Tiger escapes cage at S.F. zoo

[Muse]

The revelation that the three attacked men may have taunted the caged tiger puts the whole thing in another perspective. The investigators have found foreign objects in the cage that wouldn't normally be there, and they found a shoe and blood, apparently where they would only be if those men were taunting the animal. They also found a shoe print on top of a fence around the caging facility, possibly more evidence that those guys were taunting.

It has inspired me to add a line to William Blake's most famous bit of verse:

Tiger, Tiger, burning bright
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry,
What mortal dare taunt thee in captivity?

If indeed those guys were taunting the animal, there's a certain poetic justice in them having suffered the attack, it would seem. The whole thing amazes me. I visited the S.F. Zoo one time only, about 1985. My girlfriend at the time had a new job as a zoo keeper there and she invited me as a guest. One thing, and one thing only made a big impression on me, imprinted in my memory. It was the image of a very large, apparently young, powerful Siberian tiger pacing back and forth very quickly inside a smallish indoor enclosure. It was stark, chilling and gruesomely frightening.

Is there another thread on this subject? If so, please link me. A search (is the search engine working?) in this forum turned up nothing. I found one thread (locked!) in Off Topic.

 

[jagec]

The paper had a whole bunch of quotes from people saying that they were scared to go to the zoo now, and how could this happen, and a HUMAN BEING was killed here!

Get real, how many people get murdered in O-town every night?:roll:

BTW, it's "Tyger"

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jagec
The paper had a whole bunch of quotes from people saying that they were scared to go to the zoo now, and how could this happen, and a HUMAN BEING was killed here!

Get real, how many people get murdered in O-town every night?:roll:

BTW, it's "Tyger"

Yeah, people can be real real dumb. Well, those 3 guys were proven pretty dumb (if they were indeed taunting the tiger, and I'm inclined to believe so). I could have misquoted the Blake myself, but I got the verse and spelling off the Internet. Blame Google.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jagec
The paper had a whole bunch of quotes from people saying that they were scared to go to the zoo now, and how could this happen, and a HUMAN BEING was killed here!

Get real, how many people get murdered in O-town every night?:roll:

BTW, it's "Tyger"

Actually, about 1/3 of a person gets murdered in O-town every night.

 

[Drift3r]

It doesn't matter if they were taunting or not. The fact remains tiger should of never of been able to of gotten loose in the first place. Those guys were only guilty of bad judgment and the tiger for being a tiger and behaving as a tiger would in that situation. The real issue that needs to be dealt with is why the tiger was even able to get loose in the first place. Also this the same tiger that previously mauled a zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. Clearly there needs to be more done to avoid such situations both taunting by visitors and the ability for dangerous wild animals to get loose and run rampant in a zoo.

P.S. Oakland's murder rate is actually down below a hundred murders for the year I believe but I may be wrong here. Of course how Oakland's murder rate has anything to do with what happen and why we should or should not care is beyond me. Seems you are trying to use two wrongs to make a right and that is not a logical or reasonable form of debate.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
-snip-

The real issue that needs to be dealt with is why the tiger was even able to get loose in the first place. Also this the same tiger that previously mauled a zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. Clearly there needs to be more done to avoid such situations both taunting by visitors and the ability for dangerous wild animals to get loose and run rampant in a zoo.

-snip-

News reports this morning are saying that the wall was much lower than initially reported. It's about 12', not 20', and that's well below the minimum federal guidelines.

Fern

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Drift3r
-snip-

The real issue that needs to be dealt with is why the tiger was even able to get loose in the first place. Also this the same tiger that previously mauled a zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. Clearly there needs to be more done to avoid such situations both taunting by visitors and the ability for dangerous wild animals to get loose and run rampant in a zoo.

-snip-

News reports this morning are saying that the wall was much lower than initially reported. It's about 12', not 20', and that's well below the minimum federal guidelines.

Fern

The story in today's S.F. Chronicle explains this. The guidelines are just that, guidelines. They aren't mandated rules. The enclosure was approved by the appropriate authorities. It's not clear how the animal escaped. It's thought that it's possible that the victims aided the escape in some fashion, in particular that the tiger may have grabbed a leg or an arm of one of the taunting victims and pulled itself up providing that something extra it needed to propel itself to the top of the wall.

The surviving brothers will probably never admit to what actually transpired. They are liars and have so far been completely uncooperative in the investigation.

 

[Slew Foot]

Not only that, but the brothers have been previously arrested for public drunkeness and resisting arrest.

 

[AAman]

this is on my possible 'Darwin Award' watch list- don't mess with the wild animals cityfolk

 

[Genx87]

If these guys did taunt the tiger and the tiger used them as a way to get out. Then quite frankly no sympathy from me. They just had darwinism applied to them.

I would also find it amusing if the zoo went after the estate of the dead kid and sued the other two for the cost of the tiger.

Provided of course they did what the authorities are believing they did.

 

[teclis1023]

Go tiger!

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
Go tiger!

+1

I think in order to maintain harmony in the universe these things should happen from time to time to help remind us that we in fact don't respect nature.

It's like every few years how a circus elephant escapes and tramples some people. Karma is a bitch.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: teclis1023
Go tiger!

+1

I think in order to maintain harmony in the universe these things should happen from time to time to help remind us that we in fact don't respect nature.

It's like every few years how a circus elephant escapes and tramples some people. Karma is a bitch.

This is some of the finest instant karma ever.

 

[Vic]

Whether they were taunting the tiger or not, it shouldn't have been able to escape from its enclosure. Just imagine if the zoo had been more crowded.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Vic
Whether they were taunting the tiger or not, it shouldn't have been able to escape from its enclosure. Just imagine if the zoo had been more crowded.

QFT, but those guys weren't likely to provoke the tiger like that when people were around. It was a minute or two after closing time, which coincided with sunset, plus it was cold. Virtually noone was around and this contributed to the teenagers' shenanigans.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

CBS5 from SF interviewed some these scumbags neighbors who live in San Jose. Nothing pleaseant to say about these troublemakers. Speeding, noise, yelling, fighting, reckless driving.

Another tidbit I found interesting was that the Tiger did not touch anyone but those three in the zoo. It kills the first victim at its pen and then chases the other two down quite a bit away. The police were called and came onsite to shoot the animal. I have to think if the tiger had plenty of chances to kill/maim others but oh no, it went after these three scumbags!

 

[Drift3r]

1.) No shoe was ever found inside the tiger's exhibit. The shoe was actually found outside of the exhibit.

2.) Traces of concert were found in the tigers claws especially it's back legs

3.) Seems zoo officials have given at least 5 different measurement of the tiger exhibit dimensions all of which have been contradictory.

4.) The moat surrounding the exhibit is not 20ft as stated but actually 12ft tall.

5.) The allegation of the boys taunting the tiger is just that an unsubstantiated allegation as of right now. No one witnessed the event as there are no cameras in the area and only a 911 call by folks near the cafe alerted the police.

6.) This animal had a history of aggressive behavior towards people. It seriously mauled a zoo keeper 1 year ago when it was being feed. Most officials believe it would not of taken much for the tiger to go after someone. Feet or hands dangling over the fence railing or staring at the animal might of been all that it took to set it off.

7.) Neighbors stated that they didn't really know the boys outside of seeing them skateboard and hang out in the neighborhood.

8.) The only ones with any sort of criminal record were the two bothers who both had received misdemeanor charges for drunken intoxication. That is the only thing on their record. The other boy does not seem to have a record at all.

9.) This zoo has had a record of non-compliance and safety hazard incidents in the past.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...28/MNFFU5G80.DTL&tsp=1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...07/12/28/MN7RU5I8P.DTL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...+attack&sn=001&sc=1000



So before you guys go out and start dancing on someones grave why don't you get the facts straight.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
1.) No shoe was ever found inside the tiger's exhibit. The shoe was actually found outside of the exhibit.

2.) Traces of concert were found in the tigers claws especially it's back legs

3.) Seems zoo officials have given at least 5 different measurement of the tiger exhibit dimensions all of which have been contradictory.

4.) The moat surrounding the exhibit is not 20ft as stated but actually 12ft tall.

5.) The allegation of the boys taunting the tiger is just that an unsubstantiated allegation as of right now. No one witnessed the event as there are no cameras in the area and only a 911 call by folks near the cafe alerted the police.

6.) This animal had a history of aggressive behavior towards people. It seriously mauled a zookeeper 1 year ago when it was being feed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...28/MNFFU5G80.DTL&tsp=1

So before you guys go out and start dancing on someones grave why don't you get the facts straight.

Traces of what?

The zoo officials have come off as idiots.

I saw one report that a witness observed the boys taunting the tiger.

The animal attacked a zoo keeper, but it was deemed normal tiger behavior, not "aggressive" behavior. These animals are congenitally aggressive. I don't believe you can show me a passive tiger. They are carnivorous predators, the most feared land animals on the planet.

I don't think you know the facts materially better than I do.

 

[novasatori]

yeah, facts straight, right...
because the tiger just all of a sudden decided to escape and attack three people, when it had plenty of time when no one was around day after day, year after year...

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Drift3r
1.) No shoe was ever found inside the tiger's exhibit. The shoe was actually found outside of the exhibit.

2.) Traces of concert were found in the tigers claws especially it's back legs

3.) Seems zoo officials have given at least 5 different measurement of the tiger exhibit dimensions all of which have been contradictory.

4.) The moat surrounding the exhibit is not 20ft as stated but actually 12ft tall.

5.) The allegation of the boys taunting the tiger is just that an unsubstantiated allegation as of right now. No one witnessed the event as there are no cameras in the area and only a 911 call by folks near the cafe alerted the police.

6.) This animal had a history of aggressive behavior towards people. It seriously mauled a zookeeper 1 year ago when it was being feed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...28/MNFFU5G80.DTL&tsp=1

So before you guys go out and start dancing on someones grave why don't you get the facts straight.

Traces of what?

The zoo officials have come off as idiots.

I saw one report that a witness observed the boys taunting the tiger.

The animal attached a zoo keeper, but it was deemed normal tiger behavior, not "aggressive" behavior. These animals are congenitally aggressive. I don't believe you can show me a passive tiger. They are carnivorous predators, the most feared land animals on the planet.

I don't think you know the facts materially better than I do.

There were no witnesses whatsoever. The allegations were made by a police official who spoke without knowing the full details. Read the articles.

P.S. I've actually been to that zoo many times as a kid and adult so I kind of know the layout of the place very well if that counts for anything.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: novasatori
yeah, facts straight, right...
because the tiger just all of a sudden decided to escape and attack three people, when it had plenty of time when no one was around day after day, year after year...

This was a very aggressive animal. He had seriously attacked zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. It wouldn't of taken much to set it off such as staring directly at it which it would consider as a threat or dangling your feat or hands off the fence railing.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Drift3r
1.) No shoe was ever found inside the tiger's exhibit. The shoe was actually found outside of the exhibit.

2.) Traces of concert were found in the tigers claws especially it's back legs

3.) Seems zoo officials have given at least 5 different measurement of the tiger exhibit dimensions all of which have been contradictory.

4.) The moat surrounding the exhibit is not 20ft as stated but actually 12ft tall.

5.) The allegation of the boys taunting the tiger is just that an unsubstantiated allegation as of right now. No one witnessed the event as there are no cameras in the area and only a 911 call by folks near the cafe alerted the police.

6.) This animal had a history of aggressive behavior towards people. It seriously mauled a zookeeper 1 year ago when it was being feed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...28/MNFFU5G80.DTL&tsp=1

So before you guys go out and start dancing on someones grave why don't you get the facts straight.

Traces of what?

The zoo officials have come off as idiots.

I saw one report that a witness observed the boys taunting the tiger.

The animal attached a zoo keeper, but it was deemed normal tiger behavior, not "aggressive" behavior. These animals are congenitally aggressive. I don't believe you can show me a passive tiger. They are carnivorous predators, the most feared land animals on the planet.

I don't think you know the facts materially better than I do.

There were no witnesses whatsoever. The allegations were made by a police official who spoke without knowing the full detials. Read the articles.

Here's the story to which I refer:
It says "A visitor to the zoo on the day of the attack has reportedly told police he saw at least one of the men taunting the large cat before it pounced."

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Drift3r
1.) No shoe was ever found inside the tiger's exhibit. The shoe was actually found outside of the exhibit.

2.) Traces of concert were found in the tigers claws especially it's back legs

3.) Seems zoo officials have given at least 5 different measurement of the tiger exhibit dimensions all of which have been contradictory.

4.) The moat surrounding the exhibit is not 20ft as stated but actually 12ft tall.

5.) The allegation of the boys taunting the tiger is just that an unsubstantiated allegation as of right now. No one witnessed the event as there are no cameras in the area and only a 911 call by folks near the cafe alerted the police.

6.) This animal had a history of aggressive behavior towards people. It seriously mauled a zookeeper 1 year ago when it was being feed.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...28/MNFFU5G80.DTL&tsp=1

So before you guys go out and start dancing on someones grave why don't you get the facts straight.

Traces of what?

The zoo officials have come off as idiots.

I saw one report that a witness observed the boys taunting the tiger.

The animal attached a zoo keeper, but it was deemed normal tiger behavior, not "aggressive" behavior. These animals are congenitally aggressive. I don't believe you can show me a passive tiger. They are carnivorous predators, the most feared land animals on the planet.

I don't think you know the facts materially better than I do.

There were no witnesses whatsoever. The allegations were made by a police official who spoke without knowing the full detials. Read the articles.

Here's the story to which I refer:
It says "A visitor to the zoo on the day of the attack has reportedly told police he saw at least one of the men taunting the large cat before it pounced."

You can't go off the word of one unknown person. Sorry but even the police have stated that they do not know why the tiger attacked. Just because one person told them something does not make it automatically true. Until the police come out with an official version all that has been said is just hearsay by a unknown person. For all you know that person's statement might of been discarded already because of inconsistencies in his/her story.

/Sloppy Reporting FTL

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: novasatori
yeah, facts straight, right...
because the tiger just all of a sudden decided to escape and attack three people, when it had plenty of time when no one was around day after day, year after year...

This was a very aggressive animal. He had seriously attacked zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. It wouldn't of taken much to set it off such as staring directly at it which it would consider as a threat or dangling your feat or hands off the fence railing.

Non-domesticated (and some that ARE domesticated) animals should always be considered potentially aggressive. I wouldn't even dangle a foot or limb over a fence near a pit bull, I certainly wouldn't do it near a tiger. If the wall wasn't high enough then that was a mistake by the zoo, but that doesn't necessarily excuse the actions of the victims. If the boys were dangling limbs in the pen and/or taunting the animal, then they are idiots who were messing with fire and got burned.

 

[Muse]

You can believe what you want. The zoo officials and the police, etc. are playing this pretty close to the vest. I find it hard to believe that the tiger would attack these guys under the circumstances without considerable provocation. The facts, the whole story such as it will be known is not likely to emerge soon.