Tiger escapes cage at S.F. zoo

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,526
12,880
136
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

So far, I can't find anything about that on any of the SF area newspapers, just links to a NY Post article that also says the police found an empty vodka bottle in the victim's car...(which may or may not be relevant in any way)

In other news, this story is about to take on new headlines. The victims have hired attorney Mark Geragos...he LOVES headlines...
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,816
8,958
136
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

So far, I can't find anything about that on any of the SF area newspapers, just links to a NY Post article that also says the police found an empty vodka bottle in the victim's car...(which may or may not be relevant in any way)

In other news, this story is about to take on new headlines. The victims have hired attorney Mark Geragos...he LOVES headlines...

And Geragos maintains that these guys were sweethearts and are smitten by the loss of their friend Carlos. He also contends that the poor devils wandered the zoo for 45 minutes pleading for help and no one would lift a finger. So far, Geragos is the only source concerning the experience of these poor chaps. People like Geragos are the reason that I decided I didn't want to go to law school. My LSAT was good enough to get into most law schools, but I didn't bother applying.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
You should see the front page of Tiger Daily: "Hero Brother Breaks Free from Confinement: Devours Manthing Captors. 'A brave soul martyred' says Tony."
 

Vonkhan

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2003
8,198
0
71
Originally posted by: piasabird
I say let them file the law suit. People are more important than dumb animals.

I'd rather help a dumb dog than bat an eyelid to save your worthless hide, if that makes you feel any better :)
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,658
3,537
136
Originally posted by: sirjonk
You should see the front page of Tiger Daily: "Hero Brother Breaks Free from Confinement: Devours Manthing Captors. 'A brave soul martyred' says Tony."

rofl
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
In the end it will come down to , did the zoo do everything that a responsible wild animal caretaker should do.

It doesn't matter if they used sling shots the tiger still should not have been able to escape its exhibit. If your walking down the street and yell at someones dog behind a fence and that dog jumps the fence, the owner is still liable. I know this from experience.

Now if the people attacked at the zoo had dangled their legs inside the exhibit and the tiger grabbed on and climbed out, thats a totally different thing.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The law has the ability to assign fault to multiple people and causes.

If a parachuter doesn't pull the cord, on a chute in which the cord doesn't work, after jumping from a plan the pilot flew at too low a height, because he was negligent but the plane would have made him think he was at the right height anyway because of a defective gauge, while the whole mission occurred only because a crazed parachute fetishist made them all do it at gunpoint...

There may be some sharing of the blame, depending what evidence arises, but the zoo seems likely to almost certainly have a large share, and liability.

On a nerd note, I wonder if MMORPG's could have saved someone, if 'feign death' (monks in Everquest, Hunters in World of Warcraft), someone lying their still, would have likely made the tiger ignore them.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,237
30,210
146
Originally posted by: 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.

as much as I agree with this statement, I had to bold for the sanctity of grammar everywhere and ask...uh, what?
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

Of course this is clearly BS or the police would have said they found a sling shoot at the zoo.
 

rpanic

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2006
1,896
7
81
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

Of course this is clearly BS or the police would have said they found a sling shoot at the zoo.

Your right the slingshot thing looks like its turning out to be BS, so much false information on this event.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,816
8,958
136
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: 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.

as much as I agree with this statement, I had to bold for the sanctity of grammar everywhere and ask...uh, what?

IMO, there are scores of tigers around the USA on exhibit that could escape if sufficiently provoked. The fact of the matter is that most facilities can't afford to provide fail safe security. Given these facts, I think that people who are maimed, killed, etc. at zoos after having badly provoked the animals shouldn't expect monetary compensation. Medical, possibly, but not settlements. Don't mess with a cat, etc., especially one confined and on exhibit.

In today's S.F. Chronicle the headline story is about a woman visitor to the zoo that afternoon who saw the two mauled brothers taunting (and infuriating) the lions around an hour before the tiger attack. Those guys are liars (and so is their lawyer!) and juvenile delinquents. I'll say it again: I wouldn't grant them more than 10 bucks compensation. I believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Everybody knows that they are asking for trouble when they taunt a dangerous animal. If trouble then visits them, they should take the blame. Life is dangerous, you act accordingly. They paid their entry into the zoo (I assume) but that doesn't mean that the zoo is then totally responsible for their safety. They have to act reasonably responsibly. I believe that in that regard, they utterly failed.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: rpanic
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

Of course this is clearly BS or the police would have said they found a sling shoot at the zoo.

Your right the slingshot thing looks like its turning out to be BS, so much false information on this event.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1

It's not "false information," it's an intentional disinformation campaign being conducted in the media by the SF Zoo, the AZA, and its insurers in order to sway the public and distract from their gross negligence and liability. I hope they fsckin burn for it, and the victims get awarded a record-breaking settlement.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: 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.

as much as I agree with this statement, I had to bold for the sanctity of grammar everywhere and ask...uh, what?

IMO, there are scores of tigers around the USA on exhibit that could escape if sufficiently provoked. The fact of the matter is that most facilities can't afford to provide fail safe security. Given these facts, I think that people who are maimed, killed, etc. at zoos after having badly provoked the animals shouldn't expect monetary compensation. Medical, possibly, but not settlements. Don't mess with a cat, etc., especially one confined and on exhibit.

In today's S.F. Chronicle the headline story is about a woman visitor to the zoo that afternoon who saw the two mauled brothers taunting (and infuriating) the lions around an hour before the tiger attack. Those guys are liars (and so is their lawyer!) and juvenile delinquents. I'll say it again: I wouldn't grant them more than 10 bucks compensation. I believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Everybody knows that they are asking for trouble when they taunt a dangerous animal. If trouble then visits them, they should take the blame. Life is dangerous, you act accordingly. They paid their entry into the zoo (I assume) but that doesn't mean that the zoo is then totally responsible for their safety. They have to act reasonably responsibly. I believe that in that regard, they utterly failed.

Do you tell rape victims they had it coming because they dressed seductively?

:roll:

You've already said you have an ax to grind with this lawyer, but FYI the police reports and transcripts are backing up what these "liars" and "juvenile deliquents" are saying, while these rumors of taunting and provoking are all uncited and have all thus far been debunked by official sources. So it's looking really annoyingly dishonest on your part that you keep pretending that they are factual.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,658
3,537
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: rpanic
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: rpanic
Reported on the news this morning that the two guys had slingshots on them, if that?s true and they were going through the zoo using them to shot animals they deserved more than what happened to them.

Of course this is clearly BS or the police would have said they found a sling shoot at the zoo.

Your right the slingshot thing looks like its turning out to be BS, so much false information on this event.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1

It's not "false information," it's an intentional disinformation campaign being conducted in the media by the SF Zoo, the AZA, and its insurers in order to sway the public and distract from their gross negligence and liability. I hope they fsckin burn for it, and the victims get awarded a record-breaking settlement.

Proof? Or is this an "uncited" report?

Both parties have ample reason to lie. Not sure if the facts of what happened will ever come out (minus audio or video evidence). I'm sure there will be plenty of innuendo from both sides, and I'm sure the lawyers will make a ton of $$.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Now there is a witness, Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children, who is saying she saw the "victims" taunting big cats at the zoo. Text

Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos - and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger's bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.

"The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them," the San Francisco woman said. "They were trying to get that lion's attention. ... The lion was bristling, so I just said, 'Come on, let's get out of here' because my kids were disturbed by it."

She said Sousa - whom she later recognized from his photo in the newspaper - was not heckling. The Chronicle contacted Miller after learning that she and her family had seen the young men at the zoo Christmas Day.

Miller, who said she visits the zoo with her relatives every Christmas, said the young men stood out because she has seen mostly families there. Although authorities have said Sousa was accompanied only by San Jose brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, Miller said four young men were together when she came across them.

Geragos maintains that the brothers ran to the Terrace Cafe after Tatiana escaped and tried for more than 30 minutes to solicit help from zoo employees. He dismissed reports of the victims throwing rocks at the tiger as "just not true."

Miller called the behavior she witnessed by the victims "disturbing."

Her family was looking at the lions when the young men stopped beside them at the big-cat grottos - five outdoor exhibits attached to the Lion House. The young men started roaring at the lions and acting "boisterous" to get their attention, said Miller, who added that she watched the four for five minutes or so a little after 4 p.m.

"It was why we left," she said. "Their behavior was disturbing. They kept doing it."

Sousa refrained from such tactics, Miller said.

"He wasn't roaring. He wasn't taunting them," she recalled. "He kept looking at me apologetically like, 'I'm sorry, I know we are being stupid.' "

When a friend told Miller about the attacks - first reported to 911 dispatchers at 5:07 p.m. - she called police the day after Christmas to tell them what she had seen. She called back Wednesday because she was wondering why news accounts mentioned only three young men.
San Francisco police Inspector Valerie Matthews said investigators had talked to Miller on Wednesday but haven't been able to substantiate yet her account of a fourth person with the victims at the zoo. Authorities have been unable to corroborate reports that the victims taunted the tigers, she said.

"I don't know if what they did was any more than what kindergartners do at the zoo every day," Matthews said.

She said taunting an animal at the zoo is a misdemeanor.

Zoo officials declined Wednesday to specifically say that they suspected taunting in the escape of the tiger.

"Something prompted our tiger to leap over the exhibit," said Manuel Mollinedo, executive director of the zoo, in response to questions during a 13-minute press conference attended by at least 40 media representatives on Wednesday.


Some of you are too quick to blame the zoo for this attack. Somehow thousands, and possibly millions of people were able to see the animals safely, and it's a coincidence that when these three or four idiots were in the park, a tiger escapes and kills one of them?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: marincounty
Now there is a witness, Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children, who is saying she saw the "victims" taunting big cats at the zoo. Text

Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos - and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger's bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.

"The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them," the San Francisco woman said. "They were trying to get that lion's attention. ... The lion was bristling, so I just said, 'Come on, let's get out of here' because my kids were disturbed by it."

She said Sousa - whom she later recognized from his photo in the newspaper - was not heckling. The Chronicle contacted Miller after learning that she and her family had seen the young men at the zoo Christmas Day.

Miller, who said she visits the zoo with her relatives every Christmas, said the young men stood out because she has seen mostly families there. Although authorities have said Sousa was accompanied only by San Jose brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, Miller said four young men were together when she came across them.

Geragos maintains that the brothers ran to the Terrace Cafe after Tatiana escaped and tried for more than 30 minutes to solicit help from zoo employees. He dismissed reports of the victims throwing rocks at the tiger as "just not true."

Miller called the behavior she witnessed by the victims "disturbing."

Her family was looking at the lions when the young men stopped beside them at the big-cat grottos - five outdoor exhibits attached to the Lion House. The young men started roaring at the lions and acting "boisterous" to get their attention, said Miller, who added that she watched the four for five minutes or so a little after 4 p.m.

"It was why we left," she said. "Their behavior was disturbing. They kept doing it."

Sousa refrained from such tactics, Miller said.

"He wasn't roaring. He wasn't taunting them," she recalled. "He kept looking at me apologetically like, 'I'm sorry, I know we are being stupid.' "

When a friend told Miller about the attacks - first reported to 911 dispatchers at 5:07 p.m. - she called police the day after Christmas to tell them what she had seen. She called back Wednesday because she was wondering why news accounts mentioned only three young men.
San Francisco police Inspector Valerie Matthews said investigators had talked to Miller on Wednesday but haven't been able to substantiate yet her account of a fourth person with the victims at the zoo. Authorities have been unable to corroborate reports that the victims taunted the tigers, she said.

"I don't know if what they did was any more than what kindergartners do at the zoo every day," Matthews said.

She said taunting an animal at the zoo is a misdemeanor.

Zoo officials declined Wednesday to specifically say that they suspected taunting in the escape of the tiger.

"Something prompted our tiger to leap over the exhibit," said Manuel Mollinedo, executive director of the zoo, in response to questions during a 13-minute press conference attended by at least 40 media representatives on Wednesday.


Some of you are too quick to blame the zoo for this attack. Somehow thousands, and possibly millions of people were able to see the animals safely, and it's a coincidence that when these three or four idiots were in the park, a tiger escapes and kills one of them?

Is it a coincidence when a plane with a history of poor maintenance falls out of the sky? Is it a coincidence when a restaurant that serves unhealthy foods gets unhealthy customers?
Oh wait... you'd be arguing exactly the opposite in those examples. Huh... I wonder why?

:roll:
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,816
8,958
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: 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.

as much as I agree with this statement, I had to bold for the sanctity of grammar everywhere and ask...uh, what?

IMO, there are scores of tigers around the USA on exhibit that could escape if sufficiently provoked. The fact of the matter is that most facilities can't afford to provide fail safe security. Given these facts, I think that people who are maimed, killed, etc. at zoos after having badly provoked the animals shouldn't expect monetary compensation. Medical, possibly, but not settlements. Don't mess with a cat, etc., especially one confined and on exhibit.

In today's S.F. Chronicle the headline story is about a woman visitor to the zoo that afternoon who saw the two mauled brothers taunting (and infuriating) the lions around an hour before the tiger attack. Those guys are liars (and so is their lawyer!) and juvenile delinquents. I'll say it again: I wouldn't grant them more than 10 bucks compensation. I believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Everybody knows that they are asking for trouble when they taunt a dangerous animal. If trouble then visits them, they should take the blame. Life is dangerous, you act accordingly. They paid their entry into the zoo (I assume) but that doesn't mean that the zoo is then totally responsible for their safety. They have to act reasonably responsibly. I believe that in that regard, they utterly failed.

Do you tell rape victims they had it coming because they dressed seductively?

:roll:

You've already said you have an ax to grind with this lawyer, but FYI the police reports and transcripts are backing up what these "liars" and "juvenile deliquents" are saying, while these rumors of taunting and provoking are all uncited and have all thus far been debunked by official sources. So it's looking really annoyingly dishonest on your part that you keep pretending that they are factual.

Really, your rolling eyes must be for your own weak argument. Humans are more culpable for their behavior than tigers, at least the should be. I would never accuse a rape victim of causing the rape due to the way they dress. However, if they smeared raw meat all over their body and tempted a large feline and were savaged, I would say they were largely at fault.

Vic, you're out of line here. I already posted today that the S.F. Chronicle's lead first section (headline) article states that a Mrs. Miller observed the brothers infuriating the lions an hour earlier. Also, an empty bottle of vodka was found in their car. These are facts, or at least I have no reason to doubt that they are facts. What is your problem? Must I find you a link to the story? Well, here it is:

S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions

You claim that:

FYI the police reports and transcripts are backing up what these "liars" and "juvenile deliquents" are saying

However, every source of information I have seen or heard indicates that the victims have been completely uncooperative with all the authorities, cops included and have said nothing. Only Geragos has spoken, and that 8 days after the event. I have no axe to grind with Geragos, but to me he appears to be acting out the quintessential prevaricating lawyer, playing every angle he can get away with (truth be damned) in representing his clients. It's early, but that's what I see so far in the Chronicle articles.

I have no reason on earth to be dishonest here. Why would I? I'm telling it exactly like I see it. That's the 100% truth. What in the world would suggest I'm being dishonest here? I have no motive to do so. What could I possibly be covering up??? Now Vic, what's up with that?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: Muse
Really, your rolling eyes must be for your own weak argument. Humans are more culpable for their behavior than tigers, at least the should be. I would never accuse a rape victim of causing the rape due to the way they dress. However, if they smeared raw meat all over their body and tempted a large feline and were savaged, I would say they were largely at fault.

Vic, you're out of line here. I already posted today that the S.F. Chronicle's lead first section (headline) article states that a Mrs. Miller observed the brothers infuriating the lions an hour earlier. Also, an empty bottle of vodka was found in their car. These are facts, or at least I have no reason to doubt that they are facts. What is your problem? Must I find you a link to the story? Well, here it is:

S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions

No, I think you are out of line here with your constant scrambling for excuses with which to blame the victims.
Nor have I blamed the tiger. That's a senseless straw man on your part. No matter who is to blame here, the tiger is absolutely blameless without question. No one is blaming the tiger, so quit pretending that anyone is.
The zoo OTOH was maintaining an animal for public exhibit that they knew to be dangerous, that had attacked and severely injured a human in the past, an animal which the state had told the zoo to destroy and the zoo had refused to do so, in an enclosure that did not meet recommended guidelines, and the police report clearly establishes that zoo officials on duty neglected to respond the emergency in a timely fashion.

This is open-and-shut in any court of law. And if this were some private business entity, I have no doubt that you and the other usual suspects would be rightfully calling for corporate heads, and in any case this blatantly outrageous I would be joining you in that without question. If this zoo were privately owned, marin would be calling to have them shut down merely for the fat content of the burgers at the snack bar. So WTF is going here, eh?
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,816
8,958
136
Yeah, well Vic, before I read your response below, let me point out that I just edited the one before that.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,816
8,958
136
Me, blaming the tiger? What??? Where did you get that? :roll:
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,816
8,958
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Muse
Really, your rolling eyes must be for your own weak argument. Humans are more culpable for their behavior than tigers, at least the should be. I would never accuse a rape victim of causing the rape due to the way they dress. However, if they smeared raw meat all over their body and tempted a large feline and were savaged, I would say they were largely at fault.

Vic, you're out of line here. I already posted today that the S.F. Chronicle's lead first section (headline) article states that a Mrs. Miller observed the brothers infuriating the lions an hour earlier. Also, an empty bottle of vodka was found in their car. These are facts, or at least I have no reason to doubt that they are facts. What is your problem? Must I find you a link to the story? Well, here it is:

S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions

No, I think you are out of line here with your constant scrambling for excuses with which to blame the victims.
Nor have I blamed the tiger. That's a senseless straw man on your part. No matter who is to blame here, the tiger is absolutely blameless without question. No one is blaming the tiger, so quit pretending that anyone is.
The zoo OTOH was maintaining an animal for public exhibit that they knew to be dangerous, that had attacked and severely injured a human in the past, an animal which the state had told the zoo to destroy and the zoo had refused to do so, in an enclosure that did not meet recommended guidelines, and the police report clearly establishes that zoo officials on duty neglected to respond the emergency in a timely fashion.

This is open-and-shut in any court of law. And if this were some private business entity, I have no doubt that you and the other usual suspects would be rightfully calling for corporate heads, and in any case this blatantly outrageous I would be joining you in that without question. If this zoo were privately owned, marin would be calling to have them shut down merely for the fat content of the burgers at the snack bar. So WTF is going here, eh?

OK, maybe we're not so far apart on this. I think it's obvious that the S.F. Zoo is terribly messed up. There was another article in the Chronicle a few days ago that made this abundantly clear. I see no way that the director can withstand what's going on now, however there were things in the Chronicle today that suggested that there are people who are siding with the zoo's current administration. I hope those attempts fail because at the very least, they need a new and powerful director to try to save the zoo. Otherwise, it's just a disaster becoming a calamity.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Originally posted by: Muse
Yeah, well Vic, before I read your response below, let me point out that I just edited the one before that.

Yeah well, let me point out for the 1 millionth time that the tiger got out.

If I go to a zoo, I don't expect to get beaten by a chimpanzee because I thumb my nose at it, or eaten by a tiger because I yelled at it and made faces at it. People have a right to a reasonable expectation of safety, and a dangerous animal at a zoo staying within its enclosure regardless of what one does (short of actually releasing it, which no mere visitor should ever have the ability to do) most certainly falls within that expectation.
If the zoo somehow gets away with this, I predict that a lot of people and their families are going to stop going to them, because they will no longer have any reason to feel safe.

edit: the blaming the tiger part was from your analogy about someone smearing themselves with raw meat.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,816
8,958
136
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Muse
Yeah, well Vic, before I read your response below, let me point out that I just edited the one before that.

Yeah well, let me point out for the 1 millionth time that the tiger got out.

If I go to a zoo, I don't expect to get beaten by a chimpanzee because I thumb my nose at it, or eaten by a tiger because I yelled at it and made faces at it. People have a right to a reasonable expectation of safety, and a dangerous animal at a zoo staying within its enclosure regardless of what one does (short of actually releasing it, which no mere visitor should have the ability to do) most certainly falls within that expectation.
If the zoo somehow gets away with this, I predict that a lot of people and their families are going to stop going to them, because they will no longer have any reason to feel safe.

They have the right to reasonable safety, but how much do they have it when they act unreasonably? I don't buy the idea that as a paying customer you are always guaranteed safety, no matter what. Reasonable behavior is sometimes necessary to insure safety. Those boys harassed the lions, they very probably harrassed that tiger.

I'm not going to defend the zoo. They were remiss in many ways, the director's head should roll. But I don't think those brothers should get a large settlement, reason being that I believe they taunted the animal. I'm not sure about the family of the dead boy.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Muse
Really, your rolling eyes must be for your own weak argument. Humans are more culpable for their behavior than tigers, at least the should be. I would never accuse a rape victim of causing the rape due to the way they dress. However, if they smeared raw meat all over their body and tempted a large feline and were savaged, I would say they were largely at fault.

Vic, you're out of line here. I already posted today that the S.F. Chronicle's lead first section (headline) article states that a Mrs. Miller observed the brothers infuriating the lions an hour earlier. Also, an empty bottle of vodka was found in their car. These are facts, or at least I have no reason to doubt that they are facts. What is your problem? Must I find you a link to the story? Well, here it is:

S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions

No, I think you are out of line here with your constant scrambling for excuses with which to blame the victims.
Nor have I blamed the tiger. That's a senseless straw man on your part. No matter who is to blame here, the tiger is absolutely blameless without question. No one is blaming the tiger, so quit pretending that anyone is.
The zoo OTOH was maintaining an animal for public exhibit that they knew to be dangerous, that had attacked and severely injured a human in the past, an animal which the state had told the zoo to destroy and the zoo had refused to do so, in an enclosure that did not meet recommended guidelines, and the police report clearly establishes that zoo officials on duty neglected to respond the emergency in a timely fashion.

This is open-and-shut in any court of law. And if this were some private business entity, I have no doubt that you and the other usual suspects would be rightfully calling for corporate heads, and in any case this blatantly outrageous I would be joining you in that without question. If this zoo were privately owned, marin would be calling to have them shut down merely for the fat content of the burgers at the snack bar. So WTF is going here, eh?

You are the one scrambling for excuses for the "victims".
I looked at your link, and I can't find where the state told the zoo to destroy the animal.
Did you make that up?
You seem to have an irrational hatred of any govt run institution. If this were a privately run zoo, it may have been cleaner and safer, but it would also probably cost $39 to get in.
If the zoo were privately owned I would be calling to have them shut down merely for the fat content of the burgers at the snack bar?
You are truly delusional. I love cheeseburgers and have no problem with fat.
Maybe you can visit the zoo and taunt some big cats and check if the enclosure is safe for us?