Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Yes, you did. I bolded it for you. I don't care about the possibility of any $1 million (or whatever) judgment. That's for courts of law to decide. This is the court of public opinion.
Which brings us back to: what part about the tiger getting out is so fscking hard for you to understand that we have to keep having this discussion? A person visiting a zoo has a reasonable expectation that none of the animals, and most especially not the world's most ferocious land carnivore, will be able to escape their enclosures, no matter how much they -- or some other visitor -- might "taunt" the animal.
Unless they entered the cage, or physically helped the animal in its escape, then the zoo is liable. End of story.
If they were drunk or unruly, then it was the zoo's responsibility to remove them for the safety of other guests. End of story.
The animal should never have been able to escape its enclosure without the active physical assistance of a human being. No animal in any zoo, and especially not the world's most ferocious land carnivore, should ever be able to escape its enclosure on its own. End of story.
You want to address those points, then please do so. I would welcome such discussion, and would even change my mind should new information come to light regarding those points.
If you want to keep going back to irrelevancies of how many names these kids may have taunted the tiger with, while continuing to ignore the relevant issue of the world's most ferocious land carnivore escaping for its enclosure and killing and injuring human beings within a public zoo, then you can expect me to maintain my position on this issue.
Maybe it's because you don't seem to understand that the world's most ferocious land carnivore doesn't need to be taunted in order to want to kill humans. That's just a tiger doing what a tiger does.
I agree in that the majority of blame must fall to the zoo and a substantial settlement is deserved by all the victims. Unless there is evidence that they directly assisted in the tiger's escape, it is the zoo's responsibility to provide a safe environment for it's patrons. If the tiger could leap out of it's enclosure, they clearly fell short of that responsibility.
I think their actions do have direct relevance on the amount of the settlement as the courts are willing to share blame among multiple parties. Evidence appears that they were not "innocent" victims and their actions played a major role in why the attack took place.
I'm comfortable with a jury and judge determining what the appropriate balance should be and the zoo obviously needs to enhance its facilities and crisis policies.
I think the Zoo should get a ten million dollar settlement from the two survivors for mistreatment of captive animals and the death of one of them. And just for you cry babies, they should have herded the surviving Tigers into an escape proof cage and thrown the two hoods in too.
- Jul 11, 2001
- 38,318
- 8,640
- 136
I have been told that life holds no guarantees, and I'm inclined to accept that. In the case of these people taunting the caged beast, the maxim was born out. I know that certain things are "supposed" to happen, but I don't depend on those things. When I cross the street, I look, I listen, regardless of what the signs might say. I'm safer that way. When I go to a zoo, I do not taunt tigers. I'm safer that way. We do not live in a perfect world or a fantasy world. This is the real world.
There was responsibility on the zoo's part to insure that the animal did not escape, certainly. They failed to do that, however the victims provoked the animal. Thus you are right that the zoo didn't adequately contain the animal, but I feel that I'm right that the victims abrogated their right to injury claims by virtue of provoking the animal. We are both right, but we are talking about two different things.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,938
- 264
- 126
C'mon, Vic, tort law doesn't work that way. For all we know the cage was considered proper and these assholes caused the whole incident. If a liquor bottle was spotted in their car the cops have probably cause to search the vehicle. Making alcohol accessible to minors is a violation of the law in every state. The cops should be throwing tickets as these boneheads for their great act of foolishness worthy of any Darwin's Award.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
When did I say that the cops shouldn't be able to search the vehicle?
I'm not opposed to a thorough investigation. Quite the opposite, I would WELCOME one. At least that would be better than the current public opinion lynch mob going on right now. And if a proper investigation reveals credible evidence that the victims got inside the enclosure or physically helped the tiger to escape, or were otherwise complicit in this act beyond this stupidness of just calling the tiger names, then I will change my position on this issue.
In the meantime, we already do know that the enclosure was NOT considered "proper," we do know that the animal had a history of prior attacks, and we do NOT know that the victims caused the whole incident. Based on those facts that we have at this time, you'll excuse me if I haven't joined the lynch mob, eh? I would appreciate if you and some others here would quit trying to spin it the other way around.
This is one of the few times I've disagreed with Vic.
In my opinion, if they were taunting the tiger then I would throw out any suit against the zoo -- while at the same time ordering the zoo to increase the height of the barrier in the tiger exhibit to make it harder for the tiger to escape.
To me it's like a pit bull (a breed of dog which I don't like) being held by a leash. If a group of kids started taunting and throwing things at it and the dog becomes so agitated that it manages to break free of the leash and ends up mauling the kids, then I would blame the kids -- not the dog, not the owner nor the company who made the leash. The reason being that the pit bull would normally not be able to break free unless he was agitated in such a manner.
If the dog broke free and attacked kids while they were walking past and not doing anything to agitate the dog, then I would blame the dog or the owner or the company who made the leash.
The fact that the tiger only attacked those 3 kids and not any others made me suspicious that they must have done something to the tiger. Maybe I'm wrong but hopefully the truth will come out.
You can't yell fire in a theater and blame the owners for people being hurt.
BTW, this is the first time I heard about how some zoo patrons treat the zoo animals. It absolutely sickens me to hear stories about how our kids like to taunt the animals there. It reflects poorly on our society.
In my opinion, if they were taunting the tiger then I would throw out any suit against the zoo -- while at the same time ordering the zoo to increase the height of the barrier in the tiger exhibit to make it harder for the tiger to escape.
To me it's like a pit bull (a breed of dog which I don't like) being held by a leash. If a group of kids started taunting and throwing things at it and the dog becomes so agitated that it manages to break free of the leash and ends up mauling the kids, then I would blame the kids -- not the dog, not the owner nor the company who made the leash. The reason being that the pit bull would normally not be able to break free unless he was agitated in such a manner.
If the dog broke free and attacked kids while they were walking past and not doing anything to agitate the dog, then I would blame the dog or the owner or the company who made the leash.
The fact that the tiger only attacked those 3 kids and not any others made me suspicious that they must have done something to the tiger. Maybe I'm wrong but hopefully the truth will come out.
You can't yell fire in a theater and blame the owners for people being hurt.
BTW, this is the first time I heard about how some zoo patrons treat the zoo animals. It absolutely sickens me to hear stories about how our kids like to taunt the animals there. It reflects poorly on our society.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if I go to the zoo and take my kids/grandkids/spouse/whatever that I have a right to be safe from the animals no matter what some other assholes decide to do.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,333
- 136
Maybe it's because I'm a cat person. I've had cats my whole life. I'd take in stray cats as a small child even though my parents hated cats. And they're not like dogs. They're haven't been bred for thousands of years to be docile and loyal to humans. They don't need to be taunted to want to eat you. That's just what they do. And the only relevant difference here between a domestic cat and a tiger is that the tiger is ~50 times bigger than the cat, and actually has the ability to eat humans. In cat logic, human is to tiger as mouse is to cat. It's not anymore complicated than that. If your house cat was magically transformed to the size of a tiger, it would eat you.
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 1
- 76
Actually, the enclosure WAS proper. It met all the legally required standards. The only reason they are catching flack is that it was below the RECOMMENDED height, NOT the required one.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,938
- 264
- 126
Originally posted by: Vic
When did I say that the cops shouldn't be able to search the vehicle?
You didn't. I wasn't saying that towards you per se, merely flowing further into my point while reading across multiple posts. The cops have the phones and vehicle in storage but no court-approved order for a search. That is the basis of my comment.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter