Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
San Francisco Zoo: Tiger Kills Visitor!
- Thread starter mpw
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They shut down the whole exhibit for six months to check its safety and nobody noticed the wall was only 12' high instead of 20'. Talk about incompetence. BTW, the papers say the acceptable minimum is 16'.
Don't ever believe an official's claims blaming the victim in the first few days after a disaster. Now, they are claiming that they never made such claims. It turns out there were no shoes in the cage and no boards across the moat. If you can make people believe the victim is guilty early on, by the time the truth comes out the press will be busy with something else and the politicians or managers can keep their jobs.
Even if the kids taunted the tiger from across a 33' moat, so what? In the words of a co-worker, even if somebody dangles a big piece of steak, that tiger should not be able to jump across. That is going to be an expensive lawsuit...
Don't ever believe an official's claims blaming the victim in the first few days after a disaster. Now, they are claiming that they never made such claims. It turns out there were no shoes in the cage and no boards across the moat. If you can make people believe the victim is guilty early on, by the time the truth comes out the press will be busy with something else and the politicians or managers can keep their jobs.
Even if the kids taunted the tiger from across a 33' moat, so what? In the words of a co-worker, even if somebody dangles a big piece of steak, that tiger should not be able to jump across. That is going to be an expensive lawsuit...
You keep repeating the same things. Do you keep abreast with current developments? Please read what the current reports on this situation are.
And, how does taunting the tiger 'allow' it to get across? So if the tiger was just hungry and pissed.. and jumped out.. and killed someone.. will people blame it on the feeders then? The zoo wall was short.. that's it. There is a safety requirement for any product/construction.. whatever.. regardless of any developments.. those requirements should be met. Period.
Of course it is the zoo's fault for not building according to standards. This is not the kid's.. or the tiger's fault.. it's absolutely the zoo's fault for not maintaining safety standards.
Exactly. Thank you. Hopefully this post will let other members know what is going on instead of blaming the victim right from the start. I hate it when people make jokes about someone's death (or in this case, two deaths)
Calm down there buddy. Not everyone is subscribed to the tiger attack hourly report. The last I had read indicated that the kid had climbed into the enclosure and somehow helped the tiger out during his taunting. If thats not the case there is no need to attack me, just point out that those early reports were wrong.
Its certainly believable that the zoo could be at fault because its an awful zoo, as I mentioned before. I've felt for years the whole place should be shut down.
It is hard for me to believe though that there was no merit to the earlier reports though. I think a lot of people might just prefer to imagine the kid as a hero trying to save his friend rather than admitting he might have had something to do with the accident. Guess we'll just have to wait and see where the story ends up to figure out what is true.
Not attacking you mate .. sorry if it came across like that.
.. My point was just that, it's a bit rude to call someone dumb or whatever, because after all.. it is a person who died (and the tiger too) If the zoo had simply bothered to check whether the walls met the safety requirements.. then we wouldn't have lost a beautiful animal and a young man. It's kinda like.. officials always rush to check if the standards were met *after* a tragedy occurs. Why not take a little time out to ensure that everything is indeed, set up as was required by the initial layout. Plain lazy, inept.. irresponsible people.
You are right about the zoo - I'm not sure about its survival now. Like you said, let's see what happens.
I'm not sure what you mean. The zoo probably won't close; liability insurance will pay out the family in the event of a lawsuit, and the zoo will probably be forced to construct new barriers, but that's about it. I think the zoo will undoubtedly remain.
SF zoo isn't closing. Its far to big a zoo for that. What it needs is to be shut down and rebuilt, but I doubt we'll even see that much change.
Take a look at Oakland zoo to see a zoo run properly. Can't get better than that short of being in the SD zoo and wild animal park category (which pretty easily put all other zoos to shame).
Take a look at Oakland zoo to see a zoo run properly. Can't get better than that short of being in the SD zoo and wild animal park category (which pretty easily put all other zoos to shame).
I remember going to the Oakland Zoo years ago. It was really nice.
</nostalgia>
The SF Zoo has invested a lot of money in capital projects in recent years and is much improved, but hasn't yet touched the tiger exhibits. And it's still nowhere near as good as the Oakland Zoo...that one's run by a close relative of one of my best friends, so I've had the behind the scenes tour there. Very well-run zoo.
Teen May Have Died Trying to Save Friend From Tiger:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071228/tiger_police_071228/20071228?hub=CTVNewsAt11
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071228/tiger_police_071228/20071228?hub=CTVNewsAt11
Any updates about this incident? so far I heard that the 2 survivors of the attack are refusing all talk about the incident to anyone, not even to the dead victim father who wanted to know what exactly happened. This sounds very weird, as if they did something wrong and their lawyers told them not to speak to the press.
Yeah I've seen several local news stories that affirm that. The father was pleading with the other two to come forward and tell them what happened, but no dice.
Sounds a bit fishy doesn't it?
Latest news is that police are investigating evidence showing someone climbed the fence and may have been throwing rocks and stuff at the tiger. So it seems the taunting issue hasn't been put to rest yet. Still no answer though on whether ti absolutely happened, but it seems to be a big part of police investigations.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/02/tiger.attack/index.html
True enough.
However, it would be more suspicious if the other two hired a lawyer. AFAIK, Geragos is going to try to file a wrongful death suit for the parents against the zoo (for which there is legal merit, however much we might feel that he brought about his own fate).
So Geragos isn't working for the family of Carlos Souza? He's working for the other two? Well then, let me go and grab my noose...Obviously this is a joke
Stop falling for this "They taunted the tiger, so the zoo is blameless" argument. Even if it is so, what does the zoo expect? Millions of visitors over decades and decades and nobody will taunt any animals? What if the tiger attacked on another day when there were more visitors and people who behaved well gets killed? It is the zoo's responsibility to keep visitors safe. All we needed was a higher wall.
What is next? Oh, the victim was eating a hamburger in front of the cage, he deserved it???
For those who make the "if they are innocent, why did they hire a lawyer?" argument, how about this: If the zoo is blameless, who hire a PR specialist and ban employees from speaking to the press?
I have to agree here.
The zoo is responsible for protecting it's visitors from harm- but within foreseeable reason. They could build a wall 1000 feet high and 6 feet thick, but if a visitor could easily unlatch an entrance door and get inside the zoo would still be liable. If the wall was such that a tiger could get out under any foreseeable circumstances, then the zoo is 100% at fault - even if the visitors were taunting the animal- even if the visitors were idiots. Why? Because it's certainly foreseeable that idiots will taunt animals, especially given the idiocy of the human race.
If the person had climbed a wall and then fallen into the enclosure fault would more likely be with the faller, presuming the zoo hadn't designed the wall to be either easily climbable or somehow enticing to climb. But the fact that the tiger actually escaped the enclosure under any circumstances which might be precipitated by a zoo visitor really puts them at fault.
Ultimately, yes, the zoo appears to have a significant amount of blame to take for this since the wall did not meet accepted standards. But of course claims of taunting and other inappropriate behavior on the part of others also need to be investigated.
Latest word is that a witness came forward saying that she saw a group of four (not three) youths at the tiger area prior to closing. Two of them were definitely taunting the tiger, while the victim who was ultimately killed by the tiger was not involved and in fact looked sheepishly embarrassed by the behavior of his friends.
Link
The zoo has reopened today, with the tiger exhibit and cafe remaining closed. My wife was supposed to head over there if the weather held out (which it has so far), so I'll see if she has anything interesting to report later today.
Latest word is that a witness came forward saying that she saw a group of four (not three) youths at the tiger area prior to closing. Two of them were definitely taunting the tiger, while the victim who was ultimately killed by the tiger was not involved and in fact looked sheepishly embarrassed by the behavior of his friends.
Link
The zoo has reopened today, with the tiger exhibit and cafe remaining closed. My wife was supposed to head over there if the weather held out (which it has so far), so I'll see if she has anything interesting to report later today.
What is the definition of taunting? Just yelling across a moat or throwing little pebbles and sticks? I figure if they threw anything else into the enclosure, it would have been found already. I don't consider that to be a serious offense. I am amazed that no other tiger has escaped before.
www.sfgate.com said:
There would clearly be some mitigation of the amount of the reward because the kids were being idiots, but again it is reasonable to assume that idiotic kids will come along at some point.
Hypothetical:
Ped crosses in front of bus during a "don't walk" and is killed. Who's at fault, the driver, the ped, or the city? Most likely the ped, but suppose the "don't walk" sign was malfunctioning. Now the city is liable, but mitigating circumstances would be that a person shouldn't walk in front of rapidly moving bus, regardless of what a sign might say.
Hypothetical:
Ped crosses in front of bus during a "don't walk" and is killed. Who's at fault, the driver, the ped, or the city? Most likely the ped, but suppose the "don't walk" sign was malfunctioning. Now the city is liable, but mitigating circumstances would be that a person shouldn't walk in front of rapidly moving bus, regardless of what a sign might say.