|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/19/2008 5:55:40 PM | | I think tigers are very, very, very beautiful animals, especially these Siberian tigers. Animals actually are deeper than what you think. Often, we people think that we are so much better than the dogs we know, but not necessarily, some dogs are better than human beings out there.. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:07:39 AM | This is the kind of thinking that makes me wonder about some human beings? comparing dogs to humans now? good Lord.
I sit here and read about some folks are in grief over a tiger vs loss of human life, as tragic is it , it makes me think if you were a innocent bystander and this tiger escaped and you were in its path with your child and tiger turned his/her attention to your child would It make you think differently about the tiger or would you assign blame to the zoo for it inadequate barriers? I know its a what if scenario. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/21/2008 7:06:05 AM |
I truly believe there shouldn't be zoo's parading animals around for profit yikes...
Zoos are not big money makers. Considering all the costs they incur, the admission and fees they charge are reasonable, and a lot of the money goes to research and breeding programs, at least in reputable zoos. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/21/2008 10:58:10 AM |
I sit here and read about some folks are in grief over a tiger vs loss of human life, as tragic is it , it makes me think if you were a innocent bystander and this tiger escaped and you were in its path with your child and tiger turned his/her attention to your child would It make you think differently about the tiger or would you assign blame to the zoo for it inadequate barriers? I know its a what if scenario.
Myself, instead of wasting time putting the blame on anyone, I would be devoting my efforts to trying to save my child. Perhaps that's just me, though. 
Nevermind the fact that for a responsible parent, the odds of this scenario playing out are extremely low, regardless of the zoo's compliance or non-compliance to safety standards. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:09:07 AM |
Maybe the whole point is:
People should have enough common sense, compassion and respect for animals not to taunt or harass them no matter where they encounter them (i.e., whether they're caged, behind bars or roaming free in their own habitat). They are all God's creatures and were never put on this Earth to be amusement for us humans.
The tiger, unfortunately, did what it could do to survive what it perceived as a threat to it's life. They act on pure instinct and have no knowledge or understanding of our human created rules, regulations or codes of conduct. In other words, it didn't know the guys were drunk, that it should just shrug it shoulders, shake it's head and walk away. And because of that was forced into a situation that cost the tiger it's life through no fault of it's own.
What a sad state of affairs - whenever animals come in conflict with humans the animals always loose their homes, their freedom, their dignity and/or their lives. Find it very hard to believe that the Good Lord is pleased with how we take care of the world he made and gave to us.
Shortlegs - I may not share the details of your beliefs (ie the God thing), however: I absolutely, totally 100% agree with your sentiments. It is unfortunate that so many seem to think/believe that this planet and the creatures were put here for both our amusement and destruction.
The tiger was doing what it was provoked to do - defend itself and its (Fake) territory.
I always did say "Stupidity should be rewarded". This is a fine example.
Too bad someone had to die, perhaps someone else will think twice before tormenting an animal, let alone one that is in a frikkin cage. I sooo wish we could just put animal abusers in cages and then taunt them and throw things at them .. friggers!
A.S.is
 | |
|
| |
| |
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/21/2008 2:22:07 PM | The idiot kids involved admitted to HARASSING a wild animal and I am sorry to say it, but that animal just did what came natural- IT TOOK OUT THE THREAT WITHOUT REMORSE.
Does anyone know what will happen to the injured kid who did the tormenting?- will he be locked up for causing the death of an endangered animal?
he should be....
whats next... tormenting rhinos till they fall into a ditch and die- then harvest the horns and say its ok, cus the animal was dead??? | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/21/2008 11:54:14 PM | when Yasir Arafat died a few years ago, the moonbats here in Boston had a vigil. I was livid and was part of a protest hosted by the Young Republicans and a number of Jewish leagues - THAT was a vigil that was worthy of head shaking - brutal, subhuman animal who murdered thousands and supported murderers. Tatiana was an animal whose time on this planet served us humans well - only we were too arrogant and too self absorbed to appreciate her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That vigil was worth having too.
Arafat was fighting for his homeland against the racist fascist state of israel.
Amazes me how pro israel Yanks are. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 4:50:30 AM | I'm pretty surprised at the number of people here implying that the kid deserved to die for doing what he did. I usually reserve "he deserved that horrible death" thoughts for serial killers or others who have done something equally horrible, but I guess we all have different standards. For me, a stupid mistake doesn't cut it, not even close.
Regardless, the blame must fall on the zoo for failing to protect the patrons, regardless of what said patrons actually did. If a tiger is capable of getting out of its enclosure, provoked or not, that's unacceptable. I don't think anyone can argue against that last sentence. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 3:31:07 PM | Sometimes, it's best to leave things alone. But, in the words of the song Signs, "I couldn't resist chasing them just once around the parking lot." In that vein, I just can't resist the challenge:
"Regardless, the blame must fall on the zoo for failing to protect the patrons,
regardless of what said patrons actually did. If a tiger is capable of getting out
of its enclosure, provoked or not, that's unacceptable. I don't think anyone can
argue against that last sentence."
A great many people have posted their opinions that the San Francisco Zoo is to blame for these three young men for being attacked by the tiger. How one comes to this conclusion, is beyond my comprehension. Be that as it may, I'll see if I can rise to the challenge posed.
"Regardless, the blame must fall on the zoo for failing to protect the patrons, regardless of what said patrons actually did."
This statement implies that the zoo had a duty to protect its patrons, regardless of what its patrons might do; up to, and including, a patron placing himself, or herself, into close proximity to, or letting an animal lose from its cage. Thankfully, such a blatantly unreasonable standard is not reality.
The standard, as I understand it, is that the San Francisco Zoo had a duty to protect its patrons against all foreseeable hazards.
All people are presumed to obey the law, and have a duty to themselves, and to the public at large, not to engage in criminal acts. This includes not violating federal law by engaging in the felonious criminal act of harassing any animal listed on the endangered species list; which includes tigers.
Accordingly, the San Francisco Zoo had no duty to foresee the independent criminal acts of the young men that lead to them being attacked, which lead to one of them being killed.
Even if it were foreseeable by the San Francisco Zoo that someone would engage in a criminal act, there is the defense of Assumption of the Risk. Essentially what this means is that if you engage in a certain activity, you are presumed to have assumed the risks inherent to such activity. For instance, if you harass a tiger at the local zoo, and you are attacked by that tiger, you are presumed have assumed the risk that you might be attacked by the tiger, and the zoo cannot be held liable for your injuries, or death.
"If a tiger is capable of getting out of its enclosure, provoked or not, that's unacceptable. I don't think anyone can argue against that last sentence."
This statement, again, implies a blatantly unrealistic standard. If a tiger is capable of getting, or being put, into an enclosure, it is capable of getting out of it. It only stands to reason, that if there is a way into an enclosure, there is a way out of the same enclosure. If there is such a thing as an escape proof enclosure, prison officials the world over are most eager to learn of it.
Granted, the fence around the tiger enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo was four feet shorter than the recommened height, and that matter has been, or will be addressed by the appropriate authorities. Regardless of the condition of the fence around the tiger enclosure, visitors to the San Francisco Zoo had been going by that same enclosure, with the same substandard fence, for decades, and no patrons were attacked by any tigers. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 3:51:34 PM |
Regardless, the blame must fall on the zoo for failing to protect the patrons, regardless of what said patrons actually did. If a tiger is capable of getting out of its enclosure, provoked or not, that's unacceptable. I don't think anyone can argue against that last sentence. I by no means imply that the kid deserved to die, however, he and his companions that night did do something utterly stupid. Cause and effect. This is something most normal, respectful, sane adults learn quite young.. stupid hurts.
Now, the blame does not fall on the zoo's shoulders. While it is unacceptable, in doing so you absolve the idiots of their actions and the consequences of those actions. That will serve no purpose in preventing it from happening again and it does nothing to educate others since it sets a precedence of 'not responsible' for the next idiot. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 8:15:24 PM |
Now, the blame does not fall on the zoo's shoulders. While it is unacceptable, in doing so you absolve the idiots of their actions and the consequences of those actions. That will serve no purpose in preventing it from happening again and it does nothing to educate others since it sets a precedence of 'not responsible' for the next idiot.
How can the blame NOT fall on the zoo's shoulders?
The zoo is responsible for the safety and security of its workers,animals and especially. its patrons.
Regardless if this tiger was taunted,it should NOT have been able to escape its enclosure.
Since it did......it means that said enclosure was woefully deficient for its required purpose,i.e. keeping the tiger away from the zoo's patrons.
The zoo's media team can spin this anyway they like (although I've noticed that they haven't been making any more unfounded statements lately) but if the zoo's security and staff had done their jobs and removed the guests from the park at closing time....it's likely this incident wouldn't have happened.
And if it had happened,they could have tranquilized the tiger sooner.... and then maybe there wouldn't been any injuries..or fatalities.
Bottom Line...Zoo's at fault.
Zoo should pay. | |
|
| |
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 10:01:19 PM |
How can the blame NOT fall on the zoo's shoulders?
The zoo is responsible for the safety and security of its workers,animals and especially. its patrons.
Regardless if this tiger was taunted,it should NOT have been able to escape its enclosure.
Since it did......it means that said enclosure was woefully deficient for its required purpose,i.e. keeping the tiger away from the zoo's patrons.
The zoo's media team can spin this anyway they like (although I've noticed that they haven't been making any more unfounded statements lately) but if the zoo's security and staff had done their jobs and removed the guests from the park at closing time....it's likely this incident wouldn't have happened.
And if it had happened,they could have tranquilized the tiger sooner.... and then maybe there wouldn't been any injuries..or fatalities.
Bottom Line...Zoo's at fault.
Zoo should pay. Answer this, if the three utterly idiotic morons had not been chastising and taunting the tiger, would it have escaped? We will never know because of the three idiots. Were safety measures in effect to prevent this? And if IF was a fifth, we'd all be drunk. THINK! Where did the incident start? With inadequate safety precautions or stupidity on the part of the three morons? Never underestimate the power of idiots in groups.
Like it or not, nature will ALWAYS win. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 10:59:00 PM |
This statement implies that the zoo had a duty to protect its patrons, regardless of what its patrons might do; up to, and including, a patron placing himself, or herself, into close proximity to, or letting an animal lose from its cage.
You are correct - I should have been clearer with my statement. If a patron places himself into a cage, or lets an animal loose from a cage, I don't think that's the zoo's fault.
This statement, again, implies a blatantly unrealistic standard. If a tiger is capable of getting, or being put, into an enclosure, it is capable of getting out of it. It only stands to reason, that if there is a way into an enclosure, there is a way out of the same enclosure.
I strongly disagree here. I don't think it's "blatantly unrealistic" to expect that the animals can't jump out and eat me at will. Would it be correct in saying you're implying that it's blatantly unrealistic to expect to be safe at a zoo? That's what I read from your statement. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 11:12:58 PM | Answer this, if the three utterly idiotic morons had not been chastising and taunting the tiger, would it have escaped? We will never know because of the three idiots. Were safety measures in effect to prevent this? And if IF was a fifth, we'd all be drunk. THINK! Where did the incident start? With inadequate safety precautions or stupidity on the part of the three morons? Never underestimate the power of idiots in groups.
I have no way of knowing (and neither do you) whether or not the tiger would have escaped that night...or any other night.
I DO know that the tiger escaped on THAT night...which means the tiger could have escaped at any time of its choosing.
The incident seems to have been a combination of different things,which I'm sure will be reviewed by the zoo and ultimately (unless there are settlements) a jury in the civil trial.
Again...had the zoo employees cleared the park at closing time......or the zoo security been reviewing the CCTV coverage of the park,these individuals would not have been in the park at the time.
If they weren't in the park...then they couldn't have been attacked,regardless of their actions.
Businesses are responsible for the safety and security their patrons.
Especially those businesses that have known hazards.
That's the law.
Some people may not "like" that fact.
But it IS the law.
And "it might be partly their fault" as a defense won't fly in court. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 11:23:51 PM |
Businesses are responsible for the safety and security their patrons.
Especially those businesses that have known hazards.
That's the law.
Within reason. If someone is at a carnival riding the Tilt A Whirl, decides to jump out of their car, and gets hit by another, I doubt the carnival would be held at fault.
If someone at a restaurant starts running and jumping around, and falls onto the knive they are holding, I doubt the restaurant would be held at fault.
If some idiots act in a threatening way toward an animal at a zoo, even if the safety measures aren't up to snuff, whatever happens is in part their fault. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 11:44:04 PM | Hmm...
1) Carnivals have safety devices to prevent something like that.
If you can bypass their safety device...then yes...it would be their fault.
2) Are you even serious about that?
And ..yes...if the restaurant failed to remove an unruly patron and that patron later injured themselves on the property...they could held liable.
3) And you've changed the parameters of your argument.
Their behavior may have been "enticing" or "annoying" to the tiger...but the distances involved preclude the likelihood that the tiger was feeling "threatened."
The zoo is different than most other businesses.
Most other businesses don't have venomous,large or predatory wild animals as part of their attraction.
The ones do have to take extra precautions that were obviously lacking in this situation.
Why it happened is not as great a concern as the fact that it DID happen.
Again...the tiger shouldn't have been able to escape the enclosure...
At least...not in the manner that it did.
That it DID escape says that the tiger could have escaped at any time of its choosing.
That fact...more than anything else is primary reason that the zoo will be held financially responsible. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/24/2008 11:51:23 PM |
Why it happened is not as great a concern as the fact that it DID happen.
Again...the tiger shouldn't have been able to escape the enclosure...
At least...not in the manner that it did.
That it DID escape says that the tiger could have escaped at any time of its choosing.
That fact...more than anything else is primary reason that the zoo will be held financially responsible.
I think that sums it up perfectly. Had the proper safety precautions been in place, it wouldn't have been able to get out without assistance, regardless of whether it was taunted or not. I think that's what this all comes down to. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/25/2008 4:07:11 AM | | Apparently, others posting here are aware of facts that I am not. How did the tiger escape its enclosure? I haven't heard anything about how the tiger got free of its enclosure. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/25/2008 7:59:44 AM |
1) Carnivals have safety devices to prevent something like that.
If you can bypass their safety device...then yes...it would be their fault.
Not all rides have safety devices. The Tilt A Whirl is one of those rides.
2) Are you even serious about that?
And ..yes...if the restaurant failed to remove an unruly patron and that patron later injured themselves on the property...they could held liable.
What if it happened within a few second time frame? Also, what if the person had refused to leave? The only recourse is to call the police, which will take several minutes.
3) And you've changed the parameters of your argument.
Their behavior may have been "enticing" or "annoying" to the tiger...but the distances involved preclude the likelihood that the tiger was feeling "threatened."
You try explaining to a wild animal that it shouldn't feel threatened because of the distance. Humans (the staff) come close all the time. How is it supposed to know these humans won't?
Why it happened is not as great a concern as the fact that it DID happen.
Again...the tiger shouldn't have been able to escape the enclosure...
At least...not in the manner that it did.
That it DID escape says that the tiger could have escaped at any time of its choosing.
That fact...more than anything else is primary reason that the zoo will be held financially responsible.
You know, you're right. Let's have a world where there is no such thing as personal responsibility. It will certainly help solve the problems of the homeless and the poor. All they have to do is get drunk, then find some way to get hurt while on a business property, then sue. | |
|
| Vigil for...tiger at SF ZOO that killed a man.WTF?
Posted: 1/25/2008 5:00:20 PM | In order to present a logical summation of my response, a little background is in order. The original posts are as follows:
"If a tiger is capable of getting out of its enclosure, provoked or not, that's unacceptable. I don't think anyone can argue against that last sentence."
"This statement, again, implies a blatantly unrealistic standard. If a tiger is capable of getting, or being put, into an enclosure, it is capable of getting out of it. It only stands to reason, that if there is a way into an enclosure, there is a way out of the same enclosure. . . ."
The most recent posts:
"This statement, again, implies a blatantly unrealistic standard. If a tiger is capable of getting, or being put, into an enclosure, it is capable of getting out of it. It only stands to reason, that if there is a way into an enclosure, there is a way out of the same enclosure."
"I strongly disagree here. I don't think it's "blatantly unrealistic" to expect that the animals can't jump out and eat me at will. Would it be correct in saying you're implying that it's blatantly unrealistic to expect to be safe at a zoo? That's what I read from your statement."
My response:
The original post I replied to stated "f a tiger is capable of getting out of its enclosure, provoked or not, that's unacceptable." My response was "t only stands to reason, that if there is a way into an enclosure, there is a way out of the same enclosure."
"Would it be correct in saying you're implying that it's blatantly unrealistic to expect to be safe at a zoo?" Of course not, such a position is not only unreasonable, but, blatantly unrealistic on its face. This having been said, I believe you also have a duty, as a patron to a zoo, or any other public venue, to behave in a reasonable fashion, which includes obeying the law. This includes not harassing an animal listed on the endangered species list, which includes tigers.
By no means, not by any stretch of the imagination, would I ever suggest that it would be unrealistic for anyone patronizing a zoo to feel safe. I firmly believe that anyone hosting a venue for the public bears a responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect anyone who enters upon their property from reasonably foreseeable hazards.
The original post I responded to stated, quite clearly, that a tiger's being capable of getting out of its enclosure is unacceptable. Unfortunately, logic gets in the way of such reasoning. If a tiger is capable of getting into an enclosure, it is capable of getting out of the same enclosure.
The operative words here are "foreseeable" and "reasonable". Someone with much greater knowledge of dangerous animals, and zoos, than myself, establish the standards for zoos. I have no doubt that they take such things as the respective animal's physical abilities, and behaviors, into account in establishing the standards for their enclosures.
I have had a nagging question ever since I first heard the news of these young men having been attacked. That question is: How did the tiger get out of its enclosure? I haven't heard anything in the news, or read any posts, stating how this tiger got out of its enclosure to attack these young men.
My heart, and my prayers, have gone out to the family of the young man who was killed. From what I've heard, he gave his life, in order to save the life of one of the surviving brothers. | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
