San Francisco Zoo: Tiger Kills Visitor!

[WildCowboy]

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.

Well, taunting only requires verbal insults, and it qualifies as a misdemeanor offense. Whether what they did can be established remains to be seen. But regardless of whether they were taunting or not, it of course doesn't excuse the zoo's negligence. Had they physically defeated security mechanisms to allow the tiger to escape, that would be one thing, but it should have been impossible for that tiger to escape on its own.

And yes, I'm astonished that no other tiger has escaped in the last 67 years given what is known about these circumstances.

 

[MacNut]

Isn't this zoo one of the worst in the country with track records of safety and health of the animals.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

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.

They have found evidence that they were throwing stones, tree branches, and pine cones - this is what people are referring to when saying "taunting"

Stop falling for this "They taunted the tiger, so the zoo is blameless" argument.

Oh I certainly wasn't suggesting the zoo wasn't at fault. The kids should have been able to shoot the tiger with a bb gun and not fear the tiger would be able to get to them. The investigation into the kids attacking the tiger though is the latest news, and thats what people were asking about.

 

[angelneo]

Oh I certainly wasn't suggesting the zoo wasn't at fault. The kids should have been able to shoot the tiger with a bb gun and not fear the tiger would be able to get to them. The investigation into the kids attacking the tiger though is the latest news, and thats what people were asking about.

The next thing we know, we would be putting them back in cages or glass panels... I think we might as well do away with the concept of zoo altogether since there will always be idiots who need to be protected.

 

[Schtumple]

This would never have happened in the Zooniverse

2nded

When will people learn?!

 

[edesignuk]

Reeeeeeally pisses me off when wild animals get shot for being wild animals.

f***ing people

 

[mpw]

Reeeeeeally pisses me off when wild animals get shot for being wild animals.

f***ing people

Yeah, I know what you mean, but going safari on a house cat ruins the furniture.

 

[theBB]

They have found evidence that they were throwing stones, tree branches, and pine cones - this is what people are referring to when saying "taunting"

I don't think so. I am yet to see such an official claim. Zoo's PR is working well...

Oh I certainly wasn't suggesting the zoo wasn't at fault. The kids should have been able to shoot the tiger with a bb gun and not fear the tiger would be able to get to them. The investigation into the kids attacking the tiger though is the latest news, and thats what people were asking about.

bb guns??? Where did that come from? But yes, public at large should be kept safe, even if some idiot fires a bb gun to an animal, because over the course of decades and untold number of visitors, it is very likely that such an event will take a place eventually.

Based on the comments in sfgate/sf-chronicle website, if these were younger white kids instead of troubled teens from a minority group, the public response would be different.

 

[Eric Piercey]

I don't think so. I am yet to see such an official claim. Zoo's PR is working well...


bb guns??? Where did that come from? But yes, public at large should be kept safe, even if some idiot fires a bb gun to an animal, because over the course of decades and untold number of visitors, it is very likely that such an event will take a place eventually.

Based on the comments in sfgate/sf-chronicle website, if these were younger white kids instead of troubled teens from a minority group, the public response would be different.

Come on man... it's called hyperbole. "I could eat a horse" doesn't mean I could or even would if I could eat a horse. It's to add emphasis, her point being that one should be able to harass the animals as reprehensible as it would be, and not have said animals jump the wall and kill.

The color of these kids has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Oh I'm sure you believe it does. We all WANT to believe the zoo would be shut down immediately, with no trial and no discussion if the kids were white, but the fact is the zoo did mess up and and this is a rather big deal, and they might be sued for a kabillion dollars.. and so for them to tread lightly and spin carefully is not unusual. Sick of the race card in everything and I'm practically a stinky hippie liberal. Okay off to lunch.

 

[saltyzoo]

Come on man... it's called hyperbole. "I could eat a horse" doesn't mean I could or even would if I could eat a horse. It's to add emphasis, her point being that one should be able to harass the animals as reprehensible as it would be, and not have said animals jump the wall and kill.

The color of these kids has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Oh I'm sure you believe it does. We all WANT to believe the zoo would be shut down immediately, with no trial and no discussion if the kids were white, but the fact is the zoo did mess up and and this is a rather big deal, and they might be sued for a kabillion dollars.. and so for them to tread lightly and spin carefully is not unusual. Sick of the race card in everything and I'm practically a stinky hippie liberal. Okay off to lunch.

Is there any point where personal responsibility takes over at all? Or is the zoo responsible for anything that happens to anyone no matter how much of the responsibility is their own?

I mean if an enclosure is built in such a way that I can jump or climb into it and slap the tiger on the bottom, is that not still the zoo's fault? After all, they did not protect me properly. Or more precisely, I think the statement was along the lines of "with millions of visitors eventually someone would do it".

A step further, if I break into the cage after hours. What if I just hang myself in the zoo? Shouldn't the zoo have prevented me from doing that?

It astounds me how easily some people ignore personal responsibility. Instead companies are supposed to do all the thinking for all of their customers.

IMO even if the zoo didn't have the best possible safety on the enclosure, taunting the animal would relieve them from any responsibility to anyone that did the taunting. An innocent bystander should have a claim, sure, but anybody that taunted the animal has no claim to anything but what the animal gave them. To use the same logic I could say "If millions of visitors taunt a tiger enough, eventually it's going to escape any enclosure no matter how good and bite your head off".

Guess what? If you want to get up close to a tiger there is risk. If you want to walk outside your door there is risk. Sitting on your couch has risk. Get over it. Don't taunt a wild animal capable of killing you. Duh.

 

[theBB]

Guess what? If you want to get up close to a tiger there is risk. If you want to walk outside your door there is risk. Sitting on your couch has risk. Get over it. Don't taunt a wild animal capable of killing you. Duh.

If you climb over the fence and get attacked, I would not blame the zoo.

If I take my kid to the zoo, I should have right to expect that we will not be lunch for the tiger, just because some drunk guy roared or threw a pine cone at it. Duh... How hard is it to dig a moat that is deep enough and wide enough? Considering car companies cannot sell cars without airbags, is it that much of a luxury to expect the zoos to have walls that are as high as they claim they are.

Anyways, it seems CNN is gonna have a special tonight, I wonder what they will have to say.

 

[Eric Piercey]

Is there any point where personal responsibility takes over at all? Or is the zoo responsible for anything that happens to anyone no matter how much of the responsibility is their own?

I mean if an enclosure is built in such a way that I can jump or climb into it and slap the tiger on the bottom, is that not still the zoo's fault? After all, they did not protect me properly. Or more precisely, I think the statement was along the lines of "with millions of visitors eventually someone would do it".

A step further, if I break into the cage after hours. What if I just hang myself in the zoo? Shouldn't the zoo have prevented me from doing that?

It astounds me how easily some people ignore personal responsibility. Instead companies are supposed to do all the thinking for all of their customers.

IMO even if the zoo didn't have the best possible safety on the enclosure, taunting the animal would relieve them from any responsibility to anyone that did the taunting. An innocent bystander should have a claim, sure, but anybody that taunted the animal has no claim to anything but what the animal gave them. To use the same logic I could say "If millions of visitors taunt a tiger enough, eventually it's going to escape any enclosure no matter how good and bite your head off".

Guess what? If you want to get up close to a tiger there is risk. If you want to walk outside your door there is risk. Sitting on your couch has risk. Get over it. Don't taunt a wild animal capable of killing you. Duh.

I think I already addressed this. To summarize, the zoo is responsible for safety within foreseeable circumstances. One thing that would clearly be the zoo's responsibility is keeping carnivorous predators such as tigers in their enclosures, regardless of all else. I agree that zoo's shouldn't be held 100% responsible for keeping people out of the enclosures. That would be difficult as people are very resourceful, and a determined person would pretty much without question find a way to get to the animals either through stupidity or for whatever reason. But keeping the animal's from escaping- no brainer. It's a given that someone is going to taunt the animals at some point, a given. There's also no question taunting the animals is cruel, pathetic, and stupid.. but given the human condition... an inevitable -easily foreseeable occurrence.

So yeah, the zoo is responsible here. I don't know if there's a set law on the books as to the height or specs of an enclosure, or if it's just a recommendation- but common sense tells me if the animals are jumping out and eating people (taunted or not) that the zoo is at fault.

 

[angelneo]

So yeah, the zoo is responsible here. I don't know if there's a set law on the books as to the height or specs of an enclosure, or if it's just a recommendation- but common sense tells me if the animals are jumping out and eating people (taunted or not) that the zoo is at fault.

The specs that the zoo failed to achieve is just a recommended spec.

Personally, I feel the zoo would be at fault for failing to build the enclosure at the recommended height, they should be fined or punished by the city for it. But if they were ever sue by the injured teens, the zoo shouldn't be held liable to compensate them. I don't think we should encourage people to abuse animal.

For all we know maybe the recommended height is not enough to keep out a threatened and cornered cat.

 

[WildCowboy]

Apparently the two injured brothers were overhead in the ambulance making a pact to not cooperate authorities or tell them "what they had done." Interesting...

And they were both drunk and high.

Link

 

[CalBoy]

Interesting. If I was a juror in the civil case against the zoo, I would probably apportion blame for the death like this:

20% responsibility for the brothers

10% responsibility for the zoo.

If we assume that the standard wrongful death case can bring in a few million (say 5) then I think the fair share for the zoo is ~$500,000 and $1 million on the brothers (though we know they don't have any assets to pay up, so that case would never make it to trial).

All in all a tragedy caused by stupid thinking and improper maintenance on the part of the zoo.

 

[agreenster]

Apparently the two injured brothers were overhead in the ambulance making a pact to not cooperate authorities or tell them "what they had done." Interesting...

And they were both drunk and high.

Link

Maybe Im old fashioned, or maybe a bit too much of an animal lover, but Im going to say what other people are thinking: they got what they deserved. If you get drunk and high and throw crap at a known predator and expect no repercussions, you're an idiot. Thousands of people visit the zoo on every day of every month of every year, and a tiger has never escaped and attacked anyone. I find it no surprise that these idiots have made a pact of secrecy and are not cooperating with police because they KNOW they screwed up, and ultimately got themselves mauled and their friend killed. People today are becoming entitled, selfish, uneducated, irresponsible, idiotic members of our society, and the thought that these people are going to probably sue the zoo and probably win just makes me sick to my stomach.

If you play with fire, you're gonna get burned. I watched the movie Idiocracy recently, and ever since then I've seen examples in real life where that movie is becoming less of a farce and more of a true prediction of our future. This is one of those examples.

And as a side note, it's a bit unfair to point the finger at the zoo for being negligent. If the zoo was truly negligent, this type of thing would have happened sooner. In my opinion, as harsh as it is, the blame lies squarely on the young men.

 

[ckurowic]

true.

i agree with others, the zoo is the one to be held accountable. not the animal.

I am glad to see people have common sense on this forum. Tigers are KILLERS bottom line. So is your house cat, honestly, any cat is. Ever been stalked by your house cat? Imagine that cat x800. Now imagine it on the loose.

 

[madfresh]

SF doesn't like foreigners.

 

[John Jacob]

Reeeeeeally pisses me off when wild animals get shot for being wild animals.

f***ing people

I so agree with you, edesignuk. People here are blaming the zoo for this tragedy, for not providing a safe environment for its visitors. In my opinion, the zoo should also be repsonsible for providing a safe, harassment-free environment for its animals.

It is a tragedy that one person died. But if the other two (whose names sound like they had come from my country, BTW) who had non life-threatening injuries, had indeed been teasing and harassing the tigress, then they got what they deserved.

 

[CalBoy]

It is a tragedy that one person died. But if the other two (whose names sound like they had come from my country, BTW) who had non life-threatening injuries, had indeed been teasing and harassing the tigress, then they got what they deserved.

I'm sorry, but are you saying that teasing a tiger is worthy of death? Remember, one person did die from all this. What he did to contribute to his fate we don't know fully, but surely it isn't worthy of death?

As for the other two, perhaps a maiming was what they needed to get their act together. I have no sympathy for them as they undoubtedly were the masters of their own fate.

Now, had the notoriously unsafe SF Zoo done anything to bring the tiger exhibit up to par, this might never have happened. That certainly does bear some tort liability, and I think the zoo being forced to pay out $500,000-$1 million for its role in the death is fair.

 

[WildCowboy]

It's also been discovered in the past few days that the wall around the polar bear enclosure is too low by several feet. WTF are they doing over there? And WTF is the accrediting agency that sets these standards and should be following up them doing?

It's really impossible for any of us to assign blame without all of the facts...if they ever come out. Should the tiger have been able to escape on its own as a reaction to taunting? Absolutely not. But the "silence pact" between the injured brothers makes me wonder if it was more than "just" taunting. If they did something that actively let the tiger out of the grotto, then they're the ones who should be being held responsible for at least a large part of it.

 

[John Jacob]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that teasing a tiger is worthy of death? Remember, one person did die from all this. What he did to contribute to his fate we don't know fully, but surely it isn't worthy of death?

As for the other two, perhaps a maiming was what they needed to get their act together. I have no sympathy for them as they undoubtedly were the masters of their own fate.

You are saying exactly the same thing I did. Nobody deserved to die, but the other two who got maimed got what was coming to them. Read my post again if it wasn't clear to you.

 

[Gelfin]

SF doesn't like foreigners.

You know it, dude. If there's one thing we don't put up with in San Francisco, it's them non-Murrikans.

Seriously, I live in the Sunset (the neighborhood that also contains the zoo), and believe me, the Stupid Teenager Tricks I see out here fall way disproportionately into the "bored middle class white kids" column. It isn't "poor minorities" I see tagging up the buses, I'll tell you that much. It might be true that my reaction would be different if it had been white kids, but maybe not in the direction you'd expect.

It shouldn't ever be possible for a tiger to get at a person in a zoo, no matter what the person is doing, but if you'd told me it was some of the white kids I see and hear wandering the neighborhood at three in the morning, I wouldn't have hesitated a moment to conclude that they'd done something to cause it.

Honestly, having seen the cat enclosure firsthand, I'm kind of shocked the tiger could have gotten out at all, however substandard the moat was. I'm just assuming that's why tiger moat standards would be set by tiger experts and not, say, me, because I really would have thought what they had was more than sufficient. The cat paddocks themselves leave much to be desired as far as animal habitats go, but I was never nervous about the moat.