Tiger escapes cage at S.F. zoo

[jonks]

Teenagers! They're GRRRRRRREEEAAAAT!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty
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?

:roll: I have not made one excuse for the victims. Not one. The issue is that I don't think any excuses for them are necessary, any more than I would think that a rape victim requires any excuses.
And sorry, the burgers and fat comment wasn't delusion, it was because of the time you popped off that I wanted to see children poisoned in that trans fat thread. So okay, you're a hypocrite and love eating unhealthy after all. You probably want to have it banned because of your lack of self-control then.

To me, it doesn't matter if this was a public or a private institution. What does matter to me is that the tiger got out. Is there something about in that simple fact that you have difficultly understanding?
If you're looking for delusional, I suggest you look into the mirror and ask yourself how "taunting" the tiger from outside its enclosure somehow justifies its escape, from which to kill and injure human beings, or the zoo's liability in that regard.
I suppose you'd be fine then if a chimpanzee escaped from its cage and killed some child just because the child stuck its tongue out at it?
No?... so where do we draw the line? Oh, that's right... with making it so the animal can't escape from its enclosure.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Muse
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.

If you're not defending the zoo, then we're not disagreeing on anything. Except maybe this harassment or taunting issue not being reasonable behavior. Usually, reasonable behavior at a zoo would be considered not entering the animal's enclosure, or wielding or throwing anything at the animal in its enclosure, or to assist the animal to escape. In this case, there is no evidence that any of that occurred. You posted an article with a witness who came forward a couple days later to say that she saw "the young men started roaring at the lions and acting "boisterous" to get their attention," but that's it. If you sincerely believe that such behavior deserves that the animal escape from its supposedly secure enclosure inside a zoo and to attack and kill those who did it... well, you're nuts.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty
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?

:roll: I have not made one excuse for the victims. Not one. The issue is that I don't think any excuses for them are necessary, any more than I would think that a rape victim requires any excuses.
And sorry, the burgers and fat comment wasn't delusion, it was because of the time you popped off that I wanted to see children poisoned in that trans fat thread. So okay, you're a hypocrite and love eating unhealthy after all. You probably want to have it banned because of your lack of self-control then.

To me, it doesn't matter if this was a public or a private institution. What does matter to me is that the tiger got out. Is there something about in that simple fact that you have difficultly understanding?
If you're looking for delusional, I suggest you look into the mirror and ask yourself how "taunting" the tiger from outside its enclosure somehow justifies its escape, from which to kill and injure human beings, or the zoo's liability in that regard.
I suppose you'd be fine then if a chimpanzee escaped from its cage and killed some child just because the child stuck its tongue out at it?
No?... so where do we draw the line? Oh, that's right... with making it so the animal can't escape from its enclosure.

"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. "

Do you have any evidence that this is an intentional disinformation campaign?
What specific disinformation has the SF Zoo put out? You are accusing them, so where is it?

Now I'm a hypocrite because I like eating burgers and fat, but don't want to see children poisoned with trans fats? You've lost your mind.
Now I would like it banned because of my lack of self-control? You are the only thing I would like to see banned.

And answer the question: I looked at your link and didn't see anything calling for the animal's destruction. Where is this information, or did you make it up?
I think all of us can agree tigers should not be able to escape from their cages, however, don't you have any curiosity about why no tiger ever escaped until these "victims" visited the zoo?

And contrary to your beliefs about this being an open and shut case, I believe lots of evidence about what the "victims" did or did not do at the zoo will be brought up. And their is a thing called contributory negligence.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Now I'm a hypocrite because I like eating burgers and fat, but don't want to see children poisoned with trans fats? You've lost your mind.
Now I would like it banned because of my lack of self-control? You are the only thing I would like to see banned.

And answer the question: I looked at your link and didn't see anything calling for the animal's destruction. Where is this information, or did you make it up?
I think all of us can agree tigers should not be able to escape from their cages, however, don't you have any curiosity about why no tiger ever escaped until these "victims" visited the zoo?

And contrary to your beliefs about this being an open and shut case, I believe lots of evidence about what the "victims" did or did not do at the zoo will be brought up. And their is a thing called contributory negligence.

In fact, yes, you are a hypocrite. I have already demonstrated that long before this and more than once. And why should I be banned because I have nothing against exposing your hypocrisy every time it shows its ugly head? You got a problem with me doing that, take it to the mods.

I already took back the statement regarding the "intentional disinformation campaign." And I explained that I was hot-headed from the baseless slingshot accusation and the callous disregard for human life being demonstrated here. That doesn't excuse what you're doing here.

Because I am absolutely certain that we can all agree that, suppose, if the tiger ever escaped under the big top at the Ringling Bros. circus (or even Cirque du Soleil if they had tigers), you would be calling for heads to roll, huge lawsuits, and the dissolution of all circuses in America, no matter how much the crowd may have called the tiger nasty names.
But if such a thing happens at your favorite local zoo, why OMG! suddenly the dead and injured "victims" gets put in quotations, and we start discussing how a tiger's feelings can get hurt when you insult its mother, and how that adds up to "contributory negligence," and... is it really that hard for you to figure why anyone could think you're an ass... and want to call you out on that?

 

[TheSlamma]

Dang.. we sold em that tiger too... we didn't offer up our Jaguar soon enough though.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: marincounty
Now I'm a hypocrite because I like eating burgers and fat, but don't want to see children poisoned with trans fats? You've lost your mind.
Now I would like it banned because of my lack of self-control? You are the only thing I would like to see banned.

And answer the question: I looked at your link and didn't see anything calling for the animal's destruction. Where is this information, or did you make it up?
I think all of us can agree tigers should not be able to escape from their cages, however, don't you have any curiosity about why no tiger ever escaped until these "victims" visited the zoo?

And contrary to your beliefs about this being an open and shut case, I believe lots of evidence about what the "victims" did or did not do at the zoo will be brought up. And their is a thing called contributory negligence.

In fact, yes, you are a hypocrite. I have already demonstrated that long before this and more than once. And why should I be banned because I have nothing against exposing your hypocrisy every time it shows its ugly head? You got a problem with me doing that, take it to the mods.

I already took back the statement regarding the "intentional disinformation campaign." And I explained that I was hot-headed from the baseless slingshot accusation and the callous disregard for human life being demonstrated here. That doesn't excuse what you're doing here.

Because I am absolutely certain that we can all agree that, suppose, if the tiger ever escaped under the big top at the Ringling Bros. circus (or even Cirque du Soleil if they had tigers), you would be calling for heads to roll, huge lawsuits, and the dissolution of all circuses in America, no matter how much the crowd may have called the tiger nasty names.
But if such a thing happens at your favorite local zoo, why OMG! suddenly the dead and injured "victims" gets put in quotations, and we start discussing how a tiger's feelings can get hurt when you insult its mother, and how that adds up to "contributory negligence," and... is it really that hard for you to figure why anyone could think you're an ass... and want to call you out on that?

You made up stuff about me wanting things banned, and I'm the hypocrite?
You took back your unsubstantiated accusation that the zoo was leading an "intentional disinformation campaign".
Now where is the information about the state calling for the tiger's destruction? I can't find it.
I never mentioned the tiger's feelings either.
Taunting a wild animal which then attacks you-yes that is negligent, no matter how you try to spin it.
It is not hard for anyone to see that you are an asshole, who just likes to argue, even when you are dead wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: marincounty
You made up stuff about me wanting things banned, and I'm the hypocrite?
You took back your unsubstantiated accusation that the zoo was leading an "intentional disinformation campaign".
Now where is the information about the state calling for the tiger's destruction? I can't find it.
I never mentioned the tiger's feelings either.
Taunting a wild animal which then attacks you-yes that is negligent, no matter how you try to spin it.
It is not hard for anyone to see that you are an asshole, who just likes to argue, even when you are dead wrong.

You have specifically called for bans of fast foods and trans fats in the past. I didn't make that up.
The slingshot accusation raised some serious red flags with me. It is obvious that there is some kind of smear-the-victim campaign going on here, however I have no idea who is behind it.
I already posted a link stating that Cal/OHSA fined the zoo $18,000 dollars over the zookeeper mauling incident and requested the tiger's destruction, which the zoo directoir declined to do. Here's more, because of course, I'm an asshole who's dead wrong:
Last December, the animal reached through the cage's iron bars and badly lacerated a zookeeper's arm. The zoo's Lion House was temporarily closed during an investigation. California's Division of Occupation Safety and Health blamed the zoo for the assault and imposed a $18,000 penalty, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Last year the 21-stone tiger attacked a zookeeper during a public feeding session, ripping the flesh on her arm. A state investigation blamed the zoo, which installed better equipment at the Lion House, where the big cats are kept. Mr Mollinedo said after the attack he did not consider destroying Tatiana because "the tiger was acting as a normal tiger does."
OMG yep, a tiger with a known history of attacking humans escapes from its inadequate enclosure solely because some kids were calling it names and yep, that makes them negligent "victims," and I'm just spin spin spinning...

Like I said earlier to another poster, do you tell rape victims that they had it coming for dressing seductively too?

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Vic


Like I said earlier to another poster, do you tell rape victims that they had it coming for dressing seductively too?

There's a difference between a human and a tiger. Humans are supposedly thinking rational creatures that can be expected to behave in a largely set pattern, while wild tigers are well, wild tigers. You never know what can set them off.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Vic

Like I said earlier to another poster, do you tell rape victims that they had it coming for dressing seductively too?

There's a difference between a human and a tiger. Humans are supposedly thinking rational creatures that can be expected to behave in a largely set pattern, while wild tigers are well, wild tigers. You never know what can set them off.

The rapist was not the tiger. It is the zoo. The tiger was acting as a normal tiger does.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Vic


Like I said earlier to another poster, do you tell rape victims that they had it coming for dressing seductively too?

There's a difference between a human and a tiger. Humans are supposedly thinking rational creatures that can be expected to behave in a largely set pattern, while wild tigers are well, wild tigers. You never know what can set them off.

Most humans are rationalizing creatures but rarely if ever rational by nature. There is a big difference between the two.

 

[waggy]

i have to agree with vic. While taunting the the tiger should have got them kicked out and banned from the park. the zoo is liable for everything that happened.

Combine the fact the wall was to short, the staff did not do anything about the attack (at first they didnt even beleive them) etc. The smear campaign (the slingshot story was a lie, the shoe in the enclosure was a lie etc).

i don't blame the kids for shutting up (which is what most should do and let the attorney talk).

the zoo is going to have a huge payout. rightfully so.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Slew Foot

Originally posted by: Vic

Like I said earlier to another poster, do you tell rape victims that they had it coming for dressing seductively too?

There's a difference between a human and a tiger. Humans are supposedly thinking rational creatures that can be expected to behave in a largely set pattern, while wild tigers are well, wild tigers. You never know what can set them off.

The rapist was not the tiger. It is the zoo. The tiger was acting as a normal tiger does.

Exactly. Tigers get pissed off when you mock them. Moral of the story, dont mock tigers.

 

[compuwiz1]

There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

This remains to be seen. If I were on the jury, it wouldn't go down like that.

Today's paper says the ambulance attendant heard one brother counseling the other to not tell what they did. Also, they refuse to let the authorities inspect their cell phone for messages and for photos they took. It's clear that they did something awful to provoke the tiger. I prefer to look at this as divine justice. In the words of William Blake, "The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God." The brothers had it coming (the tiger's claws and bite, not a monetary reward).

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

This remains to be seen. If I were on the jury, it wouldn't go down like that.

Today's paper says the ambulance attendant heard one brother counseling the other to not tell what they did. It's clear that they did something awful to provoke the tiger. I prefer to look at this as divine justice. In the words of William Blake, "The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God." The brothers had it coming.

I agree that the brothers were asking for it but the zoo still had the responsibility of making sure there was NO way the Tiger could escape. It did!

 

[Slew Foot]

Well the Zoo's exhibit was deemed safe by the accrediting agency, shouldn't the agency be on the hook?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Well the Zoo's exhibit was deemed safe by the accrediting agency, shouldn't the agency be on the hook?

YES, and anyone else who had a hand in this lapse in proper containment of a dangerous animal.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

This remains to be seen. If I were on the jury, it wouldn't go down like that.

Today's paper says the ambulance attendant heard one brother counseling the other to not tell what they did. It's clear that they did something awful to provoke the tiger. I prefer to look at this as divine justice. In the words of William Blake, "The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God." The brothers had it coming.

I agree that the brothers were asking for it but the zoo still had the responsibility of making sure there was NO way the Tiger could escape. It did!

:thumbsup:

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

This remains to be seen. If I were on the jury, it wouldn't go down like that.

Today's paper says the ambulance attendant heard one brother counseling the other to not tell what they did. Also, they refuse to let the authorities inspect their cell phone for messages and for photos they took. It's clear that they did something awful to provoke the tiger. I prefer to look at this as divine justice. In the words of William Blake, "The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God." The brothers had it coming (the tiger's claws and bite, not a monetary reward).

It is? What makes it clear? more crap you or someone else is making up? Was it the shoe, sling shot, or board that makes it clear? There is nothing to indicate that the people taunted the tigers.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

This remains to be seen. If I were on the jury, it wouldn't go down like that.

Today's paper says the ambulance attendant heard one brother counseling the other to not tell what they did. Also, they refuse to let the authorities inspect their cell phone for messages and for photos they took. It's clear that they did something awful to provoke the tiger. I prefer to look at this as divine justice. In the words of William Blake, "The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God." The brothers had it coming (the tiger's claws and bite, not a monetary reward).

It is? What makes it clear? more crap you or someone else is making up? Was it the shoe, sling shot, or board that makes it clear? There is nothing to indicate that the people taunted the tigers.

smack Down, taunting or no taunting, the Tiger got out! I think you understand that, but unfortunately, some of the other imbusiles don't.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

This remains to be seen. If I were on the jury, it wouldn't go down like that.

Today's paper says the ambulance attendant heard one brother counseling the other to not tell what they did. Also, they refuse to let the authorities inspect their cell phone for messages and for photos they took. It's clear that they did something awful to provoke the tiger. I prefer to look at this as divine justice. In the words of William Blake, "The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God." The brothers had it coming (the tiger's claws and bite, not a monetary reward).

It is? What makes it clear? more crap you or someone else is making up? Was it the shoe, sling shot, or board that makes it clear? There is nothing to indicate that the people taunted the tigers.

No, there is not irrefutable evidence, however I think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly condemning. Mrs. Miller observed the brothers bellowing at and infuriating the lions, the ambulance attendant heard one brother telling the other to not let them know what they had done. The empty vodka bottle in the car. The brothers' history of being juvenile delinquents, the universal condemnation of the brothers' characters by their neighbors (I heard this in a post, don't know where it came from, though), the explanations of experts that the tiger wouldn't have escaped without being incited. The refusal of the brothers to let authorities inspect cell phone(s). That's just what comes readily to mind.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
There is only one way a dangerous animal should be kept in a zoo. It should be kept in such a way that it's getting out of it's enclosure is impossible. Anything not as secure is unacceptable and warrants severe negligence on the part of the keepers. The tiger got out. It should never have happened under any circumstances. The zoo should and will get their asses sued off.

This remains to be seen. If I were on the jury, it wouldn't go down like that.

Today's paper says the ambulance attendant heard one brother counseling the other to not tell what they did. Also, they refuse to let the authorities inspect their cell phone for messages and for photos they took. It's clear that they did something awful to provoke the tiger. I prefer to look at this as divine justice. In the words of William Blake, "The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God." The brothers had it coming (the tiger's claws and bite, not a monetary reward).

It is? What makes it clear? more crap you or someone else is making up? Was it the shoe, sling shot, or board that makes it clear? There is nothing to indicate that the people taunted the tigers.

No, there is not irrefutable evidence, however I think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly condemning. Mrs. Miller observed the brothers bellowing at and infuriating the lions, the ambulance attendant heard one brother telling the other to not let them know what they had done. The empty vodka bottle in the car. The brothers' history of being juvenile delinquents, the universal condemnation of the brothers' characters by their neighbors (I heard this in a post, don't know where it came from, though), the explanations of experts that the tiger wouldn't have escaped without being incited. The refusal of the brothers to let authorities inspect cell phone(s). That's just what comes readily to mind.

and none of that matters. only fact that does matter is the zoo had a responsbility to keep the tiger from escaping. it didnt do that. they are responsebel.

they are going to lose a lot of money over this. it is sad the zoo is succesfull in getting people to blame the kid. if they put that much effort into keeping the visitors of the zoo safe the kid would still be alive.

 

[cyclohexane]

let see, the tiger gets locked up for years and years and then gets taunted by a bunch of assholes...why am I not surprised by the attack?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
let see, the tiger gets locked up for years and years and then gets taunted by a bunch of assholes...why am I not surprised by the attack?

:thumbsup: