand that the zoo probably makes a huge profit off each beeer it sells; I'm just wondering if they really sell enough to make it worth impairing the judgement of guests.
Originally Posted By Mr X **I'm just wondering if they really sell enough to make it worth impairing the judgement of guests.** Like any other establishment, the zoo reserves the right (I assume) to refuse to serve someone and also to remove them from the premises for any reason. Though I agree that alcohol can certainly contribute to a persons' "dark side", I've seen plenty of sober people do bad/stupid stuff too so it's just one other potential factor I think.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< These kids have a history of drunk and disorderly conduct. I wonder if they went to the zoo to have a few, and alcohol played a part in this scenario. >>> The kids were teenagers. Are you suggesting that the zoo sold beer to underage visitors? If so, that's a different issue entirely. If not, then it really doesn't matter what the zoo sells. Even if the kids snuck in their own hip flask and got drunk, that would have nothing to do with whether or not the zoo sells beer to people of legal age.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >The kids were teenagers.<< The boy who was killed was 17. His companions were 19 and 23.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan After reading an article at www.cbs5.com, I am understanding now why the two victims aren't talking. >>The two surviving victims could also be charged with a crime if they are found to have caused or contributed to Sousa's death, even unintentionally, he said.<< <a href="http://cbs5.com/local/tiger.zoo.Dhaliwal.2.619990.html" target="_blank">http://cbs5.com/local/tiger.zo o.Dhaliwal.2.619990.html</a> So while the zoo will doubtless be sued five ways to Sunday and could lose its exhibitor license, if it turns out the young men were indeed taunting the tiger in some way, they can indeed be charged with a crime. So apparently as I said before, the circumstances indeed matter.
Originally Posted By jonvn They sound like lowlife. Lots of really scummy kids who are the kids of hard working Indian parents, like always in these things. I have no illusions as to the nature of these people. They are likely absolute scum. And if it were me, I'd prosecute them if I could, but zoos generally don't have security cameras. I think this will now change.
Originally Posted By jonvn I just had some vennison. It wasn't bad. Nothing I'd go out of the way for, though.
Originally Posted By Mr X Is it true you can eat Tiger in China? Since I've already tried whale, I might as well go for some more offensively rare meat (skip over to Korea for some doggy, and then it's off to the arctic for baby seal!).
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd "Is it true you can eat Tiger in China?" Sounds like the perfect setup for a burlesque show joke.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Actually, from what I hear it's the tiger's penis that is especially desireable. It's supposed to be like chinese viagra.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Is it true you can eat Tiger in China?" I'm sure you can, you're a lot closer than we are. I imagine it is expensive. So what did the whale taste like? Dolphin?
Originally Posted By Mr X I don't remember if whale tastes like dolphin, it's been a long time since I ate dolphin. It tasted a lot more like beef than fish though, almost like a fishy ribeye or something. I guess that makes sense, being a mammal and all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I tried ostrich recently. (Not endangered, ya'll). It tasted nothing like poultry, much more like lamb, strangely enough. But I certainly won't be eating any cute, cuddly...
