When Tiger(s) Attack

[mike311gd]

Imagine being one of the two who were injured but not killed? Now THAT's a helluva story to tell people. If you can't get laid after telling your story of survival after getting mauled by an 800-pound tiger, well, you've problems.

Mike311gd has no idea why he has a sudden urge to visit the zoo...

Don't you think for a forking second that didn't cross my mind when I read that post, my friend. Having a right arm is overrated, anyway.

But can you do the shocker with your left hand?

I'm left-handed, so, yes. I can do the shocker with my left hand. But I can't cut paper with my left hand. Imagine that.


Regardless of who's at fault, the zoo will be sued, and it'll probably, lose, too. People are forking dumb. If a person dangels his arm, leg or cork in a tiger's cage ... fork him. But it won't matter at all because someone's dead, and the zoo will probably settle to keep the publicity to a minimum. Idiots in this country benefit by a forked system, at times. And it blows.

 

[outofplace]

Imagine being one of the two who were injured but not killed? Now THAT's a helluva story to tell people. If you can't get laid after telling your story of survival after getting mauled by an 800-pound tiger, well, you've problems.

Mike311gd has no idea why he has a sudden urge to visit the zoo...

Don't you think for a forking second that didn't cross my mind when I read that post, my friend. Having a right arm is overrated, anyway.

But can you do the shocker with your left hand?

I'm left-handed, so, yes. I can do the shocker with my left hand. But I can't cut paper with my left hand. Imagine that.


Regardless of who's at fault, the zoo will be sued, and it'll probably, lose, too. People are forking dumb. If a person dangels his arm, leg or cork in a tiger's cage ... fork him. But it won't matter at all because someone's dead, and the zoo will probably settle to keep the publicity to a minimum. Idiots in this country benefit by a forked system, at times. And it blows.

I agree on most of that, but if the enclosure wall wasn't at the proper height, the zoo was negligent and deserves to get sued. What if it had been some little kid that just didn't know any better hanging a toy over the edge? Maybe it was just for a few seconds before mom or dad pulled them away, but it was enough to get the tiger's attention? Obviously that isn't what happened, but it could have. There should be no way for the animal to get out.

And any zoo that isn't prepared to protect stupid customers from themselves is being naive at best.

 

[Armchair_QB]

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

Because tigers in zoos don't generally hurdle 33-foot moats and 12-foot walls without provocation?

Because every animal expert I've read has said the leap was impossible (though, admittedly, they may not have known the exact height of the wall).

Because police are analyzing a footprint atop the wall.

Because the tiger *allegedly* never even went near the moat, being content to hang out at a different part of the exhibit.

Gee, why would anyone think the kid could possibly be at fault?

Did you even read the last article linked above? Even the zoo's director is saying that it is looking like the tiger did get out on its own. And the loudest "expert" was Hanna, and he is backtracking now. I also read one yesterday that the part about the investigators denying the report about the footprint.

Edit: mustard's posts make me wonder what the heck happened. But that is actual information, not the speculation that has been driving much of this discussion.

If the enclosure wasn't up to specs, the zoo is at least partially at fault. Period.

Which still doesn't answer the question as to why, on that particular day at that particular time, the tiger chose to escape.

I'm sure these two innocent misunderstood boys who are completely stonewalling the cops did absolutely nothing to provoke the tiger.

The zoo will get sued and will settle out of court but, until proven otherwise, I refuse to believe these two shirts weren't teasing the animal.

 

[outofplace]

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

Because tigers in zoos don't generally hurdle 33-foot moats and 12-foot walls without provocation?

Because every animal expert I've read has said the leap was impossible (though, admittedly, they may not have known the exact height of the wall).

Because police are analyzing a footprint atop the wall.

Because the tiger *allegedly* never even went near the moat, being content to hang out at a different part of the exhibit.

Gee, why would anyone think the kid could possibly be at fault?

Did you even read the last article linked above? Even the zoo's director is saying that it is looking like the tiger did get out on its own. And the loudest "expert" was Hanna, and he is backtracking now. I also read one yesterday that the part about the investigators denying the report about the footprint.

Edit: mustard's posts make me wonder what the heck happened. But that is actual information, not the speculation that has been driving much of this discussion.

If the enclosure wasn't up to specs, the zoo is at least partially at fault. Period.

Which still doesn't answer the question as to why, on that particular day at that particular time, the tiger chose to escape.

I'm sure these two innocent misunderstood boys who are completely stonewalling the cops did absolutely nothing to provoke the tiger.

The zoo will get sued and will settle out of court but, until proven otherwise, I refuse to believe these two shirts weren't teasing the animal.

Oh, I'm sure somebody teased the animal. But do you really think that is so rare? People are idiots at the zoo all the time. It's not right, but it is reality. And the zoo should be prepared for it and make sure they are at least living up to the accepted standards of protection for the customers.

 

[Armchair_QB]

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

Because tigers in zoos don't generally hurdle 33-foot moats and 12-foot walls without provocation?

Because every animal expert I've read has said the leap was impossible (though, admittedly, they may not have known the exact height of the wall).

Because police are analyzing a footprint atop the wall.

Because the tiger *allegedly* never even went near the moat, being content to hang out at a different part of the exhibit.

Gee, why would anyone think the kid could possibly be at fault?

Did you even read the last article linked above? Even the zoo's director is saying that it is looking like the tiger did get out on its own. And the loudest "expert" was Hanna, and he is backtracking now. I also read one yesterday that the part about the investigators denying the report about the footprint.

Edit: mustard's posts make me wonder what the heck happened. But that is actual information, not the speculation that has been driving much of this discussion.

If the enclosure wasn't up to specs, the zoo is at least partially at fault. Period.

Which still doesn't answer the question as to why, on that particular day at that particular time, the tiger chose to escape.

I'm sure these two innocent misunderstood boys who are completely stonewalling the cops did absolutely nothing to provoke the tiger.

The zoo will get sued and will settle out of court but, until proven otherwise, I refuse to believe these two shirts weren't teasing the animal.

Oh, I'm sure somebody teased the animal. But do you really think that is so rare? People are idiots at the zoo all the time. It's not right, but it is reality. And the zoo should be prepared for it and make sure they are at least living up to the accepted standards of protection for the customers.

I see no reason to protect customers dumb enough to provoke a wild animal to attack. If it is proved these three idiots provoked this attack zoos all over the world need to make examples of these assholes.

Don't want to get eaten? Don't fork with the animals.

 

[outofplace]

These things are regulated for a reason. This enclosure was apparently not up to specifications and somebody got killed at least in part because of that.

If the animal can get out, the zoo is at fault. Period.

 

[beefncheddar]

FWIW ... and as the graphic shows ... it's no so simple as hanging something over the edge. There's the five-foot grassy area, as well.

My based-on-no-facts whatsoever guess: That's where they were.

 

[Armchair_QB]

These things are regulated for a reason. This enclosure was apparently not up to specifications and somebody got killed at least in part because of that.

If the animal can get out, the zoo is at fault. Period.

So the idiots that provoked the animal bear no personal responsibility for their actions? fork that.

 

[SigR]

Negligence in this case probably isn't an issue. The zoo is going to be culpable under the theory of strict liability, which basically means that no matter who screwed up, the zoo is still liable because they are the ones who chose to take care of a dangerous creature. Strict liability often applies to businesses/entities who engage in activities that are inherently dangerous. Displaying a wild animal who has a predatory/vicious instinct certainly falls under this doctrine.

The other point to make is that it doesn't matter whether the tiger had ripped someone's arm to shreds before. That's what tigers do, trained or wild. The theory goes that every dog gets one bite, and after the first one, the owner is liable for the dog's bites (because as a reasonable person, we should know that the dog presents a danger to other once it has shown a willingness to bite, whereas enough of the species are tame that they are afforded that one chance). With a tiger, there is no such leniency. And part of that is simply that one bite from a tiger often means maiming or death.

 

[outofplace]

These things are regulated for a reason. This enclosure was apparently not up to specifications and somebody got killed at least in part because of that.

If the animal can get out, the zoo is at fault. Period.

So the idiots that provoked the animal bear no personal responsibility for their actions? fork that.

So, and I think this does apply, Steve Irwin deserved to die?

 

[Armchair_QB]

These things are regulated for a reason. This enclosure was apparently not up to specifications and somebody got killed at least in part because of that.

If the animal can get out, the zoo is at fault. Period.

So the idiots that provoked the animal bear no personal responsibility for their actions? fork that.

So, and I think this does apply, Steve Irwin deserved to die?

Uh, no. He didn't deserve to die. But he certainly put himself in a position to be killed.

Of course that situation has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

 

[mike311gd]

These things are regulated for a reason. This enclosure was apparently not up to specifications and somebody got killed at least in part because of that.

If the animal can get out, the zoo is at fault. Period.

So the idiots that provoked the animal bear no personal responsibility for their actions? fork that.

So, and I think this does apply, Steve Irwin deserved to die?

I don't think Irwin or anyone else who provokes an animal "deserves" to die, but it's certainly a risk that comes with those chosen actions, which makes them less of a victim -- and certainly garners less sympathy from me -- in my opinion.