|
|
|
|
|
| Uncle Chuck takes another one.
Posted: 1/28/2008 1:26:07 AM | There seems to be some misunderstanding on how animal protection legislation works. There is no simple internatinal standard akin to "tigers are in trouble so you can't bother them worldwide" nor is there any such notion of an "international law". There are treaties ratified by countries, that is each country passes a law saying they'll do what the treaty says but until there's a single world government (never gonna happen, despite what the tinfoil hat crowd thinks) the concept of "international law" simply does not exist.
There are two regulatory frameworks that affect endangered animals in the US: the endangered species act(s) and CITES.
Each state has or may have its own endangered species act. And there's a federal endangered species act. These apply to US flora and fauna. Only.
CITES is an international treaty to whcih the US is a signatory country. It monitors and restricts plants and animals that are endangered or suspected of being endangered when they cross a border. Other than border crossings, this legislation has no "teeth".
But that's it. "You can't harass endangered animals" was a nice guess, good try and all but it has absolutely no basis in law whatsoever.
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.
No, it wouldn't be at all my fault, because I wasn't yelling, climbing the rails, and throwing stuff at it.
The problem here is you're confusing common sense with the law. This stuff dosn't have to make sense, it just has to be legal.
On one hand I really agree with you. Anybody stupid enough to drunkenly harass a tiger probably deserves to be eaten by a tiger. Slowly. But, what you're going to find is there is a greater onus on the zoo to prevent accidental release of any animal for a variety of reasons, not just tigers eating people. There are populations of "exotics" (non-native flora and fauna) in every state in the US and it's considered to be an extremeley serious problem the government spends a non-trivial amount of money on. Florica is particularly bad because it's the nexus of the pet trade. There are colonies of monkeys, parrots, you name it, extablished in the wild now and they displace native wildlife. This is a bad thing.
If the tiger, or a cobra or a mongoose or a walking catfish or a parrot or any animal you can to name can get out accidentally if taunted, then it can get out even if it's not taunted. If the enclosure is not up to spec, you needn't even think about whose liable. You're guilty and guilty as hell. If the enclosure is up to spe then rest assured process to change that spec will begin on that day.
There is a very strict embargo on foreign wildlife getting out into the wild. And nothing on gods earth is a possible justitication. This principle has been consistantly applied throughout modern history and San Fransisco in 2008 is not an exception. In fact, Califonia and San Fransisco in particular are more rabid about this than anywhere in the United States. So much so it sometimes works to the detriment of the animals it seeks to protect.
Consider the flame sided garter that lives in a very restricted population in the San Fransisco bay area. It's a very cool looking subspecies of garter with, predictably, red sides. Screaming bright crimson red and lots of it. There are maybe 1500 of these snakes left. Maybe. It may be 500. It may be 150. Nobody is quite sure. Californa put them on the state endangered species list to prevent herpophiles from collecting them (they were) and didn't want the to be wiped out in the wild the way, say, indigo snakes were in Georgia (they were) from overcollection by hobbyists. Indigos are no so rare in the wild now NASA tracks the few that are left by satellite; yet I know where to drive and in 4 hours I can look at a couple of pairs in legal capticity. Majestic animals I must say, they look like black cobras and in my mind are the coolest snake, ever. They run about $1500 each. But I digress.
California lobbied the federal govrnment to put flame sided garters on the federal endangered species list; Texans were comig in, grabbing snakes and high tailing it back to Tejas. Since the California state endangered species act only applied in California there was nothing that could be done is a Texan in Texas had one of them. So, the feds capitulated and put them on the federal endangered species list.
This was actually near certain doom for the snakes and one school of thought says they will now die out because of this "protection". Oh, sweet irony.
Because they're red, they're popular. Of all the zoos in the US only the St. Louis zoo had any though and they did quite well with them. They bred. You'd think this would be a good thing but zoos can really only handle what they've got and do not have the funding to handle a population explosion. So what does the St Louis zoo so with all these rare, beautiful endangered snakes?
You'd think they'd give them to other zoos, or to hobbyists or return them to the wild.
Nope. Can't do that. They're on the federal endanged list and nobody can have them in capticity now. The only reason the St Louis zoo had them is they were "grandfathered", that is, they had them before they were listed and the list was not retroactive.
They coudn't be released back into the wild and you can't, or rather don't want to mix up the feral ("wild") gene pool with that of captive stock.
The only thing the St Louis could do with them was what they did do with them: they fed them to cobras (cobras only eat other snakes).
Remember, it doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be legal.
Now, the habitat of the snake in the wild is, predictably, threatened by the encrouchment of man. Do you have any idea what the price of real estate is in the bay area? Think 1.5mil for a tiny fixer upper in a bad area, and there's a public sentiment that "enough of the spotted owl/snail darter protectionist crap" and with the kind of dollars as stake a red snake just doesn't show up on the radar. So, they'll probably become extinct in the wild in the next decade or so.
But, the Germans and the Danes are nuts about these things and captive populations exists in the herp ("reptile") hobby on those countries. So while they may go extinct in the wild because the governent "protects" them, they will not vanish forever from the face of the earth because some random foreigners think they're kinda cool.
I'll never convince you that it's not common sense not to taunt a tiger in captivity, but I'm telling you the law doesn't work on common sense. Those kids will not be found liable no matter what either of us thinks. That's just the way it is.
But they'll show up on the Darwin list even if I have to nominate them myself.
| |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 3:12:52 AM | | Ok you get wasted, tease a 400kg tiger and then....................... it kills you. Is that unexpected? Maybe someone should try hitting or poking one with a stick just to see what happens. How about finding a big bear and kicking it in the nuts.............. just to see what it'll do. | |
|
| Uncle Chuck takes another one.
Posted: 1/28/2008 6:44:38 AM |
The problem here is you're confusing common sense with the law.
Oh, I know the law will likely find them faultless. That isn't my case, though. My case is that in actuality, while the zoo was at fault for not having a proper enclosure, these guys were also at fault for their actions. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 11:44:01 AM | no doubt in my mind that these dumbass's hold some of the blame. But not an equal share- not by a longshot
wrong, wrong. it is 110% the teen's fault. get a grip. the tragedy is that an animal died because three punks were worthless. the sad thing is that tatiana didn't kill all three before she was killed | |
|
| |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 3:33:48 PM | ** (wild: adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun
–adjective
1. living in a state of nature; not tamed or domesticated: a wild animal; wild geese.
2. growing or produced without cultivation or the care of humans, as plants, flowers, fruit, or honey: wild cherries.
3. uncultivated, uninhabited, or waste: wild country.
4. uncivilized or barbarous: wild tribes.
5. of unrestrained violence, fury, intensity, etc.; violent; furious: wild strife; wild storms.
6. characterized by or indicating violent feelings or excitement, as actions or a person's appearance: wild cries; a wild look.
7. frantic or distracted; crazy: to drive someone wild.
8. violently or uncontrollably affected: wild with rage; wild with pain.
9. undisciplined, unruly, or lawless: a gang of wild boys.
10. unrestrained, untrammelled, or unbridled: wild enthusiasm.
11. disregardful of moral restraints as to pleasurable indulgence: He repented his wild youth.
12. unrestrained by reason or prudence: wild schemes.
13. Amazing or incredible: Isn't that wild about Bill getting booted out of the club?
14. Disorderly or dishevelled: wild hair.
15. Wide of the mark: He scored on a wild throw.
16. Informal. Intensely eager or enthusiastic: wild to get started; wild about the new styles. Just in case you didn't know what it was- now you do)
This simply drives me insane... I hate the fact that these endangered animals are brought into our society and instead of proper security measures like tranquilizing them being taken they are instantly shot and killed. It boggles the mind to even think that such magnificent creatures are being brought into these zoos and reservations for protection but are being killed as soon as they step into any normal and dangerous behaviour.
These WILD animals are wild animals!! See above definition…
All these creatures aren't given a choice- in fact many are born into captivity. Some are mistreated for their violent tendencies. Others are taught to suppress them and to live along side human beings. I have to ask all of you before I continue, if you have ever suppressed anything, felt as though you were different but was asked to not show that difference, knew you wanted to live a certain lifestyle but were forbade to even think of doing it. Well you have a voice so you could and can speak up for yourselves.
I know some of you question authority as avidly as or even more so than I, so stepping out of line for being gay, bisexual, lesbian, wanting a certain type of clothing, hairstyle or lifestyle, having a different religion or not one at all, just in general being DIFFERENT AND OUTSIDE OF SOCIAL "NORMS"- whatever that behaviour may be… Now imagine being reprimanded for doing it different. Some of us don't have to imagine because we live through the adversity of it all daily… these animals are brought up being whipped, hit and leashed- until they conform to the "safe" norms we want them to conform to.
Is it not enough that we took their land, their food, their well being? Now we have to strip them of their nature and the very reason they are the beautiful and mysterious creatures we so admire…
These animals are trained to suppress their tendencies and are mistreated when they step "out of line"… They cannot scream, shout, or tell the people who are doing these things to them to stop. They can act aggressively, they can claw and bite and kill- because they do not like the way they are being treated or they do not like their environment.
These animals have natural urges like you and me and they are being made to quell those urges so that WE as a race can feel safe when they are the ones being put in cages, crates and in habitats that are much, much smaller than what they know is out there. Why I say they know what's out there even when they are born in captivity is because it has been proven that there is something ingrained in these animals' minds just as there is with humans, to hunt, to gather, to protect in the wide expanses (sky, ocean, swamp, sea, land) of their territory.
I really don't want to vent my frustration but rather express my point! Tatiana would not have leaped such a giant leap across a moat and up around 10 feet if there was nothing wrong. She would not have attacked if not provoked and allowed her frustrations to build up. In the wild this tiger would have a litter of three to four cubs and would be raising them for the next few years of her life. In the San Francisco zoo she was treated as an oddity and something to be ogled at. For some reason, in the U.S, there are about 12,000 captive tigers while in the wild there are only 4,000 (in the entire world)…
In all honesty I don't believe that tigers are the only ones being mistreated. There are so many animals that are still being used for testing, that are being held captive, that are losing their habitats in exchange for cages and smaller "dens", that its simply ridiculous… they were here first and in a world where we pride ourselves on the early bird gets the worm, shouldn't they be the ones to be allowed to roam free and we as humans, lessen our footprint on the world? I hope I made any of you think about this travesty towards animals and hope that some of you will try to make even a modicum of difference…
To add to this- I completely feel that the Tiger- Tatiana- was the victim here, from birth to death and that those kids got what they deserved, with the exception of the boy who was killed that is. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 4:47:59 PM |
Oh, I know the law will likely find them faultless. That isn't my case, though. My case is that in actuality, while the zoo was at fault for not having a proper enclosure, these guys were also at fault for their actions.
The problem here is that there was a presumption of 100% protection from the tiger no matter what anybody does. If there'd been a sign that says "this cage won't hold. If you piss this tiger off it may jump out and eat you" would they have still taunted it?
Would they have even entered the zoo if there was a sign at the entrance that said "our cages are not 100% foolproof. This is a risk you'll die if you enter" ?
So, the presumption is the cages will contain the animals 100%, your liablity then is the difference between 100% and the zoos liabilty - which is zero.
This also puts you in the position of having a set of actions, undefined, such that some of them will cause the tiger to jump out and eat you.
The law protects innocents and drunken fools equally. That's kinda the point behind "one justice for all".
Once you start sliding down the slippery slope away from that you might not like what you end up with.
For some reason, in the U.S, there are about 12,000 captive tigers while in the wild there are only 4,000 (in the entire world)…
This isn't a bad thing (assuming proper and ethical treatment of of the animals in captivity).
Wild animals are 100% infested with parasites, constantly face predation, poaching, destructoin of their habitat, stravation and dehydration and don't live as long as captive animals.
I realize this is a very emotional issue and it's not hard to spot the bad guy when it comes down to drunken idiot and what is probably nearly everyones favorite animal. But there is a disconnect between the court of public opinion and a court of law, and for a reason; the law is not based on emotion and doesn't care if it's a cute tiger, a warthog or satan himself.
This is why they say "if you're innocent let the judge decide, if you're guilty get a trial by jury". A jury trial is an option, at the discretion of the accused. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 5:29:39 PM | RX11: Great post. Although, I don't agree 100% with what you have to say, it's refreshing to hear logic, over emotion.
I beg to differ, in that the zoo has a responsibility to protect the animals, and its patrons, against "foreseeable" hazards. Foreseeability is based upon what a "reasonable person" would do in a give set of circumstances. While it could be argued that a reasonable person might taunt a tiger at the zoo; I find it difficult to believe that anyone would buy such an argument.
Even if a reasonable person did taunt a tiger at the zoo, the law provides that if you engage in a particular activity, you assume the risks of that same activity as well. Thus, you taunt the tiger at the zoo, you get attacked, the zoo has no liability with respect to your attack. Additionally, you may also be held liable for any, and all, injuries, or deaths, resulting from the tiger's attack upon anyone else; including the death of the tiger as well.
I have yet to hear, or read, how this tiger got out of its enclosure. Whether it, in fact, went over the fence, or got out some other way.
As you so well put it, "one justice for all"; that includes the zoo. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 7:18:39 PM | | hey, i wonder if the tiger got high from eating the stoned people? what? i'm serious. I sure hope he did....maybe that made his senseless death less painful.....why are humans so stupid that we think killing an animal simply for doing what god intended it to do is somehow some perverted form of justice. that would be like me driving my car off a cliff just because my dumb-a** banged my knee over the door when i was climbing in. If i ever have kids and they do some stupid stuff like getting drunk and taunting a nature-made killing machine, i'll throw their unruly as**es in the cage myself. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 7:25:01 PM |
Wild animals are 100% infested with parasites, constantly face predation, poaching, destructoin of their habitat, stravation and dehydration and don't live as long as captive animals.
Technically, the tiger is an apex predator...the highest animal in its food pyramid
So it's only predated upon by other tigers or man.
As such...its predation is rare.
Just saying. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/28/2008 7:35:22 PM | Thank you for the kind words.
The tiger simply jumped over the fence, which was four feet under the required height. Worse, they knew the fence was undersized
I understand what you're saying and we end up splitting hairs over where the delineation between "taunt" and "reasonable and customery levels of annoyance" occurs.
If the tiger hears 87 decibels and that provokes him, does it really matter if it's a drunk or a gaggle of giggling teenage girls?
So I'm not sure you can use sound at all as a criteria.
Next would be throwing things in the cage. Rocks or popcorn doens't matter to the tiger; people throw crap in animal cages every day.
I posit that for each act of abject stupidity the idiot undertook there exists a moral equivalent an innocent could have perpetrated. What it would take to convince me otherwise is some act the drunks did that would be illegal if you did it to a dog in a public place.
"Mayor Gavin Newsom said Monday that the city's Recreation and Parks Department Commission will hold public hearings to determine what the city can do to prevent another attack. In his letter, Geragos alleged that a former zoo employee and a consultant whom he declined to identify told him zoo administrators knew the 12 1/2-foot wall surrounding the tiger habitat "couldn't hold a house cat." Zoo officials have said that they thought the wall was taller, and that a national zoo associate inspected the enclosure regularly before the escape and reported no problems"
Lotta finger pointing.
These are big anmals. Here's one half the size of a bus:
http://i.pbase.com/v3/17/265117/1/44121033.TigerAttack.jpg | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 6:27:38 AM | It took me a minute to hunt it up. But, here's the citation for the regulation about harassing an animal on the Endangered Species List:
Under this ESA it is unlawful for any person to "take" an endangered species. The term "take" includes harassment which is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt its normal behavior patterns. These patterns include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (Title 16 USC Section 1538)
Again, the zoo cannot be held to foresee the criminal acts of third parties. While it will be a strong defense, I doubt the jury will by it. The zoo has already been found liable in the court of public opinion. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 7:16:55 AM |
It took me a minute to hunt it up. But, here's the citation for the regulation about harassing an animal on the Endangered Species List:
Under this ESA it is unlawful for any person to "take" an endangered species. The term "take" includes harassment which is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt its normal behavior patterns. These patterns include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (Title 16 USC Section 1538)
Again, the zoo cannot be held to foresee the criminal acts of third parties. While it will be a strong defense, I doubt the jury will by it. The zoo has already been found liable in the court of public opinion.
For all of the "legal experts" on here...if the federal government (or any municipality) thought they had a case for prosecuting any of the men involved in this...why haven't they done so?
Or even state that they were "looking into the possibility?"
They already have a partial confession...
Is it because...wait for it...no laws were broken?
Hmm...an odd concept | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 8:46:10 AM | Could it possibly be, . . . wait for it . . ., that the people investigating this whole affair are waiting for the investigation to be complete?
After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder, which, in my humble opinion, would be one of the appropriate charges to file in this matter. As has already been stated here, at least one of the young men involved in this whole affair has admitted to taunting the tiger, which lead to its attacking Mr. Sousa. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 1:54:21 PM |
there is no statute of limitations on murder
True but animals cannot be charged with murder,the only possible prosecution in this case would be against the zoo.
which lead to its attacking Mr. Sousa
That would be very hard to prove in court because it's hard to get a deposition from a dead animal | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 2:22:36 PM | I get sick of all these people saying that they feel sorry for the family of the victim...IF THEY HAD BROUGHT THE LIL ****TARD UP RIGHT HE WOULDN'T HAVE USED DRUNK & HIGH AND USED A SLINGSHOT ON A TIGER!!! So I have NO compassion for the family because obviously the lil tird wouldn't have been drunk, high, and that stupid. It's the family's FAULT! 
It's ok...at least the slingshot is entered into evidence so at least when the family sues the zoo they've got at least 50% culpability on the victim, which means the zoo can sue the family for harrassing an endangered species if they loose the first trial....gotta luv Cali laws  | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 4:04:04 PM | bigshrek,
Where did you read about the slingshot? This is the first I've heard about it. If it's true, it makes those little morons even more despicable in my eyes....and maybe what the tiger did wasn't ENOUGH. | |
|
| |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 5:09:33 PM | >>>Where did you read about the slingshot? This is the first I've heard about it.
According to Wiki;
According to early news sources, the Dhaliwal brothers had slingshots on them at the time. However, according to later reports, the police denied that slingshot were found in the car or the zoo
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Zoo_tiger_attacks#The_aftermath
Hurray for spreading lies in a failed attempt to make a point! | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 6:04:56 PM | there is no statute of limitations on murder
True but animals cannot be charged with murder,the only possible prosecution in this case would be against the zoo.
which lead to its attacking Mr. Sousa
That would be very hard to prove in court because it's hard to get a deposition from a dead animal
I'm not able to follow the logic trail here. I didn't take time to fully explain my earlier post, as I thought it would be self explanatory. I should have erred on the side of caution.
It is correct, that an animal cannot be charged with murder. However, humans can. As previously stated, it was the actions of, at least one of, the surviving brothers that set the chain of events in motion that lead to Mr. Sousa's death. It doesn't matter how far removed from the death one is, so long as there is a causal connection between the person's actions and the ensuing chain of events that leads to someone's death. Thus, taunting a tiger that gets loose from its cage and later kills someone makes the one taunting the tiger criminally liable in the person's death.
Depositions cannot be taken in criminal actions; only civil actions. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/29/2008 7:16:55 PM |
It took me a minute to hunt it up. But, here's the citation for the regulation about harassing an animal on the Endangered Species List:
Under this ESA it is unlawful for any person to "take" an endangered species. The term "take" includes harassment which is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt its normal behavior patterns. These patterns include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (Title 16 USC Section 1538)
And it turns out that, despite the state and federal endagered lists being administered by the fish and wildlife service to protect native US fish and wildlife, there are a (very) small number of foreign (critically) endangered animals that do enjoy endangered status under this act. Huh.
Here's relevant portion of the applicable Federal register:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr29.pdf
I'm not sure what this gets you though. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/30/2008 5:02:44 PM | It is correct, that an animal cannot be charged with murder. However, humans can. As previously stated, it was the actions of, at least one of, the surviving brothers that set the chain of events in motion that lead to Mr. Sousa's death. It doesn't matter how far removed from the death one is, so long as there is a causal connection between the person's actions and the ensuing chain of events that leads to someone's death. Thus, taunting a tiger that gets loose from its cage and later kills someone makes the one taunting the tiger criminally liable in the person's death.
Depositions cannot be taken in criminal actions; only civil actions.
that pretty much explains it. i don't see what is so difficult for some of these people to comprehend. the absolute reality is, if it is demonstrated that the brothers had any part in causing the tiger to escape, as in taunting it, and because it escaped and killed the lad, the brothers are guilty of murder, although, in all likelihood the charge would be manslaughter. there is no mystery about it. any first grader can understand such a simple reality. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/31/2008 3:02:48 PM | | Ok so ask any first grader if they want to go to the zoo. And if thye say yes tell then "Ok, but the tiger cage isn't that strong and if it gets angry for any reason it may jump out and eat you and you will die" and see if they still want to go then.. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/31/2008 3:49:24 PM | | We comprehend the gravity of the situation but convincing a jury to convict someone of manslaughter isn't going to happen in this case,unless the boys opened up the cage or moved a branch in front of the wall they won't be charged. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
Posted: 1/31/2008 4:28:58 PM | Ok so ask any first grader if they want to go to the zoo. And if thye say yes tell then "Ok, but the tiger cage isn't that strong and if it gets angry for any reason it may jump out and eat you and you will die" and see if they still want to go then..
obviously, there is no reason in the world to tell them a lie such as that. it is totally irrelevant to this, particularly since first graders are as stupid as teenage punks | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
