Tiger Kills in SF Zoo
- Thread starter sanjuro
- Start date
Dude, just last week I became intrigued with this LOL cats thing. Rocketboom.com did a segment on it. I almost posted a thread on here to the effect "I'm becoming such a chick, I think these are witty", but I didn't have the guts.
Some of these are so clever, makes me feel like I have no humorous creativity.
http://icanhascheezburger.com/
this is just another example.
ON the regular thread note, can you guys believe the victims are being demonized for taunting the lion. SUre it was ignorant, but a zoo should still be able to keep the tiger in the cage. How crazy is that the tone is changing to "the drunk guys taunted the Tiger" and away from "the wall was 4 feet shorter than reccomended..
Bush tactics trickle down.
FTW! Turn the victims into the culprits. That always works.
Yo, Spinteck, there's a thread floating around RM somewhere with a bunch of the LOL cats. They are pretty damn hilarious.
They ARE the culprits. If they had not been taunting the tiger, it would not have used them as 4th meal. Their actions DIRECTLY caused the incident, so they are directly to blame for it.
And don't tell me 4 feet of wall would have stopped that really pissed off cat from getting out. Those bastards can certainly jump and if they wanted to get out badly enough, they would have.
What you're saying is the same as every other obnoxious PC loving liberal: people are never to blame for their actions, it's always the establishment.
Then make a wall tall enough that's impossible to jump... add another 10 feet of plexiglass or whatever.
He's not saying that. What he is clearly saying is that the attention needs to be put back on the zoo and all zoos to make sure this doesn't happen again.
There's plenty of attention on the zoos and they will take action to further protect patrons and to reduce liability.
A remaining question is how to better protect the world from the idiot brothers and their ilk.
Tigers?
Bingo.
Darwin has been doing that for a while now.
Bingo II.
Ah, so we're supposed to eliminate the idea of seeing something in a "natural" habitat because three asshats ignored the rules and got themselves eaten. Right, we have to protect everyone from themselves. Sounds good to me.
What he is clearly saying is that this is 100% the zoo's fault, which is a load of hoo-hah. While I agree that they need to raise the height of the wall, it has worked just fine for 60 years until these three rocket scientists came along.
They got everything they deserve, including the daemonizing they are getting in the public eye.
He's been slacking lately.
I don't think that's the case. People are acknowledging the both, and both in the court of public opinion and legal ones, I believe the zoo is ultimately at fault.
I wouldn't say they deserved it. In this instance they picked the wrong tiger to mess with. The animal already had a history of aggressive behavior. I doubt another 4ft of "recommended" wall would keep in a tiger that really wanted to bite someone on the ass. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the guys were standing on the animal side of the fence at top of the moat. The tiger then would view this as an invasion of it's territory.
Does this zoo bear some responsibility? Certainly. Do the kids that taunted the tiger bear some responsibility? Certainly. Do I feel sorry for them? Nope. I feel bad for the family that lost a son, but their kid was a dumbbutt.
I f'in love Moff.
Moff or big pussies in the zoo :huh:
Yes, they did.
When their lawyers hit the street they painted these three as chior boys who did nothing wrong.
Now we find out the teenagers were drunk. And they admit to yelling at the tiger but swear they would "never throw anything".
Yeah right. It's very convenient that your moral code is freakin' black and white.
There is so much more to this that they aren't saying.
Now the zoo should have had higher fences, but I believe the words "contributory negligence" are going to come into play.
Now we find out the teenagers were drunk. And they admit to yelling at the tiger but swear they would "never throw anything".
Yeah right. It's very convenient that your moral code is freakin' black and white.
There is so much more to this that they aren't saying.
Now the zoo should have had higher fences, but I believe the words "contributory negligence" are going to come into play.
the kids got exactly what they were looking for, so i really don't see how anyone can feel sorry for them.
Yeah, I'm sure they went to the zoo looking to be mauled to death by a tiger. I mean, who doesn't?
No, what were saying is when you provide a public service you need to plan for certain behavior and mental limitations of the public paying for that service. Is it reasonable to believe teenagers and toddlers will yell, scream and throw things at animals in the open??
Point 1: Do you have any kids?? ONe minute they feed the elephants peanuts and then they throw sh1t at the Tigers.
Point 2: the wall did not meet reccomended standards, period. I'm not saying it, the zoo association group/whatever says it.
Point 3: Drunk teenagers got what they deserved in the press, but not in the mauling.
Point 4: The zoo's irresponsibility also cost the life of one of natures magical creatures that was only being true to it's own nature.
Some of you guys are seriously ridiculous. You're saying it's OK for an animal to attack a person at a zoo if that person pisses off the animal. Who are we to judge what pisses off an animal? If I was an animal in a zoo, I would be pissed that I was in a cage and that you were not. If I could get out of my cage, I would attack you, just because. So, if all the cages were like this cage, everybody that came to the zoo would be attacked by me. Cool zoo, huh?
I just don't understand where this "they deserved it" train of thought is coming from. Maybe it stems from the ethics of having zoos in the first place. If so, that's a completely different story and completely different debate. But, as long as there are going to be zoos as they exist today, we have to take reasonable measures (like having the wall at least at the minimum recommended height) to protect people (no matter how dumb or young they may be) from the animals.
I'm really done with this now. It's been interesting to see how many cold hearted people are out there and cool to see a few with some sense.
You're damn right it's ok for an animal that's cornered and taunted to attack to defend itself. By your logic, if the animal is pissed that it's in a zoo, then you shouldn't be trying to piss it off further.
They absolutely got what they deserved. If that wall had been 4 feet higher it would have only delayed the inevitable a little longer.
I'll say it again: don't piss off a WILD animal!
Point 1: I'm not stupid enough to do something stupid like reproduce. And if I ever caught my kid throwing ANYTHING at a tiger or ANY animal for that matter, I'd paddle his ass until he cried and ground him for a week. It worked for my parents. I never threw crap at tigers when I was little and at the zoo.
Point 2: The wall did not allow a tiger to escape for 60 years prior. If it was such a dangerous situation, why didn't the SF zoo have tigers roaming all over the place on a weekly basis? Again, the zoo has a portion of the fault, but without these idiots provoking the attack, it would have never happened. Direct causation my friend, direct causation.
Point 3: Drunk teenagers provoke a creature designed to kill moose and warthogs, and then cry when it tries to make them a snack.
Point 4: The death of the endangered cat lays directly on the idiots who provoked it to mow down on them.
You're whole logic is flawed because of this one statement. It is not a WILD animal. A wild animal is out in the wild. A zoo is not the wild. Seeing an animal in a cage in a zoo should be just as safe as seeing an animal on television.
We're not saying that people should be completely protected from themselves when they do stupid things. We're saying zoos should be safe. End of story.
You still have not answered two questions:
1) why did no tigers jump the wall for 60 years?
2) why do the humans in a zoo have more right to safety than the animals?
So the animal automatically has all their natural instincts dampened by being placed in captivity? Then why the hell do my two cats still try to "hunt" their catnip mice, even though they have 3 bowls of dry food in the kitchen?
A wild animal will ALWAYS be wild, whether you see it on the savanna or in a zoo. If you think otherwise, you need to watch national geographic a little more.
There are lots and lots of stupid people and few tigers.
Sometimes tigers win.
Sometimes tigers win.
I don't think they deserved to die - especially not the one who DID die, since from all accounts he did the least taunting and tried to save his friend instead of running away. But from what I can tell they had no reason being there.
And I am still looking for an explanation as to how they could go unchecked for more than an hour. There must have been a progression of excitement among the cats - it seems unlikely that they were docile one moment and the next moment here comes tatania over the wall for the first time in 60 years. Hard to understand how no zoo staff would notice.
I also disagree that a taller wall would not have helped. There is certainly a point beyond which even the most pissed off tiger can't jump. So saying the tiger would have gotten out "no matter what" is kind of ridiculous.
And I am still looking for an explanation as to how they could go unchecked for more than an hour. There must have been a progression of excitement among the cats - it seems unlikely that they were docile one moment and the next moment here comes tatania over the wall for the first time in 60 years. Hard to understand how no zoo staff would notice.
I also disagree that a taller wall would not have helped. There is certainly a point beyond which even the most pissed off tiger can't jump. So saying the tiger would have gotten out "no matter what" is kind of ridiculous.
You're correct there. The kid who did die (at least from all accounts) didn't deserve it. The other two darwin award finalists deserved it more.
spreadRep+
Legally, it's pretty clear where negligence will likely be found in a US civil court, perhaps barring the possibility that the zoo can show that the kids extended a leg into the pit and the tiger literally scaled the kid to get out.
Philosophically, however, we can consider the following:
The idea that it's always someone else's responsibility to ensure our safety, and that abstract rules will provide us a consequence-free environment to essentially play in has led a lot of immature people to do irresponsible things without considering the consequences. Instead of thinking, "Wow, there's a seriously badass animal in that pit down there...we're lucky to see it and should probably respect it in case it decides to do something psycho, and we don't personally know whether it can get out of the pit..." these kids think that the world is their playground, that someone else has considered the possibilities to give them absolute free rein in the zoo, and there's no way they can suffer real-world reactions to their irresponsible actions.
Note that it's not a question of "deserving" anything, per se. And it should be noted that if the tiger jumped out of a pit and mauled an innocent kid walking by, none of us would be up in arms except to demand the blood of whomever didn't keep the pit to the accepted standards.
There are benefits to both ways of thinking; it depends on whether you take an individualistic or an institutional mindset. I think our society could do with an injection of individual responsibility, and we could reach conclusions like: Zoo should be forced to improve tiger pit to increase public safety, but not pay any damages to the family of the injured and killed.
Philosophically, however, we can consider the following:
The idea that it's always someone else's responsibility to ensure our safety, and that abstract rules will provide us a consequence-free environment to essentially play in has led a lot of immature people to do irresponsible things without considering the consequences. Instead of thinking, "Wow, there's a seriously badass animal in that pit down there...we're lucky to see it and should probably respect it in case it decides to do something psycho, and we don't personally know whether it can get out of the pit..." these kids think that the world is their playground, that someone else has considered the possibilities to give them absolute free rein in the zoo, and there's no way they can suffer real-world reactions to their irresponsible actions.
Note that it's not a question of "deserving" anything, per se. And it should be noted that if the tiger jumped out of a pit and mauled an innocent kid walking by, none of us would be up in arms except to demand the blood of whomever didn't keep the pit to the accepted standards.
There are benefits to both ways of thinking; it depends on whether you take an individualistic or an institutional mindset. I think our society could do with an injection of individual responsibility, and we could reach conclusions like: Zoo should be forced to improve tiger pit to increase public safety, but not pay any damages to the family of the injured and killed.
i think it's sad that one ended up dying, but i really can't say i feel too sorry for them. i have no sympathy for people who do not respect animals. it's already spent it's whole life in a cage, why the **** do you feel the need to taunt it? kids messed up big time and paid for it. and i have a feeling the zoo will be paying for this for a while too.
if this had been some random kids that were just walking by and the tiger jumped out and attacked them, i would have a whole different take on it. but honestly, i am not going to waste my time feeling sorry for some drunk dumbasses who thought it would be funny to taunt a tiger.
Agreed 100%. Unless it was born in captivity by parents born in captivity who were born in captivity, then it is still wild. Instincts will still exist even in those cases. Its a wild animal! I don't care how hammered I am I am not going to taunt a huge tiger. People need to step up and take responsibility for the stupid crap they pull. He will have to live with the fact that he is the only one of his friends to suvive and he is part of the reason they are dead.
Why not let him blame everyone else and sure the zoo and San Francisco and everyone, cause thats what he will do and probably win.
I will point out one thing, "Survival of the fittest"
Some of you still don't get it. I'm saying the animals aren't in the wild. Some of you are acting like these kids went to the jungle and started messing with tigers. If that were the case, of course they deserved to get messed up.
And obviously animals in a zoo still have their wild animal instincts. Which is why cages should be built so that they can't get out and eat people.
1) Apparently because there hadn't been a tiger that was able to or tried hard enough to get out. Remember, the wall was below the minimum recommended height. So, somebody must have thought it was possible for a tiger to get out.
2) I don't want to get into a moral debate over the value of human life vs animal life. But, it is generally accepted around the world that human life is more valuable (most are meat eaters) or at least equal. I agree that the animals also have a right to safety, but not more so than people.
And obviously animals in a zoo still have their wild animal instincts. Which is why cages should be built so that they can't get out and eat people.
As for this...
1) Apparently because there hadn't been a tiger that was able to or tried hard enough to get out. Remember, the wall was below the minimum recommended height. So, somebody must have thought it was possible for a tiger to get out.
2) I don't want to get into a moral debate over the value of human life vs animal life. But, it is generally accepted around the world that human life is more valuable (most are meat eaters) or at least equal. I agree that the animals also have a right to safety, but not more so than people.