|
|
|
|
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 8:10:35 AM |
There are said to be about 5000 - 7500 tigers left in the world. Unfortunately, there are an endless number of stupid teenages in the world.
The lack of empathy for fellow human beings in the posting is disturbing. I really hope this doesn't reflect a true belief. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 10:24:16 AM |
Hardly. However, stupid people tend to irritate me.
You strike me as judgmental and unable to read people.
Am I correct?
Your posts almost make it sound like you are happy a kid lost his life, just because he "might" have been doing something stupid, and really not THAT bad.
Were you there? Because if you weren't that makes you judgmental as well.
Who are these "stupid people"? If they are irritating you, step away from your computer.
The lack of empathy for fellow human beings in the posting is disturbing.
Yes. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 11:59:06 AM | ^^^
You need to step away from this thread. It's not about me, so stop your hate rant. Either stay on topic or find a new thread to try to hijack. I won't entertain your silliness any longer. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 12:07:24 PM |
Is waving a felonious act? Is yelling a felonious act? As I said, I can understand this behavior provoking an animal, but I cant see how it is taunting. . . . And the victim did not admit to taunting the tiger. . . . Do we not teach our children to wave? So why is it wrong to do it as an adult, or teen?
Take the time to look back, there are numerous earlier posts discussing what constitutes "harassing" an animal under the Endangered Species Act. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 1:04:46 PM | The lack of empathy for fellow human beings in the posting is disturbing. I really hope this doesn't reflect a true belief.
that is absolutley stupid. i am always sympathetic to those who suffer mishaps through absolutely no fault of their own. i am NEVER sympathetic to worthless trash who intentionally cause problems for themselves or others, and no other rational person is either | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 4:37:27 PM | | Lostcauz, Are you saying a 5 year should die for waving and yelling "Hi, Big kitty".The tiger could have come out after a kid just as well. And is the victims were taunting the tiger, which could possible be the case, security should have been around to make sure this was not happening. The zoo was not there to protect the animals or the public. | |
|
mizbex
| Joined: 8/8/2007 Msg: 182 | |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 5:36:06 PM |
The lack of empathy for fellow human beings in the posting is disturbing. I really hope this doesn't reflect a true belief.
As someone's stupidity level rises, my empathy level lessen, in this case into none at all.
I feel sorry for the Tiger in this case that is about it. And maybe for the parents for realizing what an idiot they raised. The kid did it to himself. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/4/2008 6:48:06 PM |
As someone's stupidity level rises, my empathy level lessen, in this case into none at all.
I feel sorry for the Tiger in this case that is about it. And maybe for the parents for realizing what an idiot they raised. The kid did it to himself.
I'm not sure if you realize (or care) that you words say more about you than they ever would about the kid. He didn't taunt the tiger ( not even his cohorts are saying that he did)...and yet he was killed anyway. The incident is done and over with at this point. The fact that you still maintain this attitude is very sad. Hopefully, if you die as result of doing something foolish or stupid, others will feel empathy for you. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/5/2008 9:08:36 AM | http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html
Two brothers injured in a Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo will not face charges, the lead investigator in the case told CNN Monday.
Tatiana, a 350-pound Siberian tiger, killed one young man and injured two others before being killed.
San Francisco Police Inspector Valerie Matthews said the investigation had found no evidence that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal taunted a 350-pound tiger that apparently scaled a 12½ foot wall surrounding its enclosure. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/5/2008 9:33:53 AM | As someone's stupidity level rises, my empathy level lessen, in this case into none at all.
I feel sorry for the Tiger in this case that is about it. And maybe for the parents for realizing what an idiot they raised. The kid did it to himself.
you hit the nail on the head. that is how all rational people are | |
|
| |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/5/2008 10:26:59 AM | Thanks, Arieann, but how about posting something a little newer?
If anyone has anything more current than the article below, please post it.
Police: Tiger attack victim acknowledged drinking, some taunting
By Terence Chea ASSOCIATED PRESS 11:07 a.m. January 18, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO – Police believe a fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo was in part prompted by the victims provoking the animal, according to court documents.
One of the three victims told the father of the teenager killed in the Christmas Day attack they had been drinking and were yelling and waving at the animal, according to a search warrant affidavit filed late Thursday.
Paul Dhaliwal, 19, insisted the three never threw anything into the tiger's pen to provoke the cat, the papers said.
Dhaliwal and his brother Kulbir, 24, were severely injured when the tiger crawled up the wall of its enclosure and mauled them. Their friend, 17-year-old Carlos Sousa, Jr., was killed.
Zoo officials have acknowledged the wall surrounding the tiger pen was four feet lower than recommended by the national zoo accrediting organization.
“As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims,” wrote Inspector Valerie Matthews in the affidavit. Police believe that “this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims,” she wrote.
Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., said Dhaliwal told him the three stood on a 3-foot-tall metal railing a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat. “When they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes on him (Paul Dhaliwal),” the documents said.
Police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing, Matthews said in the documents.
The affidavit also cites multiple reports to police of people taunting animals at the zoo that day.
Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, did not immediately return calls for comment. He has repeatedly said they did not provoke the tiger.
Michael Cardoza, the attorney who represents the Sousa family, said Friday he had not seen the affidavit and would not comment on the allegations.
But, he said, even if the men had provoked the animal, smoked marijuana or drank alcohol, that would not justify the attack or lessen the zoo's liability.
“The zoo has the obligation to protect the public from the animals and to protect the animals from the public,” Cardoza said. “They did not live up to that obligation. They are strictly liable for not properly housing that tiger. It has to be foreseeable to them that people are going to do silly things at the zoo.”
Toxicology results for Paul Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16 – twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His brother and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote.
All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. Kulbir Dhaliwal told police the three had smoked pot and each had “a couple shots of vodka” before leaving San Jose for the zoo Dec. 25, the affidavit said.
Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents.
Investigators also recovered messages and images from the men's cell phones.
Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said he had not seen the documents but believed the victims did taunt the animal.
“Those brothers painted a completely different picture to the public and the press,” Singer said. “Now it's starting to come out that what they said is not true.” | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/5/2008 11:01:29 AM | After reading this thread I'm very disturbed by the lack of human compassion and those who think it's acceptable for a human life to be destroyed based on ignorant decisions made by a young adult or anyone for that matter.
As we grow older we come to realize that there were times in our lives that we've all done something "stupid/ignorant" possibly even "dangerous". Perhaps the older we are the more things we can think of! I'm sure that most of them were related to but not confined to our youth and hopefully we've learned from them. NO ONE is perfect or exempt from mistakes and this incident of a young adult doing something out of "stupidity" that he shouldn't have done did NOT warrant the death penalty! In fact there are so many severe crimes in our society whether intentional or not that aren't even given that kind of sentence!
As owners of a zoo where potentially dangerous species are kept confined to areas for humans to observe they MUST act responsibly and follow the guidelines to keep their visitors safe at all times. That's what guidelines are for! We can't predict the thought pattern of a tiger and even though we know it may be provoked by various things we don't know exactly what all of those things are! There were reports of other tauntings that happened within the zoo so this incident may have happened to any number of visitors who were taunting animals who were NOT contained the way they should have been. What if this were a school trip where the youngsters ran ahead and taunted the tiger? What if it were a mother holding up her young child to see over the rail as she called out loudly to the tiger to get him to look up or react in some way so the child could see some movement? Had the tiger become provoked by either of those situations the public would probably see things differently. Unfortunately this young man was someone's son and the loss of a child under any circumstances is heartbreaking to say the least. He isn't the only one paying for or who will suffer from his mistake...a mistake made by several other's according to the reports. A mistake with an outcome that could have been prevented had the zoo followed the proper guidelines.
In conclusion my feelings are that although the young adults were doing something they absolutely shouldn't have been doing, the zoo HAS to be held responsible for keeping ALL visitors safe at ALL times. They failed to follow the specs of maintaining a wall tall enough to prevent an unpredictable dangerous animal from escaping therefore putting everyone who visited that zoo in danger! The animal was never really in captivity at all.  | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/5/2008 3:32:11 PM | http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326545,00.html posted 1-29-08
The San Francisco Police Department released a statement Tuesday saying the investigation has been put on hold "pending new witnesses being interviewed and/or new evidence being produced."
In court documents filed earlier this month, police investigators said they believed the attack was in part triggered by the victims provoking the animal but did not specify what if any crimes they thought had been committed.
They must be having trouble making a case. | |
|
mizbex
| Joined: 8/8/2007 Msg: 190 | |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/5/2008 5:58:15 PM | I'm not sure if you realize (or care) that you words say more about you than they ever would about the kid. He didn't taunt the tiger ( not even his cohorts are saying that he did)...and yet he was killed anyway.The incident is done and over with at this point. The fact that you still maintain this attitude is very sad. Hopefully, if you die as result of doing something foolish or stupid, others will feel empathy for you.
First let me say, I don't know if it is ironic or moronic that you are taking this stance in this thread, while sporting a Tony the Tiger t-shirt. Rolls eyes and keeps typing
I know exactly what my statement says about me, I don't care for stupid people that is what says about me. Let me ask you something, why do you expect me to care about someone who obviously did not care about their own life? Who didn't think anything of drinking, driving, smoking illegal substances and then, for icing on the cake, taunting a deadly animal? Tell me where my sympathy should kick in? Oh wait, when I think about the tiger that is when.
We live in a soceity where people take less and less accountability for their actions and frankly it makes me sick, it also shows me what a weak society we live in. It also shows me how overindulged some teenagers are, they are not taught right from wrong nor are they shown any consequences when they do wrong. I guess these three got a taste of jungle justice, wouldn't you say. | |
|
mizbex
| Joined: 8/8/2007 Msg: 191 | |
| |
| |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/5/2008 8:11:14 PM | One last thing, there is stupid and foolish and then there is deadly. At the very least, these three young men should have known the difference. I highly doubt any of those young men expected that animal to be able to get out of it's confined area. That meant it was not seen as dangerous or a threat to them.
As far as "stupid" goes here's how I see it. No one is perfect that I know of. No one is exempt from at one time or another in their lives making ignorant possibly dangerous mistakes and I'm willing to bet we've all made a few.
However, stupid to me is someone who KNOWS that a dangerous species must be kept in captivity to protect EVERYONE who enters the area and yet chooses to construct a wall low enough for that unpredictable animal to jump over and maul someone to death. That's STUPID and that stupidity caused a human life to be wasted. That makes them liable. Regardless of whether the animal was taunted or not...every visitor there was in danger because no one knows what may antagonize an animal to cause it to attack. It could have done it at any given time and more than likely if not with that young man, it would have eventually attacked someone else who provoked it in some way the animal interpreted as threatening. (and that means whether it was really threatened or not!)
I'm wondering how many parents who visited that particular zoo with their children are thanking their lucky stars that it wasn't one of their children who provoked that animal by perhaps their hands waving in the air, high pitched screams, or simple "nah nah nah nah's" that children do. NO ONE was safe there because the animal was not contained if he was able to jump out of his environment!
Let me ask you something, why do you expect me to care about someone who obviously did not care about their own life? Because as loving compassionate people we should care about each other regardless of the dumb mistakes people make and I'm sure that young man didn't think his life was in danger. People make stupid mistakes all the time regardless of whether or not they see it that way.
Wouldn't you love your family member if one of them came down with aids? Many times that's caused from stupid mistakes. How about from lung cancer from smoking too much? Some could argue that they didn't even care about their own life. How about a best friend who's been beaten and abused but chooses to stay with their abuser? Stupidity you say...but does that mean we shouldn't care about them just because it appears they don't care about themselves and are choosing to remain in danger? How about someone who gets hit by a car because they crossed during a red light knowing full well that green means go? Bad decisions...but we'd love them and care about them anyway.
Aside from that..why should you care about a zoo keeper who didn't care about human life? He had no regard for any man, woman, or child who paid to support his establishment.
We live in a soceity where people take less and less accountability for their actions and frankly it makes me sick, it also shows me what a weak society we live in. You're absolutely right and that zoo has to step up and take responsibility for putting everyone's life in danger because they were NOT responsible and chose not to follow the specs. They took a potentially dangerous animal and moved it to captivity to make money off the public who wanted to view it and they failed to keep the public safe!!!
It also shows me how overindulged some teenagers are, they are not taught right from wrong nor are they shown any consequences when they do wrong. Not every teenager who's taught right from wrong (or adult for that matter) is going to follow the golden path every single step of the way! In most cases at some time or another in their life (as in ours) they'll make a stupid mistake. This mistake did not warrant the death penalty. Human life is far more valuable than that and if that were the case...and every person who ever made a bad judgement call or did something stupid had to be put to death.............I'd have no friends, but then again neither would anyone else because we'd all be gone!!!
I'm not saying that what the three young men did was right only that the result was a tragedy that could have been prevented had the zoo followed proper procedures for containing a wild animal. They knew how dangerous the situation could be if that animal were able to walk right up to anyone on the property. Yet they failed to make sure that scenario would be impossible.
We live and learn through mistakes but the punishment has to fit the crime. Fine visitors for their actions who taunt animals or ban them from the zoo but death of a human soul for taunting an animal is NOT acceptable. For those who think it was....are you sure biting off his hand wouldn't have served the same purpose???? How about an arm and a leg????
I guess these three got a taste of jungle justice, wouldn't you say. This was NOT the jungle. This was a city zoo where city PEOPLE go to observe ANIMALS. People..as in not perfect, who make bad decisions sometimes but still deserve to be protected by an establishment who thrives on their existance and their attendance. An establishment who had an unpredictable wild animal in an area that didn't contain it properly or separate it from harming their visitors. They have an obligation to the public to insure their safety if they want to run a business that depends on public attendance. They failed to do this and a life was lost.  | |
|
mizbex
| Joined: 8/8/2007 Msg: 194 | |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/6/2008 4:18:31 PM |
Which makes it an even sadder day for the Tiger world. How ever you look at this, the zoo, the (*(cough) victims) this was caused by human error and the one that dies of course is the beautiful tiger. Next people are going to start jumping into fires and blaming the matches.
^^^^^^^^^^This was my second post in this thread. To be clear, this incident was caused by human error and human error alone. The tiger, was being a tiger.
Since we are playing the what if game, let me throw this one out to you. Say the day's events unfolded exactly as they did, however, there had been a group of school children also in reach of the tiger or a mother and her baby. And then let's say that after mauling and killing the young men, the tiger attacked a child because it was still agitated by the young men and their shenanigans. You have to ask yourself, what if the three had just left the tiger alone? Would this have happened? Does anyone know how long the tiger had been housed there without incident? A lot of times people create their own circumstances and that is what the case is here. Tell me, where was the good decision making in drinking, smoking pot and then taunting a deadly animal? What would you say if instead of taunting a tiger, these three decided to play with a loaded gun, who would you blame then? How can you say that any rational human being cannot see the potential catastrophic outcome from combining these actions?
I am not without compassion, I have enourmouse compassion for my fellow man, for women who have to stay with abusive husbands because the alternative is a shelter, for all the people in America who are losing their homes and jobs and yes, for the friend who contracts an STD because they made a poor choice in partners. AND, God knows, I have made some really stupid decisions in my life and when everything was said and done, I owned up to my mistakes and was accountable for my actions. No, I do not think people are perfect, nor are the expected to be. What saddens me is the three young men, drank, smoked pot, drove and then taunted a deadly animal. This is the future of our country making these stupid, dangerous and deadly decisions. Where in their young lives did they learn decision making skills, or lack there of? Further, it is now known that they also lied about how the events unfolded that day and admitted to their actions, which in some ways is positive, too bad their friend and the tiger had to die in order for them to admit their actions.
Lastly, in regard to the tiger, perhaps there shouldn't be zoos. Perhaps we should leave nature as it is and stop forcing our company on God's creatures, perhaps we should stop destoying their natural habitats so they are not forced to live in capitivity so the species does not become extinct because of human decision, stupid human decision.
Maybe, we should leave the tigers alone until we as humans can learn to respect and admire them without harming them. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/6/2008 4:47:11 PM | The problem is "leaving tigers alone" means not destroying their habitat. And putting back what's been destroyed. This is impossible. Then there's poaching an ever greater threat. Plus, animals in the wild are 100% infested with parasites and constantly face starvation and dehydration. The delicate balance of nature is a cruel thing. But that's why it's a "balance". It's like, you know, a jungle out there.
Any cage so improper it can let an animal escape by somebody being stupid and making noise can also let the animal escape while innocently making noise. Since 20% of failures in any system can be shown to be human error containment must work no matter what happens outside the case.
Just because people think the guy deserved to die doen't absolve the zoo. It could just have easiy have been an innnocent. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/6/2008 6:09:05 PM | >>>And then let's say that after mauling and killing the young men, the tiger attacked a child because it was still agitated by the young men and their shenanigans.
Sounds like you're assigning blame in your own what-if scenario. Its awfully easy not to be wrong if you create a situation where you've already determined who is at blame.
Everyone, this includes both the drunks and the infants, depends on the concept that, in a zoo, the animals cannot escape- this includes the fact that if the animal is having a rough day, is being harassed, is being yelled at, is being observed, ect- it is not the patrons of the zoo's responsibility to keep the animal safely in its enclosure, its the zoo's.
The only exception I can think of is if someone were to lower some sort of ladder or bridge into the enclosure to help it escape- but if this animal escapes simply because it willed it so, means that it could have always escaped if it willed it so. So I say, once again, if these teens had acted responsibility and maturely, one of them would have survived that day- but the risk would have been, still was, and still does, exist that a tiger could have escape reguardless if the patrons were drunk, high, stupid, or young.
>>> Does anyone know how long the tiger had been housed there without incident?
The tiger was born on in Denver on June 27, 2003. It was transfer to the San Fran Zoo on December 16, 2005. On December 22, 2006 during a public feeding, Tatiana clawed and bit zookeeper Lori Komejan's arm which was placed or pulled between the cage bars. Komejan's right arm was severely injured as a result.and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration later found the zoo at fault due to inadequate safety precautions and inadequate staff training, which the enclosure was closed for 10 months,with zero attempts made at upgrading the enclosure up to code.
So it was there for a few days over a year since the last attack.
>>>Further, it is now known that they also lied about how the events unfolded that day and admitted to their actions, which in some ways is positive, too bad their friend and the tiger had to die in order for them to admit their actions.
You're still ignoring the zoo's involvement in all of this-It was believed the enclosure was 18 feet tall- then, following the attack, it was found it out that, yes, the zoo had lied about the size of their enclosure. Wheres your outrage on that? Why aren't you outraged that, because the zoo choose not to update an enclosure in over 75 years, a rare tiger had to die? | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/6/2008 6:57:37 PM | To be clear, this incident was caused by human error and human error alone. The tiger, was being a tiger. I totally agree with that statement but let's remember the zoo owner knew the tiger was a tiger when he brought it in and still failed to provide a proper enclosure. The human error was two part. One, a group of young adults under the influence making a dumb decision to taunt the animal believing it to be funny but feeling they were in no danger. Two, the owner of the zoo who imported the tiger to his establishment under the conditions that he would insure safety for ALL who entered the zoo to view the animal AND for the animal itself. HE did NOT do what he was required to do and knew full out that a tiger is dangerous and unpredictable and may be provoked by any number of things. HIS neglect is the reason the young adult AND the tiger are dead.
As business owners we must act responsibly and follow all guidelines and laws especially when it comes to the safety of human lives. After all, he was making money off those patrons and put every one of them at risk! He was also aware of tauntings taking place in the zoo and did nothing about it to prevent such a horrible disaster from happening.
I bet people would be horrified if upon entering the zoo they read a sign that said...
"This zoo decided not to construct walls high enough to protect our visitors and at any given time one of the wild species here may become provoked by any various factor at which time they may jump out of their semi enclosed area and kill the person who they feel provoked them!" How many visitors do you think would enter that establishment vs the number who would call the authorities immediately because the zoo was putting human life in danger?
Since we are playing the what if game, let me throw this one out to you. Say the day's events unfolded exactly as they did, however, there had been a group of school children also in reach of the tiger or a mother and her baby. And then let's say that after mauling and killing the young men, the tiger attacked a child because it was still agitated by the young men and their shenanigans. You have to ask yourself, what if the three had just left the tiger alone? Would this have happened? No, actually I'd probably ask how the h ell anything like that could possibly happen..as in how did that animal get out of it's confined habitat?? Who knows what provokes a wild animal. We don't know what's in it's head or how it's hearing is or how it's eyesight is or what it's interpreting by watching anything we're doing!! If not for that young man it could have been any visitor in that zoo because I'm sure that wasn't the first time it was taunted. If I were the parent of a child who was also attacked when the tiger jumped out of it's holding space I'd certainly go after that zoo big time because no matter how you slice it or dice it.......the responsibility falls back on the zoo for not maintaining a proper holding area for a dangerous animal.
I'm an extremely compassionate person but for a business to knowingly chose to not protect it's visitors to the point of someone getting killed is without a doubt something they should be held responsible for whether the animal was taunted or not. I'm also sure the young adults wish they hadn't done that and are totally remorseful, as is the zoo owner who realized too late that because of his lack of professionalism within his business he allowed both an animal and human to be killed! Now, he may say that he ordered the construction of that wall to be the correct height and put the blame on a contractor however I'm sure formal inspections have to be done to see if things are up to code. I'm wondering where that inspector is! Perhaps he'll share the guilt! No one wants to see that kind of tragedy or feel responsible for it.
Does anyone know how long the tiger had been housed there without incident? I believe that becomes irrelevant once the tiger decides to jump the wall and maul someone to death. Whether it was a day....or 10 years, the wall should have protected the visitors and protected the tiger. Let's not forget too that if the animal had been there a long time it may have been going through many internal changes just as we do when we age. At that point it may become even more agitated by various things including noises that we'd find quite natural or things that may have never bothered it before like the screaming of a baby. It was only a matter of time.
A lot of times people create their own circumstances and that is what the case is here. No matter how many times that animal was provoked the final circumstance would have been impossible to create had the zoo followed building code.
Tell me, where was the good decision making in drinking, smoking pot and then taunting a deadly animal? What would you say if instead of taunting a tiger, these three decided to play with a loaded gun, who would you blame then? How can you say that any rational human being cannot see the potential catastrophic outcome from combining these actions? I never said they acted responsible or made anything other than a stupid decision if they taunted that animal. Not to mention doing anything under the influence means their minds were clouded and the thought process was not what it should have been. That's not an excuse but merely a fact which I'm sure added to their belief that their lives were not in immediate danger. Hundreds of thousands of people do things under the influence all the time. Many of those people also make tremendous mistakes and when they do they pay the penalty.
The point here isn't whether or not they did something "stupid". The point is that everyone is guilty of doing ignorant things at one time or another and in this case what they did ... did NOT warrant a death that could have been provented had the zoo complied with code and protected their visitors. There were reports of various tauntings going on in the zoo. Allll those human beings were not acting rationally but if that's the case why weren't they doing something about this situation? Why weren't they fining or banning people who aggravated the animals? I'm sure they could have assigned workers to patrol the dangerous areas. The end result of this whole thing is that two lives were lost. The tiger who was only acting as himself...and the young adult who was acting irresponsible BUT still acting like many young adults and many people in general do. He made several bad decisions but did not deserve to be mauled to death by a tiger!! To think that penalty fits the crime is absurd to me.
Both of those lives were lost as a direct result of a zoo not properly confining an animal and protecting all visitors who paid to support their business. All the taunting in the world by every single person who viewed that tiger couldn't have caused that outcome had they been properly protected.
No, I do not think people are perfect, nor are the expected to be. What saddens me is the three young men, drank, smoked pot, drove and then taunted a deadly animal. Unfortunately we don't get to decide what level of stupidity people are allowed to display as they grow into mature adults or for that matter what level of punishment should satisfy each ignorant decision. In my opinion the loss of a human life..(and the tigers) was something that should have never occured and wayyyy too great a price to pay for someone experimenting with alcohol/drugs and taunting an animal. As I said...the tiger biting off his hand would have served a lesson well learned too..however, I'd go with more strict patrols of the dangerous animal areas to put an end to anyone acting in a non constructive manner AND a new inspection to insure that all the animals with unpredictable wild natures can never escape to harm the public again. That would be looking out for both the animals and those who desire to visit them.
This is the future of our country making these stupid, dangerous and deadly decisions. Where in their young lives did they learn decision making skills, or lack there of? I choose not to blame all irresponsible behavior done by young adults on their parents/caregivers but instead on many number of other factors. I'm willing to bet peer pressure fit into this situation perfectly. Many times it's not a learned behavior but a matter of fitting in or proving you're "all that" because they think they need to in order to gain friendships within their group. That would explain the alcohol/drug relation as well as the taunting. No matter what though, the intention was never to be eaten alive.
Further, it is now known that they also lied about how the events unfolded that day and admitted to their actions, which in some ways is positive, too bad their friend and the tiger had to die in order for them to admit their actions. I would guess they were extremely frightened, in shock perhaps because they never thought that would happen and they knew they shouldn't have taunted the animal. It's typical for someone to lie under those circumstances. Lying however didn't change the events that led up to what happened and I don't think the deaths caused them to admit the truth. I'm sure the guilt and the pressure did.
Lastly, in regard to the tiger, perhaps there shouldn't be zoos. Perhaps we should leave nature as it is and stop forcing our company on God's creatures, perhaps we should stop destoying their natural habitats so they are not forced to live in capitivity so the species does not become extinct because of human decision, stupid human decision. I'm sure there are many people who truly enjoy and benefit from viewing wild animals. I for one appreciate their beauty but wouldn't step foot in a zoo holding animals of that nature without believing they were properly confined.
Maybe, we should leave the tigers alone until we as humans can learn to respect and admire them without harming them. And maybe business owners that house dangerous animals should act responsibly when deciding to acquire various species to bring more money and visitors into their establishment. Perhaps if they had more respect for the animal and what it's capable of as well as for human life with it's many personalities and imperfect nature they'd be able to provide an environment for everyone to enjoy without putting anyone in danger.
"I'm sure most people are familiar with Siegfried & Roy, the two entertainers who worked on the Las Vegas Strip, United States. Their long running shows of illusion were famous for working with Big Cats, in particular white tigers but included white lions as well. Due to their dependence on white tigers for their act, the duo implemented their own breeding program.
Siegfried is a traditional magician (illusionist), whereas Roy grew up among exotic animals and is known for his rapport with them. On October 3, 2003, during a show at The Mirage, Roy Horn was bitten on the neck by a seven-year-old male white tiger named Montecore. Crew members separated Horn from the tiger and rushed him to the only Level I trauma center in Nevada, University Medical Center. Horn was critically injured and sustained severe blood loss.
Horn was listed in critical condition for several weeks thereafter, and was said to have suffered a stroke and partial paralysis.
It is disputed whether the tiger attacked Horn. Montecore had been trained by Horn since he was a cub; he had performed with the act for six years. Fischbacher, appearing on the Larry King interview program, said Horn fell during the act and Montecore was attempting to drag him to safety, as a mother tigress would pull one of her cubs by the neck. Fischbacher said Montecore had no way of knowing that Horn, unlike a tiger cub, did not have fur and thick skin covering his neck and that his neck was vulnerable to injury. Fischbacher said if Montecore had wanted to injure Horn, the tiger would have snapped his neck and shaken him back and forth.
Former Mirage owner Steve Wynn (who had hired the duo in 1990) told Las Vegas television station KLAS-TV the events were substantially as described by Fischbacher. According to Wynn, there was a woman with a "big hairdo" in the front row who, he says, "fascinated and distracted" Montecore. The woman reached out to attempt to pet the animal, and Roy jumped between the woman and the tiger."
This is where the unpredictable nature of the animal will never allow us to be sure exactly what prompts it to act as it does. This incident may augur the end of exotic animal shows in which there are no barriers between tigers and audience members. Some animal rights activists, many of whom oppose the use of wild animals in live entertainment, sought to use the incident as a springboard for publicity, though few have ever accused the Siegfried & Roy show of mistreating animals.
This was not the only incident of a dangerous animal acting out but one of the more famous examples to be learned from. We must protect human lives from ever coming to such a tragic end because we fail to act responsibly and protect them from any possible scenarios put before us when dealing with unpredictable dangerous species. No matter how well we think we know an animal we can't determine how it's mind is interpreting it's various surroundings at all times or what condition it's mind is in at all moments in time. 
Edit:
The tiger was born on in Denver on June 27, 2003. It was transfer to the San Fran Zoo on December 16, 2005. On December 22, 2006 during a public feeding, Tatiana clawed and bit zookeeper Lori Komejan's arm which was placed or pulled between the cage bars. Komejan's right arm was severely injured as a result.and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration later found the zoo at fault due to inadequate safety precautions and inadequate staff training, which the enclosure was closed for 10 months,with zero attempts made at upgrading the enclosure up to code. YIKES!!! To me that says it all!!!
NOTE: The piece on Siegfried and Roy was used to point out the unpredictable nature of a wild animal and the importance of providing proper protection to keep everyone safe. It was in no way intended to turn this thread away from the main topic of discussion which should continue about the tiger attack at the zoo and not the Siegfried and Roy incident. | |
|
mizbex
| Joined: 8/8/2007 Msg: 198 | |
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/7/2008 6:06:56 PM | I guess I wasn't clear the first two times I wrote this, so lets try again. This tragedy was human error and human error alone. Meaning the young men and the zoo. I am sorry I did not attack the zoo as vigorously as you would have liked, but you seemed to have laid just about all of the blame in their laps.
However, I am still curious why you are so adamant about trying to absolve these boys of guilt? Oh wait, here is why:
I choose not to blame all irresponsible behavior done by young adults on their parents/caregivers but instead on many number of other factors.
I read this statement and it told me everything I needed to know. If it is not the job of the parents and caregivers to raise their children to understand the difference between right and wrong, then whose job is it? The public at large? The Tiger? I can tell you, that tiger taught them a lesson alright.
I could debate this all night with you, but what you see as “dumb” mistake turned out to be a deadly mistake. Perhaps if people don’t want to suffer the consequences of the death penalty, they should not engage in behavior that might lead to the death penalty. The boys were also drinking and smoking pot, say the tiger incident didn’t happen and after the zoo they got into their BMW and drank some more vodka and killed someone? What would be your argument then, if they killed a human? Would your compassion still be with the boys? I think not.
Yes, I am taking a very hard line on these boys, probably more so than the zoo, however, there was no need for this to happen. They decided their own fate. The only victim here was the tiger. | |
|
| Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting Posted: 2/7/2008 9:03:22 PM | ^^^^
Well said, Mizbex.
***
Who would have been at fault if those same boys had jumped into the tiger's cage instead of the tiger getting out? Would the zoo have been blamed for the wall not being high enough to keep stupid people out then?
Somehow, I think the people who feel the zoo is at fault will continue to feel that way no matter what. I think it's clear that I feel personal responsibility and accountability are involved and those boys decided to play with fire and lost. The families don't deserve one screaming red cent from the zoo. However, the zoo should be fined for their failure to keep their property and their animals safe. | |
|
Mulva
| Joined: 12/28/2007 Msg: 200 | |
| |
|
| Page 8 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|