Police: Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting

[no name 1]

Hmmm IMO it doesn't matter what they did short of climbing into or opening the enclosure - the animal should not have been physically able to escape.

That it could have suggests to me that any and everyone who visited that zoo was being put at risk. That's a clear health and safety issue - and the zoo will surely have some case to answer for it.

Like it was said above, Darwinism at its best!

I'd like to know where the security guards were with all these taunting reports & climbing on the fence?

[Peikko 1,575]

The Zoo is culpable for allowing the tiger to escape. That's the bottom line. The fact that some people don't 'like' the teenagers that were mauled is 100% irrelevant.

I can repeat things too.

[no name 1]

The Zoo is culpable for allowing the tiger to escape. That's the bottom line. The fact that some people don't 'like' the teenagers that were mauled is 100% irrelevant.

I can repeat things too.

I wasn't aware your opinion was the end-all, be all? Nor did I reply to your post?

Bottom line - this is a discussion.

Edited January 18, 2008 by devilette

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm IMO it doesn't matter what they did short of climbing into or opening the enclosure - the animal should not have been physically able to escape.

That it could have suggests to me that any and everyone who visited that zoo was being put at risk. That's a clear health and safety issue - and the zoo will surely have some case to answer for it.

Like it was said above, Darwinism at its best!

I'd like to know where the security guards were with all these taunting reports & climbing on the fence?

That's a fair question. But the main issue, first and foremost, is that the enclosure was not sufficiently designed to contain the animal.

[Peikko 1,575]

That should read 'be all and end all'.

I think in this instance my opinion reflects reality pretty neatly.

[no name 1]

Hmmm IMO it doesn't matter what they did short of climbing into or opening the enclosure - the animal should not have been physically able to escape.

That it could have suggests to me that any and everyone who visited that zoo was being put at risk. That's a clear health and safety issue - and the zoo will surely have some case to answer for it.

Like it was said above, Darwinism at its best!

I'd like to know where the security guards were with all these taunting reports & climbing on the fence?

That's a fair question. But the main issue, first and foremost, is that the enclosure was not sufficiently designed to contain the animal.

I see your point. But when does personal responsibility come into it? They were smoking illegal drugs? And underage drinking.

Americans are so quick to blame anyone but themselves & it pi$$es me off.

[Peikko 1,575]

The underage drinking/smoking illegal drugs is a separate issue. The tiger could have escaped at any moment. The fact that it did at that specific time and mauled these specific people isn't really relevant unless it can be proved that the teenagers actually facilitated the tiger's escape.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here we go again blame the victim, You know for example: what where you doing or wearing to get raped? Or why were you in that part of the city at that hour to get robbed? Etc. now we want to blame a 19 year old who has had a little too much to drink for being eaten alive by a tiger in a zoo. So its another case of blaming the victim. Excuse me but people taunt animals all the time drunk or not in zoos. The problem is the animals should not be able to escape their enclosures. Beer and wine are sold inside the San Francisco Zoo, even my local zoo--Zoo Atlanta has bartenders setup through out the Zoo grounds serving beer, wine, and cocktails. So if drinking was the problem then why serve drinks in the first place--well that's just it its not the problem its the poor design of a tiger enclosure. Lets stop blaming the victim.

Assuming everything you have read in the media is true.......

I understand your point, but at the same time....people should be responsible for their own actions. There is surely some cupability by the zoo as there should be no way that this animal could get out......period. Secondly, if the zoo served ANY of the alcohol to the 19 year old, then they have another reason for blame.

At the same time, to say that the drunk 19 year old that was taunting a WILD animal has no responsibility for his own actions is simply not a responsible statement. The 19 YEAR OLD should have been responsible enough not to drink in the first place as he is not of legal drinking age. To excuse him simply because of his age and the "boys will be boys" attitude is an incorrect response as well. This is no doubt a very tragic event, but blame falls on both sides of the fence here.

The difference in your scenarios above is that a tiger is a wild animal with animalistic instincts and prey drives. It is not the human rapist or robber that has a criminal intent, so you can't compare apples to oranges.

Just my opinion of course......

Scott

Excellent post. Well said, Scott.

[N400-2011 24]

Regardless of whether or not the tiger was taunted, the fact of the matter is that the tiger should not have been able to escape. Doesn't matter if they were drinking, high on drugs, whatever... The cat should not have been able to escape!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm IMO it doesn't matter what they did short of climbing into or opening the enclosure - the animal should not have been physically able to escape.

That it could have suggests to me that any and everyone who visited that zoo was being put at risk. That's a clear health and safety issue - and the zoo will surely have some case to answer for it.

Like it was said above, Darwinism at its best!

I'd like to know where the security guards were with all these taunting reports & climbing on the fence?

That's a fair question. But the main issue, first and foremost, is that the enclosure was not sufficiently designed to contain the animal.

I see your point. But when does personal responsibility come into it? They were smoking illegal drugs? And underage drinking.

Americans are so quick to blame anyone but themselves & it pi$$es me off.

It don't think it does IMO - The only thing that should have resulted from their drinking and smoking should have been them being kicked out of the park, or arrested. All they did was bring to light an appalling lapse in public safety.

[no name 1]

Hmmm IMO it doesn't matter what they did short of climbing into or opening the enclosure - the animal should not have been physically able to escape.

That it could have suggests to me that any and everyone who visited that zoo was being put at risk. That's a clear health and safety issue - and the zoo will surely have some case to answer for it.

Like it was said above, Darwinism at its best!

I'd like to know where the security guards were with all these taunting reports & climbing on the fence?

That's a fair question. But the main issue, first and foremost, is that the enclosure was not sufficiently designed to contain the animal.

I see your point. But when does personal responsibility come into it? They were smoking illegal drugs? And underage drinking.

Americans are so quick to blame anyone but themselves & it pi$$es me off.

It don't think it does IMO - The only thing that should have resulted from their drinking and smoking should have been them being kicked out of the park, or arrested. All they did was bring to light an appalling lapse in public safety.

So American already!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Putting public opinion aside, I'll bet there will be an out of court settlement between the zoo and the kid's family, as neither side can claim total innocence, but the ultimate culpability falls on the zoo.

[slim 1,525]

The underage drinking/smoking illegal drugs is a separate issue. The tiger could have escaped at any moment. The fact that it did at that specific time and mauled these specific people isn't really relevant unless it can be proved that the teenagers actually facilitated the tiger's escape.

Why is it a separate issue? When you drink or do drugs, you make stupid choices. When you make stupid choices, you might die. Did they facilitate the tiger's escape? Like what, they gave the tiger a boost up over the wall? No. But did they do stupid things in front of a dangerous wild animal? Yes. What happens when you do stupid things in front of stupid wild animals? YOU MIGHT DIE!!!

Sober people know that. Intoxicated people do not.

And to think a zoo should "guarantee" that the animals can't escape simply so kids can get drunk and do stupid things in front of them is simply contributing to their delinquency. Keep that element of "fear" in them, and maybe they won't do it again!

You said before that the tiger could've attacked a 5-year-old. Sure, it could've. But it didn't. Why? Because 5-year-olds don't smoke weed! Remember before when the little kid fell into the Gorilla pit and they actually "helped" the kid because he was injured? He was sober too. Coincidence? I think not!

It don't think it does IMO - The only thing that should have resulted from their drinking and smoking should have been them being kicked out of the park, or arrested. All they did was bring to light an appalling lapse in public safety.

So if we made a "public safety video" about what could and did happen after some kids got high/drunk and provoked a tiger, would that help to fill the gap in public safety out there?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

slim is right.

[NavarreMan 10]

Darwinism at it's best.

Reminding us we're not always at the top of the food chain, at it's worst.

They both paid with their lives. Problem is that there are a whole lot more stupid young men out there than there are tigers. And yes, the zoo is partly to blame, but if you drown in the pool at Sea World because you're drunk and stupid don't blame the park.

Flip side to that coin is watching "Airline" and the way they deal with drunk passengers at the airport. You serve it before the flight and you serve it on the flight... guess what is going to happen? But that is another thread...