Police: Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting

[slim 1,525]

True.

But why is it that public safety so often means taking away someone stupid's right to do stupid things to themselves?

I know it's because they can hurt/kill others in the commision of thier stupidity but there should be some kind of stupidity clause "he was stupid and something bad happened. Next."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

As a society, aren't we better off if we let the idiots die?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

That's not my point. You can't mandate for common sense with videos or signs - especially about something like that (that's how we have "contains nuts" labels on packets of peanuts). What you can do is ensure that the design of your zoo matches or exceeds the design standards for safety and doesn't pose a risk to the public. There are H&S consulting firms who audit companies on just this type of thing. My dad does it for a living.

[slim 1,525]

Humans are the only species on earth that will do it's best to help it's weakest links survive.

Animals are smart enough to let their "dummies" move on.

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

Humans are the only species on earth that will do it's best to help it's weakest links survive.

Animals are smart enough to let their "dummies" move on.

LOL

[NavarreMan 10]

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.

Apparently that would mean modifications to keep morons out! You cannot protect stupid people from themselves. Just look at the hot coffee case! If you are drunk and shoot yourself in the foot do you sue the gun manufacturer? Heck no! You just hope the whole world doesn't discover what kind of idiot you are. Just one man's opinion, nothing more.

[Jenn! 918]

It's the tiger's fault.

[Marilyn. 340]

can't it be both the zoo's fault and the teenager's fault??

[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.

Apparently that would mean modifications to keep morons out! You cannot protect stupid people from themselves. Just look at the hot coffee case! If you are drunk and shoot yourself in the foot do you sue the gun manufacturer? Heck no! You just hope the whole world doesn't discover what kind of idiot you are. Just one man's opinion, nothing more.

Those aren't the same. The point is - the Tiger could get over the wall. Regardless of any provocation - that should not have been possible. Isn't this you don't trees growing inside the enclosures that overhang the fences - because the animals can climb it and escape?

Its why you wall off these things with high walls that curve in on themselves, or which are above the height the animal is supposed to be able to jump. Otherwise I might well ask why we don't screen these animals behind 6 foot tall plastic picket fences.

[NavarreMan 10]

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?

That's not my point. You can't mandate for common sense with videos or signs - especially about something like that (that's how we have "contains nuts" labels on packets of peanuts). What you can do is ensure that the design of your zoo matches or exceeds the design standards for safety and doesn't pose a risk to the public. There are H&S consulting firms who audit companies on just this type of thing. My dad does it for a living.

That's BS. You have nut warnings on nut packages to prevent idiots who don't know any better from suing the nut companies.

Until this happened there was no problem with the safety of the enclosure. It took some drunk dumba$$ to exceed the safety threashold and pay for it with his life. A 747 isn't supposed to do loops so is Boeing to blame when the wings fall off when doing one? You mention common sense, use your head.

can't it be both the zoo's fault and the teenager's fault??

Absolutely!

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't see how Slim is right at all. The fact is, he made a judgement about wild animals capability of distinguishing between drunk/high humans and ones who are not. That's complete bullshite right there. We have no idea if they can/can't make that discernment, nor what they would 'think about it' should they be able to do so. Can they for instance tell the difference between someone who's had one drink and is slightly merry and several drinks and is maudlin?

However again, that's simply imaterial. The fact is, zoo's are aware of the fact the people do taunt the animals both knowingly and unknowingly. That is why zoos ensure that their exhibits cannot escape, that's why there are safety guidlines. The fact is that this zoo's safety measures were inadequate, not simpy in terms of the fact that the tiger escaped, but also in terms of their adherence to the current standards.

For the behaviour of the teenagers to be relevant to the escape of the tiger, they have to have materially affected the ability of the tiger to escape. That has not been proved, nor has anything else, beyond the initial suggestion that the tiger 'clawed its way up one of the boys' legs, which appears now to be groundless, been suggested that shows they had any hand in the tiger's escape from its enclosure.

So, the fact that they were drunk/high has absolutely no bearing on their being mauled/killed.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Marilyn. 340]

phew, I thought I had to pick a side

yeah, the teenager shouldn't have teased and taunted the tiger but the tiger shouldn't have been able to get out of his enclosure either...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

That's not my point. You can't mandate for common sense with videos or signs - especially about something like that (that's how we have "contains nuts" labels on packets of peanuts). What you can do is ensure that the design of your zoo matches or exceeds the design standards for safety and doesn't pose a risk to the public. There are H&S consulting firms who audit companies on just this type of thing. My dad does it for a living.

That's BS. You have nut warnings on nut packages to prevent idiots who don't know any better from suing the nut companies.

Until this happened there was no problem with the safety of the enclosure. It took some drunk dumba$$ to exceed the safety threashold and pay for it with his life. A 747 isn't supposed to do loops so is Boeing to blame when the wings fall off when doing one? You mention common sense, use your head.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The wall was, quite simply, not high enough to contain the animal it was supposed to contain. The zoo has even admitted this.

Earlier this week, zoo officials said the moat's wall was at least 20 feet tall. Today, they said it was little over 12 feet. Since the investigation began Tuesday, officials have given at least five different measurements for the enclosure, which is surrounded by a moat, two walls on either side of the moat, a small patch of grass and then another waist-high fence. Experts say that the depth of the moat and height of the walls could have a large impact on the animal's ability to escape the enclosure.

"Today we went out and measured the moat ourselves," said zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo. The tiger "had to have jumped (out but) how she jumped that high is beyond me."

In measuring the area, Mollinedo said, his staff found that contrary to information they had on file in their office, the moat wall was 12 1/2 feet high - about four feet lower than is recommended as a national standard by cat experts.

They also found that, contrary to numbers they had on file, the moat was 33 feet wide, which is sufficient to meet national standards.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the animal could therefore have escaped at any time.

[Peikko 1,575]

Humans are the only species on earth that will do it's best to help it's weakest links survive.

Animals are smart enough to let their "dummies" move on.

One lapse of judgement doesn't have any bearing on the 'intelligence' of the individual. If that were true, most people would die before they reach their 18th birthday. It is a neat soundbite, but pretty meaningless.

[Sister Fracas 5]

The fact is that these are wild animals and we can't know every possibility when a WILD animal is provoked. People do seem to forget that because the animals seem all fluffy and docile in their exhibit that their behavior is still unpredictable. What I know about zoo exhibit design after working at a zoo for 10 years is that when they design an exhibit for a lion or tiger, they take what knowledge is already out there about how far and how high a cat can jump and then they make those distances of the moats quite a bit wider and higher and if you look at a moat for a big cat you'll notice that the visitor side is not just straight across, but also usually higher than the cat side so that they would not only have to jump across but also jump higher. A tiger or lion is a heavy cat, not usually able to make a jump like that. You'll never see a leopard with amazing jumping ability, in the same kind of exhibit. You can say all you want about San Fran Zoo being negilgent, but there was a saying I remember quite well from my training at the zoo and that was that excitement, provocation AND fear break down barriers in the mind of a wild animal and they can do something they normally wouldn't be able to. Perhaps this was jsut a plain old fight-or-flight response. What I hope people get out of this incident is that these animals need to be respected for what they are. I saw many things that angered the living sh*t out of me when people would taunt the big cats (that was the house I worked in most often) and I tell you I wouldn't have minded taking some of those pople and just letting one of the big cats give them a feline slap on the wrist!!! The other thing that saddens me more than anything is that another endangered animal had to die because of the behavior of some punk idiots. There I said it....I'm more sorry for the life of the cat. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.