When Tiger(s) Attack

[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?

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.

How does it not apply? We're talking about people who got killed messing with animals. Irwin just got away with doing similar things for a very long time.

If these kids did provoke the attack, it certainly lessens my level of sympathy as well. But the zoo still has a responsibility to make sure the animal cannot get out.

Animals are unpredictable. What if the thing just decides one day that it wants out? Maybe it gets sick and the zookeepers don't realize something is wrong. Animals can become more aggressive without good reason, or because of some issue that wasn't addressed soon enough.

Maybe instead of some punk kids you don't have much sympathy for, the tiger looks up and it is some some little 5-year-old walking by with mommy or daddy that looks like a tasty snack. It could have just as easily been that kind of scenario. You know why? Because the wall isn't at the recommended height and the tiger was able to get out.

The argument about the tiger attacking a handler, but they don't put it down because that is what tigers do? That's just proof that the animal is potentially dangerous and the zoo better make damn sure it is physically impossible for it to get out without help. The zoo didn't do that. I don't care if some assholes were throwing rocks at the tiger. There should be no way for it to get out and kill people.

 

[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.

How does it not apply? We're talking about people who got killed messing with animals. Irwin just got away with doing similar things for a very long time.

If these kids did provoke the attack, it certainly lessens my level of sympathy as well. But the zoo still has a responsibility to make sure the animal cannot get out.

Animals are unpredictable. What if the thing just decides one day that it wants out? Maybe it gets sick and the zookeepers don't realize something is wrong. Animals can become more aggressive without good reason, or because of some issue that wasn't addressed soon enough.

Maybe instead of some punk kids you don't have much sympathy for, the tiger looks up and it is some some little 5-year-old walking by with mommy or daddy that looks like a tasty snack. It could have just as easily been that kind of scenario. You know why? Because the wall isn't at the recommended height and the tiger was able to get out.

The argument about the tiger attacking a handler, but they don't put it down because that is what tigers do? That's just proof that the animal is potentially dangerous and the zoo better make damn sure it is physically impossible for it to get out without help. The zoo didn't do that. I don't care if some assholes were throwing rocks at the tiger. There should be no way for it to get out and kill people.

Well, for one, Irwin wasn't killed at a zoo.

These clowns may very well have set out to intentionally provoke this animal by climbing the fence and forking around despite posted warnings to to enter the area they were in. They were apparently too stupid to understand the difference between right and wrong.

Irwin was a trained professional filming a television show. He did not intentionally provoke the attack but he did put himself at risk by doing what he did.

And spare me the 'what about the children' bullshirt.

I would guess 1,000s of families with children have walked by that pen without the tiger attacking them despite the fact the wall may not have been high enough.

Why didn't the tiger attack?

Because it wasn't provoked into attacking.

Hundreds of millions of people have visited zoos in the US in the last few years. When was the last time you read about somebody being killed by an animal that jumped out of its enclosure?

And I'm not talking about a keeper leaving a gate unlocked, as was the case when an ape got loose at the Dallas zoo a couple years ago. I'm talking about an animal doing what this tiger did.

And I think its safe to assume that the SF zoo isn't the only one in the US with enclosure walls that could be deemed to be too short.

 

[Frylock]

Also, I've read Siberian tigers are capable of incredible physical feats when taunted/abused.
Obviously, these guys were doing something far beyond anything done by other people who might have "teased" the tiger.

 

[outofplace]

AQB, it is pure luck that it wasn't a child killed. If all three victims did tease the tiger, it is pure luck that nobody else got hurt. The zoo is supposed to keep the animal in the enclosure. It failed to do that.

What if the two survivors were the ones taunting the tiger? Is the guy who got killed a real victim then? Or does he still not qualify. And yes, that is all conjecture. So is everything you are posting on this thread.

 

[bigpern23]

Saw on the news where zoos attract more visitors per year than MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL and NASCAR events COMBINED.

And there have been more fatalities at those events than there have been at zoos. I thought that was an interesting statistic.

Anyway, I don't think anyone's saying these kids deserved to die or get mauled, but, to paraphrase Principal Richard Vernon, You fork with the tiger, you get the claws.

The zoo is responsible for not meeting accepted safety standards. It will be successfully -- and rightfully -- sued. Doesn't change the fact that the kids are morons and should accept some of the responsibility themselves.

 

[outofplace]

Saw on the news where zoos attract more visitors per year than MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL and NASCAR events COMBINED.

And there have been more fatalities at those events than there have been at zoos. I thought that was an interesting statistic.

Anyway, I don't think anyone's saying these kids deserved to die or get mauled, but, to paraphrase Principal Richard Vernon, You fork with the tiger, you get the claws.

The zoo is responsible for not meeting accepted safety standards. It will be successfully -- and rightfully -- sued. Doesn't change the fact that the kids are morons and should accept some of the responsibility themselves.

If the kids are morons and did what people suspect, they are morons...or were in the dead one's case. But I am still more concerned by the zoo's failure to properly contain the tiger.

 

[SigR]

I can't think of a way that the zoo won't be legally culpable in this incident. Even if the three guys dropped a staircase into the enclosure, the zoo is going to have liability on grounds that the exhibit wasn't properly supervised, or any other myriad precautions a reasonable institution would take when it displays a vicious, deadly creature. In a way it is like storing a nuclear bomb. If it goes off, it doesn't matter if a meteor smashed into your silo, you are responsible for it. It happens to be a good deterrant against entities possessing dangerous things. It's also a good incentive to take the extraordinary caution with it if they choose to possess it.

That said, it's possible that if evidence turns up that the individual who was killed didn't help the tiger escape, and the two brothers did, the zoo could end up suing the brothers. They could be charged with murder as well. Lot of things to sort through before we really know who is responsible where. Sounds like a good case for law school debate.

 

[qtlaw]

Under California law, the keepers of dangerous animals are strictly liable for all injuries, at least that's what I read from one of my colleagues.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

San Francisco Zoo's mission statement, as printed on the zoo's homepage:

At the San Francisco Zoo, it's our mission to connect people with wildlife, inspire caring for nature and advance conservation action.

 

[markvid]

 

[imjustagirl2]

I love zoos. I LOVE zoos. Those and aquariums are my favorite places. But I don't throw shirt at animals, I don't dangle arms in cages, and I don't even really look crossly at animals.

A wall that doesn't meet specification? Fault: Zoo.
Being in an area you're not allowed in? Fault: human.


There are no winners here. Only losers.

 

[FightScribe]

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/mauling-victim-taunted-tiger-police-say/20080118071709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

According to this story, one of the teens admits to taunting and baiting the tiger by standing on the railing. Yes, I'm sorry one of the kids was killed, but at least this sort of paints a clearer picture as to what happened and that the tiger didn't just randomly attack.