Author Topic: Tiger Attack In S.F.! (Read 3135 times)

SaburoS · « **Reply #90 on:** January 19, 2008, 12:31:16 PM »

I agree with Lazs on this one.

Although the idiots are the ones that provoked the tiger, it is the group responsible for the zoo to ensure that a dangerous animal not be able to escape on its own under any circumstances.
Prediction: It will be proven that the idiots instigated the attack, but the zoo will be held liable for not having an enclosure up to standards. The supposed fact that the height of the wall has been misrepresented by zoo officials in the past will haunt them legally in this case. The zoo is legally liable for its animals. People being plain stupid is nothing new. We've always had idiots and always will.

Bodhi, Pick the one person you love the most. Now imagine the tiger killing that person because of some idiot's actions in provoking the tiger. You wouldn't be taking legal action against the zoo for negligence?

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #91 on:** January 19, 2008, 01:22:30 PM »

I would be going after the ones that provoked the tiger if they were still alive.

john9001 · « **Reply #92 on:** January 19, 2008, 01:30:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
if my grand daughter is at the zoo and

when you start to think with your emotions and not your brain you will not always arrive at the best solution.

MORAY37 · « **Reply #93 on:** January 19, 2008, 02:23:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
when you start to think with your emotions and not your brain you will not always arrive at the best solution.

The single smartest thing john has ever posted.

eagl · « **Reply #94 on:** January 19, 2008, 03:12:02 PM »

Lazs is right... No matter how badly the tiger was provoked, it should still not have been able to get out.

The fact that the dead and injured guys were taunting the animal is relevant only in that it makes many (most? all?) of us not feel very sorry for them, while opening up the potential for the retards to be held partially liable which could reduce how much the zoo will have to pay out when the lawsuit is settled. In some states, liability judgements are awarded based in part on percentage of liability. So if the "victims" are found to be 20% liable (for example), then the lawsuit payout would be modified downward to account for the shared liability.

None of that changes the fact that the tiger should not have been able to get out however. It just opens up the retards to countersuits from the zoo for circumventing safety measures by climbing over barriers surrounding the tiger pen. And of course the retards *should* IMHO be found guilty and liable of circumventing those safety measures if they are proven to have gone over the fence for any reason.

For that matter, even if the tiger hadn't gotten out, the zoo should have been able to go after the retards for going over the fence. A lifetime ban from the zoo would have been the very least I'd expect to see happen.

lazs2 · « **Reply #95 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:11:21 AM »

john.. my grand daughter was not at the zoo.. I think with my brain and my brain tells me that somebody can't even use theirs to outsmart a frigging stupid tiger and keep him in the cage.

We have a reasonable right to expect that the cages are capable of keeping in the tiger..

Now.. where the "emotion" thing comes in is if my grand daughter actually was killed...

Then I will only use my brain so far as it takes to get my hands on the guy running the zoo. This may or may not "solve" anything but one thing for sure...

the moron will never again be in charge of a zoo that can't keep dangerous animals out of the visitors area.

do you get it now?

lazs

Trell · « **Reply #96 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:19:35 AM »

Cant believe that i actually agree with lazz.

The specs of the cage was under specs. We cant trust an animal to know that it is not suppose to get out. If that was the case we might as well just remove the cage entirely, and keep the animals well fed in hopes that they don't get hungry and eat someone.

lazs2 · « **Reply #97 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:25:08 AM »

ahhh.. but tigers are noble and brilliant beasts.. they are nature... we are the problem.. it is mans fault.

In this case I agree.. it is mans fault for being to stupid and lazy and dishonest and by not building a cage that worked. it would be simple to do.. they didn't do it cause they didn't give a damn.

now people are dead..

lazs

eskimo2 · « **Reply #98 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:37:33 AM »

This topic is done. What we should be discussing is: Would the zoos be safer if they gave the monkeys assault rifles or lever action rifles?

Shuffler · « **Reply #99 on:** January 20, 2008, 11:48:00 AM »

Too many folks thrive on weakening this country by spending our money and resources protecting the stupid. Let nature take its course.

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #100 on:** January 20, 2008, 12:52:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
john.. my grand daughter was not at the zoo.. I think with my brain and my brain tells me that somebody can't even use theirs to outsmart a frigging stupid tiger and keep him in the cage.

We have a reasonable right to expect that the cages are capable of keeping in the tiger..

Now.. where the "emotion" thing comes in is if my grand daughter actually was killed...

Then I will only use my brain so far as it takes to get my hands on the guy running the zoo. This may or may not "solve" anything but one thing for sure...

the moron will never again be in charge of a zoo that can't keep dangerous animals out of the visitors area.

do you get it now?

lazs

You serious? Why would you go after the guy running the zoo? Why not go after the kids that helped the tiger escape? Or the parents that raised these kids. Or God. Or yourself for not being there with a gun? Lots of things in life could have prevented this.

SIG220 · « **Reply #101 on:** January 21, 2008, 05:00:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
If my grand daughter had been killed because of it then the next person to die would be the one running the zoo.

lazs

But then you would live in prison for the rest of your life. Far better to just sue the zoo, and live out the rest of your life in luxury.

Vigilante justice went out of style by the end of the 19th century. Even my great grandfather did not kill the doctor who murdered his daughter ( my grandaunt ) in 1892 at age 5.

He simply gave the doctor 24 hours to leave town, and sure enough, he was gone by the next day, never to be seen again. One could never get away with threatening someone like that today. But it was a small California farming town of less than 3,000 people back then.

Instead, if that had happened now, the doctor would most likely have faced criminal prosecution, besides being liable for malpractice. There were so many witnesses that saw him drinking at the bar all night just hours before the operation the next morning, that it would have been an open and shut case. My great grandfather was reported to be absolutely furious when he learned of this. Bleeding to death from a botched tonsillectomy was a rather tragic way for my grandaunt to die. It left my grandfather being an only child.

I sure hope that the doctor operating on me next week is not alcoholic.

That would really, really suck, if he is.

SIG 220

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #102 on:** January 21, 2008, 05:13:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SIG220
Vigilante justice went out of style by the end of the 19th century. Even my great grandfather did not kill the doctor who murdered his daughter ( my grandaunt ) in 1892 at age 5.

He simply gave the doctor 24 hours to leave town, and sure enough, he was gone by the next day, never to be seen again. One could never get away with threatening someone like that today. But it was a small California farming town of less than 3,000 people back then.

And that young doctor, who would have died at the hands of an angry man in California, fled for his life back to the midwest, where along with his father and brother practiced medicine in Rochester Minnesota, later expanding the practice and saving countless lives, founding the Mayo Clinic.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Shuckins · « **Reply #103 on:** January 21, 2008, 06:01:40 AM »

From what I've read of the actual events, the young men were drunk and doped up. They climbed to the top of the metal fence, which had sufficed to keep the tiger safely confined in the past, and straddled it...all the while taunting 500 pounds of the deadliest feline predator and pelting it with refuse.

The tiger leaped up, grabbed a set of dangling legs, and pulled its way up and over the enclosure.

And the slaughter began.

We can argue about the need to build a better, higher fence until the cows come home, but the truth remains that no zoo enclosure can be made idiot proof.

Perhaps it would help to electrify the fence...that would keep the predators AND the apes off of it.

I don't like zoos anyway. The animals in them always seem to be lethargic and miserable.

SIG220 · « **Reply #104 on:** January 21, 2008, 06:25:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
And that young doctor, who would have died at the hands of an angry man in California, fled for his life back to the midwest, where along with his father and brother practiced medicine in Rochester Minnesota, later expanding the practice and saving countless lives, founding the Mayo Clinic.

And now you know the rest of the story.

According to our family history, the town was happy to see him go. But then my family's account may be biased.

Doctors are just as human as everyone else, and some of them are scumbags. Did you see the news report that ABC's 20/20 investigative show did Friday night on medical malpractice taking place on Cruise ships?

Tell me, would you like to fly on an airliner that had a drunk pilot at the controls??

SIG 220