|
|
|
|
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/11/2008 8:54:39 PM | Of course people should be held accountable for their actions. But what is the penalty when they aren't?
This is one of the reaosns we have a legal system - so that that there are predictable consequnces. Selling a bottle of hair coloroing two shades off and murder carry different consequnces. Saying "you taunted a tiger and deserved to die" is rediculous.
Nobody would even be in the zoo if it was known the tiger could just jump out. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/11/2008 9:29:58 PM |
total lack of compassion for creations of God who sometimes make mistakes. What about the ones that didn't make any mistakes? Yes, it is terrible that a kid died. I still find it very difficult to find more sympathy for them (the idiots that taunted the animal) instead of the tiger. Creations of God that 'sometimes' make mistakes? Just in this incident, I see at least three consecutive mistakes they made: Underage drinking, illegal drug use, AND.. here's the kicker.. taunting a wild animal. Where is the line drawn for accountability? Yes, that same question applies to the zoo, but in this instance, where is the root of the problem? Is it the zoo or the kids? Are you certain that the tiger would have escaped if not taunted? Would and could are two distinct scenarios. We won't ever know because they did taunt it.
They can continue to display their own behavior patterns without harming anyone IF humans act responsibly when taking them in their care. This zoo did not act responsibly and put every visitor at risk! And doesn't it also stand to reason that those same humans have to act responsible while viewing said animals? These kids did not act responsibly, yet you seem to want the zoo to hold the lions share of responsibility AND penalty for basically the same actions as the kids.. not being responsible. It would also stand to reason that if it is good for one, it is good for the other. Sure, you can not hold a dead person accountable for his actions, he has already paid the ultimate price with his life by his own doing and choice. But what about the two remaining kids? As with anything in life, stupid hurts. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/11/2008 9:54:15 PM | What about the ones that didn't make any mistakes? Do YOU know of any who have never made a mistake? I don't!!! Every single human makes mistakes because no one is perfect.
Creations of God that 'sometimes' make mistakes? Just in this incident, I see at least three consecutive mistakes they made: Underage drinking, illegal drug use, AND.. here's the kicker.. taunting a wild animal. That's what I've heard but I wasn't there and I'd never condemn anyone without knowing all the facts first. Even then, I'd never condemn anyone to death!!! There are much better ways to correct stupid behavior than to kill someone.
Where is the line drawn for accountability? As far as I know everyone on this thread feels that if they taunted the animals they're liable and accountable but the punishment has to fit the crime and DEATH is not the appropriate punishment. In fact the death penalty is rarely given out as punishment for any crime any more and isn't even in existance in my state.
Yes, that same question applies to the zoo, but in this instance, where is the root of the problem? Is it the zoo or the kids? The root of the problem is the zoo because bottom line is ...no matter how provoked the tiger got or how stupid the young adults acted, had they done what they were supposed to do none of this could have possibly occured and no lives would have been lost. The zoo is the only one who could have done something that would have prevented this because according to reports that tiger was aggressive, had injured someone before, and it was only a matter of time that it interpreted someone else as provoking it. (even if they weren't!)
Are you certain that the tiger would have escaped if not taunted? Would and could are two distinct scenarios. We won't ever know because they did taunt it. As did several other visitors as reported and if you read the SF report that's posted above you'll see exactly how negligent this zoo is. For any animal to pull a visitor into a cage is unthinkable and with the amount of animals that got loose from their enclosures they're lucky no other deaths occured. Unfortuanately though..several other serious wounds did.
And your right, should and would are two different things but we don't take chances and gamble with lives when it comes to deciding whether or not an unpredictable wild animal will decide to want to leave his enclosure or not. That would be totally negligent and ignorant and a time bomb waiting to go off. Oh wait.............that's exactly what the zoo did! They knew....and they didn't do a damn thing about it.
And doesn't it also stand to reason that those same humans have to act responsible while viewing said animals? These kids did not act responsibly, yet you seem to want the zoo to hold the lions share of responsibility AND penalty for basically the same actions as the kids.. not being responsible. It would also stand to reason that if it is good for one, it is good for the other. Sure, you can not hold a dead person accountable for his actions, he has already paid the ultimate price with his life by his own doing and choice. But what about the two remaining kids? As with anything in life, stupid hurts. Stupid is KNOWING an unpredictable wild animal can jump a wall if provoked and STILL choosing not to protect the animal or the visitors. They were shut down and warned before and their own employees complained and were in fear for their own lives as well as the publics. They didn't give a hoot about anyone or anything other than the money the zoo brought in. They put every visitor at risk. The zoo was negligent. The zoo was irresponsible when they were supposed to be responsible for an animal entrusted to them as well as the welfare and safety of the public. The zoo was given many chances. How many chances was that young adult given? NONE!
When people do stupid things and make ignorant choices that have bad results they pay for it BUT the punishment has to fit the crime. To think it's appropriate for someone who taunted an animal to be MAULED TO DEATH is unacceptable. Fine them, ban them from the zoo. Find another way to teach them right from wrong but don't KILL THEM! If you do believe that solution was an acceptable one than by all rights of fairness you have to KILL everyone who taunted animals in that zoo. Now how assinine is that? 
And correction on your statement that he paid the ultimate price by his own doing and choice because it was NOT his choice to die. No one thought that animal could jump it's fence and I'm sure if anyone did they'd never step foot in that zoo. As a matter of fact with that SF zoo report of all it's past accidents I'm sure many people will stay far away from it. Can you say unprofessional, irresponsible and NEGLIGENT! I sure can! | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/11/2008 11:33:24 PM | Creations of God that 'sometimes' make mistakes? Just in this incident, I see at least three consecutive mistakes they made: Underage drinking, illegal drug use, AND.. here's the kicker.. taunting a wild animal. That's what I've heard but I wasn't there and I'd never condemn anyone without knowing all the facts first. Even then, I'd never condemn anyone to death!!! There are much better ways to correct stupid behavior than to kill someone.
Interesting. It seems you've repeatedly condemned the zoo...even though 'you weren't there'?
When people do stupid things and make ignorant choices that have bad results they pay for it BUT the punishment has to fit the crime.
Do you (speaking in general) seriously think those kids would be punished according to their crime if things had been different? I believe Mizbex used the example of:
if those guys had gotten in their car, continued to drink and smoke pot and drive around...
what if they had hit someone with their car and killed them? What would happen then? Well, maybe they would have been tossed in jail or maybe not. Maybe they would have spent a few years in jail and then would have been let out to perhaps, repeat their stupid behavior and kill again, or maybe they would have spent time on death row and would never have seen the outside world again. Would that punishment fit the crime?
Instead, after being taunted and most likely upset, the tiger caught up with her tormentors and handed out the punishment she knew how to give. She killed one kid and mauled the others. She didn't eat them. It seems the tiger was giving the only punishment she knew how to administer. Nothing more, nothing less. In the animal world, perhaps the punishment did fit the crime. How are we to know?
Not long ago I saw a documentary on wild animals that gave their version of payback. In several instances, young men teased, poked, hit, and prodded dolphins and the dolphins finally got tired of it. One man was killed by a dolphin after repeatedly hitting it and stuffing straws in its blowhole. In another incident, it wasn't the people who did the teasing that were punished, but the next person who just happened to come along...a woman swimming with her kids. She was attacked and bitten by the dolphin that had been teased and hit earlier in the day. Who pays for that? The dolphin? The city that owns the beach? The state for allowing people to go near the water? The marina for allowing those people to use the boat? Do you see how ridiculous this can be? Personal accountability please. When you go where wild animals are, you conduct yourself accordingly. Period. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Somehow it seems to be though.
How do we know when animals reach their breakpoint? Humans reach theirs all the time and we see it in domestic abuse, child abuse, road rage, etc. Why is it so hard for us to believe when animals reach theirs? Are they expected to be so stoic that they never show stress or anxiety or any other emotion? Animals DO have emotions and they do have feelings. How imperious and stupid to think that animals must always behave as humans think they should and how stupid we are to be surprised when animals act like animals and not like people. When humans are attacked by animals it's because some HUMAN somewhere inflicted pain and suffering on the animal and that animal never forgot it.
Humans are supposed to be superior to animals because we can think and reason. Those boys proved that isn't always true. I have no sympathy for them. They violated the rights of that tiger (and who knows what other animals they may have also harassed and got away with it), and they paid the price. I wouldn't have one drop of sympathy for them if they were alive and sentenced to death or life imprisonment either. If that 'makes you sick' or you feel I'm so awful for making this statement, that's fine. I feel the same way about you (meaning you in general, not any one specific person). | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/11/2008 11:48:59 PM |
Humans are supposed to be superior to animals because we can think and reason
That's why dangerous animals are in cages they absolutely can't get out of.
That's the theory anyway. If they can escape, the cage is broken. End of story.
People occasionally make noise and weird gestures. Whether the intent is innocent or malicious, the cage is supposed to hold. If it doesn't the animal can as easily kill an innocent as it does a fool.
These are the conditions under which you're allowed to run a zoo or even posess a dangerous animal. If you can't meet these conditions, no animal.
Try getting a permit for a cougar or a tiger and see what happens.
Try saying "the cage will hold unless somebody is noisy, in which case they're die" and see what happens. | |
|
mizbex
|
Joined: 8/8/2007
Msg: 256 | |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 3:37:20 AM | | When you open your eyes and look at the reality of the world, that is when you are truly helpful to people. Ultimately everyone is responsible for their own choices and the reprecutions that come with those choices. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 5:08:59 AM | >>>you have to see that tigers see a fence as yet another obstacle between them and their food. It doesn't care that it is there, it will try to find a way around it.
Two things;
1. The Tiger did not leave that enclosure because of hunger- it left it because it was being harassed. This is coming from the user complaining about spin....
2. Tigers are not magical creatures- I don't care how much it desired to get out- if the zoo did their job right, that tiger simply would not be able to get out, reguardless of its unrelenting desire to be free. This isn't an issue that the tiger had the spirit to get out- All animals, be they tigers, kangaroo, and even man, have limits,and their hopes, wants and needs will not alter these limits. So to say the tiger could have escaped even if the zoo followed industry standards is, quite frankly, a lie.
>>>Uhh.. yes. You are insane to thing that a zoo and fences can remove thousands of years of instinct from a wild animal that has not been domesticated. Read it again, has not been domesticated.
I never mentioned that the tiger would become domesticated or even friendly- i said the zoo should have had the fence large enough so that it would be physically impossible for the tiger to get out, reguardless of its desire to hunt.
Am I insane to have expected that?
>>>Deny it as you might, nature does win even if you fail to see it or understand it.
I didn't deny it- I just found it funny that you're preaching is so similar to Mr. Crichton's fictional character
>>>And isn't it quite naive to think that simply because an organization exists that something like this wouldn't happen?
Yes, I agree, it may be naive, but it is certainly not untrue- you claim that these animals wish to hunt, to stalk, and to kill, and its completely likely and should be expected that they will defy physics and escape from enclosures and do just that- and yet the AZA, founded over 80 years ago, with over 200 Zoo's under its belt and the claim as being the largest wildlife conservation movement in North America, up until this point, has never had a patron be killed by one of the wildlife.
These animals did not escape because they really, really wanted to or because they were victims to their instinct- they escaped because of zoo negligence. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 12:38:36 PM | In hindsight, there are, at least, a bazillion things that can, and should, be done to prevent this from EVER happening again.
Maybe a law making parents responsible for the actions of their children? Oh, wait, that's already been done. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 12:49:40 PM | (Count on him getting a Darwin)
When you open your eyes and look at the reality of the world
Resonable poeple disagree all the time. I never understand this need to be insulting.
Ultimately everyone is responsible for their own choices and the reprecutions that come with those choices.
The governments primary concern is issues of public health and safety. This is why you can't have a tiger in your backyard. This is why it's very difficult to get one and even harder to house one as a public exhibit. Poeple are stupid fightened animals that do stupid things and enclosures are design to accomidate that.
When you pay money to walk into a zoological part there's an implicit contract "I pay money and you'll assure my safety, right?"
It's a zoo, not a mamalian form of Russian Roulette.
People do stupid things every day, and there are very very few we as a civil society allow death to be the appropriate punishment, and these require malice of forthought. If the "kid got what he deserved" why were the cops even called? Why wasn't the tiger just coaxed back into its cage? Why was it shot if the kid "deserved it"? I suppose the argument could be made that other people could have been hurt, but shouldn't they take "personal responsability" for being in a place with dangerous animals?
The problem is it's a bogus argument on the face of it and does not scale.
Of course if the penalty for being stupid and drunk was death, the current resident of the White House would have been killed 34 years ago. So I suppose it's not all bad. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 2:15:48 PM | Rx11s.
We almost ALWAYS disagree in these forums.
But, I don't know if I could have said it any better.
Great post.
Messages this short may not be posted
Messages this short may not be posted | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 3:48:18 PM |
Do YOU know of any who have never made a mistake? I don't!!! Every single human makes mistakes because no one is perfect. I was referring to the tiger, not the kids. What 'mistake' did the tiger make? And to answer your question; no, I haven't met person that didn't make mistakes.
As far as I know everyone on this thread feels that if they taunted the animals they're liable and accountable but the punishment has to fit the crime and DEATH is not the appropriate punishment. In fact the death penalty is rarely given out as punishment for any crime any more and isn't even in existance in my state. Seems to me the tiger was the one that 'decided' the punishment, not anyone here. Yes, there are some that have pointedly said they deserve what they got. I have said all along that I feel no sympathy for them in this matter. Do not infer that I feel they should die.
The root of the problem is the zoo because bottom line is ...no matter how provoked the tiger got or how stupid the young adults acted, had they done what they were supposed to do none of this could have possibly occured and no lives would have been lost. The zoo is the only one who could have done something that would have prevented this because according to reports that tiger was aggressive, had injured someone before, and it was only a matter of time that it interpreted someone else as provoking it. (even if they weren't!) And there you have it, the idiots are not accountable, the zoo is. And guess what, they WERE doing it. Zero accountability on behalf of the kids. Blame the zoo, not the kids. What's next, are you going to blame an abused woman because she is with a man the beats her and not blame the man because she did something to provoke him? Or better yet, blame the builder of the house because they didn't adequately protect her.
we don't take chances and gamble with lives when it comes to deciding whether or not an unpredictable wild animal will decide to want to leave his enclosure or not. Hmm... seems those kids did, and lost.
How many chances was that young adult given? NONE! Wrong, he (and the other two) had one, and that was when they walked through the gate to enter the zoo and they didn't take it.
Find another way to teach them right from wrong but don't KILL THEM! If you do believe that solution was an acceptable one than by all rights of fairness you have to KILL everyone who taunted animals in that zoo. Now how assinine is that?
And correction on your statement that he paid the ultimate price by his own doing and choice because it was NOT his choice to die. It wasn't my choice to kill them, the tiger made that choice. And it was his own doing, he chose the actions he did that day and no one else. I don't think the zoo was sitting there with a gun to his head sayin.. "Taunt that large, deadly animal or I'll shoot you." He made that choice all on his own.
You asked how assinine is that? Well, it's about as assinine as taunting a tiger regardless of what kind of fence it's behind. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 3:59:35 PM |
When you pay money to walk into a zoological part there's an implicit contract OK, lets take that and run with it. Since there is an implicit contract, what are the responsibilities of the other party? One can say that one of those implied responsibilities of the patrons would be to act accordingly withing the confines of the zoo. Since there are numerous signs in each facility indicating NOT to feed the animals, it can also be reasonably implied that you are not to taunt them as well (we are dealing with implied, not specifically spelled out rules). Since the kids did in fact taunt her (the tiger), they are in breach of contract and in most states, wouldn't that make the underlying contract null and void? | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 4:57:50 PM |
Do YOU know of any who have never made a mistake? I don't!!! Every single human makes mistakes because no one is perfect.
yes, it's true that even those of us who are perfect make mistakes.
what these punks did was NOT making a mistake. it is really simple. like i used to tell my ol' lady, when you do something that you know you don't have a right to do, it is NOT a mistake. you don't get to be sorry. whatever happens to you as a result of your conscious decision to be stupid is what you deserve.
that's EXACTKY the case in this instance. | |
|
| |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/12/2008 7:52:46 PM | >>>The zoo and the tiger were perhaps the location and the weapon that killed, but you know what, the boy could have died just as easily while driving drunk.
How do you know they were driving drunk? Isn't that an assumption on your part?
The liquor was found in their car, as was the pot- they could have just as easily drank beforehand, in the parking lot.
>>>Now, don't start tell me I don't have any compassion or I wished this terrible death on this boy, because I didn't.
You didn't wish the death on it- but you certainly are implying that they deserved it
>>>What would you say if a hunter went into the woods looking for prey and in in strange twist of fate the prey killed the hunter.
-These teens were not armed
-They were not looking to fight a wild animal
A more proper example would be if you were being a douche at McDonald's, and they peed in your Coke and you died from it
>>> Or would the woods be at fault?
LMAO! In previous posts, you try to desperately prove you believed the zoo was equally accountable- now you're trying to absolve them of guilt!
>>>I am hard pressed to believe that those boys were the only people in the immediate area when the attack occured and the tiger attacked them and only them.
And I am hard pressed to believe that, since you constantly speak in assumptions in this issue that you could not be bothered to go as far as to actually research something you claim to have knowledge enough in to lecture people how it should be
One of the teens died. The other two are in the hospital. There were other people, with children, who witnessed them teasing the animal, but left before the attack. | |
|
grog27
|
Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 266 | |
| |
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/12/2008 8:42:20 PM |
OK, lets take that and run with it. Since there is an implicit contract, what are the responsibilities of the other party?
You have to pay. Show me a "no taunting under penalty of death" sign at the SF zoo.
[q/uote]One can say that one of those implied responsibilities of the patrons would be to act accordingly withing the confines of the zoo. Since there are numerous signs in each facility indicating NOT to feed the animals,
Right. You're not supposed to feed the animals. The penalty for disobeying is not death though. You'll be asked not to. If you keep doing it you'll be asked to leave.
it can also be reasonably implied that you are not to taunt them as well (we are dealing with implied, not specifically spelled out rules). Since the kids did in fact taunt her (the tiger), they are in breach of contract and in most states, wouldn't that make the underlying contract null and void?
No. People annoy animals in zoo all the time. The penalty isn't death though. They're asked to stop. If they keep doing it they're asked to leave.
The primary responsability is with the zoo for having cages tall enough the tiger can't just hop over the fence. The penalty for their mistake is death. Somebody eleses and ultimatly one grouchy tiger with a rap sheet. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/12/2008 9:27:51 PM | You have to pay. Show me a "no taunting under penalty of death" sign at the SF zoo. Is that the best answer you can come up with? The only responsibility a visitor to the zoo has is to pay to get in? I was only following the logic you set down in your previous post, but I guess you made your own brain hurt then.
Right. You're not supposed to feed the animals. The penalty for disobeying is not death though. True, to a degree. The penalty set forth by the zoo for any improper behavior is removal from the premises. However, if you recall, it was the tiger that handed down the 'penalty', not a zoo employee. That is, unless the zoo had the tiger on the payroll and it was afforded all the rights and privileges afforded under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act).
The primary responsability is with the zoo for having cages tall enough the tiger can't just hop over the fence. The penalty for their mistake is death. And you are correct, to a degree, here as well. The penalty handed down by the judge and jury (in this case, it was Tiger, Bengal Mdm.) was in fact death.
Next time you want to lay down incomplete logic, be very prepared to have it followed through according to what you lay down and not complain when it is used against you. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/13/2008 11:06:15 AM | ^^^^ I'm not seeing any formal logic, I'm seeing informal logic - rhetoric.
While a tiger as judge and jury might alleviate to some extent the frivolous lawsuit probem in the US it is rather outside the framework of contemporary jurisprudence.
The zoo had an unseen-to-the-public but known-to-them danger, a tiger known to be problematical and let people pay to come in and put their lives at risk. Not only the risk to somebody annoying the tiger but any innocent nearby who just happened have the bad fortune of just being there at the wrong time in the wrong place.
Personal responsability only goes as far as things you're in control of. If you can your own olves and you screw up and die of botulism it's your fault. If you buy a can of olives it's not your responsability to test each one for botulism. That is it's not "you pays your money you takes your chances" there are laws concerning public health and safety, which is the governments primary responsability, cf the "show me the bodies" rule to get anything chnanged in US rulemaking.
When another actor mitigates the risk of lethality and takes your money based on that mitigated risk there is a tremendous onus that that risk actually be mitigated by reasonable stanbdards; this isn't a case of "oops, you get your ticket price back" when a tiger jumps over a fence known to be too short and kills somebody.
Cases before a judge must pass, de facto a "reasonableness test"; this one is a loser, a slam dumk and you can watch this unfold in the news before your very eyes as the zoo will undoubtedly settle out of court. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/13/2008 9:42:50 PM | It is quite possible they will settle out of court, but is it due to them not having a chance to win any case or just a matter of settle now and be done with it at a lesser expense?
Personal responsability only goes as far as things you're in control of. Hmmm.. last I checked, we are each in control of our own actions, stupid or otherwise.
The zoo had an unseen-to-the-public but known-to-them danger, a tiger known to be problematical and let people pay to come in and put their lives at risk. Not only the risk to somebody annoying the tiger but any innocent nearby who just happened have the bad fortune of just being there at the wrong time in the wrong place. How many other visitors went past that cage that day and didn't get attacked? How many people did the tiger pass on the way to the ones it was after? The three in question were not innocent, and were not in the wrong place at the wrong time, they were the instigators.
As far as your 'reasonableness test', it is very reasonable in this situation to see and conclude that the morons do bear a responsibility for their actions. The onus is NOT all on the zoo, reasonable individuals see that fact. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/13/2008 9:58:39 PM |
It is quite possible they will settle out of court, but is it due to them not having a chance to win any case or just a matter of settle now and be done with it at a lesser expense?
Actually (and maybe this is already happening) I'm surprised that more patrons didn't file lawsuits against the zoo for creating a hazardous condition like this while they were in the park.
Regardless of what the men were alleged to have done (the majority of which seems to have been fabricated by the zoo's publicity department) the facts were the tiger escaped its housing and attacked several patrons.
It's being loose threatened the lives of numerous other patrons, zoo employees, and also of the police officers that were called to the scene.
Ultimately, the responsibility for this incident lies w/ the zoo.
They have probably been told by counsel that settling this matter will prevent too much scrutiny from taking place at the facility...which could find additional areas of concern.
The fact the tiger attacked a zoo employee and wasn't removed from the facility earlier, I'm sure wouldn't help them in a prolonged suit.
Unless something like this (or similar) happens at the same place, I believe that thread will outlast the total length of the ordeal from it's beginning until it's end. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/13/2008 10:11:26 PM | Hmmm.. last I checked, we are each in control of our own actions, stupid or otherwise.
You're evading the issue: you buy a can of olives. You nealry die of botulism. was it your personal respnsability to check the can or is the manufacturor at fault?
How many other visitors went past that cage that day and didn't get attacked?
Not relevant. I didn't get attacked by a tiger either. This doesn't mean the zoo is without fault.
it is very reasonable in this situation to see and conclude that the morons do bear a responsibility for their actions.
Indeed. We just disagree on who the morons are here.
The onus is NOT all on the zoo, reasonable individuals see that fact.
It's not a "fact" it's an "opinion". "reasonable" is not a black and white thing. Maybe it seems reasonable to you, but I suggest this is not the consensus or how the legal system will see it. Odd how a layman can outguess a trained judge.
Are you honestly saying it's ok for the zoo to have a cage a tiger can jump over? One that does not meet contemporary zoological park standards? | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 2/13/2008 10:13:33 PM | So what "truth" are you talking about?
That the kids were drunk, and high or that they were taunting the animal?
The article says, "Investigators also recovered messages and images from the cell phones, but apparently nothing incriminating in connection with the tiger attack, the Chronicle reported"
or...
That the Zoo was negligent in the way it built the enclosure. I think you'd agree, that people should be able to go to a zoo with a reasonable expectation that an animal isn’t going to be able to escape and kill you. The article says, “Authorities believe the tiger leaped or climbed out of the enclosure, which had a wall 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum."
Yes, they were drunk and high, maybe they taunted the tiger. Yes, the wall was much shorter than the recommended minimum. Although instant karma is sometimes a great thing to behold... someone lost his life. To blatantly disregard and marginalize someone's life by saying they deserved it is an ugly thing to say in a public forum. No one deserves to die for merely taunting an animal in a cage. Whenever I go to the zoo I see little kids taunting animals all day long. Do those little kids deserve death for such an indiscretion?
I'm not talking about whether or not the animals belong in a zoo to begin with that's an argument for a different thread. Fact is we're talking about a situation in which animals are at a zoo and people do taunt them. Both the people and the animals should be kept safe. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/14/2008 3:25:09 PM |
You're evading the issue: you buy a can of olives. You nealry die of botulism. was it your personal respnsability to check the can or is the manufacturor at fault? Not evading, every issue has three sides; yours, mine, and the truth. Using your 'logic' here, it is quite acceptable to put your hand in a fire and blame God because he made trees flammable, blame your friend because he/she cut the wood, and your mother because she lit the fire. What about eating fish that you caught, knowing full good and well that undercooked meat and some fish even cooked can make you sick? Is that God's fault as well?
Not relevant. I didn't get attacked by a tiger either. This doesn't mean the zoo is without fault. It is very relevant. WHY did the tiger get out at that moment? Were you at the zoo when it happened? Thats about as idiotic as saying I am at fault for what happened.
It's not a "fact" it's an "opinion". Well, did everyone at the zoo that day taunt the tiger or did only a few do that.
I suggest this is not the consensus or how the legal system will see it. Consensus? Seems to me the majority here feel that the kids should be responsible for their actions. Yes, there are those that say it's both, and even fewer that say it's all on the zoo. Granted, the courts may not see things my way, and it's just as possible that they may not see it your way either. | |
|
| Logic so twisted it makes my brain hurt.
Posted: 2/14/2008 6:39:28 PM |
Cases before a judge must pass, de facto a "reasonableness test"; this one is a loser, a slam dumk and you can watch this unfold in the news before your very eyes as the zoo will undoubtedly settle out of court.
The zoo may very well settle out of Court, and not let this case go to trial. I've worked on civil cases, in Caifornia Civil Courts, and have some working knowledge of California Civil Procedure. I am not able to recall any "reasonableness test" of any kind in California Civil Procedure.
What you may be thought of in the quoted statement is what is known as a Demurrer; which essentially says that the Plaintiff has not alleged enough facts in the Complaint to state a theory of recovery.
I have my doubts that this case is a slam dunk loser for the zoo. It may very well be, but, were I working on this case, I'd surely be doing some research on the Affirmative Defense of Assumption of the Risk, and the fact that at least one of the surviving brothers admittedly violated the Endangered Species Act, which is a Felony. The fact that someone committed a criminal act, which is not foreseeable, is an Affirmative Defense that can be raised. | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
