So, I’ve been following the story about Tatiana on CNN.com. The news has been reporting that the investigators are trying to get evidence that the tiger was taunted. As far as I can tell, they haven’t found any yet, but they’ve been going back and forth for a few weeks now. The latest and greatest prompted me to go into a tirade.
“Personal property seized from the victims of a tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo may contain evidence that they taunted the animal, provoking it to escape its pen, the city attorney’s office argued in court documents.
The documents do not elaborate on the alleged evidence of drug use or what items in the car may be linked to objects found in the tiger’s pen.”
The fact remains, the enclosure was 4 feet too low. The zoo had problems with that same tiger in the past when it chewed the zoo employee’s arm. They knew it was an especially vicious tiger. Even if the kids did taunt the tiger, the zoo should have had a safer enclosure. This is just like the time Clint yelled at the bear at the zoo – minus bear escape & maul. So, in Clint’s case, if the enclosure was 4 feet too low, and suddenly the bear escaped and was mauling him, it’s Clint’s fault? No, the bear would have been vicious, and the zoo should have made sure to have proper enclosures. If someone’s dog was vicious and their fence wasn’t properly installed, and some poor kid walking by happened to tease the barking dog, and the dog escapes and mauls the kid, the owners would be liable. Dogs have been threatened and actually put to sleep for that kind of behavior. So, the zoo needs to own up to its mistake (I do think it is taking new measures to ensure safety — after the fact. They should have considered it in 2006 when she mauled the zookeeper.)
All this taunting b.s. is just so that the zoo can cover it’s ass if the families decide to sue. It’s really ridiculous. The families have a right to sue, but it’d be too bad if they did because zoos usually are awesome and don’t have much money to go on.
I guess it boils down to the zoo should have a disclaimer: WARNING: WILD ANIMALS MAY BE VICIOUS. ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK. Oh wait, they do, don’t they?
Another interesting link details all the other wild animal attacks there’ve been in recent years:
La de da 
January 12, 2008 at 11:05 am
You’re right that the taunting defense is horrible. If you had gone up to one of the zookeepers an hour before this happened and asked, “Why can’t we taunt the animals? Is it because it could cause them to escape?” you would have gotten a reply along these lines:
“No, the animals are contained so that they cannot escape, for your safety and theirs. We ask that you not taunt them because it is stressful for the animals and we want them to live long and carefree lives here in their habitats.”
THAT is why the taunting rules are there. If not, I’d like to see zoo guidelines in print that say, “Non-taunted tigers need a 16 foot fence. However, if you anticipate taunting, you must upgrade to a 20 foot fence, as taunting produces a 25% increase in leaping ability.” 😉
January 12, 2008 at 11:58 am
I agree with everything here, except the “too bad if they sue”. If an organization causes someone to die, they should pay. Even if it’s “really cool”. But anyway, I couldn’t agree more with the rest of this. It’s ridiculous CYA ((cover your ass)), as if the tiger being mad somehow makes the zoo less responsible for a mauling!
January 12, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I’d guess that what they’re hoping to get from the cell phones is perhaps pictures of them taunting the tigers. People acting like idiots always have a tendency to want to record themselves doing so. 🙂
I agree with everything you say here, there’s no way that the actions of those injured makes the zoo any less liable for a poorly designed facility. That’s the zoo’s fuckup, and they’re quite likely (and rightly) going to have to pay dearly for it.
That said, from a less legal, more karmic perspective, I have little sympathy for people who act like assholes around animals and then provoke the animals to do what the animals instinctually do. That goes for a 5 year old pulling a cat’s tail (let that nasty scratch serve as a reminder not to do it again), to kids throwing rocks at dogs behind a fence, to taunting wild animals at the zoo. A little respect for creatures stronger than we are is a healthy thing, even when those creatures are behind bars.
January 12, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I do agree with what you say about not having sympathy for people who act like assholes towards animals, especially physically (pulling the tail, throwing rocks). Physical teasing would affect any animal no matter what, and it’s terrible what people do to animals (and kids apparently too, but that’s another story).
That said, non-physical teasing doesn’t usually affect a friendly non-vicious animal. A friendly animal would most likely just glare, and walk away. However, non-physical teasing *does* provoke vicious animals.
My grandma would get really annoyed at Clint because of her poor vicious beagle, Thomas. All Clint had to do was look at Thomas, and Thomas would get all bent out of shape. I was terrified of Thomas, myself. You never knew what would set him off. He had to be put on a leash to go outside, but if you got anywhere near his head, he’d be afraid you were going to touch his very sensitive ears, so he’d growl and bite you. So, Thomas was a vicious dog, and everyone had to be warned not to touch the dog or he’d bite.
But, that said, if Thomas bit someone, even if they were teasing him and getting him upset (which could have been as simple as just looking at him the wrong way), my Grandma would have been responsible for not properly keeping Thomas contained.
January 12, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Thomas let me pet him. I think it pissed TGAW off that Thomas let me pet him but would bite at her.
January 12, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I agree that the zoo is just trying to cover it ass.
On the flip side, I would hope it was a vicious tiger. Unless they’re drugged, or hand raised by humans, tigers are by definition vicious. It’s what makes a tiger a tiger, and not some overgrown housecat. And as any cat owner knows, even they can be vicious.
However, if there was taunting involved, I don’t exactly feel sorry for the victims. It’s called natural seletion. Don’t taunt things that see you as food, and can kill you.
I do belive there may have been taunting, because unless the zoo was really empty, and there was nobody else around, it an awful concidence that the three people attacked knew each other. And two of them were 300 yards from the tiger enclosure. This tiger seems like he knew what he was doing, and wasn’t just randomly going after the nearest available human.
The real tragedy here is that the tiger was basically shot for, well, being a tiger.
January 12, 2008 at 2:12 pm
However, taunting or not, the zoo is still resposnible.
January 12, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Yea, housecats would kill us all if they COULD. 🙂
I don’t think them taunting should reduce anyone’s sorrow for them. They’re in a cage. Part of going to a zoo is that you can interact with animals without fear of death — supposedly. And perhaps we need to define “taunting” too…
As for Thomas, what a miserable creature. When he was at the bottom of the steps, it was way to scary to walk over him — he might bite. And you couldn’t nudge him with your foot, or he would DEFINITELY bite.
The only way I could ever get him to move would be to spit on him over and over until the indignant unpleasantness of being spit on caused him to move on his own accord.
This was the only safe way.
January 12, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I think Thomas was just angry at his deity of choice for sticking him with a club foot.
January 12, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Yeah, club foot and sensitive ears.
Thomas was way grumpy.
January 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Carolyn, that’s a good point; I’ve never really heard of non-physical taunting leading an animal (even a wild animal) to killing someone. The only instance I can think of where that might happen is if someone was yelling at an aggressive breed of dog that was sensitive to noise…but I can’t envision a tiger caring about 2-3 drunk people yelling at it. I wonder why it got so enraged.
January 17, 2008 at 3:49 pm
UPDATE:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/17/tiger.attack.ap/
* Police wont say if the evidence they got indicated taunting.
* They took THIRTY MINUTES to send help, because the ambulance workers were fucking pussies.
HELLO? They can’t send the police to protect the ambulance people?
They don’t have armed security on staff at a zoo that has dangerous tigers enclosed in walls that are 4 feet too low?!?!?!?
* You can hear parts of the 911 call in the video above.
January 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I don’t think the police are quite trained to deal with escaped tigers. You shoot a tiger with a 9mm, all you’re going to do is piss it off.
I wouldn’t exactly call the ambulance people pussies. Yes, their job is to save lives. However, their job is not to commit suicide. Personally, I wouldn’t go anywhere near that tiger unless I was armed to the teeth.
But yes, the zoo should have had trained staff on hand. How long can it take to get someone with a tranquilizer gun on site?
However, at the time, they didn’t know their walls were too short. Hindsight is 20/20.
January 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm
But they did know the walls were too short. They deliberately built a 16 foot wall despite national zoo guidelines stating that animal needed a 20 foot wall. It’s in one of Carolyn’s links above. It’s why Sean left a comment (possibly not here) about “taunting may increase tiger’s jumpingness by 25%”.
And if the police can do a paramilitary SWAT style raid with flash grenades and 15 people with loaded shotguns storming into a window — just to stop someone who has some pot — then they can handle a frickin’ tiger.
“Don’t tase me, bro”
-Tatiana
January 17, 2008 at 10:34 pm
There’s actually some debate as to whether the zoo knew or not. When was the enclosure built, and did anyone at the zoo know the dimensions before they were measured(after the fact)? Apparently they had also been inspected several times by whoever it is that inspects zoo’s without any shortcomings of the wall being mentioned. Not that they shouldn’t have known.
As far as SWAT goes, yeah, right. Aren’t they usually the last to arrive. I can just imagine that situation.
Conversation between dispatch and SWAT:
D: We have a situation here, we need you guys to come in
S: Sure, let me just take a quick shower first
20 minutes later at the scene
“Ok guys, we need to plan this out so that nothing goes wrong. Better to plan now than later”
another 20 minutes later
“Oh, the tiger’s dead? I guess the situation has been resolved. No need for us then”
Let’s face it, the only way you will get a SWAT team to respond with haste is to tell them it involves busting down a door to a house with unarmed women and children. They’ll jump at that.
January 18, 2008 at 1:51 am
Okay, then: There must be some level of deployment between “1 guy with a 9mm gun” and “full on paramilitary raid”. I believe officers have shotguns in their police cars — when I found a hubcap in Blacksburg (rolling on the road as I crossed it!) and noticed a cop nearby, I gave it to him, he told me to put it in the trunk, and there was a shotgun in there.
Also, if the zoo did not know, they should have. As a zoo, following established guidelines by “national zoological entities” is pretty much their duty, and they should be liable for not following accepted guidelines.
They say ignorance is no excuse for the law, and in this case, I don’t think it should be an excuse for liability either.
January 18, 2008 at 1:53 am
ANOTHER UPDATE:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html#cnnSTCText
Guys not being charged — no evidence of taunting.
So wait — now they’re saying the wall as 12.5 feet? I thought before they said it was 16, and guidelines said 20.
January 18, 2008 at 1:54 am
Also: They’re going to raise the wall to 19 feet. (Kind of an admission of guilt if you ask me — but they have to cover their ass for the future).
And add speakers for a warning system. (haha — if everyone’s running, that will just make the tiger want to pounce that much more — maybe this should be a videogame.)
January 18, 2008 at 8:34 am
Perhaps this is just my thought about the laws relating to this in general, and not this specific situation, but I don’t necessarily think the zoo should be held 100% accountable for this.
This was my view: let’s say two drunk kids are walking through a desert. They come upon a rattlesnake. The rattlesnake rattles ominously at them. The drunk kid, apparently without any self-preservation instincts, yells, “Hey, it’d be fun to mess with it!” So the kids proceed to poke at the snake, and one of them gets bitten and dies.
Who would be responsible for this? Nobody except the kids, right? But the fact that the tiger was in the zoo, or “property of the zoo”, somehow makes it the complete fault of the people running the zoo? I don’t know. The more I read about this incident (there was an article on Yahoo this morning about it), the more it seems like the zoo had taken reasonable precautions to protect people from the tigers.
There’s only so much an organization can protect itself against blatant stupidity and recklessness. Does my corporation need to have a sign on every door that says “Please do not scream at people?” Or, “Please do not use racial slurs?” No, because it’s assumed that people will behave like relatively rational human beings when in a public setting, where they can affect others. Screaming isn’t technically “harm”, either, but there are still laws against verbal assault and emotional distress.
Also, as Chriggy said–most wild animals aren’t typically thought of as “friendly”. Just because an animal is in the zoo doesn’t mean it’s domesticated or that it’s been trained to be sociable with other species. That said, it still strikes me as odd that only a *verbal* taunting would set it off this much and result in it harming people…maybe it was mentally unhinged in some way, who knows?
Those are just my thoughts on this at the moment. I know some may disagree with me, but…*shrug*
January 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“But the fact that the tiger was in the zoo, or “property of the zoo”, somehow makes it the complete fault of the people running the zoo?”
Why yes — Yes it does. The zoo is not just a section of desert you explore unsupervised. It’s deliberately set up with an expectation that the animals are caged, and you are safe. If they give that impression and it’s not true, they are, in this case, quite literally luring people to their deaths.
These people were not exploring a desert, where they came upon a tiger and taunted it. They were in a place where you are supposed to be safe.
And again, the zoo absolutely should have known the protection was not sufficient. The Natl Zoo Standards (Which I’m too lazy to go back and find, but I remember reading in one of the articles) said 20 feet. The first stories said it was only 16 feet. Then later it came out it was 12.5 feet. 12.5/20 is only 62.5%. Their wall was almost 40% short. It’s their own negligence, and then they didn’t even have anybody with a tranquilizer ready in case it mauled someone.
There’s nobody else at fault here. They brought the tiger there, didn’t protect it well enough, ignored previous attacks, weren’t setup to warn people about an attack or stop the tiger, and someone died.
January 18, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I agree that if the zoo didn’t conform to the safety standards that had already been established, then they would be negligent in that case. Although, hypothetically…what if the tiger had somehow gotten past the wall even if the wall WAS up to standards? Would the zoo still be held accountable if they HAD had a protective wall that was 20 feet high and the tiger somehow hurt someone anyway?
Anyway, I didn’t mean to imply that the zoo wasn’t at ALL accountable, just that I didn’t believe they should take 100% of the legal blame for the incident. It’s tragic that someone died, but that person would not have died if they had also not been negligent of their own safety in the first place, too.
“It’s deliberately set up with an expectation that the animals are caged, and you are safe.”
A good point and I agree, but one could also say that zoos are set up with the expectation that most people will treat the animals as if they’re powerful and/or dangerous, and not stand up on the edge of the wall and yell at them. 🙂
January 19, 2008 at 11:02 am
parthena said:
“Although, hypothetically…what if the tiger had somehow gotten past the wall even if the wall WAS up to standards? Would the zoo still be held accountable if they HAD had a protective wall that was 20 feet high and the tiger somehow hurt someone anyway?”
Then the standards would be to “blame” and would be adjusted and it would be nothing more than a tragic learning experience.
What this boils down to is this: Legally, the zoo is at fault for failure to conform to accepted standards in an otherwise hazardous environment. Practically, the taunters (if they did it) share actual fault with the zoo for creating circumstances that led to the outcome. So many bad things in the world could be eliminated if people would just stop being assholes.
January 21, 2008 at 3:02 am
I don’t think at any point in this discussion, there was a question as to whether the zoo was legally liable. I would say definitely.
The real question here is are they morally liable? Depends on intentions. In this case, I’m going to say no.
Hypothetical situation:
Someone hits a spot of black ice next to a playground, loses control, kills a kid. It wasn’t raining. That spot has never been wet before(let’s say the fire hydrant leaked). The person was going below the speed limit. Are they liable? Legally, yes, but morally?
Or a more realistic situation:
You have a pool. You have a 6 foot fence around your yard to keep kids out of that yard, plus plenty of signage saying “no trespassing”. Some kid gets a ladder, climbs over the fence, and manages to drown. Are you liable? Unfortunately, the law seems to think so.
January 21, 2008 at 3:03 am
The world is not all black and white.
January 21, 2008 at 11:40 am
“You have a pool. You have a 6 foot fence around your yard to keep kids out of that yard, plus plenty of signage saying “no trespassing”. Some kid gets a ladder, climbs over the fence, and manages to drown. Are you liable? Unfortunately, the law seems to think so.”
Really?? Even if the owner had a sign up that said “Danger, stay out”?? If that’s true, then that’s an unfair law, IMO. But..I see what you’re saying. Ethnically liable is a bit different than legally…
January 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’d like to see Chriggy’s assertion, I think it’s b.s. myself. As long as you follow federal, state ,and local laws that require certain protection of your pool — how can you be liable when you’ve met the guidelines?
I’d like to see some links backing that up. I have no doubt some asshole judge ruled incorrectly somewhere, but greatly doubt this is a trend or something that can be claimed so easily.
I’m pretty sure if you follow the law, you are not liable.
http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/aquatic_water/swimming_pool_liability.htm
Of course, as usual, most interesting stories don’t give all the facts. It’s probably NOT good to put up a fence around your pool that has a broken latch:
http://beta240.tribune-chronicle.com/page/content.detail/id/27022.html
From http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/aquatic_water/swimming-pool-accidents.htm
“Injuries in or around swimming pools often happen because the owner or operator of the property hasn’t maintained the property or equipment in a reasonably safe condition. In legal terms, liability for this kind of carelessness is called premises liability. Both the owner of the land and the operator or possessor of the land is sometimes named as a defendant in this kind of case. Interpretations of what is a reasonably safe condition differ from state to state, and some states have different rules about the duty of the landowner to protect people who have been invited; people who haven’t been invited, but are there legally (i.e. a meter reader); and trespassers, who don’t have right to be on the property at all. Be sure to find out the specific interpretations used in your locality. The same standard is usually applied to both private homes and commercial areas.
Examples of situations that could result in liability because of poor maintenance include a poorly repaired area around the pool that causes someone to slip and fall, broken life-saving equipment that results in a drowning or serious injury, a loose ladder or stairs that cause a fall or a cut, an improperly maintained fence or pool cover that allows a young child to get into the pool and drown, or contamination in a pool that hasn’t been treated properly with chemicals that causes a serious illness.”
Granted one website is not an authority, but in googling, there’s really not much out there. And it sure as hell doesn’t sound like anyone would be liable in the situation Chriggy described above.
So please, send me the link that verifies your strawman argument.
—————
Anyway, I think the zoo is absolutely morally liable too. And I happen to think moral and legal liability should be pretty much the same thing.
The situation is not even remotely analogous to the two examples Chriggy gave above. Nobody climbed a rope and went where they weren’t supposed to be, nobody taunted (this has since been verified).
As for the car example: The person in the accident should not have been driving fast enough to lose enough control to hit kids on the road, if the conditions were such that ice could still exist on the road. The real questoin is, where where the kids parents, and why are they next to an icy road? And if it’s caused by a leaky fire hydrant, that puts a lot of liability on the city. It’s a convoluted example with many factors that do not exist in the zoo case. It’s just not a good example. It’s like you’re going out of your way to beat the discussion to death.
January 22, 2008 at 1:21 am
Here’s a couple of links relating to liability laws:
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:3yAXPTn7DOAJ:www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/homeowner-s-liability-safety+pool+homeowner+liability+laws&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Specifically,see the sections about trespassing, and pools. So now if I have a pool, I have to install alarms on all doors, and install a pool cover to be not held liable!? WTF!?! No, apparently “Beware of the Dog!” signs don’t count.
The second one is about an ongoing case:
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:3yAXPTn7DOAJ:www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/homeowner-s-liability-safety+pool+homeowner+liability+laws&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
@clint:
To specifically address how someone would be held liable in the situation described: no pool cover. Even if they are trespassing.
Legally liable, yes. Morally, no. Fuck trespassers, they can die for all I care for.
As far as the the car situation, I had a feeling you would respond by saying the driver wasn’t careful enough. But why would you drive slower than normal simply because its cold out? What are the odds of there being one single icy spot on the road. Let’s just reduce the speed limit by 10 mph, whenever the temperature gets too cold. Just in case.
This is actually quite similar to the tiger incident. What are the odds of a tiger jumping over that wall? How often has it happened before. Hmm, never? In the existence of that zoo. Or any other zoo. I’d even go so far as to say that the odds of being attacked by a tiger in a zoo are much much less than hitting a spot of black ice on a dry night. Unforeseeable circumstances.
And as far as moral and legal liabilities go, I completely disagree. They are distinct entities. To be morally liable, you have to know that your actions may cause someone harm i.e “I should really fix that hole on my walkway or someone is going to trip and fall”, vs. not knowing that hole that someone tripped and fell on was there in the first place.
As far as me going out of my way to beat this discussion to death, I’ve only commented 6 times(7 including this one) out of a total of 27 comments.
January 22, 2008 at 11:35 am
@Chriggy:
“This is actually quite similar to the tiger incident. What are the odds of a tiger jumping over that wall? How often has it happened before. Hmm, never? In the existence of that zoo. Or any other zoo. I’d even go so far as to say that the odds of being attacked by a tiger in a zoo are much much less than hitting a spot of black ice on a dry night. Unforeseeable circumstances.”
That one tiger had a history of attacks – she attacked a zookeeper a few years ago (all it takes is one). Therefore, the zoo should have realized that maybe they needed to be extra careful about that particular tiger. So, to have a tiger that had a history of attacking (unprovoked?), maybe they should have paid attention to how high the enclosure wall was – it was not up to industry standards. They are morally responsible and legally responsible.
January 22, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Yea, one could even say the tiger attacking was analagous to the “evidence of tresspassing skateboarders” example in the pool liability page. Once you know that protection is more necessary, you are required to take extra steps.
Unfortunately trespassers do not sacrifice their rights. Considering how little property left in america is actually public, I don’t know that I can even disagree with that.
I don’t think a burglar should be able to sue you for a booby trap (but they have), or for shooting him in your home (but they have) — but if schoolkids use your yard as a short-cut, and you did an unprotected well-hole (or swimming pool) and they fall in — I don’t think the homeowner has 0 responsibility in this situation.
There seems to be a certain expectation of stupidity with humanity, and I can’t necessarily argue with that. The chainsaw that says “Do not use on crotch” — you’d think these things would be obvious. But did you know 50% of people have below average intelligence? 🙂 It’s scary, cconsidering how bad “average” is.
As for the pool example, (I don’t see how a Beware Of Dog sign would count as a dangerous pool sign..what if you are someone universally liked by dogs due to your pheremones?) — if law says the pool should be covered, then it must be covered to not be liable. Don’t want to be liable? Follow the law!
Makes perfect sense to me, and it doesn’t seem to at all contradict earlier statements I said about following laws.
You contrived an example that broke the law by not having a pool cover — I missed that detail, which does put the liability on the pool owner, even if you climb up with a rope. Either it’s an established safety practice or it’s not. Someone tresspassing like Pitfall Harry doesn’t nullify legal precedent.
Ether way, it is nothing at all like the bear situation because they were not following LAWS about having your pool covered.
Maybe “law” isn’t the right phrase to be using, since civil “law” is abit different, but “established practices of not being able to be held liable” might be a better phrase. Everyone, everywhere, should generally try to establish all practices that keep them from being held liable. It’s common [legal] sense.
Either way, MY parents pool is covered. It’s big, and it was expensive. And when we got a tiny little hottub at their old house in Woodbridge? That had to be covered and padlocked. State law. My dad looked it up and followed it when he got the hottub. It’s not hard to comply unless you willfully ignore the rules. And if someone dies as a result of that, yes, you are liable. Sucks to be you. Should have followed established guidelines. If you install something in your backyard that is the “2nd leading cause of children age 14 to 18” (or whatever that page you linked to said), then you damn well better be sure that nobody dies in YOUR pool. Becuase if someone does die — it wouldn’t have happened to you if you hadn’t gotten the pool.
But again, this has little to do with a tiger jumping out of a 12.5 ft enclosure that was 62% too short, after already attacking people in the past.
I’m pretty sure the zoo made a fiscal decision (higher wall costs more) that directly resulted in someone’s death. They can feign ignorance of the national zoo guidelines, but they are a zoo. They are in our nation. The link here seems pretty obvious that they should be informed of these things.
Perhaps their local zoning board should pass an ordinance requiring all zoos to follow national zoo guidelines when constructing enclosures? That would take the choice away, and, in this case, would have saved at least 1 life.
January 22, 2008 at 8:48 pm
@carolyn:
That zookeeper was attacked because she got careless and got too close to the cage. Yes, you put youself in striking range of a tiger, it will attack. Zoo tigers are not domesticated like the tigers you see on Sigfried and Roy(and even they attack). Like I said before, it doesn’t make the tiger vicious, it just makes it a tiger.
@clint:
I’m really surprised at your stance on the liability thing regarding pools. Normally you don’t like the government making laws regulating choices.
Yes, if I don’t have a fence, and someone falls into my open pool, I should be held liable for negligence. If I do have a fence, and someone willfully trespasses by climbing it, and they fall in, fuck them. Schoolkids or not. Shouldn’t have climbed the fence. My home, my castle.
Personally, I resent any laws that protect people from their own stupidity.
I do agree however, that following the zoo guidelines should be mandatory, and they should not just be recommendations.
However, I would like to point out that the zoo is quite old(it opened in 1930). I’m not sure when the tiger exhibit was built, but it was quite likely before the zoo guidelines came out. So at the time it was built, it may not have simply been a fiscal decision, but ignorance.
February 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm
UPDATE: Slashdot article about Tatiana the mauling tiger.
Physicist Calculates Trajectory of Tiger At SF Zoo
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/01/1431201
“Is it really possible for a 350-pound tiger to leap a 12.5-foot barrier from 33 feet away? (Said another way: a 159-kg tiger, a 3.8 m barrier, and 10 m away.) A physicist at Northeastern University has done the math, a straightforward problem in ballistics, and the answer turns out to be yes (abstract on the physics arXiv). But I guess we already knew that following the death of Carlos Souza at the paws of Tatiana, a Siberian Tiger he had allegedly been taunting at San Francisco zoo at the end of last year.”
February 1, 2008 at 3:36 pm
UPDATE: One of the 3 victims admits “taunting” – but be careful how you define his word.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/18/tiger.attack.ap/
OH. MY. GOD. YELLING AND WAVING. Who would have thought.
Gee, the tiger shouldn’t be blamed — he’s just a tiger being a tiger, right? People shouldn’t be blamed either – they’re just people being people. Yelling and waving arms constitutes taunting?
They’re going to put a tiger in a zoo, one that can escape its enclosure if you merely wave your arms and yell at it — and then act like it’s the people’s fault???!?!
There’s definitely an expectation that a dangerous animal in a public place not be “on the loose”…
February 1, 2008 at 4:10 pm
There’s a difference between a tiger and people. People should know better. At least non stupid people. Yes, I’m going to stick with it’s still a tiger being a tiger. And maybe to a tiger, waving your arms and yelling would constitute “taunting”. If you wouldn’t to it to an animal in the wild, you shouldn’t do it to an animal in the zoo.
Not that that exonerates the zoo.
February 1, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I love that animals can be animals, but people can’t be people.
But anyway, I think you’re wrong. If a hostile tiger was approaching you in the wild, and you thought it was going to attack — I would think that the very best way to KEEP it from attacking you would be to wave your arms and make loud noises.
Isn’t that precisely why cats arch their backs, point their hair, and hiss?
Making yourself appear larger and louder is the #1 deterrent for most natural predators (dogs and bears too). Do NOT run. Running away is the absolute worst thing you can do. Then you ARE prey.
February 1, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I raped a girl, but she was taunting me with her short skirt. She should have known better than to walk down a dark alleyway like that. She was drunk.
February 1, 2008 at 5:08 pm
P.S. As for the wall being built in 1930, they had almost 80 years to find out what the new standards were. Lack of safety review resulted in death.
February 1, 2008 at 5:08 pm
some video of the enclosure, just FEI (for everyone’s info):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=000_1200775320
February 1, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Of course, they also apparently had slingshots on them…
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1199305936
If they used them, then:
Bad. Stupid. Chargeable.
But: Still not their fault the zoo wasn’t safe.
To put things into perspective, I actually think the zoo should still be held no less than 95% liable, even if they had ninja throwing stars and threw them into the eyeballs of the tiger.
February 1, 2008 at 5:19 pm
And just for a funny note, here’s a tiger giving himself a blowjob:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=389_1199168373
LiveLeak rules. Only place I got to see Saddam Hussein actually die.
February 1, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Tiger Vs. Wild Boar (Boar wins): http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?token=066_1197486057
HOLY SHIT FUNNIEST THING I’VE SEEN IN DAYS:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=634_1194921548
Yes. They brought a lion to a party. And let it chase the guests – a little. WTF?!?!?!?!?!
February 1, 2008 at 6:33 pm
#35:
This argument makes no sense. Humans don’t instinctively rape. Tigers do instinctively kill, whether being taunted or not.
Now if you were to replace the human with, say, Hand Banana, that would be a different story.
February 1, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Humans don’t instinctively rape? You mean the practice only started once we were sentient? Not buying it. Reproduction is the ultimate instinct. Send that lady back to a clan of woman-starved cavemen and see what happens…
LOL @ Hand Bannaa
February 1, 2008 at 7:24 pm
#39:
Hahahah!! Vladi does this all the time.
#40:
Tiger vs. Boar
What the hell were those narrators smoking? A tiger with spots?! Looks more like a baby leopard, definitely NOT a tiger. Still funny though.
#42:
Ok, I was talking about modern day humans. I can’t speak for cavemen.
March 30, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Here’s a story about another big cat attack: Woman is attached by cheetahs.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/29/cheetah.attack.ap/
I like the last sentence:
“Wildlife officers are investigating the attack, but so far it appears no laws were broken, Ferraro said.”
March 31, 2008 at 8:26 am
Huh. I just watched a movie yesterday called “Maneater” about a tiger on the loose attacking people [supposedly on the Appalachian Trail].
Gary Busey was able to kill it by shooting a gas pump next to it and causing a big explosion.
Whoops. Spoiler.
March 31, 2008 at 10:38 am
Damn, you ruined it for me!
Well, actually, based on your description, I wouldn’t have touched this one with a 10 foot pole anyways.
March 31, 2008 at 10:51 am
#44:
Even if any laws were broken, what is the woman going to do? Sue herself? Press charges on herself?
July 8, 2008 at 8:18 pm
UPDATE on Tatiana The Mauling Tiger: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/01/tiger.attack.ap/index.html
I wasn’t aware that there were reports of Tatiana losing 50 lbs in 2 years and there’s a possibility that the tiger was underfed in order to make a better show at feeding time.
August 31, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Yet another incident of a tiger escaping a fence that is lower than the recommended 20 ft. This was a 14 ft barrier.
YUP – zoos are cheaping out on making tiger walls high enough, and tigers are getting out. It’s a pattern.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38931322#38931322