Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 This morning on the radio I heard that there was pepper spray used on the tiger to provoke it. Now, this was my morning alarm wake-up, so I may not have heard all of the information, and I can't find anything about it online, but is this true? Did the teens use pepper spray on the tiger, or was that done by the police later before shooting it? If the tiger was, indeed, provked by pepper spray, man, what a dumb thing to do! Can anybody confirm this or not?
Originally Posted By jonvn If a tiger was coming after me, I'd try to use pepper spray on it if I had nothing else. Thing is a tiger isn't going to care that much. Probably just make it angrier. That's what happens to people a lot of times.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda There are also reports today that the "victims" had a slingshot in their possession and that rocks and pine cones were found in the tiger's enclosure where they shouldn't have been.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think the police have denied the slingshot story, but they did say they found an empty bottle of vodka in the dead boy's car. I think the pepper spray confusion is because a quick Google search reveals several zoos have started detailing what safety precautions they have in place. Among the things zoo keepers have as deterrents to animal attacks is pepper spray. Maybe the radio report you heard was talking about this?
Originally Posted By gadzuux People continue to miss the point here. First of all, these rumors of slingshots and pepper spray are unsubstantiated. But most importantly, it doesn't matter. Dangerous animals should not be able to escape their enclosures and attack the public - no matter what individual members of the public may do. People seem to instinctively want to make the victims into culprits - that somehow someway they 'had it coming'. They didn't. Even if they're knucklehead teens that tossed items into the enclosure or stood their roaring at the tiger, they don't deserve to be mauled to death. And once the tiger is on the loose, nothing says she'll confine her attacks to only those who may have agitated her. The responsibility falls 100% on the zoo itself - and they know it. The odd thing (to me anyway) is that in the process of everybody "lawyering up", the two remaining victims chose a famous DEFENSE attorney - mark geragos. An odd choice.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It isn't odd if they initiated the events that lead to the escape. They could face prosecution. >>People seem to instinctively want to make the victims into culprits<< I just want to know the truth. It matters knowing all the circumstances. What if it turns out an enraged tiger can jump even higher than previously thought? What additional steps should be taken to avoid such attacks in the future? The only way to answer is to get all the facts. Even if it turns out the victims didn't do a thing wrong... or if they did. >>that somehow someway they 'had it coming'<< I never said they had it coming. But while it's true a tiger should never be able to escape, it's likewise true that if the animal is in captivity, it ought to be free of taunts and stress, to have some refuge to escape it. If it turns out these guys were abusing the animal by throwing things at it (it really has nowhere to go, it's out there on display) that's not okay either. Hopefully many lessons will be learned from this incident, and security for people and the animals will be increased from this point on.
Originally Posted By jonvn I believe the slingshot story has been denied by the cops. Post 107 is absolutely correct. They could have been throwing light torches into that cage, but the tiger should not have gotten out. I imagine that Geragos contacted them and offered to be their lawyer. He's really kind of scummy, I've always felt.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If it turns out these guys were abusing the animal by throwing things at it (it really has nowhere to go, it's out there on display) that's not okay either." And another thing that I think is right. The SF Zoo is really old. It's slowly being upgraded, but this part is still very old. They have so much room now there to expand, half the zoo is really empty. They need to build new facilities for their bears and their big cats.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They could have been throwing light torches into that cage, but the tiger should not have gotten out.<< Okay. But again, if they themselves did something that crossed over the security barriers in place, and unwittingly aided the tiger in escaping, maybe by not getting out of the way fast enough, this is important to know. Maybe guards with stun guns are what is needed to ward off unruly guests. Maybe thick glass enclosures need to be placed in front of every exhibit. But if we just declare "case closed" without looking into the whole thing, we ignore crusial evidence into whether this was some freak thing or likely to occur in the future. I own a dog. I keep him contained in my home, keep an eye on him and his well-being. If someone decides to invade my home and abuse the dog and the dog attacks, I should be charged with a crime despite what events lead up to the attack? Or maybe the whole series of events ought to be taken into account?
Originally Posted By DAR I'm just wondering if this nation ever adopts a universal health care system, will it cover things like being attacked by a tiger while acting like a complete moron? Because if that's the case then count me out.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<<I believe the slingshot story has been denied by the cops.>>> The news report that stated that just retracted it. My bad.
Originally Posted By jonvn "they themselves did something that crossed over the security barriers in place" Then it would be their fault. If they contravened security measures, then it would be their doing. But unless they stuck a ladder in there, or opened a cage door, there is not much they'd be able to do.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper This reminds me of the Jurassic Park lines... "Even Walt Disney had some problems when he opened Disneyland." "Yes, been when the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down the pirates don't eat the tourists." Zoos have to understand that people (usually children) are going to taunt the animals. And, they have to keep the animals from being able to jump a fence. A jury might find that the victims bear some responsibility but that might just means they get hundreds of thousand of dollars instead of millions of dollars.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Maybe this whole zoo concept needs to be rethought. I mean, it is important to have animal research facilities to keep animals alive, but putting them in pens for stupid people to taunt is just asking for trouble. If we can't protect the animals from our species, how can we hope to save them in the wild? If a zoo is really going to be successful, it has to recognize the need to protect the animals from the humans... and so maybe the humans need to be the ones in restrictive corrals, not the animals. When animals are put into an urban environment, they are gonna lose every time.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Just off the subject a bit...went to the Wild Animal Park for a couple of hours on Monday...Have you seen what they've done with the condors? They were down to the last 3 california condors and by mixing in an andean strain there is this HUGE flock of condors in the sky over the park, it's amazing! I used to be against the idea of caging wild things, but if the research that CRES is doing can save and repopulate a species then I just have to change my mind...
Originally Posted By barboy "A jury might find that the victims bear some responsibility but that might just means they get hundreds of thousand of dollars instead of millions of dollars." You are talking about some "comparative negligence" theory---common here in California--- too bad. I say if some punk's actions contributed to his own demise or injury then he deserves nothing, not a dime. Pure contributory negligence is an endangered species around these parts. Maryland, Virginia and the DC area might well be some of the very few last bastions of common sense in law.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You are talking about some "comparative negligence" theory---common here in California--- too bad." I was going to bring this up. This, and "coming to the nuisance." Simplified, if the tiger was there first, which it was, and these kids invade its space in some way, either by taunting or scaling barriers, they have some liability. Admittedly, I'm not a tort guy, but I'd be interested to see if that factors into this at all. My take is in line with K2M's I believe. If the barriers were such the tiger could at some point get over them, then yes, the zoo might have some culpability. On the other hand, let's face it, taunting a tiger is just asking for trouble, period. These kids don't have an unfettered right to bother the tiger. Again, in step with K2M's analogy- I really do have a next door neighbor who has a half labrador/half pit bull. When they got it, they thought it was all lab. It barks and growls at everything, is rather large, and generally we all know we shouldn't reach over the fence to pet her, because she's defending her turf. If I were drunk enough to do that, I'm going to at least be partially responsible for the loss of my hand when she bites it off, whether or not there's a sign that says beware of dog. It's just common sense. And the law. Not that Mark Geragos in and of himself impresses me, but there could be a reason the two kids hired a defense attorney as opposed to a tort attorney.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If the barriers were such the tiger could at some point get over them" A tiger did completely get out before in at least one instance. The zoo knew about it. They were also informed of yet another instance where a tiger had placed its paws to the top of the enclosure. It would have only had been a small jump for it to get out. The zoo did nothing. The zoo falsified its own paperwork to state that the wall was higher than it was. They are currently being sued by an ex-employee whose arm was ripped off by this same tiger for recklessly endangering the public with their animal handling. This does not mean that you can go and "taunt" a tiger. However, that is a misdemeanor. And while you may be partially responsible for getting the tiger angry, the zoo itself is strictly liable for keeping the tiger in its enclosure. Given its history of ignoring this specific issue, I think they're in deep trouble. Any member of the general public would have a complete and total expectation that the tiger can not leave its enclosure. And although the animal only attacked these people (there were maybe only a couple dozen people in the zoo at this time) if it happened at another part of the day, it could have resulted in a far worse tragedy. You simply can not have a tiger being able to get out of its cage under any circumstance. And the zoo knew it could happen. They just didn't do anything about it.
