Tiger justice...

[sailorboy]

Well, my apologies in advance to anyone I might offend, but I'm afraid this tiger was killed before his work was finished...while they're at it, maybe the blood-sucking lawyers who wanted to take the zoo and the city for a ride over its 'gross negligence' could use a few minutes in the cage with the tiger's relatives.

doped up and loaded up spoiled teens driving to the zoo for a bit of 'fun'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_re_us/tiger_attacks

among the highlights:

Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, did not immediately return a call late Thursday by The Associated Press for comment. He has repeatedly said they did not taunt the tiger.

Calls to Sousa and Michael Cardoza, an attorney for the Sousa family, also weren't returned.

Toxicology results for Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16 — twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His 24-year-old brother, Kulbir, and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote.

All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot and each had "a couple shots of vodka" before leaving San Jose for the zoo on Christmas Day, the affidavit said.

Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents.

rant off

[stackie]

There are less than 2000 Bengal tigers in existence today. There are probably in excess of 10 million punk-arse kids in the USA. PD should have come into zoo, pumped some rounds into dead kid to make sure, then gone after his two punk-arse friends. That would have been the cats-arse.

Sorry to be non PC, but this really grinds me up.

Jon

[stackie]

Ha, Ha.

I just read Sandy's post about how DBRK's posts are always so nice. Just look at my PP. Yes, if we could all be like Douglas the world would be a better place. Instead, we've go a bunch of punk-arse middle age miscreants like myself posting garbage on the web.


Jon

[Sandy]

I wouldn't have said it as you did, but assuming the AP article stated the occurrence accurately, I agree that the culpability is on the kids and certainly not on the tiger. The kids brought it on themselves to antagonize a wild cat. Tragic and unfortunate for both the humans and the tiger involved, but simply speaking, the humans started it. I agree also that the lawyers will have a field day with the zoo. Sad all around. Human culpability.


Sandy

[saab2000]

Before the shooting of the tiger the score was

Tiger 1
Humans 0

Nature again proved that in a fight, it wins.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that animals do things for absolutely no reason. I just don't think that's true. I remember the very FIRST thing I wondered when I first read about this story was what the kids were doing to get it angry enough to jump the moat.

The earlier incident that some pundits have publicly touted as "proof" this was a vicious animal was completely different. Zookeeper stuck her arm in the cage with a big piece of meat in her hand. Tiger went for the meat, got her too. What do you expect? It's dinnertime.

But in this incident the tiger is in his enclosure just sitting there and suddenly just jumps the moat and the wall for NO reason and attacks these particular kids for NO reason. Yeah, right . . . it's the zoo equivalent of a "JRA" story. Not only that, but I could not see any citation in any story I saw of ANY instance where ANY animal at this zoo had EVER jumped a moat and wall.

I think the lawyers are indeed going to have a field day. But the "discovery" process works both ways. With this info and other that will inevitably come out as any part of that process, I think it's going to be pretty d@mn difficult for the families of these kids to find a jury that will take their side. I hope the zoo doesn't settle. Don't get me wrong . . . I do indeed feel sorry for their families. But these kids are "innocent victims?" . . . Gimme a frickin' BREAK!

BBD

[paczki]

There are less than 2000 Bengal tigers in existence today. There are probably in excess of 10 million punk-arse kids in the USA. PD should have come into zoo, pumped some rounds into dead kid to make sure, then gone after his two punk-arse friends. That would have been the cats-arse.

Sorry to be non PC, but this really grinds me up.

Jon

I think this actually is pretty PC -- ecofriendly.

[Fixed]

ah hmm let me get it I 'm kinda slow... two cats were ate by a big cat but it's okay cos they have funny last names and maybe smoked a little weed and had a drink ... sounds like my sat nite ..I better watch out
the jury is goin to love this ....
cheers

[Ozz]

ah hmm let me get it I 'm kinda slow... two cats were ate by a big cat but it's okay cos they have funny last names and maybe smoked a little weed and had a drink ... sounds like my sat nite ..I better watch out
the jury is goin to love this ....
cheers
No....two cats smoked a little weed and had a drink ... and then picked a fight with the wrong cat...yeah, sounds like sat nite. ;)

[Too Tall]

Anywho, so if a dog bites me while it is on a leash is the owner at fault for not controling the dog? I was poking my finger in the owners eye at the time and calling him names too but that does not make it right for the dog to bite me right? Derrr. Takes two to tango.

HOWEVER, in this case the kids may have been high...that got nothing to do with what came prior which is the zoo failed to take reasonable measures to protect the public from harm...infact it appears they failed to heed a burden of evidence which clearly shows where other zoos have taken significantly more aggressive steps.

The zoo failed, the kids were idiots a life was lost. I'll lay even $$ the zoo pays...lots.

[J.Greene]

HOWEVER, in this case the kids may have been high...that got nothing to do with what came prior which is the zoo failed to take reasonable measures to protect the public from harm...infact it appears they failed to heed a burden of evidence which clearly shows where other zoos have taken significantly more aggressive steps.


yup +1

JG

[72gmc]

yes, the zoo was negligent and will pay. But where does the responsibility stop? The drunk kid had a previous drunk driving conviction AND synthetic urine used for "beating" tests in the car (SF Chronicle). He certainly would have driven away from the zoo--which pedestrian or cyclist would have been the victim of his BMW? What about the other people in the zoo that reported the taunting--could these three clowns somehow be held responsible, along with the zoo, for endangering their lives?

Ultimately a big cat and a young man are dead because sober people were stupid and drunken idiots were drunken idiots. I feel sorry for the big cat.

[pale scotsman]

True story - When we lived in Germany as a kid, the school principal brought my little brother (2nd grade by the way) home after a field trip to a wildlife park. Turns out he was attacked by a spider monkey. The monkey, who was chained up to a broken chain, jumped on his shoulders and bit him right square in the middle of his forehead requiring a quick trip to the hospital.

My brother swore up and down that the monkey just attacked him for no reason at all. My mom and dad didn't want to buy the story but did. Later we got the film back from the 110 camera (this was in the mid 70's) he had with him. The pics were real blurry, but you could just make out a fence, teeth, and fur. Something was fishy and when questioned the truth came out. Turns out he and his friends had been kicking the fence to provoke a wolf to jump on the fence so he could take an action pic. The parental units immediately put 2 and 2 together.

My mom, the good scot, proceeded to take care of business and I highly doubt he ever thought of doing that again.

These kids with the tiger didn't deserve to be attacked, but they did bring it on themselves. I've stopped kids from antagonizing animals many a time, even in front of their parents. To me it's sad if other zoo visitors let these kids do this.

[Fixed]

yes, the zoo was negligent and will pay. But where does the responsibility stop? The drunk kid had a previous drunk driving conviction AND synthetic urine used for "beating" tests in the car (SF Chronicle). He certainly would have driven away from the zoo--which pedestrian or cyclist would have been the victim of his BMW? What about the other people in the zoo that reported the taunting--could these three clowns somehow be held responsible, along with the zoo, for endangering their lives?

Ultimately a big cat and a young man are dead because sober people were stupid and drunken idiots were drunken idiots. I feel sorry for the big cat.


bro does your zoo sell beer ? mine does and I bet most big zoos do too
cheers

[swoop]

the issue is neither the kids nor the tiger.
kids do what kids do and not to absolve them.. because its awesome to see darwin at work.... but teens don't even have the white matter in the brain to put action and consequence together. being drunk and stoned is part of being a teen if you do it right.

the zoo should better protect its animals from potential harm.

and even further... should there be zoos? i'm all for sanctuaries.. but i think you had me at 'zoo'.

[Sandy]

Anywho, so if a dog bites me while it is on a leash is the owner at fault for not controling the dog? I was poking my finger in the owners eye at the time and calling him names too but that does not make it right for the dog to bite me right? Derrr. Takes two to tango.

HOWEVER, in this case the kids may have been high...that got nothing to do with what came prior which is the zoo failed to take reasonable measures to protect the public from harm...infact it appears they failed to heed a burden of evidence which clearly shows where other zoos have taken significantly more aggressive steps.

The zoo failed, the kids were idiots a life was lost. I'll lay even $$ the zoo pays...lots.

If you poke me in my eyes, I will bite you. Not sure of what King would do..... :) It certainly will be an interesting case. Undoubtedly, there will be a very close examination of what measures were taken prior to the incident (as you said) to protect patrons from danger.

The dog question is interesting too. You have to control your dog. That is clearly the "owner's" responsibility. However, if you started poking me in the eye, it would clearly be more difficult for me to control my dog. If the dog bit you, it would be predicated on your actions towards me, the "owner". People poke back or strike back. Dogs bark, growl, and bite. I would think that the dog owner would be responsible, but it is not so clear...think that the facts of the case would be very important in how the bite occurred.


Sandy

[Fixed]

Res ipsa loquitor allows a plaintiff to prove negligence on the theory that his injury could not have occurred in the absence of the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff must establish that the injury was caused by an instrumentality or condition that was under the defendant's exclusive management or control and that the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred if the defendant had acted with reasonable care.


cheers

[gomez308]

The kids were wrong for poking the cat with a sharp stick. However, no matter what, the tiger should not be able able to get out of his enclosure. I'm a hard core Republican Conservative, but the bottom line is that the zoo is at fault for letting the kids be in a position to do harm to the tiger and to allow the tiger to jump out of his cage.

[chrisroph]

You guys sound like a bunch of motorists saying that a cyclist who gets hit deserves it because he was swerving into traffic.

Let me see if I understand the facts and what you guys are saying:

The enclosure "had a wall 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum."

Some bad boys smoked some weed, drank some vodka and had clean urine in their car. So they are obviously scum of the earth. They broke into the zoo and taunted and agitating the tigers. One of the tigers jumped out of the cage and killed one of the bad boys.

The Police investigators believe that the taunting "contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims."

And you think that the zoo has no fault? Even though it built a cage with a wall that was too short, even though the height requirement/recommendation (not clear if it has force of law) exists to prevent escape, and even though the tiger escaped and killed an obviously poorly raised, non-contributing and no right to live on this earth never going to do any good young man?

Amazing.

There are concepts called comparitive fault, under which the zoo could argue that the bad boys contributed to the death by doing all of the stupid things that they did. And a jury could conclude that their responsibility is 15, 50, 100%. But, don't you think that the height recommendation exist to prevent escape under any circumstances?

What if you were at the zoo with your 6 yr old daughter and couple of her friends. What if a guy standing next to you did something to agitate a tiger, like yelling at a tiger to get its attention and then taking flash photographs. What if the tiger jumped the wall and bad things happened.

This case will never get to a jury. The zoo is going to pay--a lot. Although not as much as it would pay inmy hypothetical. Unfortunately, a kid is dead who shouldn't be.

[Ozz]

...The zoo failed, the kids were idiots a life was lost. I'll lay even $$ the zoo pays...lots.
I'll agree with your reasoning...and the cat should not have been able to get out....HOWEVER...the only reason the kids were teasing the cat was because they thought it couldn't get out....kinda like the only reason punks in cars honk and throw things at cyclists is cuz they can get away with it.

Life is tough when you misjudge the situation.....

[Fixed]

bro forget dbrk I want to like chrisroph to late for me but maybe my son will be like him someday
cheers

[93legendti]

ah hmm let me get it I 'm kinda slow... two cats were ate by a big cat but it's okay cos they have funny last names and maybe smoked a little weed and had a drink ... sounds like my sat nite ..I better watch out
the jury is goin to love this ....
cheers

Fixed, Christoph and TT nailed it. My 5 year old would call a tiger a predator. If that tiger was walking down the street and NOBODY taunted it, it would find a human for breakfast, lunch and/or dinner when it was ready to eat. Then who would be to blame? There's a reason wild animals in a zoo are supposed to be beyond the reach of the defenseless public, right?

[deechee]

You can't compare a cat to a motorist "accidentally" hitting a cyclist. The motorist is human and knows there are consequences. A wild animal lives by instinct and doesn't expect (nor should it) consequences.

On the other hand, I agree. Had I been there, with a young toddler and these dopes agitated the tiger enough to get out, I would be furious with the zoo. As much as I sympathize with the tiger, I also don't like zoos. How is it conservation if you have a bunch of domesticated animals in cages who will never be able to go back to the wild? Humans continue to destroy their habitats, and expect them to live in an enclosed area. You can't expect the "zoo" to protect you - they're animals. Like humans exhibiting superhuman feats, animals can do things too. How many years did this "short" wall keep the tiger contained? How long did it go unnoticed? It obviously worked well enough until these dopes showed up and ended up with the Tiger getting killed.

[swoop]

are zoo's nice like dbrk or mean like swoop? that's what i wanna know!
in my zoo... people get fed to the animals for being unfashionable.

i want a zoo with no fences.. you wanna see the animals bad enough you have to relate to them on their level. and you have to do it on skates. rollerzoo.

[Fixed]

the cats side locked up for years ,,one moment of freedom ..do what it loves to do and was made to do ...kill ...but for that one moment he was king of the beast again worth it to him ? maybe
cheers imho

[93legendti]

The Detroit Zoo has not banned "taunting":

Please!
• No feeding of animals.
• No bicycle riding, ball or frisbee playing, skate boarding, roller skating or in-line skating.

• No sneakers with wheels, e.g., Heelies, Rollies.
• No scooters, bicycles or tricycles.
• No balloons or inflatables.
• No pets on Zoo grounds.
• No distribution of printed literature of any kind in or at the Zoo.
• No radios or TV´s.
• No beverage cup lids or drinking straws.
Thank you
http://www.detroitzoo.org/Visitors/Detroit_Zoo/Visitor_Info/

[72gmc]

And you think that the zoo has no fault?

Chrisroph, I for one never said this. Of course the zoo has fault. But these three contributed to a bad situation by behaving both illegally and irresponsibly. They depended on the zoo to keep them safe despite their lack of respect for its rules and--OMG tiger! Surprise, humans are flawed. Zoos are one example of that. Perhaps it's better not to bait tigers just in case.

Oh, and on your cyclist analogy: I would argue that there is no responsibility on anyone's part to keep cyclists and motorists out of each other's habitats. But there is a responsibility for safe cohabitation. This is not applicable to tigers and two-legged tiger food.

I admit to being biased toward the orange, black, and white victim in this case. Maybe someday we can argue it over some good beer.

[pale scotsman]

With no thought of thread hi-jacking whatsoever - Speaking of Tigers, anyone read Life of Pi?

[MarleyMon]

are zoo's nice like dbrk or mean like swoop? that's what i wanna know!
...
I would say they are a form of entertainment
that can be educational and inspiring, or exploitive.
For captive animals -not as bad as a circus, not as good as a preserve.
For people - a chance to see living creatures they
may never have a chance to see.
- Beautiful and sad at once.
The SF incident was a preventable tragedy.
Preventable by a higher wall or by not caging wild animals in the first place
but the reality is the zoo was open for business and failed to safeguard
animal and patron.

[DukeHorn]

I think the point is: the zoo will pay, but you have some very unsympathetic survivors (and two dead victims, the tiger and the Souza boy (who unfortunately, looked like he wasn't one of the taunters according to one of the witnesses who saw them gesticulating at the lion enclosure earlier in the day)).

As noted, the tiger cracked/broked most of her hind claws in getting out of her enclosure. I don't think animals will endure that kind of pain without some motivation.

Here's how the ambulance ride went:

One of the paramedics who rode with him in an ambulance to San Francisco General Hospital told police she had tried to interview him but that he had said only, "I don't want anyone to know," Matthews wrote.

When the unidentified paramedic persisted, Dhaliwal told her to "just shut up," the affidavit said.

He also denied having a cell phone after first asking the paramedic if she wanted his phone number and laughing, the affidavit said.

[MilanoTom]

Res ipsa loquitor allows a plaintiff to prove negligence on the theory that his injury could not have occurred in the absence of the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff must establish that the injury was caused by an instrumentality or condition that was under the defendant's exclusive management or control and that the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred if the defendant had acted with reasonable care.


cheers

Right on the money (I was going to say "dead on," but that would have been tasteless). The postings about prior drunk driving convictions, etc., don't matter and will never be heard by a jury. It may seem like poetic justice, but that's not a particularly good legal argument. Suppose the kids were taunting the tiger, it escaped, but instead of eating one of the kids, it went for somebody's sweet old grandma. Would grandma's family have a case against the zoo? You bet (and would you still be calling the lawyers "bloodsuckers"?).

Some might say that in this case, the punks somehow contributed to their own fate. That's another tough sell. It's not contributory negligence, because they didn't really contribute to fact that the tiger was able to escape. They're not the ones who decided on the design of the cage. There's also no defense based on assumption of risk. Risk can only be assumed if it is reasonably foreseeable. If it was reasonably foreseeable that a zoo animal could escape its cage, nobody would go to the zoo.

It's very unfortunate that the tiger was killed. It was only doing what tigers are supposed to do. The zoo, however, failed in its duty to provide a safe environment for its invitees atmo. The zoo will have a tough time defending themselves on this one.

Regards.
Tom

[Tom]

...The zoo, however, failed in its duty to provide a safe environment for its invitees atmo..

No matter if they were invitations that couldn't be refused.

[Skrawny]

The kids shouldn't have been taunting the tiger. True.
The tiger should NEVER have been able to get out of the enclosure. Equally true.

However, it is not about culpability.
What we are seeing here are the lawyers for the zoo encouraging the spin to make the kids look as bad as possible to limit the amount of damages they will have to pay, either in or out of court...
The less sympathetic the story of the kids, the less $$$ the zoo pays.

-s

[pjm]

Maybe the tiger looked like this to the stoners....

[pjm]

....or maybe they just watched too many episodes of Jackass!

[WadePatton]

"Strict Liability" which always applies to dangerous animals and blasting operations. The essence of is this: The one in charge of the hazard will be liable for any damage caused thereby. period.

Teens being teens in this case won't come into the question.

That's the nature of the(Strict Liability) beast.

Or more perversely stated: You own tiger a tiger and keep it in an abandoned strip mine 22 miles from area 51 on an island surrounded by a moat filled with 'gators and crocs. You maintain a 36-person armed 24 hour watch on the perimeter with double expanded steel mesh electrified fencing-26 feet tall.

Kid parachutes in under cover of darkness wearing a skinsuit made of bacon--yes a "jackass" stunt.

Tiger eats kid.

You are liable.

[chrisroph]

The kids shouldn't have been taunting the tiger. True.
The tiger should NEVER have been able to get out of the enclosure. Equally true.

However, it is not about culpability.
What we are seeing here are the lawyers for the zoo encouraging the spin to make the kids look as bad as possible to limit the amount of damages they will have to pay, either in or out of court...
The less sympathetic the story of the kids, the less $$$ the zoo pays.

-s

agree, they seem to be doing a good job of it don't you think?

[Too Tall]

agree, they seem to be doing a good job of it don't you think?
ding ding ding ding :rolleyes:

[Skrawny]

ding ding ding ding :rolleyes:


Dinner bell?

[BumbleBeeDave]

I think some others here have made a very reasonable point that both parties will have some culpability here.

But if I were sitting on a jury? . . . Sure the wall at the zoo may not have been up to the hight of the standard that was being cited, but I can't get out of my mind the question of how often this sort of incident has happened in the past at that zoo--or at any zoo. How often have other animals jumped out of enclosures with equal height walls at that zoo or any other zoo? I'd wager not many. How far is an entity like the zoo legally requried to go to reduce the risk to--what, exactly? One percent chance something could happen? ZERO percent? I don't think that's reasonably achieveable.

Given the info I know right now I'd have to say that yes, the zoo had some responsibility here, but certainly not 100%, and certainly not more than 50%. It's unfortunate here that if the zoo ends up being held totally responsible it will just be another example of how the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions has been eroded in today's society beyond all recognition of common sense. The kids smoked the weed. The kids got drunk. The kids (most likely) taunted the animal. Yet they have no responsibility for the outcome? I just don't buy that . . .

BBD

[shinomaster]

Tigers rock. Effed up youts are suitable tiger food. Don't eff with tigers.

[pdxmech13]

well put swoopster. I'd like the zoo to take some responsibilty and put some heads on the choping block.

[93legendti]

"Strict Liability" which always applies to dangerous animals and blasting operations. The essence of is this: The one in charge of the hazard will be liable for any damage caused thereby. period.

Teens being teens in this case won't come into the question.

That's the nature of the(Strict Liability) beast.

Or more perversely stated: You own tiger a tiger and keep it in an abandoned strip mine 22 miles from area 51 on an island surrounded by a moat filled with 'gators and crocs. You maintain a 36-person armed 24 hour watch on the perimeter with double expanded steel mesh electrified fencing-26 feet tall.

Kid parachutes in under cover of darkness wearing a skinsuit made of bacon--yes a "jackass" stunt.

Tiger eats kid.

You are liable.

Re: trespasser vs. invitee vs. licensee:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensee

In the law of torts, an invitee is a person who is invited to land by the possessor of the land as a member of the public, or one who's invited to the land for the purpose of business dealings with the possessor of the land. The status of a visitor as an invitee (as opposed to a trespasser or a licensee) defines the legal rights of the visitor if they are injured due to the negligence of the property owner.

The property owner has a duty to make the property safe for the invitee, which includes conducting a reasonable inspection of the premises to uncover hidden dangers. The property owner also has a duty to warn the invitee of hazardous conditions that can not be fixed. Furthermore, property owners assume a duty to rescue an invitee who falls into peril while visiting the property. If an independent contractor hired by the landowner injures an invitee (intentionally or through negligence), the owner can be held vicariously liable. This represents the broadest duty of care owed to any class of visitors to the property.

It should be noted that a property owner who selectively limits entry to the property - to paying customers, to a set number of people, or even in a discriminatory fashion - is nonetheless opening the property to invitees,[clarify] so long as the property owner holds the property open to some segment of the general public.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitee"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitee

[sevencyclist]

I agree that both Zoo and the boys have committed foul. Therefore, it would be interesting to see if a judge would do a creative sentencing of punishing the zoo for not working up to code by fininig the zoo, and take that money for tiger conservation work; and punish the boys by not giving them money but give them the satisfaction of knowing that the zoo was fined big bucks.

[swoop]

not to get too soft.. but the whole concept driving zoos seems rooted in this sort-of "look how we conquered nature and it is subservient to us"/industrial age way of thinking rather than a .. look we have these forebrains and thumbs and must be the custodians at this gig so let's protect forms of life that are more vulnerable instead of asserting our dominance over them as a way to avoid some more complex existential stuff.

you mix that with the 'look at me' generation and its not sexy. kids grow up on 'jackass' and fail to see the irony.


the gorilla in the zoo is the concept of zoo as entertainment and not the primate behind the glass. we are half assing the custodian bit... shoot.. 40 million folks are supposed to die from avion flu. lets just say we've still got a long way to go before we figure out this zoo thing. i hate to be a jerk.. but people die in horrible ways every day... and if some kid wants to rile up the tiger.. i end up feeling bad for the tiger... it was smarter than the kid...

i suppose were all somewhat lucky to survive our teen years.

so, i don't like the zoo model even if the intent is good.

[coylifut]

are zoo's nice like dbrk or mean like swoop? that's what i wanna know!
in my zoo... people get fed to the animals for being unfashionable.

i want a zoo with no fences.. you wanna see the animals bad enough you have to relate to them on their level. and you have to do it on skates. rollerzoo.

if zoos didn't exist now, they'd exist later so we'd have a place to protect the animals nearing extinction due to habitat loss. Yes. A preserve is better than a zoo, but zoos generate revenue for breeding programs and other conservation. Poachers operate in preserves, but I haven't heard of an animal being poached from a zoo. It's believed the first "big" animal to become extinct will be the black rhino. There's a handful of zoos around the world currently working to expand the black rhino breeding stock so that there will be some what diverse gene pool when these beautiful creatures cease to exist in the wild. The largest $ supporter of this program is Disney.

[rwsaunders]

Anywho, so if a dog bites me while it is on a leash is the owner at fault for not controling the dog? I was poking my finger in the owners eye at the time and calling him names too but that does not make it right for the dog to bite me right? Derrr. Takes two to tango.

HOWEVER, in this case the kids may have been high...that got nothing to do with what came prior which is the zoo failed to take reasonable measures to protect the public from harm...infact it appears they failed to heed a burden of evidence which clearly shows where other zoos have taken significantly more aggressive steps.

The zoo failed, the kids were idiots a life was lost. I'll lay even $$ the zoo pays...lots.

+1.

[Grant McLean]

not to get too soft.. but the whole concept driving zoos seems rooted in this sort-of "look how we conquered nature and it is subservient to us"/industrial age way of thinking rather than a .. look we have these forebrains and thumbs and must be the custodians at this gig so let's protect forms of life that are more vulnerable instead of asserting our dominance over them as a way to avoid some more complex existential stuff.

you mix that with the 'look at me' generation and its not sexy. kids grow up on 'jackass' and fail to see the irony.


the gorilla in the zoo is the concept of zoo as entertainment and not the primate behind the glass. we are half assing the custodian bit... shoot.. 40 million folks are supposed to die from avion flu. lets just say we've still got a long way to go before we figure out this zoo thing. i hate to be a jerk.. but people die in horrible ways every day... and if some kid wants to rile up the tiger.. i end up feeling bad for the tiger... it was smarter than the kid...

i suppose were all somewhat lucky to survive our teen years.

so, i don't like the zoo model even if the intent is good.

at a minimum... post of the hour

-g

[swoop]

if zoos didn't exist now, they'd exist later so we'd have a place to protect the animals nearing extinction due to habitat loss. Yes. A preserve is better than a zoo, but zoos generate revenue for breeding programs and other conservation. Poachers operate in preserves, but I haven't heard of an animal being poached from a zoo. It's believed the first "big" animal to become extinct will be the black rhino. There's a handful of zoos around the world currently working to expand the black rhino breeding stock so that there will be some what diverse gene pool when these beautiful creatures cease to exist in the wild. The largest $ supporter of this program is Disney.


i agree except the zoo part. i don't think the freakshow needs to drive the economy of the preservation aspect. i'll take zoology over zoo. i just don't love the dog and pony show and have never in my life left a zoo feeling good without rationalizing it. but i'm a sensitive little butterfly...

[MilanoTom]

"Strict Liability" which always applies to dangerous animals and blasting operations. The essence of is this: The one in charge of the hazard will be liable for any damage caused thereby. period.

Teens being teens in this case won't come into the question.

That's the nature of the(Strict Liability) beast.

Or more perversely stated: You own tiger a tiger and keep it in an abandoned strip mine 22 miles from area 51 on an island surrounded by a moat filled with 'gators and crocs. You maintain a 36-person armed 24 hour watch on the perimeter with double expanded steel mesh electrified fencing-26 feet tall.

Kid parachutes in under cover of darkness wearing a skinsuit made of bacon--yes a "jackass" stunt.

Tiger eats kid.

You are liable.


mmmmm... bacon.


Sorry for the digression. My compliments - very well stated.

Tom

[coylifut]

i agree except the zoo part. i don't think the freakshow needs to drive the economy of the preservation aspect. i'll take zoology over zoo. i just don't love the dog and pony show and have never in my life left a zoo feeling good without rationalizing it. but i'm a sensitive little butterfly...

The latest addition to the pachyderm collection at the Washington Park Zoo in Portland is a juvenile female named Chandra. She's from Malaysia and is missing her left eye. She, along with her sisters, mother and aunts were foraging on the edge of a farmer’s field when he fired a shotgun blast to scare them away. A week later, she was exiled by the pack and rescued by a wealthy Australian who has a small preserve in Malaysia. Unfortunately, she was not able to integrate with the other pachyderms in the preserve due to her damaged eye. After extensive negotiations she was exchanged for a nearly $2 million donation to the Malaysian government's elephant conservation effort. She now resides peacefully with the domesticated elephants (all born in captivity). If wasn't for a zoo, Chandra would have nowhere to go. Her story is typical of zoo animals. The question was “are zoos mean?” No. They are not. They’re homes for little elephants like Chandra.

[72gmc]

I'd like to see the two brothers (not Souza's family) ordered to pay most or all of any settlement they receive to wildlife conservation and education.

This may be soft like swoop, but the humans involved owe at least that much to the tiger.

[swoop]

The latest addition to the pachyderm collection at the Washington Park Zoo in Portland is a juvenile female named Chandra. She's from Malaysia and is missing her left eye. She, along with her sisters, mother and aunts were foraging on the edge of a farmer’s field when he fired a shotgun blast to scare them away. A week later, she was exiled by the pack and rescued by a wealthy Australian who has a small preserve in Malaysia. Unfortunately, she was not able to integrate with the other pachyderms in the preserve due to her damaged eye. After extensive negotiations she was exchanged for a nearly $2 million donation to the Malaysian government's elephant conservation effort. She now resides peacefully with the domesticated elephants (all born in captivity). If wasn't for a zoo, Chandra would have nowhere to go. Her story is typical of zoo animals. The question was “are zoos mean?” No. They are not. They’re homes for little elephants like Chandra.


i guess my question is.... can a zoo survive without having the front of the house?

[coylifut]

i guess my question is.... can a zoo survive without having the front of the house?

No. In fact it's likely to go the other way like Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge. BTW - the facility is part of the international black rhino breeding program.

[stevep]

tigers are incredible animals.
relevant to thread im not sure.
was a tragedy in many ways.

but, gawd they are amazing.

[deechee]

It's believed the first "big" animal to become extinct will be the black rhino. There's a handful of zoos around the world currently working to expand the black rhino breeding stock so that there will be some what diverse gene pool when these beautiful creatures cease to exist in the wild. The largest $ supporter of this program is Disney.

Sad how humans "choose" who is worth saving or not. What about all the never discovered flora and fauna? Insects? There's more to saving the planet than the big furry and iconic animals.

[swoop]

Sad how humans "choose" who is worth saving or not. What about all the never discovered flora and fauna? Insects? There's more to saving the planet than the big furry and iconic animals.


save ferris.

[shinomaster]

save ferris.


Save Mario.

[sailorboy]

(snipped) It may seem like poetic justice, but that's not a particularly good legal argument. Suppose the kids were taunting the tiger, it escaped, but instead of eating one of the kids, it went for somebody's sweet old grandma. Would grandma's family have a case against the zoo? You bet (and would you still be calling the lawyers "bloodsuckers"?).

Regards.
Tom
yea, but the tiger didn't go after some poor old grandma, it went after exactly who it should have. I guess I'll temper my arguement by saying that no, he probably didn't deserve to die, maybe just to carry some scars around for the rest of his life. Maybe then he would think twice about getting tuned up and driving around in his late model sports car. I can only hope the survivors will.

Perhaps we should be more grateful that tiger didn't go on a total rampage as thanks for all the years of captivity...kind like those sweet marauding elephants that you hear about going nutso every decade or so, one too many lashes I guess...anyhow, that's a bit of a tangent, and I'm not some PETA wing nut either. Bottom line is the lawyers are the ones who were so eager to swoop in (sorry Swoop) almost as fast as that tiger lept from its enclosure, now they are curiously silent. Ask yourself this, what would have to happen to get Mark Geragos to show up at your doorstep and take your case?

[swoop]

i've got the answer.

why not make the front of the house of a zoo.. a strip club. and the back of the house can me the zoo where the animals are taken care of and don't have to be observed and prodded like strippers.

errr... um. its a work in progress. if the kid woulda rotated his hips in the plane of the tiger he'd still be here.

[coylifut]

i've got the answer.

why not make the front of the house of a zoo.. a strip club. and the back of the house can me the zoo where the animals are taken care of and don't have to be observed and prodded like strippers.

errr... um. its a work in progress. if the kid woulda rotated his hips in the plane of the tiger he'd still be here.

I'm down with that.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that indeed it does seem from the facts we know right now that the tiger did go after who it was "supposed" to. The tiger could have just gotten out of it's enclosure and taken off or attacked just random zoo visitors. But from what I've seen, it didn't. It got out and went after exactly the high and drunk punks who had been tormenting it. I've been to this zoo but it was over 15 years ago. Does anyone know how far the tiger had to go to catch these kids? Were they right outside the enclosure or did the tiger have to go hunt them down?

I may come across as callous, but I feel sorry for the tiger far more than I do for the punks--or their parents. Who brought the kids up to think it's OK to go out and get drunk and high and go torment defenseless captive animals? Sorry, but I just can't summon much sympathy for these Darwin award winners.

BBD

[TMB]

. . . that indeed it does seem from the facts we know right now that the tiger did go after who it was "supposed" to. The tiger could have just gotten out of it's enclosure and taken off or attacked just random zoo visitors. But from what I've seen, it didn't. It got out and went after exactly the high and drunk punks who had been tormenting it. I've been to this zoo but it was over 15 years ago. Does anyone know how far the tiger had to go to catch these kids? Were they right outside the enclosure or did the tiger have to go hunt them down?

I may come across as callous, but I feel sorry for the tiger far more than I do for the punks--or their parents. Who brought the kids up to think it's OK to go out and get drunk and high and go torment defenseless captive animals? Sorry, but I just can't summon much sympathy for these Darwin award winners.

BBD

I seem to recall the graphic on CNN at the time that indicated the Tiger actually had to hunt these specific guys down ( 1/2 mile?), didn't touch anyone else, just the punks that were teasing it.

Smart cat, and it died.

Not fair.

[swoop]

i read that another tiger got out and toilet papered the guys house and then went back to the zoo unnoticed. not to make light of people being killed by tigers... but more to say.. don't eff with tigers... they really don't like being effed with.

i saw on a tiger forum... some mean cats posting.

[BumbleBeeDave]

.. don't eff with tigers... they really don't like being effed with.

. . . obviously didn't :eek:

BBD

[Buzz]

Point of clarification:

Stop calling them kids. One is 23 years old and the other is a 19 year old. They are adult males. Sadly, it looks like the most mature of the threesome, according to the witness who saw them before the attack, was the 17 year old victim.

These guys made a lot of bad decisions and one of them paid for it with his life -starting with getting stoned and drunk and then getting into a car and driving (apparently by the guy who has the pending DUI) -that alone could have proved to be a fatal mistake.

These guys are not children or kids.

Also, they must have pissed that tiger off good. Although the tiger had a fresh kill laying on the ground the tiger still felt compelled to leave it to track these guys down - quite a distance from where the enclosure is.

What a tragedy all the way around. In the end, it would likely never have happened if these idiots didn't taunt the tiger.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Point of clarification:

Stop calling them kids. One is a 23 years old and the other is a 19 year old. They are adult males. Sadly, it looks like the most mature of the threesome, according to the witness who saw them before the attack, was the 17 year old victim.

These guys made a lot of bad decisions and one of them paid for it with his life -starting with getting stoned and drunk and then getting into a car and driving (apparently by the guy who has the pending DUI) -that alone could have proved to be a fatal mistake.

These guys are not children or kids.

Also, they must have pissed that tiger off good. Although the tiger had a fresh kill laying on the ground the tiger still felt compelled to leave it to track these guys down - quite a distance from where the enclosure is.

What a tragedy all the way around. In the end, it would likely never have happened if these idiots didn't taunt the tiger.

+1

BBD

[sailorboy]

+2

yea, that's kinda why I called this thread tiger justice. one could say justice was dealt out on at least a couple of different levels here; and I think there's still some meat on this bone (pun intended) to make us think about a lot of broader issues that folks brought up here--ethical questions mostly, about zoos, our legal system, how we raise our kids and probably other stuff. Its all such a sad commentary on the human condition in general the more I think about it. I just hope my 2 kids grow up less cynical than how I've ended up, but I'm running out of reasons to keep hoping for that outcome.

The perspective I've gotten on our little 'utopia' through living in another, and quite different, society for the past 3 years has given me pause. I'm kinda scared to come back in a lot of ways.

[steelrider]

I was on the first ladder truck on scene that night. What a way to spend Christmas. It sucked. I had to walk right by that magnificent animal as it lay dead on the pavement. I nearly cried. I wish the animal had finished the job. The story about the surviving brothers is that they are a bunch of scum bags. Numerous run ins with the police--resisting arrest, drunk in public, providing false information to police, reckless driving at high speed etc. I think that Geragos is a shister who is not worth the TV time that he hoards.

I have mixed feelings about zoos in general. The one good aspect is that they enable people to view these awesome creatures. These animals are majestic. They are not to be taunted by a bunch of numb nut idiots who are altered on drugs and alcohol. There are still tigers in India (Bengal Tigers). Perhaps we as a nation should revise our immigration policy. These nitwits can remain in their own country and tie up the emergency services, health care and legal systems in their own backyard. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Fixed]

these are kids and tigers
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.spur.asn.au/AI_Child_Soldiers_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.spur.asn.au/childwar.htm&h=285&w=404&sz=24&tbnid=gH1NqeRlGGAw0M:&tbnh=87&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtamil%2Btigers%26um%3D1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

sad stuff imho

[Grant McLean]

I was listening to an NPR story about the LA times homicide blog (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/homicidereport/)

This tiger story captures the attention of the media, but really, it's just another
sad death story. A lot of the folks who get killed aren't sympathic victims,
but they're people with family and friends, and it's a sad reality that none of
us really give a *****.

-g

[BumbleBeeDave]

I was on the first ladder truck on scene that night. What a way to spend Christmas. It sucked. I had to walk right by that magnificent animal as it lay dead on the pavement. I nearly cried. I wish the animal had finished the job. The story about the surviving brothers is that they are a bunch of scum bags. Numerous run ins with the police--resisting arrest, drunk in public, providing false information to police, reckless driving at high speed etc. I think that Geragos is a shister who is not worth the TV time that he hoards.

I have mixed feelings about zoos in general. The one good aspect is that they enable people to view these awesome creatures. These animals are majestic. They are not to be taunted by a bunch of numb nut idiots who are altered on drugs and alcohol. There are still tigers in India (Bengal Tigers). Perhaps we as a nation should revise our immigration policy. These nitwits can remain in their own country and tie up the emergency services, health care and legal systems in their own backyard. Garbage in, garbage out.

So you could probably tell me definitively . . . How far did this tiger have to chase these kids to get them? Right outside the cage or did it have to hunt them down?

BBD

[MarleyMon]

BBD - here's a link to SFGate coverage (http://www.sfgate.com/tigerattack/)

steelrider - I've read the 3 were from San Jose - what does immigration have to do with this? Maybe the city should improve psychological screening of emergency responders to weed out deep thinkers like you.
steelrider wrote:
"Perhaps we as a nation should revise our immigration policy. These nitwits can remain in their own country and tie up the emergency services, health care and legal systems in their own backyard. Garbage in, garbage out."
Since when are humans garbage? When they are dark skinned with foreign sounding names and do stupid things? I've read a bit and not seen any reference to the 3 victims of the tiger attack as immigrants (as if that makes a difference) - what do you know about it?

[BumbleBeeDave]

BBD - here's a link to SFGate coverage (http://www.sfgate.com/tigerattack/)

steelrider - I've read the 3 were from San Jose - what does immigration have to do with this? Maybe the city should improve psychological screening of emergency responders to weed out deep thinkers like you.
steelrider wrote:
"Perhaps we as a nation should revise our immigration policy. These nitwits can remain in their own country and tie up the emergency services, health care and legal systems in their own backyard. Garbage in, garbage out."
Since when are humans garbage? When they are dark skinned with foreign sounding names and do stupid things? I've read a bit and not seen any reference to the 3 victims of the tiger attack as immigrants (as if that makes a difference) - what do you know about it?

I know you were talking to steelrider, but I don't think the problem with the kids has much to do with wherever they are from. I've seen punk kids of every nationality, color, and gender. The only thing they all really seem to have in common is a lack of education in their upbringing about any aspect of common courtesy or respect for others whatsoever.

I'll ask again who ever gave them the idea that it was fun to get high and drunk, then go taunt a (they thought) defenseless animal in a cage? Did they watch it on "Jackass?" Did they see it on "Romper Room" or "SpongeBob" when they were little tots? I strongly doubt it. I'd bet a lot more money on guessing that they modeled their behavior on that of their parents, as so many kids do and have done through history.

I can't believe from watching and reading the popular media these days how many parents seem to think it's everyone else's responsibility to raise their kids except them. From what I've seen it looks like these punks were "Cruisin' For A Bruisin'" for a long time and they finally got what they had coming. I know that may sound callous, but that's the way I feel.

BBD

[MarleyMon]

BBD - the stories of the victims' behavior are smoke and mirrors as the zoo seeks to mitigate their extensive liability.

How about this hypothetical - if the victims thought there was ANY chance the tiger could escape, would that have altered their behavior? Would you go to a zoo if you thought there was ANY chance a dangerous animal could escape and attack you?

[rbtmcardle]

BBD, I would agree, does anyone take personal responsibility for anything - debt, bad habits, poor relationships, addictions etc.... We all make choices - but we dont get to choose the consequences of those choices.
This incident is a tragedy for all parties. Sure hope it gets better, perhaps we should watch Dr. Phil or Oprah :rolleyes:

[Grant McLean]

the stories of the victims' behavior are smoke and mirrors as the zoo seeks to mitigate their extensive liability.


It's classic 'blame the victim', born from some kind of frustration that i'm not smart enough to understand.

A while back, in a health care discussion, some folks thought that if a cyclist
was at fault for an accident, and didn't have health care coverage, they should
be left to die. whatever.

-g

[93legendti]

BBD - the stories of the victims' behavior are smoke and mirrors as the zoo seeks to mitigate their extensive liability.

How about this hypothetical - if the victims thought there was ANY chance the tiger could escape, would that have altered their behavior? Would you go to a zoo if you thought there was ANY chance a dangerous animal could escape and attack you?

Spectator beware:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/12/MNGQUDP11.DTL


Zoo safety questioned again after leopard, polar bear nearly escape
Marisa Lagos, Wyatt Buchanan,Patricia Yollin, Chronicle Staff Writers

Saturday, January 12, 2008


(01-11) 13:38 PST San Francisco -- Revelations that a polar bear and a snow leopard came close to escaping from their enclosures at the San Francisco Zoo over the past week renewed questions Friday about the safety of visitors and workers at the facility, several zookeepers said.
A female polar bear nearly scaled the wall of her enclosure on Jan. 3, several zookeepers have told The Chronicle, almost escaping and prompting the zoo to raise the height of the exhibit wall the next day. A week later, on Thursday, a snow leopard chewed through a temporary enclosure, according to a zoo spokesman.

The zookeepers said the latest incidents made them fearful for their safety and called into question whether visitors are safe. But zoo officials disputed the keepers' characterization of the incidents, saying that the wild animals were acting normally and that neither posed a threat to employees or the public.

The problems arose less than three weeks after a tiger escaped from its outdoor grotto on Christmas Day and attacked three people, killing 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. of San Jose and injuring two of his friends before being shot to death by police. Officials are still unsure exactly how the Siberian tiger escaped, but they acknowledged several days after the attack that the moat wall around its grotto was 4 feet lower than national standards recommend.

Dozens of people packed a City Hall room Friday morning to weigh in on the tiger attack at a public hearing called by Mayor Gavin Newsom and conducted in front of the city's Recreation and Park Commission. Most of the people who spoke offered general support or disapproval of zoo administration and the San Francisco Zoological Society, a nonprofit entity that operates the zoo under an agreement with the city.

At the hearing, commissioners unanimously called for several city reviews of the zoo and instructed zoo management to work more closely with the Recreation and Park Department. The commission's vote called on the zoo to create an emergency plan with police and fire officials and to draw up a plan for adding lighting and cameras at the facility.

The management of the zoo has been scrutinized closely since the attack by the tiger, named Tatiana. Two incidents over the past week only served to increase that scrutiny.

Zoo officials acknowledged Friday morning that a 100-pound male snow leopard named Ghurka ripped a 4-inch hole in a mesh cage Thursday and stuck his paw and part of his head through the gash. The incident occurred as a zookeeper was attempting to move the 7-year-old animal, who was born at the zoo, from one enclosure to another. Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said that the mesh cage was inside another, larger cage at the time and that there was never a serious threat to the zookeeper or any threat to the public.

But one of the zoo employees who spoke with The Chronicle insisted it was not a routine event.

"I'd like to say that the snow leopard event is not unusual and wouldn't have attracted any attention had it not been for Tatiana (escaping), but that's not the case," the source said. "It's disgusting, and bad decisions are being made."

Perhaps more frightening was the recent behavior of a polar bear named Ulu. Ulu is the zoo's only wild-born polar bear and is considered too unpredictable to be kept with the zoo's two other polar bears.

Separate zookeepers and other employees have told The Chronicle that the animal, who weighs more than 600 pounds, nearly climbed over a wall of her exhibit on Jan. 3 - the first day the zoo was open after the Christmas Day tiger attack - when zoo officials pelted her with empty tranquilizer darts in a misguided effort to harass her into entering a night enclosure. The incident happened around 9 p.m. the night before last week's major storm, and the bear's keepers were not called in to help, the sources said.

Ulu was forced back down the exhibit wall by officials who turned a fire hose on her, the sources said. The animal, who came to the zoo as a wild bear in 1984 after continuously harassing residents in a Canadian town, had never scaled the wall before, the sources said.

Singer on Friday denied that the polar bear had attempted to escape, attributing the story to normal wild animal behavior.

"That doesn't sound like an escape attempt at all to me," he said. "Whoever told you that is someone who is manipulative and is using an incident not at all out of the ordinary and blowing it out of proportion. ... It's an unfortunate effort to scare the public and press, and it's deplorable."

On Jan. 4, the day after the incident with the polar bear, zoo officials released a statement that said a "thorough review" of safety features led to the discovery that the wall of the polar bear exhibit was, like the wall of the tiger grotto, not high enough.

Singer said Friday that the zoo chose to increase the enclosure's height only because it was not in line with Association of Zoos and Aquariums' guidelines, not because it posed a public risk. Many other zoos have much lower walls than San Francisco's, he said.

[Grant McLean]

What a tragedy all the way around. In the end, it would likely never have happened if these idiots didn't taunt the tiger.

...or if the tiger couldn't get out of the enclosure...

which was more likely to happen?

just sayin'

-g

[shaq-d]

nothing i say is representative of what i say

that said,

1. as stated the zoo is liable

2. the real question is damages

3. damages will be negligible. death is worth much less than injury.

sd

[sailorboy]

...or if the tiger couldn't get out of the enclosure...

which was more likely to happen?

just sayin'

-g
yea, but I keep getting stuck on this arguement of a fence being "4 feet lower than national standards" what exactly is this standard based on? a controlled trial of idiots taunting wild animals and adding a foot of fence each time until they can no longer get out? I mean really, isn't it more about how the fence is constructed rather than the height? I would guess that animal was about 12 feel long with its arms out-stretched, so what would another 4 feet at the top have done?

this reminds me of the whole legal number that lawyers did on ski resorts, if enough people get hurt skiing b/c it has risks and people take those risks, you can sue them enough times to eventually force huge insurance liability costs on the resort. Compare the cost of a lift ticket at Vail to one in an alpine resort in Europe. Back on subject though--if you don't taunt an animal in the zoo, you won't test the effectiveness of said animal's enclosure.

[Grant McLean]

Back on subject though--if you don't taunt an animal in the zoo, you won't test the effectiveness of said animal's enclosure.

I'm in no way saying that taunting an animal has any justification under any circumstances...

The principle arguement here for me is that the zoo failed in their responsibility
to keep control of a wild animal. The zoo is negligent.
but If nuclear plant discharges radioactive material, are there circumstances under
which the pubic would be sympathetic to the corporation?

Lets say this was a couple of kids getting high, and finding their way into a
nuclear plant, do you think the media would be handling this story differently?

-g

[swoop]

I'm in no way saying that taunting an animal has any justification under any circumstances...

The principle arguement here for me is that the zoo failed in their responsibility
to keep control of a wild animal. The zoo is negligent.

If nuclear plant discharges radioactive material, are there circumstances under
which the pubic would be sympathetic to the corporation?

Lets say this was a couple of kids getting high, and finding their way into a
nuclear plant, do you think the media would be handling this story differently?

-g

and the zoo failed to police it's visitors.

[Grant McLean]

and the zoo failed to police it's visitors.

It's understandable that people are sympathetic for a dead tiger,
and these guys were likely bad, stupid people, who got a taste of personal
responsibility in the Marlin Perkins Mutual-of-Omaha way big time...
doesn't change the fact for me that the if you're going to keep big cats
and dangerous animals, you're responsible they cannot snack between meals.

It pisses me off that we're still talking about this, and yet a number of deaths
never make the news. I feel like Nancy Grace, and only picking the pretty
blond missing high school homecoming queen stories...

-g

[swoop]

It's understandable that people are sympathetic for a dead tiger,
and these guys were likely bad, stupid people, who got a taste of personal
responsibility in the Marlin Perkins Mutual-of-Omaha way big time...
doesn't change the fact for me that the if you're going to keep big cats
and dangerous animals, you're responsible they cannot snack between meals.

It pisses me off that we're still talking about this, and yet a number of deaths
never make the news. I feel like Nancy Grace, and only picking the pretty
blond missing high school homecoming queen stories...

-g

g money.. most of the world doesn't have clean water to drink and lives in poverty.. an we talk about bikes here like it means something. i think we get it.. its just this is an escape from that.

that's what i make of it. sadly.. news is about ratings and that comes from infotainment.

[Grant McLean]

g money.. most of the world doesn't have clean water to drink and lives in poverty.. an we talk about bikes here like it means something. i think we get it.. its just this is an escape from that.

that's what i make of it. sadly.. news is about ratings and that comes from infotainment.

thanks doc, how much do i owe for the visit?

-g

[Buzz]

and the zoo failed to police it's visitors.

The loss of any sense of personal responsibility in our society is made evident once again by this case and comments here.

Despite the fact that the zoo exhibit has probably had hundreds of thousands in not millions of incident free visits - and there is no know record or a prior escape it is the zoo that is primarily at fault for failing to police the self conduct of the three men. beautiful.

So now we are supposed to administer drug and alcohol tests to patrons, subject them to psych profiles, etc. before letting them in.

As soon as you cede personal responsibility there will always be an excuse and someone to blame as you have.

The next thing that is going to be claimed is that the zoo should have reasonably foreseen that adult men will get drunk and stoned and come to the zoo to taunt wild animals and therefore they should make their exhibits taunt proof and that there should be roving anti-taunting security patrols assigned to the park. Isn't that what you are basically saying when it comes down to it?

[Grant McLean]

The loss of any sense of personal responsibility in our society is made evident once again by this case and comments here.

Despite the fact that the zoo exhibit has probably had hundreds of thousands in not millions of incident free visits - and there is no know record or a prior escape it is the zoo that is primarily at fault for failing to police the self conduct of the three men. beautiful.

So now we are supposed to administer drug and alcohol tests to patrons, subject them to psych profiles, etc. before letting them in.

As soon as you cede personal responsibility there will always be an excuse and someone to blame as you have.

The next thing that is going to be claimed is that the zoo should have reasonably foreseen that adult men will get drunk and stoned and come to the zoo to taunt wild animals and therefore they should make their exhibits taunt proof and that there should be roving anti-taunting security patrols assigned to the park. Isn't that what you are basically saying when it comes down to it?

No argument from me on the personal responsibility issue. But one question:

How are the other visitors supposed to act in a "personally responsible" fashion
when there is a loose tiger in the park?

Doesn't the zoo have a personal responsibly to protect all it's visitors?
Wouldn't that begin by keeping the animals in their enclosures?

...and um, yes. the zoo should foresee that idiots might taunt an animal,
just like the airlines should foresee that a terrorist might try to get into the cabin...

-g

[93legendti]

No argument from me on the personal responsibility issue. But one question:

How are the other visitors supposed to act in a "personally responsible" fashion
when there is a loose tiger in the park?

Doesn't the zoo have a personal responsibly to protect all it's visitors?
Wouldn't that begin by keeping the animals in their enclosures?

...and um, yes. the zoo should foresee that idiots might taunt an animal,
just like the airlines should foresee that a terrorist might try to get into the cabin...

-g
Exactly. "Policing" a few animals by making sure they can't escape is easier (and cheaper) than policing every one of the thousands of annual visitors to the zoo. I wonder how much the zoo saved on the 4 feet of wall they left off....

"...Officials are still unsure exactly how the Siberian tiger escaped, but they acknowledged several days after the attack that the moat wall around its grotto was 4 feet lower than national standards recommend..."

[Buzz]

"Doesn't the zoo have a personal responsibly to protect all it's visitors?
Wouldn't that begin by keeping the animals in their enclosures?

...and um, yes. the zoo should foresee that idiots might taunt an animal,
just like the airlines should foresee that a terrorist might try to get into the cabin..."

OK so by your logic if these guys had been DUI driving up 280 from San Jose and killed someone then the California Highway Patrol is at fault because they certainly know that there are drunk drivers on the road (far more foreseeable than this one in a 100 million incident)

Or if a sexual predator entered the zoo and raped a child in the bathroom then the zoo is at fault because they should have screened their patrons and had a cop at every bathroom stall because everyone knows that kids love to go to zoos and it could attract a sexual predator.

See, the problem is once you abrogate personal responsibility and shift it to an entity you can always make an excuse.

I dunno in this case I think everyone can agree that you don't taunt wild animals or even dogs or a thug waiving a gun at you. And if you do something bad could happen to you. Seems pretty obvious and yet we still want to excuse the three mens' conduct.

[Grant McLean]

See, the problem is once you abrogate personal responsibility and shift it to an entity you can always make an excuse.

I dunno in this case I think everyone can agree that you don't taunt wild animals or even dogs or a thug waiving a gun at you. And if you do something bad could happen to you. Seems pretty obvious and yet we still want to excuse the three mens' conduct.

wow.

I guess i've had it wrong. Thanks for setting me straight.

-g

[swoop]

thanks doc, how much do i owe for the visit?

-g

oh now... i didn't mean it like that.

[JohnS]

What I find remarkable is that the SFPD had to shoot the animal. I have a customer who works at the Detroit Zoo and they have two 375 H&H Magnums and many shotguns positioned around the zoo just for an incident like this. To have to wait for a police response is ridiculous. Oh wait, this was in antigun SF. They probably don't trust anyone with guns... :crap:

[BumbleBeeDave]

See, the problem is once you abrogate personal responsibility and shift it to an entity you can always make an excuse.

. . . I totally agree the the above is really the core issue behind this and so many other incidents of many different kinds. Consequences are a deterrent, yet these days it seems the consequences for almost any stupid or criminal act are so watered down that the deterrent effect has been seriously compromised. The legal status quo of what various entities like this zoo are "supposed" to foresee as POSSIBLY dangerous situations continues to get wider and wider.

This also applies to personal responsibility of parents to teach their kids to be good citizens--or even to teaching them that even beyond common decency, it's not a real good idea to taunt large animals with big claws. Why do I keep getting this mental flashback image of these kids being with their parents at the zoo, watching dad do the same thing to different tigers?

BBD

[chrisroph]

the guys were idiots but no way should have the tiger been able to escape.

this triggered a story here in portland that supposedly happened years ago. i don't know if it true or not or whether i have all the facts right. some morons broke into the zoo and one of them hung his feet into the lions' or tigers' cage, can't remember which. one of the animals came over and grabbed the guy by the leg and pulled him in and left him alone for a while. his buddies ran and told somebody at the zoo the story and the guy on night duty supposedly said essentially screw the guy, it is his fault. he did nothing. some time later, one of the animals came over and grabbed the guy by the throat and killed him while his buddies watched.

these are both sad stories, filled with facts that arise from human failings and the failure to act appropriately under the circumstances. Also, there seems to be enough blame on all sides, and enough shared fault for different people to show prejudices and judgments when the facts are projected on to our system of legal culpability and fault based monetary damages.

[coylifut]

What I find remarkable is that the SFPD had to shoot the animal. I have a customer who works at the Detroit Zoo and they have two 375 H&H Magnums and many shotguns positioned around the zoo just for an incident like this. To have to wait for a police response is ridiculous. Oh wait, this was in antigun SF. They probably don't trust anyone with guns... :crap:

Who's they?

[JohnS]

Who's they?I know the SF Board of Supervisors have tried to make the city a "gun free zone".

[stevep]

What I find remarkable is that the SFPD had to shoot the animal. I have a customer who works at the Detroit Zoo and they have two 375 H&H Magnums and many shotguns positioned around the zoo just for an incident like this. To have to wait for a police response is ridiculous. Oh wait, this was in antigun SF. They probably don't trust anyone with guns... :crap:

john,
was this the detroit zoo?
do you have any idea of the details of what really happened in this case?

best to keep the guns out of it until you may know some actual facts.

[93legendti]

I know the SF Board of Supervisors have tried to make the city a "gun free zone".


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/09/BAG9RFKD1C82.DTL

[93legendti]

5:07 p.m. First 911 call to emergency dispatch from the zoo, saying a "20-year-old" male has been attacked by an "exotic animal."

5:08 p.m. Police are dispatched, but the call is downplayed as being from someone who is "claiming he was bitten by an animal" even though no animal is missing.

5:09 p.m. Police Officers Dean Lee and Vincent Masilang are dispatched from Taraval Station.

5:10 p.m. Zoo personnel not sure there is an emergency because they believe the two living victims are acting erratically. "Zoo thinks they are 800 police code for mentally disturbed and making something up." The report confirms one man is bleeding from the back of the head, and within seconds, police hear from the zoo: "Now they are saying they have a tiger out."

5:11 p.m. Police log says the zoo is closing its gates, and several more officers respond to the call.

5:12 p.m. Fire crews arrive at the gate but are soon barred under the "Code One" emergency declared by the zoo.

5:13 p.m. Zoo authorities inform police they are advising patrons to leave.

5:15 p.m. Fire log says police are on scene and the tiger is visible. "Waiting for the guys with the tranquilizer gun." Police log reflects that medics are unable to get into the zoo, where the victim is still inside and "there are zoo keepers trying to round up the tigers" and "get the tigers with tranks tranquilizers." "Medics will not enter until secure," the police log notes.

5:16 p.m. "According to medics, zoo keeps trying to calm down the tiger," police log notes.

5:17 p.m. "Zoo security not letting police in. Zoo personnel have the tiger in sight and are dealing with it. The victim is in the cafe in the middle of the zoo."

5:18 p.m. Police are allowed to enter through a back entrance.

5:20 p.m. A victim is located. He has a large puncture wound to the neck, and the police log notes that "medics with him now." It is unclear, however, whether he is actually being treated, as paramedics are told not to leave their rigs.

5:20 p.m. A dispatcher asks whether the victim is being treated by medics, but a supervisor indicates that the scene is not secure. "Vets are out there. ... But the scene is not safe," the log indicates.

5:21 p.m. At the cafe, Amritpal Dhaliwal calls on his cell phone and then on a land line to say his 23-year-old brother has been bitten, and he gets instructions on how to stop the bleeding.

5:23 p.m. The phone line at the cafe goes dead. Police at the grotto indicate that they are treating the victim there and that a zoo staff member is at the scene.

5:25 p.m. Lt. Mike Favetti tells dispatch that he has the tiger "sitting right in front of him inside the zoo," but then loses sight of it.

5:27 p.m. Officers spot tiger at the cafe attacking a victim, fires.

5:28 p.m. "Shot cat, victim with medics." Log indicates victim is suffering uncontrolled bleeding.

- Jaxon Van Derbeken and Kevin Fagan

http://www.emsresponder.com/web/online/Top-EMS-News/Confusion-and-Delays-Recorded-in-San-Francisco-Zoo-Response/1$6783

[JohnS]

john,
was this the detroit zoo?
do you have any idea of the details of what really happened in this case?

best to keep the guns out of it until you may know some actual facts.Well, according to 93Legendti's transcript, I'm right. The zoo personnel didn't seem to have a clue on how to deal with the situation and depended on police. They didn't even know the tiger had escaped and then they didn't have a plan to deal with it.

[coylifut]

Well, according to 93Legendti's transcript, I'm right. The zoo personnel didn't seem to have a clue on how to deal with the situation and depended on police. They didn't even know the tiger had escaped and then they didn't have a plan to deal with it.

who better to take down the animal, than the police? they've got the firearms and are trained to use 'em. Do you really want the same morons who couldn't keep the animal caged blowing off a shot gun in what equates to an animal theme park.

[JohnS]

who better to take down the animal, than the police? they've got the firearms and are trained to use 'em. Do you really want the same morons who couldn't keep the animal caged blowing off a shot gun in what equates to an animal theme park.What makes you think the police are such good shots? Many only have to qualify once a year. If people only knew how little most police practiced, they wouldn't believe it. Besides, their weapons really aren't that powerful, just easy to carry. I know that at the Detroit Zoo, certain employees are trained to deal with situations like this.

[93legendti]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/26/zoo.incidents/index.html
CNN) -- Zoo accidents don't happen often, but when they do, personnel have to be ready.
Motorcycle officers prepare to enter the San Francisco Zoo on Wednesday in a probe of the tiger attacks.

The National Zoo in Washington has regular unannounced animal escape drills. Zoo curators have emergency teams in case of a wild animal escape, according to wildlife expert Diana Guerrero. And zoos' animal environments sometimes include features such as moats or reinforced enclosures.
"We take into consideration other incidents at other facilities and review them to see if we should review our own safety protocols," said Sarah Taylor, a spokeswoman for the National Zoo.

Nevertheless, the precautions don't always work, such as in the case of the San Francisco Zoo's escaped tiger Tuesday. An escaped Siberian tiger killed a patron at a zoo cafe and injured two others before police shot the animal to death.

What Should You Do?
What if an animal escapes while you're in a zoo? Wildlife expert Diana Guerrero suggests the following:


Get into a building or behind a barrier.
Don't make any sudden movements.
Stay quiet.
Also this year, a 27-year-old zookeeper at Colorado's Denver Zoo, Ashlee Pfaff, was mauled to death by a jaguar. An investigation concluded that Pfaff was at fault; she had left a door to the jaguar's enclosure unlocked and did not follow safety procedures.
In Washington last year, a 30-pound clouded leopard escaped from its brand-new mesh enclosure by digging a hole through the material. The escape was minor -- the cat was found sitting next to its enclosure before the park opened for the day -- but zoo officials responded by reinforcing the mesh.

Still, wildlife expert Jack Hanna said the public should not be alarmed..."Safety comes first in any zoological park," he added.
Guerrero, who has worked at the San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park and Los Angeles Zoo in California, observes that animals will do what's instinctive.

"When an animal gets out of their territory, they feel very unsafe because that's their home, so they have heightened responses," she said. "They attack first and investigate later."
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1198919738225430.xml&coll=2#continue

Bimingham Zoo tiger enclosure exceeds safety standards
San Francisco-like cat escape called unlikely
Saturday, December 29, 2007
STAN DIEL
News staff writer
Visitors to the Birmingham Zoo needn't worry about its tigers escaping their enclosures the way a tiger did at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas, zoo officials say.

Rather than being separated from visitors by a moat and a wall, as in San Francisco, Birmingham's tigers are kept apart from humans by a wall of glass nearly 2 inches thick.

"The visitors can get right up next to them" safely, said Marcia Riedmiller, mammal curator at the zoo.

Seventeen-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. died on Christmas after he was attacked by a Siberian tiger that escaped its enclosure in San Francisco. Two other young men were mauled, but survived, and the tiger was shot to death by police.

To escape, the cat had to vault or climb out of a moat that is at least 25 feet wide and scale a wall that is 12.5 feet tall, then leap over a waist-high fence. The wall is well short of the 16.4-foot height recommended by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

A spokeswoman for the Birmingham Zoo said that, in addition to a layout that is vastly different from the one in San Francisco, the walls containing the tigers here exceed accepted standards. The walls at the front of the enclosure are 16 to 18 feet high, and the walls at the back are 16 to 24 feet high.

Riedmiller said animal escapes are extremely rare. The last escape on record occurred in 1992, when a red wolf spent a week on the run before being recaptured in Homewood and returned to the zoo. And no large mammal has ever escaped the Birmingham Zoo. But with the stakes so high, zoo workers run drills and practice what they'll do if it happens.

"There's always that possibility," she said.

Employees practice getting visitors and themselves to safety, then dealing with the animal in what the zoo calls its "dangerous animal protocol," she said.

Dealing with an incident while minimizing the danger is stressed, she said. "No one's a hero."

While zoo design has changed radically in recent years, with larger and more realistic habitats and fewer barriers becoming the standard, the nature of the animals has remained the same, Riedmiller said.

"What people have to realize is that these are wild animals," she said. "They still have their natural instincts."

E-mail: sdiel@bhamnews.com

[Fixed]

bro cops seemed fast to me under 30 mins faster than a pizza
cheers imho

[coylifut]

What makes you think the police are such good shots? Many only have to qualify once a year. If people only knew how little most police practiced, they wouldn't believe it. Besides, their weapons really aren't that powerful, just easy to carry. I know that at the Detroit Zoo, certain employees are trained to deal with situations like this.

so I read the same log and other published reports and it sounds like the zoo is hunting the cat with a tranq gun, the police are hunting the cat and the cat is hunting the other two kids all at the same time. The police get a clean line of fire and put the cat down. The log also states that the zoo had declared a code one emergency which is "the" call for an escaped animal. I'm not defending the zoo here, I'm trying to figure out how you surmised that the zoo had no personnel, no tranq guns and no plan for such incidents?

[JohnS]

Once someone was injured or killed, they should have put the tranquilizer gun away...

[Sandy]

I have read only a small representation of posts here but I believe-

1. The kids are culpable because of their actions towards the tiger- a wild cat.

2. The zoo is culpable because no way should a wild cat be able to escape its space. It should be escape proof.

3. The tiger is the real loser (realizing the tragedy of human death here too, of course) as it reacted as a wild animal (cat) might. It did what wild animals sometimes do.

Hence, a shared culpability- Kids and the zoo. Tiger-not responsible.

Lots of litigation to come- lawyers are salivating over it , probably.


Siberian Sandy

[Bud_E]

It seems like they could implant a chip in a large dangerous animal that would trigger an alarm the instant he/she got out of the cage. It would eliminate that several minutes of doubt that apparently occurred.

[Lifelover]

Ask yourself this, what would have to happen to get Mark Geragos to show up at your doorstep and take your case?


All it would take is an open and shut case like this one. The Zoo is 100% responsible! The Kids have ZERO liability legally.

Heck, I could get the family a 7 figure settlement.

[Lifelover]

I think some others here have made a very reasonable point that both parties will have some culpability here.

But if I were sitting on a jury? . . . Sure the wall at the zoo may not have been up to the hight of the standard that was being cited, but I can't get out of my mind the question of how often this sort of incident has happened in the past at that zoo--or at any zoo. How often have other animals jumped out of enclosures with equal height walls at that zoo or any other zoo? I'd wager not many. How far is an entity like the zoo legally requried to go to reduce the risk to--what, exactly? One percent chance something could happen? ZERO percent? I don't think that's reasonably achieveable.

Given the info I know right now I'd have to say that yes, the zoo had some responsibility here, but certainly not 100%, and certainly not more than 50%. It's unfortunate here that if the zoo ends up being held totally responsible it will just be another example of how the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions has been eroded in today's society beyond all recognition of common sense. The kids smoked the weed. The kids got drunk. The kids (most likely) taunted the animal. Yet they have no responsibility for the outcome? I just don't buy that . . .

BBD

. . . that indeed it does seem from the facts we know right now that the tiger did go after who it was "supposed" to. The tiger could have just gotten out of it's enclosure and taken off or attacked just random zoo visitors. But from what I've seen, it didn't. It got out and went after exactly the high and drunk punks who had been tormenting it. I've been to this zoo but it was over 15 years ago. Does anyone know how far the tiger had to go to catch these kids? Were they right outside the enclosure or did the tiger have to go hunt them down?

I may come across as callous, but I feel sorry for the tiger far more than I do for the punks--or their parents. Who brought the kids up to think it's OK to go out and get drunk and high and go torment defenseless captive animals? Sorry, but I just can't summon much sympathy for these Darwin award winners.

BBD

I'm often amazed by some of your post.

What a complete A$$. I hope you never raised kids. They are sure to need therapy if you did.

[JohnS]

I'm often amazed by some of your post.

What a complete A$$. I hope you never raised kids. They are sure to need therapy if you did.
Be nice.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Do we have a feud going on that I don't know about?

I was under the impression that people sign onto the forum, read the threads, then chime in with their own opinions. So that's what I did. Is that not the way it works? :confused:

BBD

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . At least he didn't call me a "poo-poo head!" :rolleyes:

BBD

[Fixed]

lawyers are not the bad guys they make us safe by making the side at fault pay and fix things that can hurt us and that is a good thing ..imho
cheers :beer:

[Lifelover]

Do we have a feud going on that I don't know about?

I was under the impression that people sign onto the forum, read the threads, then chime in with their own opinions. So that's what I did. Is that not the way it works? :confused:

BBD

No Feud, just amazement!

We both just chimed in with or own opinions.

[rustychisel]

To be honest with you, I'm sometimes amazed by the way this sort of contretemps is treated in the aftermath, and wonder whether it happens as a result of some feud(ish) "Someone's Gotta Pay" historical development. It seems indicative of the American legal system, and it's becoming ever more prevalent here in Australia.
Of course, what I really would like to see is all sides (including the lawyer representing Panthera Tigris) agree it was a stupid tragedy and they should all work to ensure never happened again.
Pipe… dream… me?

[steelrider]

I'd like to see the two brothers (not Souza's family) ordered to pay most or all of any settlement they receive to wildlife conservation and education.

This may be soft like swoop, but the humans involved owe at least that much to the tiger.


Well said.

[steelrider]

So you could probably tell me definitively . . . How far did this tiger have to chase these kids to get them? Right outside the cage or did it have to hunt them down?

BBD


I spoke to one of the paramedics on scene. While he was less than 20 feet away preparing to render care to one of the "victims", the tiger calmly walked by towards the other brother. My point, the tiger was focused on the man that had been tormenting her. The tiger paid no attention to other people around.

[steelrider]

BBD - the stories of the victims' behavior are smoke and mirrors as the zoo seeks to mitigate their extensive liability.

How about this hypothetical - if the victims thought there was ANY chance the tiger could escape, would that have altered their behavior? Would you go to a zoo if you thought there was ANY chance a dangerous animal could escape and attack you?

Your comments are mindless at best. The perpetrators were found with twice the legal blood alcohol level, altered on weed, and confided in the dead man's father that they had been standing on the railing, yelling at the tiger. Another zoo visitor had seen the same group of punks yelling at the lions in their exhibit earlier.

These are facts. The deceased tiger had been at the zoo for some time. It was these three idiots that created the problem. If you can't see this then you are just as clueless and asinine as those morons.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I spoke to one of the paramedics on scene. While he was less than 20 feet away preparing to render care to one of the "victims", the tiger calmly walked by towards the other brother. My point, the tiger was focused on the man that had been tormenting her. The tiger paid no attention to other people around.

Not a dumb animal, after all. My sympathies remain with the tiger.

BBD

[BumbleBeeDave]

No Feud, just amazement!

We both just chimed in with or own opinions.

. . . and I'm consistently amazed at what people online--apparently like yourself--are ready to say about others when they know they don't have to say it face-to-face. Do you treat others in your life in person the way you treated me here, or do you act this way only when you know you can run away afterwards by turning off the computer? I hope not, for their sake and yours . . .

BBD

[Lifelover]

. . . and I'm consistently amazed at what people online--apparently like yourself--are ready to say about others when they know they don't have to say it face-to-face. Do you treat others in your life in person the way you treated me here, or do you act this way only when you know you can run away afterwards by turning off the computer? I hope not, for their sake and yours . . .

BBD

Poor Dave. Someone has mistreated you gravely!

You are not special in any way and deserve no special treatment.

I promise that if you had said what you typed in this thread to me in person I most certainly would have called you an A$$ to you face.

If people in my life act as condescending as you, I most certainly treat them the same way I have treated you here.


However, I must admit that if the conversation took place and you were wearing your typical cycling costume, I may have never given any credence to anything you said :butt:

[JohnS]

since you're getting personal here, let's talk about you. In your first post on this forum, you admitted that you were a 260lb tub of lard who wanted to get a bike for your boy so that you could live your life through him. Then, in a later post, you mention that your kids ride around in a circle in the street pretending that they're in the TdF. Maybe it's you, and not Dave's daughter, who needs therapy!

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that Mr. Lifelover seems to be saying a great deal more here about himself than he is about me, and leave it at that. As much as I open my big mouth around here, it doesn't surprise me that someone might not like it occasionally.

BBD

[Lifelover]

since you're getting personal here, let's talk about you. In your first post on this forum, you admitted that you were a 260lb tub of lard who wanted to get a bike for your boy so that you could live your life through him. Then, in a later post, you mention that your kids ride around in a circle in the street pretending that they're in the TdF. Maybe it's you, and not Dave's daughter, who needs therapy!


Cool!

I'm glad to report that I'm now only a 252lb tub. I still live my life though my kids but it's mostly by coaching them in Bball and Football. My Youngest boy (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=35269) (11) still is not embarrassed by getting in a full "Lance" kit but my 14 y/o won't leave the house in a spandex anymore.

How were you able to go back that far? When I try to view my old post it only goes back 500?

[Fixed]

bro the jury will be told to follow the rule of law and that's what matters .no matter if you admire the feat it took for the cat to jump out of the cage and hunt down someone the law doesn't give you the right to take a life nor does it give it to a cat
...imho
cheers :beer:

[JohnS]

Cool!

I'm glad to report that I'm now only a 252lb tub. I still live my life though my kids but it's mostly by coaching them in Bball and Football. My Youngest boy (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=35269) (11) still is not embarrassed by getting in a full "Lance" kit but my 14 y/o won't leave the house in a spandex anymore.

How were you able to go back that far? When I try to view my old post it only goes back 500?I didn't have to go back. Some things, you just remember...

[MarleyMon]

Your comments are mindless at best. The perpetrators were found with twice the legal blood alcohol level, altered on weed, and confided in the dead man's father that they had been standing on the railing, yelling at the tiger. Another zoo visitor had seen the same group of punks yelling at the lions in their exhibit earlier.

These are facts. The deceased tiger had been at the zoo for some time. It was these three idiots that created the problem. If you can't see this then you are just as clueless and asinine as those morons.
Your statements are false and misleading. The dead victim was .02, one was .o4, one was legally intoxicated .16. (link below)The eyewitness said she THOUGHT they MIGHT be the same individuals she saw harassing the lions. Won't get far with that in court. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, the men should be charged. Standing on the railing and yelling would not even get them tossed out of the zoo! They don't have enough evidence so far.
The police have tried everything to put the blame on the victims, including lying about them being at a bar that was actually closed on Christmas Day. Smoking weed in SF - their behavior wouldn't even merit a disorderly conduct charge. And you wish the tiger "had finished the job." What job is that?
These 3 are not people whose behavior I condone, but its stupid, not criminal. If you advocate the death penalty ("finished the job") for this, I'll disagree.

Tell me how immigration figures in this event, per your first post:
Perhaps we as a nation should revise our immigration policy. These nitwits can remain in their own country and tie up the emergency services, health care and legal systems in their own backyard. Garbage in, garbage out.
I fail to see how this statement is relevant - can you explain? All I can get is you don't like providing emergency services to those who are immigrants. Gotta be tough doing what you do where you do it with that mindset.

I'll say again
the zoo was open for business and failed to safeguard
animal and patron.
article here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNEIUH4B9.DTL&hw=tiger+attack&sn=005&sc=804)

[steelrider]

Not a dumb animal, after all. My sympathies remain with the tiger.

BBD

Believe me, having to walk by such a magnificent creature that was full of holes and had the tip of her tail shot off was a truly disturbing experience.

[Wayne77]

With no thought of thread hi-jacking whatsoever - Speaking of Tigers, anyone read Life of Pi?

Just finished it a few weeks ago. I enjoyed it. - Richard Parker was one of the most interesting/complex characters I've read in recent memory. The commentary on the nature/value of zoos was good as well. That book is certainly material to this topic. What did you think?

[JohnS]

A few points to ponder...
1. Were the wall requirements set by the zoo association "concrete" or "recommendations"? If the zoo was still certified, they might have been recommendations.
2. I equate them getting mauled with driving drunk and getting seriously injured or killed in an accident. They did a stupid thing and didn't know what the totality of the consequences could be. It's too bad, but SFW.

[Chad Engle]

There should be NO POSSIBLE WAY for an animal like a tiger to be able to get out of it's enclosure. None. Res ipsa loquitur.

They taunted the tiger, I get it, they are and were idiots. Ever been to a zoo? Little kids taunt animals every day, they are young so apparently they don't deserve to be eaten. Walking by a caged anything is in and of itself taunting them.

Sympathy for the tiger, yes, for the zoo, no, not much for the victims either.

I like the part where you guys think they are guilty for being a little buzzed. You guys kill me sometimes. No one here has ever drank or partaken. :rolleyes:

[A.L.Breguet]

There should be NO POSSIBLE WAY for an animal like a tiger to be able to get out of it's enclosure. None. Res ipsa loquitor.

They taunted the tiger, I get it, they are and were idiots. Ever been to a zoo? Little kids taunt animals every day, they are young so apparently they don't deserve to be eaten. Walking by a caged anything is in and of itself taunting them.

Sympathy for the tiger, yes, for the zoo, no, not much for the victims either.

I like the part where you guys think they are guilty for being a little buzzed. You guys kill me sometimes. No one here has ever drank or partaken. :rolleyes:

Bullseye!

[JohnS]

I don't think they are guilty for being buzzed, I just think that they (and everyone on this board) have done really stupid things and gotten away with it. Occasionally, however, you don't. :no:

[sailorboy]

All it would take is an open and shut case like this one. The Zoo is 100% responsible! The Kids have ZERO liability legally.

Heck, I could get the family a 7 figure settlement.

Don't you mean you could get them a 7-figure settlement and help yourself to a tiger's share of it?

Also, calling someone an a$$ and hoping they didn't raise kids is pretty un-called for IMO when people are here to state an opinion on this story.

Hopefully the string of potential witnesses who will attest to these idiots' behavior will at least limit some of the liability that the zoo faces. Their history (other than driving drunk and stoned that day), however accurately reported in the media will probably be inadmissible, right? Lucky for them.

[Chad Engle]

Their history (other than driving drunk and stoned that day), however accurately reported in the media will probably be inadmissible, right?

I don't think admissibility is the issue, it's irrelevant. Sad but true.

[93legendti]

I don't think admissibility is the issue, it's irrelevant. Sad but true.

The lack of relevance makes it inadmissable. FRE 402.

ARTICLE IV. RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS [Table of Contents]

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Notes

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm


"In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence

[Lifelover]

...
What a complete A$$. I hope you never raised kids. They are sure to need therapy if you did.

...
Also, calling someone an a$$ and hoping they didn't raise kids is pretty un-called for IMO when people are here to state an opinion on this story.

....

BBD is a grown man and is fully available to defend himself.

Sometimes there a very, very few on this board that optimize the ARB label.

Are the rest of these quotes fair game and not personal because the families don't post here?

.... one could say justice was dealt out on at least a couple of different levels here; and I think there's still some meat on this bone .......

...... These nitwits can remain in their own country and tie up the emergency services, health care and legal systems in their own backyard. Garbage in, garbage out.

I've seen punk kids of every nationality, color, and gender. The only thing they all really seem to have in common is a lack of education in their upbringing about any aspect of common courtesy or respect for others whatsoever.

...... From what I've seen it looks like these punks were "Cruisin' For A Bruisin'" for a long time and they finally got what they had coming. I know that may sound callous, but that's the way I feel.

BBD

....but I'm afraid this tiger was killed before his work was finished...while they're at it, maybe the blood-sucking lawyers who wanted to take the zoo and the city for a ride over its 'gross negligence' could use a few minutes in the cage with the tiger's relatives.

.... PD should have come into zoo, pumped some rounds into dead kid to make sure, then gone after his two punk-arse friends. That would have been the cats-arse.

[BumbleBeeDave]

BBD is a grown man and is fully available to defend himself.


It would seem you've already said everything about yourself that needs to be said. Good luck with your kid in the TdF . . .

BBD

[Chad Engle]

BBD and Lifelover, you both dropped the kid card. :no: That is beyond tacky, someone please take the high road.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Just had a group hug. We're working on scream therapy . . . :crap:

BBD

[Lifelover]

BBD and Lifelover, you both dropped the kid card. :no: That is beyond tacky, someone please take the high road.


Don't take life so seriously. I suspect both me and BBD will be just fine.

It's just a bike and this is just a forum.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . let's make this guy happy. Altogether now . . .

AAAAAEEEEEEEAAAAHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEOOOOWWWW!!!!!!!

[Chad Engle]

Thank you. I feel much better now. :)