[brungeman]

BTW...

I heard (and don't know if it was stated in this thread) that the same tiger that was involved in this attack also attacked a zoo keeper, and caused extensive injuries for which said zoo keeper is suing the zoo!

now that was a caged animal with anger management issues!

 

[OGRipper]

I partially agree with that. But, what they did wasn't a dumb thing. They thought, like the rest of the world thinks and what should be reality, that there is no way for a tiger to get out of its cage in a zoo.

A person is dead for Christ's sake. It's amazing how many people are on the other side of this issue.... blaming the cops or blaming the kids. I'm sure they wouldn't be saying these things if it was someone close to them.

No, based on what we know thus far, what they did WAS a dumb thing. Or maybe you think it's ok to be a drunk, stoned, night-at-the-roxie macho teenager taunting wild animals at a friggin zoo for hours at a time. Those kids had no reason being there - it's not like they were into the animals or trying to learn something. We're all speculating, but what kind of idiots go get their swerve on to mess with animals at the zoo? You can say it doesn't matter, but seriously WTF?

Yes, I might feel differently if it was someone close to me, but someone close to me would not be doing that.

The real tragedy is that the kid who died appears to be the one least responsible. And not to get all PETA on you, but let's not forget that the tiger is dead too - for simply being a tiger.

 

[Echo]

I think you meant to say, "The fact that they got mauled proves the zoo fycked up."

There is no such thing as idiot-proof. If you do something stupid and dangerous enough, you are going to die. The wall was high enough for about 60 years. It's not like tigers have suddenly figured out how to jump higher. You piss off a creature enough, it's going to do whatever it takes to figure out how to get you.

 

[moff_quigley]

This report: Victim Drunk during attack says that all three of them were standing on the railing yelling at the tigers. Dead kid had a BAC of 0.16.

 

[Cru Jones]

No, based on what we know thus far, what they did WAS a dumb thing. Or maybe you think it's ok to be a drunk, stoned, night-at-the-roxie macho teenager taunting wild animals at a friggin zoo for hours at a time. Those kids had no reason being there - it's not like they were into the animals or trying to learn something. We're all speculating, but what kind of idiots go get their swerve on to mess with animals at the zoo? You can say it doesn't matter, but seriously WTF?

Yes, I might feel differently if it was someone close to me, but someone close to me would not be doing that.

The real tragedy is that the kid who died appears to be the one least responsible. And not to get all PETA on you, but let's not forget that the tiger is dead too - for simply being a tiger.

My point is, it shouldn't matter what they were doing. I'm sure there are kids half their age and younger that taunt the animals just as much, if not more. The tiger didn't know that they were drunk and high. There should just be no way that this can happen at a zoo. Unless you have to sign waivers and are warned of the dangers, a zoo should be 100% safe from attacks like this.

And the tiger is dead because the zoo fycked up and couldn't keep the tiger in the cage.

 

[robdamanii]

I partially agree with that. But, what they did wasn't a dumb thing. They thought, like the rest of the world thinks and what should be reality, that there is no way for a tiger to get out of its cage in a zoo.

A person is dead for Christ's sake. It's amazing how many people are on the other side of this issue.... blaming the cops or blaming the kids. I'm sure they wouldn't be saying these things if it was someone close to them.

How stupid do you have to be to taunt an 800 pound cat designed by mother nature to kill things? I don't care HOW "safe" you think you are in a zoo, it's still a wild animal and its behaviour is still unpredictable.

They got everything they deserve. Actually, these idiots should be in line for a Darwin award.

My point is, it shouldn't matter what they were doing. I'm sure there are kids half their age and younger that taunt the animals just as much, if not more. The tiger didn't know that they were drunk and high. There should just be no way that this can happen at a zoo. Unless you have to sign waivers and are warned of the dangers, a zoo should be 100% safe from attacks like this.

And the tiger is dead because the zoo fycked up and couldn't keep the tiger in the cage.

The tiger doesn't CARE if they are drunk or high. The tiger has instincts to kill when harrassed, and that's what it did. It's the kids' fault for being stupid enough to provoke such an attack.

Humans are supposed to be the creature of higher intelligence. Do you think we should put the burden of intelligence on an instinctual creature or the humans that we know made a poor decision?

 

[narlus]

have you been to the Zoo lately?

people are a$$holes to the animals!

especially zoos in China
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=506153&in_page_id=1811

 

[MikeD]

In a legal sense, the zoo has the responsibility to protect guests from reasonably forseeable dangers.

Whether some jackass dangling himself over the edge of the pit is reasonably forseeable or not will be argued in court. It seems the tiger was only able to escape by climbing up the body of one of the taunters. It seems, at first glance, that the zoo will be held liable for failing to forsee that someone might accidentally or intentionally extend his body into the enclosure. However, I'd hope that the jury looks at it and thinks, "Wow, hanging your body into a tiger enclosure beyond the established limits is pretty grossly negligent..." The fact that the zoo enclosure wasn't within accepted guidelines is going to work against them, though.

Could go either way.

 

[Cru Jones]

In a legal sense, the zoo has the responsibility to protect guests from reasonably forseeable dangers.

Whether some jackass dangling himself over the edge of the pit is reasonably forseeable or not will be argued in court. It seems the tiger was only able to escape by climbing up the body of one of the taunters. It seems, at first glance, that the zoo will be held liable for failing to forsee that someone might accidentally or intentionally extend his body into the enclosure. However, I'd hope that the jury looks at it and thinks, "Wow, hanging your body into a tiger enclosure beyond the established limits is pretty grossly negligent..." The fact that the zoo enclosure wasn't within accepted guidelines is going to work against them, though.

Could go either way.

From what I have seen, I don't think there is any evidence that they were "dangling" themselves over the edge. All I've seen is that they were standing on a railing and taunting.

I don't see how the zoo could not be held at fault. Especially when the wall is 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum.

"The papers said Paul Dhaliwal told Sousa that no one was dangling his legs over the enclosure. Authorities believe the tiger leaped or climbed out of the enclosure, which had a wall 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum."

http://www.charter.net/news/news_reader.php?storyid=14327199&feedid=248

 

[LordOpie]

some cold hearted people in this thread who apparently never did anything stupid when they were young.

The wall was 12 feet... that should be the end of the story.

 

[Echo]

I did some really stupid sh!t when I was a kid. And some of it probably could have killed me. This does not entitle my parents to millions of dollars.

 

[robdamanii]

some cold hearted people in this thread who apparently never did anything stupid when they were young.

The wall was 12 feet... that should be the end of the story.

I never said I didn't do stupid sh!t when I was young. I never did sh!t stupid enough to get my ass eaten by a wild animal though. And because I did something stupid, I shouldn't be expecting compensation for my own stupidity.

You need to respect mother nature or she will eliminate you from the gene pool.

 

[LordOpie]

The wall was 12 feet.

 

[Westy]

This is one of those threads that I just can't believe is still going and with so much emotion. You'd think this was a site for Zoo administrators or big game trainers.

 

[MikeD]

Not very familiar with teh intarnetz, r we?

 

[LordOpie]

This is one of those threads that I just can't believe is still going and with so much emotion. You'd think this was a site for Zoo administrators or big game trainers.

WTF?

I'm sure some of the people posting are just as bored at work as I am.

This could be about the merits of waterproof matches versus a lighter.

 

[sanjuro]

I think these people were stupid and cruel. I might have been stupid but I was never cruel to animals.

However, the zoo should have have better safeguards, i.e. a bigger wall. Will never get to trial.

 

[Cru Jones]

You guys act like walking into a zoo is the same as walking into the Asian jungle. It is not and should not be.

 

[LordOpie]

You guys act like walking into a zoo is the same as walking into the Asian jungle. It is not and should not be.

No kiding!

Visiting the zoo shouldn't give a person herpes or AIDS.

 

[Westy]

WTF?

I'm sure some of the people posting are just as bored at work as I am.

This could be about the merits of waterproof matches versus a lighter.

It is Friday. Instead of focusing your efforts on Zoo design you should be talking about cooking infants, starlets in bikinis or anal lube.


To get things back on track here is a picture of a retarded criminal and Brian J Peppers.

 

[LordOpie]

Which one's retarded?

 

[brungeman]

WTF?

I'm sure some of the people posting are just as bored at work as I am.

This could be about the merits of waterproof matches versus a lighter.

waterproof matches fo shizz!

 

[bohorec]

You guys act like walking into a zoo is the same as walking into the Asian jungle. It is not and should not be.

As far as I know the visitors are responsible to follow the rules of the ZOO and since they did not they sholud be prosecuted and punished.

On the other hand ZOO is responsible to protect the animals from the animal watchers and they should also be punished because they did not prevent the abuse of animals.

Rules from SF ZOO:

RESPECT THE ANIMALS! The magnificent animals in the Zoo are wild and possess all their natural instincts. You are a guest in their home. They are sensitive and have feelings. PLEASE don't tap on glass, cross barriers, throw anything into exhibits, make excessive noise, tease or call out to them. If you see anyone doing so, please call (415) 753-7069 immediately.

 

[OGRipper]

Legally speaking it probably is black and white, and the zoo will get screwed. To me, there is a lot of gray area.

It's like how an owner of property with illegal dirt jumps will get screwed if a stupid kid hurts himself by doing something he shouldn't. Not so black and white.

 

[Red Rabbit]

I believe the kid's are at fault. I also agree with Opie. Everyone should walk away from this.

Parent's morn death of son. Zoo builds a bigger wall. End of problem.

 

[Cru Jones]

As far as I know the visitors are responsible to follow the rules of the ZOO and since they did not they sholud be prosecuted and punished.

On the other hand ZOO is responsible to protect the animals from the animal watchers and they should also be punished because they did not prevent the abuse of animals.

Rules from SF ZOO:

Prosecuted and punished? It's not exactly law. And protecting the animals from the people??? What about protecting the people from the animals? It seems obvious they should have that one taken care of first.

The rules are fine. But, those rules are there to help give the animals a more peaceful place to live. With the exception maybe of the crossing the barrier rule (which they did not do), there is nothing there that suggests breaking those rules will cause an animal to attack you.

OK, I'm going back to day dreaming about my new bike. Peace out!!

 

[syadasti]

The rules are fine. But, those rules are there to help give the animals a more peaceful place to live.

There are rules at most places of business and it doesn't matter what the perceived intentions of those rules. If someone breaks them they should be responsible for their own actions. If you travel to almost any other country that is the way it is and they don't sanitize and ruin every experience to make things idiot proof. Thats the way it should be.

 

[LordOpie]

There are rules at most places of business and it doesn't matter what the perceived intentions of those rules. If someone breaks them they should be responsible for their own actions. If you travel to almost any other country that is the way it is and they don't sanitize and ruin every experience to make things idiot proof. Thats the way it should be.

Making a wall tall enough to keep a tiger in is part of the idiot-proof-issue you speak of?

 

[dan-o]

Or maybe you think it's ok to be a drunk, stoned, night-at-the-roxie macho teenager taunting (fellow citizens simply trying to get home)

When did this become a critical mass thread?

 

[syadasti]

Making a wall tall enough to keep a tiger in is part of the idiot-proof-issue you speak of?

Worked for 60 years before these idiots came along...

 

[Echo]

And protecting the animals from the people??? What about protecting the people from the animals? It seems obvious they should have that one taken care of first.

Please explain why.

 

[bohorec]

Prosecuted and punished? It's not exactly law. And protecting the animals from the people??? What about protecting the people from the animals? It seems obvious they should have that one taken care of first.
!

Why they would not take the part of responsibilty for their actions? What if the tiger would attack someone else as a result of their actions?

Besides anyone who is visiting ZOO and disrespect the rules could face fine and permanent ban. I also don't have nothing against additional punishment which would give such people an idea why is not good to disrespect others.

About protecting the animals from the people:

You are mistaken if you assume that ZOO must ensure the safety of visitors. In fact regulations protect ZOO animals, not visitors and althought it sounds strange, there are very good reasons why law is written in such manner. Number of cases in which ZOO animals were injured or killed as a result of visitors actions are reported.

 

[OGRipper]

And protecting the animals from the people??? What about protecting the people from the animals? It seems obvious they should have that one taken care of first.

It is less obvious to me, I think they should pretty much be one and the same.

But it raises another question: Were there any guards or animal handlers around? If not, why not? There was a witness who said she saw them taunting the tigers at least an hour before the attack. How could they be left unchecked that long (if that's what happened)?

Also, check out the update today:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNEIUH4B9.DTL

 

[H8R]

Worked for 60 years before these idiots came along...

But they knew that the tigers could get out any time they wanted to.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

But they knew that the tigers could get out any time they wanted to.

? Has not been demonstrated.

 

[LordOpie]

Everyone who worked for the zoo, who had a very good idea that a 12' wall was insufficient, is more responsible than the idiot kids. Sixty years of silence is unacceptable.

 

[Damo]

If the matches were waterproof and windproof, how would you put the damn things out????

Lighter for sure.

End of.












I still f*cken hate zoos

 

[LordOpie]

If the matches were waterproof and windproof, how would you put the damn things out????

<keanu reeves>

Whoa...

</kr>

 

[syadasti]

Everyone who worked for the zoo, who had a very good idea that a 12' wall was insufficient, is more responsible than the idiot kids. Sixty years of silence is unacceptable.

We've had more animal escapes from Six Flags in Central NJ and its been around for half as long - escaping animals in zoos are not rare.

Prisons with one escape every 60 years would be praised.

 

[LordOpie]

Prisons with one escape every 60 years would be praised.

some prisons have signs along roads/highways telling people not to pick up hitchhikers