Free Dating Site    

We live in a soceity where people take less and less accountability for their actions and frankly it makes me sick

However, I am still curious why you are so adamant about trying to absolve these boys of guilt? Oh wait, here is why:

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 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.

Who would have been at fault if those same boys had jumped into the tiger's cage instead of the tiger getting out?

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.

aside from the fact that you demonstrate that you have no knowledge of law whatsoever, you also show that you have no grasp of reality

thirty years ago in college debate, i said that i would shoot a six year old running down the street with my tv, and nothing has changed since. you do NOT have a right to be stupid, and anything that you suffer as a result of being stupid is strictly on you.

The tiger was a victim of circumstance

[T]he fact the cage was improper is all that mattered, in the eyes of the law. Poeople may have different opinions, but not one shared by any legal framework in any country.

And I can't believe you wrote that. You must be a Liberal.

originally posted by UnzippedPassion


The tiger was a victim of circumstance

originally posted by mixbex

And I can't believe you wrote that. You must be a Liberal.

What really gets me is anyone who thinks that someone who provokes an animal deserves to be killed. If that's the case then why shouldn't anyone provoking another human be killed?????

Can you support this assertion with some legal authority in California, or the United States?

Because we as human beings are supposed to have a sense of what is right and wrong,

have a modicum of higher (and I stress higher) intelligence than an animal that lives and dies by instinct alone. Humans have the capacity to differentiate between what could be done and what should be done. Humans have the capacity for reason and deduction whereas most animals do not.

If you are stupid enough to put your hand in a fire; is it God's fault because he made the tree flammable or is it your fault for being a moron?

I have zero sympathy for the kids in this situation. What they did was wrong and they should be held accountable for their actions.

On the New Year’s Day incidence, a polar bear and leopard almost escaped from their enclosures. The zookeepers are on record stating that they are fearful for their safety and in fact, whether the visitors are safe as well.

In the eyes of the law, keeping a caged tiger is like hauling dynamite or storing uranium - an activity so dangerous that even the most careful proprietor is responsible for any injuries to bystanders.

the zoo charges $11 for adult tickets. "Once you start charging admission, your responsibility to the patrons increases,"

San Francisco's management contract with the Zoological Society protects the city from responsibility for damages at the zoo unless a city employee was at fault. But legal analysts contacted by The Chronicle generally agreed that it shouldn't be hard for a plaintiff suing over the tiger attack to prove that both the city, which designed the zoo and owns the land and animals, and the Zoological Society, which is responsible for day-to-day operations, were negligent.

"Based on the facts that have come out, this is a clear-cut case of negligence," said John Diamond, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
He cited the zoo director's admission that the moat wall around the tiger grotto was only 12 1/2 feet high - 4 feet below national safety standards, and 7 1/2 feet shorter than zoo officials had said it was. "There's no excuse for having an enclosure that does not conform to industry standards and allows a wild animal to escape," Diamond said.
If the case goes to trial, said David Levine, another Hastings professor, the plaintiffs will present experts who will testify that "any idiot would know a dry moat with a 12-foot wall" isn't enough protection from a tiger.

He said the fact that the same tiger attacked a trainer a year earlier, ripping much of the skin from her arm, would show that zoo officials had been aware of a dangerous situation. A state investigation concluded that the zoo was at fault for the attack because of the way the tigers' cages were configured.
Other legal experts cited reports that zoo supervisors had ignored employees' warnings of safety problems.

"In a place that invites people in, you have a heightened duty to make it safe," said Kenneth Bamberger, a UC Berkeley law professor.

Another issue likely to come up in any lawsuit trial is whether the victims themselves were negligent, by taunting or other conduct that may have spurred the tiger to escape or put them in harm's way.
In typical injury cases, the jury decides whether the victim's actions contributed to the harm and reduces the damages proportionately - for example, if the victim was 20 percent at fault, the damage award is lowered by 20 percent. But that may not be much of a factor in this case, Levine said.
"It depends on what they'd done, but it's pretty unlikely that merely taunting the animals would lead to (a finding of) substantial fault," Levine said. "You shouldn't do it, but it happens all the time. ... It's not like coming in and unlocking the cage."
Diamond went further, saying that no actions by the victims, short of helping the tiger break out or jumping into its enclosure, should be grounds for reducing the damages. Zoos are supposed to anticipate a wide range of behavior from visitors when designing their structures, he said, and a visitor wouldn't reasonably expect that taunting a dangerous animal would enable it to escape.

It is even possible that a jury would award punitive damages, in addition to compensation for the plaintiffs' injuries. Evidence that zoo managers had been on notice that the enclosure was inadequate and the tiger was particularly aggressive might lead jurors to conclude that the zoo exhibited a "reckless disregard toward the safety of the public," Diamond said.

In California the state law is clear; the owner of a wild cat is liable for any personal injury to another person. Of course all of the facts are not known at this time; whether the cat jumped out of its enclosure or whether human error left doors opened, the San Francisco Zoo and other facilities must start thinking public safety first if these types of facilities are to remain viable forms of family entertainment.

[T]he fact the cage was improper is all that mattered. in the eyes of the law. Poeople may have different opinions, but not one shared by any legal framework in any country.

Can you support this assertion with some legal authority in California, or the United States?

You don't need a cite. The kids haven't been charged as I already mentioned. If they had done something illegal they would have been.

What really gets me is anyone who thinks that someone who provokes an animal deserves to be killed.

Can you explain further on how you came up with this guess, mizbex?

And I can't believe you wrote that. You must be a Liberal.

Are you capable of debating a subject w/o attempting personal attacks?

Originally posted by cocytus:


Are you capable of debating a subject w/o attempting personal attacks?

Originally posted by mizbeth:


P.S. Tony wants his shirt back.

Tell that to the tiger.

So to place the same responsibility of judgement on a deadly animal is ridiculous.

(Edit) Human beings have judgement making skills (not suppose to have, they do have them) if they choose not to use those skills, that is their own fault.

Whatever consequences they suffer for failure to judge a situation accurately fails squarly on the shoulders of those who exercised poor judgement.

There are varing levels of mistakes that we as humans make. From time to time we forget to use our turn signal, pay a bill, forget an appointment...but to be so dense as to drink, smoke pot, drive and taunt a deadly animal, come on, that speaks volumes about someone.

Yesterday I went back and re-read this entire thread. Early on, a poster suggested that the three remaining boys might faces charges for contributing to thier friends death. I doubt that will happen, but if it did I don't think it would be unfair. The boys are just as culpable as the zoo. Do I think the family should receive any sort of compensation from the zoo, only on the condition that they are made to pay for the replacement of the tiger.

Can you explain further on how you came up with this guess, mizbex?

Most liberals do not believe in personal accountability.

Anything else I can answer for you?