|
|
|
|
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 6:06:22 PM | >>>... and yet the tiger did not try to escape.
Wrong- it was reported that a tiger was witnessed trying to escape in 2000- nothing was done.
A year ago, a zookeeper was attacked by this very tiger- nothing was done.
This wasn't caused by these teens- it only happened because the zoo allowed it to happen by ignoring what was going on- it was just those teens, on that day, that set it off- it could just as easy have happened the week before, or 6 months later. It wasn't the teens that caused it- it was the zoo's negligence
>>>What I have stated is that both the zoo and the men in question are at fault for this incident.
Moreso the zoo- The zoo allowed an animal that's attacked before to stay in their enclosure- they allowed an animal that's attempted to escape before to stay in their enclosure- the zoo either lied to the AZA or the media or the police(its honestly unclear which) on the height of the wall of the enclosure, and allowed a dangerous animal to exist in an enclosure that could not properly contain it. None of these things these patrons could control, nor were ever made aware of.
There is no doubt in my mind that these dumbass's hold some of the blame. But not an equal share- not by a longshot. The teens acted stupid, as so many teens do- the zoo ignored many warning signs and failed to follow its industries standards, and because of it someone died. The zoo is clearly at fault. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 6:10:46 PM | As I had posted in another thread, a family member is in Sr. Mgmt. and they have been hit very hard by this. My relative is the sweetest, kindest gentleman on the face of this planet and he is stressed over this matter.
I am an animal lover and have done animal rescue in my past. What those boys did was wrong and I hope they recieve no funds from this accident. I am sure Mr. Geragos is just waiting to fuel the fire....
How many of you have been antagonized by someone and was just defending yourself the best way you knew how! Then how'd you like to get shot and killed for it.....
I rest my case! | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 6:23:02 PM |
This wasn't caused by these teens- it only happened because the zoo allowed it to happen by ignoring what was going on
If it wasn't caused by the teens, then who? Did the zoo staff come out and encourage the tiger to attack a few people who were just minding their own business?
As for allowing it to happen and ignoring what was going on, how do we know they were even aware of what the teens were doing? Are they omniscient?
The zoo is clearly at fault.
As are the teens. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 6:58:16 PM |
As I had posted in another thread, a family member is in Sr. Mgmt. and they have been hit very hard by this. My relative is the sweetest, kindest gentleman on the face of this planet and he is stressed over this matter.
Did they tell you why the tiger's enclosure was 4' below the height it should have been? And why they initially lied about the height?
That is the main reason why this tragedy occurred. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 7:48:43 PM | >>>If it wasn't caused by the teens, then who?
Need me to say it again? The Zoo. The Zoo previously had issues with this tiger with both attacking people and trying to escape, and its enclosure wasn't big enough and they knew it. None of that is the teens fault, none of it they could control, and none of it they were informed of- all of that is entirely the zoo's fault. You cannot seriously shrug your shoulders and assume that zoo holds equal liability as some people screwing around on zoo property? | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 8:01:42 PM |
Need me to say it again? The Zoo.
The zoo made them antagonize the tiger?
The Zoo previously had issues with this tiger with both attacking people and trying to escape, and its enclosure wasn't big enough and they knew it.
Which is why I state that the zoo was also at fault.
None of that is the teens fault, none of it they could control,
They could have controlled their own actions. If they had, this wouldn't have happened.
You cannot seriously shrug your shoulders and assume that zoo holds equal liability as some people screwing around on zoo property?
Yes, I can. It is called personal responsibility. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 9:05:00 PM | >>>The zoo made them antagonize the tiger?
You didn't ask that. You asked who was at fault. And that is predominately the zoo.
>>>They could have controlled their own actions. If they had, this wouldn't have happened.
Maybe not that day- but it would happen. That Tiger had shown itself dangerous, and that enclosure was and is clearly insufficient. Those Teens could have chose not to act like idiots and lived that day- but the zoo could have chose to act responsibly and prevented it from ever happening. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 10:57:47 PM |
You didn't ask that. You asked who was at fault. And that is predominately the zoo.
No, I did not. I asked who caused it to happen. And that is predominately the teens.
Maybe not that day- but it would happen. That Tiger had shown itself dangerous, and that enclosure was and is clearly insufficient. Those Teens could have chose not to act like idiots and lived that day- but the zoo could have chose to act responsibly and prevented it from ever happening.
A number of you are bringing up these "would've/could've" scenarios, thus, it is only fair I bring up one of my own. What if within the next few weeks the zoo had brought the enclosure up to standards, and then some drunk people came, antagonized the tiger, and it had still escaped and killed one of them?
By the way, all mobile, healthy tigers are dangerous, by their very nature. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/26/2008 11:18:19 PM | >>>What if within the next few weeks the zoo had brought the enclosure up to standards, and then some drunk people came, antagonized the tiger, and it had still escaped and killed one of them?
Following the attack on the zoo keeper last year,the zoo closed the tiger enclosure for ten months. So yes, exactly what you described did happen, and yet no changes were made to make the enclosure any safer than when the zoo was open in the 1930's, instead spending that time retraining the staff on safety precautions
I think a fair question is why it wasn't brought up to standards then.
>>>By the way, all mobile, healthy tigers are dangerous, by their very nature.
Yes, but not all zoo tigers attack the zoo keepers. When they do, it tends to be a red flag that something needs to be done. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 3:37:57 AM |
There has never been, in recorded history of any animal attacking a human for no reason.
I don't doubt nobody's seen an unprovoked tiger attack in Africa because tigers are from Asia. Except in Tarzan movies where they also have South American pirana and Indian peacocks.
I'm not sure I'd call the attack on roy by a tiger unprovoked. Have you seen those guys?
Here's an unprovoked attack by a tigers:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/White_tiger_bites.html
msquared, I'll ask again, if that tiger had reacted badly to a noisy bunch of small schoolchildren and eaten them would you still say it's partially their fault? | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 5:55:12 AM | | Want to know what is pathetic. Several of the posters who believe the victims(including the dead boy) got what they deserved for taunting a tiger, oppose the death penalty for murder, rape and other violent crimes. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 7:07:22 AM |
Want to know what is pathetic. Several of the posters who believe the victims(including the dead boy) got what they deserved for taunting a tiger, oppose the death penalty for murder, rape and other violent crimes.
How do you know this? Did you poll everyone posting? If you did, why wasn't I contacted?
*********************
Sun,
Thanks for your comment. You're very welcome.
 back at you. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 7:45:46 AM |
Following the attack on the zoo keeper last year,the zoo closed the tiger enclosure for ten months. So yes, exactly what you described did happen, and yet no changes were made to make the enclosure any safer than when the zoo was open in the 1930's, instead spending that time retraining the staff on safety precautions
Are you reading my responses? This is at least the second time you've charged me with things I didn't actually state. The scenario I mentioned involved the enclosure being brought up to standard, and the tiger still escaping and killing someone, so no, what you mentioned is not exactly what I described, or even close.
I think a fair question is why it wasn't brought up to standards then.
Yes it is, which is why the zoo is also at fault.
msquared, I'll ask again, if that tiger had reacted badly to a noisy bunch of small schoolchildren and eaten them would you still say it's partially their fault?
I guess you aren't reading my responses either. I already answered your question in post 99.
Want to know what is pathetic. Several of the posters who believe the victims(including the dead boy) got what they deserved for taunting a tiger, oppose the death penalty for murder, rape and other violent crimes.
Yes, I am opposed to the death penalty. No, at no time did I state these men deserved to die. I wish they had all survived. What I did state is that they acted like jerks, and suffered the consequences. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 10:40:55 AM |
How do you know this? Did you poll everyone posting?
No, I just know what several people have said in other forums.
What I did state is that they acted like jerks, and suffered the consequences.
A murderer acts like a jerk so he suffers the consequences. The difference is, they are supposed to be, by law, protected from the tiger. A murderer, in certain states is to,by law, get the death penalty if a judge and jury decide it. | |
|
| |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 11:27:38 AM |
A murderer acts like a jerk so he suffers the consequences. The difference is, they are supposed to be, by law, protected from the tiger. A murderer, in certain states is to,by law, get the death penalty if a judge and jury decide it.
If you wish to discuss the death penalty, there are threads in the archives about it, or you can start your own. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 12:40:55 PM | | he is supposed to be protected by the law. what about natural law? how out of touch with nature have we become? when we as humans taunt an animal that can take our life in a second. the zoo is ultimatley responsible and i do feel sorry for the family of the person killed. i also feel sorry for the tiger who died also because of the zoos negligance. the family should be compensated for the death of the loved one and the world wildlife fund should also be compensated for the death of the tiger. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 1:08:01 PM |
In that case, I would hold whoever was responsible for these schoolchildren at fault for allowing them to behave that way.
Ok, say you're the person in charge of those children.
Where actually is the limit as to how much noise they can make? There doesn't appear to be a law, a zoor regulation or even a suggestion from the zoo as to what this might be.
You might say "common sense" but there is no standard for this either and two people may have different ideas about what's reasonable. If the people in charge of potentially lethal animals don't suggest you should act like you're in a library (where such guidelines are posted) how on earth do you think you know better.
Say you were visiting the zoo and weren't even looking at the tiger, just walking by it and for some reason the tiger was pissed off. Maybe he had a minor injusy or just didn't like your face, and jumped up over the under spec'd cage - if this anything more than 0% your fault?
Or is it 100% the zoos fault for having an improper cage?
You know if you go to a forumla 1 race you must agree by implied consent as a prerequisite to entry that "motor racing is dangerous and you may be harmed or killed". So such provision exists in any zoo in the world. The universal presumption is it's the zoos responsability to contain lethal animals, and soley theirs; nothing anyone can legally do will allow them to be eaten by a tiger. Poeple shouldn't taunt tigers, I agree, it's annoying to the tiger.
You may not share this opinion, but those familiar with the law, its interpreation and rulings are called "judges" and until one actually places some blame on the kids that were attacked your opinion carrries abot as much legal weight as the opinion of one of the flat earth society people.
I think tigers should only eat republicans. But that's just lunacy as well. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 4:40:48 PM | "Ok, say you're the person in charge of those children.
Where actually is the limit as to how much noise they can make? There doesn't appear to be a law, a zoor regulation or even a suggestion from the zoo as to what this might be."
There is a law against harassing animals listed on the Endangered Species list, which includes tigers. It's a federal crime, and it's a felony.
There's also a defense that the zoo could, and in this case should, use to defend itself against liability for the death, and injuries, of the three young men who were attacked. That defense is Assumption of the Risk. What this means is, that if you engage in certain activities, like taunting a tiger at the zoo, and that same tiger attacks you; you are deemed to have assumed the risks of your own actions. This may also be used to hold the person taunting the tiger liable for the injuries suffered by anyone else injured by the tiger that was taunted, and got loose.
The zoo is responsible for taking precaustions against foreseeable hazards; not someone's criminal acts.
This isn't my opinion, but, the state of the law in California. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 5:44:52 PM | There is a law against harassing animals listed on the Endangered Species list, which includes tigers. It's a federal crime, and it's a felony.
Tigers are NOT on the US Endangered Species Act and "harassing" is not one of the protections.The zoo knew the tiger was dangerous and they knew the wall was too low.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/ | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 7:09:19 PM | Sorry, Lost, but you truly are.
Might be a good idea to do some serious reading, because...SURPRISE!!!! Siberian tigers ARE on the endangered list.
The list you referenced is for the US. Do Siberian tigers normally live in the wild in the US? Uh...no. THAT'S why they weren't on your list. DOH!!
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/siberian-tiger.html
http://www.siberiantigers.org/
Until 1940 there were eight tiger subspecies in the world. Today, there are five. All are endangered but the Siberian tiger or Amur tiger, Panthera tigris altaica, and the South China tiger, Panthera tigris amoyensis, are under the greatest threat of extinction in the wild. Indeed the South China tiger may have become extinct in the last few years - a count of between 20 and 30 living in the wild in 1998 suggests the population is too small to survive.
Through the dedication and sheer hard work of a few people, the Bengal tiger population is the healthiest having stabilised at between 3,000 and 4,000 in India alone. This has been achieved by educating and involving the local people in the preservation of these magnificent animals.
The Sumatran tiger, Panthera tigris sumatrae, population was thought to be between 400 and 500 in 1994 and Australians have been working hard to preserve them but, with the disastrous economic downturn in Asia followed by the political upheaval in Indonesia, the future is looking precarious.
A count of the Siberian tiger or Amur tiger, Panthera tigris altaica, published in 1996, gave figures of between 330 and 371 adults most of them on the slopes of the Sikhote-Alin mountain range in the Russian Far East. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 8:06:06 PM | Both of my statements were true then:
Not on US Endangered list...check
Harassing an animal is not prohibited(it only prohibits poaching and transporting,it does allow killing an animal in self defense)....check
I agree killing that tiger was a tragedy but so was the killing of that boy. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 8:36:21 PM | | No. Your statements are NOT true. Check again. They ARE on the list...but not on yours, because Siberian Tigers do NOT live in the US. Get it? That list is endangered animals in the US, so S. Tigers wouldn't be on it. But that doesn't mean they aren't endangered. You need to expand your search outside of your own neighborhood. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/27/2008 9:49:00 PM |
Where actually is the limit as to how much noise they can make? There doesn't appear to be a law, a zoor regulation or even a suggestion from the zoo as to what this might be.
The point at which to stop them would happen sometime before they were continually yelling at the animal, climbing the rails, and throwing stuff at it.
Say you were visiting the zoo and weren't even looking at the tiger, just walking by it and for some reason the tiger was pissed off. Maybe he had a minor injusy or just didn't like your face, and jumped up over the under spec'd cage - if this anything more than 0% your fault?
No, it wouldn't be at all my fault, because I wasn't yelling, climbing the rails, and throwing stuff at it.
You may not share this opinion, but those familiar with the law, its interpreation and rulings are called "judges" and until one actually places some blame on the kids that were attacked your opinion carrries abot as much legal weight as the opinion of one of the flat earth society people.
I have no doubt the two remaining guys will successfully sue the zoo. People get rewarded for being stupid all the time. It doesn't mean the courts are always right, though.
That being stated, I do think the zoo should give them some compensation, even though it is only partly to blame. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 5 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
