Remember those SFO Tiger acttack victims?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Apparently I can't spell as well...:(

Well they may not be victims after all...Drunk and chroniced.

Apparently they WERE taunting the tigers... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/18/tiger.attack.ap/index.html)

[C&CDean]

Heh. This kinda warms the cockles of my cold, calloused heart.

The only sad thing about this whole deal is them killing the tiger.

[usmc-sooner]

Tiger bait!!!!!!

[walkoffsooner]

Animals are just like people if you jack with them long enough they are going to respond. Go tigers

[r5TPsooner]

Hey dudes! It's Christmas Day, let's take a few shots of Vodka, then go down to the zoo and taunt some tigers.

What a bunch o morons.

[jeremy885]

Have the "victims" sued the zoo and city yet?

[BigRedJed]

Sounds like they'd better hurry. Their case is falling apart by the minute.

[usmc-sooner]

Sounds like they'd better hurry. Their case is falling apart by the minute.

damn you get all girly about melted Japanese kids, and yet don't feel sorry for American 's getting mauled by a Tiger. Where are your loyalties? :D

[GrapevineSooner]

Open letter to Mark Geragos,

In light of these latest developments, you look like an *** now.

A really big one.

[yermom]

drunk and high?

someone's making the Darwin Awards...

[Partial Qualifier]

I don't think it was the taunting.. well not directly.

If what they're saying is true - that they didn't throw anything into the cage - then the tiger probably didn't attack because the taunting "offended" her.

Now, if they got in a spot where the tiger thought to herself "yep I could reach those meatsticks if I jumped high enough".. that might've been enough to make her try.

I just don't think a tiger saw it as "taunting", like, "I'm gonna F them up because they're making fun of my situation here.. that really hurts my feelings!!"

[Partial Qualifier]

Sounds like they'd better hurry. Their case is falling apart by the minute.

As dumb as these guys are, the zoo should be responsible for making sure there is no way a 350-pound tiger can escape, short of someone opening a cage door.

I mean... right?

[jeremy885]

As dumb as these guys are, the zoo should be responsible for making sure there is no way a 350-pound tiger can escape, short of someone opening a cage door.


You are aware that coffee is hot and you should be careful when you drink it, especially in a moving vehicle, right? ;)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well, at least one of them was standing on top of the separation wall, by proof of shoe print. Yelling and waving ones hand(s) at a tiger not caged in seems to be begging for inclusion on the "meat stick" (heh) label - IMO.

[yermom]

As dumb as these guys are, the zoo should be responsible for making sure there is no way a 350-pound tiger can escape, short of someone opening a cage door.

I mean... right?

that doesn't make them less stupid...

but yeah, i think the zoo loses this one either way

[Partial Qualifier]

You are aware that coffee is hot and you should be careful when you drink it, especially in a moving vehicle, right? ;)

don't you think there's a difference between McDonald's making their coffee too hot and housing (for public view) an animal that can kill you and your two friends like it's no big deal?

These idiots showed the SF zoo that their tiger cage wasn't up to snuff. Responsible for damages, idunno.. I'm no lawyer.. but the zoo better damn sure fix their tiger cages, don't you think?

[BigRedJed]

The zoo surely has some liability, but as more and more about the victims' behavior comes out, their chances of a ridiculous settlement dwindles. A jury is going to be less and less sympathetic, the more of this crap they hear...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well, here is the rub. SFO had 3 foot too low barriers as recommended by some standard agency or group, SFO zoo choose to not do anything and by default accept a level of risk, something happened. SFO Zoo will have a hard time showing responsibility against a recommendation they did not accept. OTOH, the kids haven't set themselves up so well to have pity heaped upon them by a jury.

[jeremy885]

The cage seemed to work fine until these aholes did theiir stupid stunt.

[proud gonzo]

As dumb as these guys are, the zoo should be responsible for making sure there is no way a 350-pound tiger can escape, short of someone opening a cage door.

I mean... right?ok, a mad tiger is kinda like a mom whose little kid is trapped under a car. They can do a lot more than they normally would. Behavior in captivity is not usually to the extremes that it is in the wild, because the animals don't have to fight to survive.

Also--"taunting" an animal doesn't mean the animal gets mad because you're hurting its feelings. If your behavior is aggressive, the animal takes that as a challenge for dominance. Animals fight for dominance all the time in the wild, but humans aren't built to stand up to that sort of thing. So the drunk idiots taunt the tiger, the tiger goes "oh yeah?" and pounces.


There's sort of an understanding when designing exhibits in a zoo that the visitors are going to treat the animals with respect and follow the rules. There's no accounting for idiots.


edit: thinking that people are close enough to eat isn't an issue. Those animals see people every day, and they're well fed. That doesn't mean they don't still have a hunting instinct, but they're not going to expend a lot of effort to jump a wall and pounce on people just for the hell of it.

[proud gonzo]

Well, here is the rub. SFO had 3 foot too low barriers as recommended by some standard agency or group, SFO zoo choose to not do anything and by default accept a level of risk, something happened. SFO Zoo will have a hard time showing responsibility against a recommendation they did not accept. OTOH, the kids haven't set themselves up so well to have pity heaped upon them by a jury.also, all these numbers for things like "how high can a tiger jump?" "how deep can a prairie dog dig?" are all estimates. You can record and measure and observe, but there's no real way of testing just how much an animal can do under extreme circumstances. So it's all just suggestions. Generally the zookeepers who've worked with those specific animals will know better than somebody who's just spouting numbers.

In Wichita, they built a North American Prairie exhibit and put in a pen for buffalo, following the recommended everything. The very first thing that happened when they let the buffalo loose in the exhibit: one of them took a running start, jumped the fence, then jumped back in. Same thing happened with the new primate exhibit. Orangutan climbed out and back in, just because he could.

Happens a lot everywhere, but it's not dangerous unless some outside factor is added... like tards.

[olevetonahill]

So Im thinking, when Is the Zoo gonna sue the Tards fer getting their Tiger killed ?

[Partial Qualifier]

okay this is two different discussions: Is the zoo liable for compensation to the victims and if so, how much? -- and -- who's at fault for the tiger escape: the idiots or the zoo?

I would expect a zoo to idiot-proof a Siberian Tiger's cage. It's that simple. Standing, shouting, and yelling happens at most every zoo, probably on a daily basis. These aren't the first idiots to enter a zoo nor will they be the last.

Skimp on the buffalo's cages, the aviary enclosure and the hot coffee, but make damn sure your 350-pound killing machine can't leap out of her cage.

Too bad this whole sequence wasn't caught on tape.

[TexasSooner01]

I totally agree with PG on this one. The stupid tards thought that it was ok to taunt a wild or at least captive tiger. No matter how much training a tiger, lion, elephant, etc... receives or how old the animal is when it gets to the zoo you can train out all the "wildness" compleley. There are still going to be certain traits that nature instills in animals. Dominance is one of these traits.

You can't honestly tell me that any person with any real common sence would knowingly and willingly taunt a 350 pound cat regardless of how "tame" it seems to be.

The most disgusting and sadest part of this story is that they killed the tiger for being a tiger. A beautiful animal was killed because of these tards...the tards got what they deserved. IMO.

Maybe next time they go to the zoo, they will have enough sence to not taunt the animals...or at the very least not to climb onto the enclosure so the animal can clearly see them...

[TexasSooner01]

I would expect a zoo to idiot-proof a Siberian Tiger's cage.


That is like saying totally child proof a medicine bottle or totally puppy proofing your home...

You can make it more difficult for a kid to get a child proof lid off but that does not mean that the child can not get the lid off. You can spray bitter apple spray on all your furniture and give your dog toys to chew on but that does not mean the dog wont eat holes in your underware.

[proud gonzo]

okay this is two different discussions: Is the zoo liable for compensation to the victims and if so, how much? -- and -- who's at fault for the tiger escape: the idiots or the zoo?

I would expect a zoo to idiot-proof a Siberian Tiger's cage. It's that simple. Standing, shouting, and yelling happens at most every zoo, probably on a daily basis. These aren't the first idiots to enter a zoo nor will they be the last.

Skimp on the buffalo's cages, the aviary enclosure and the hot coffee, but make damn sure your 350-pound killing machine can't leap out of her cage.

Too bad this whole sequence wasn't caught on tape.

You'd be surprised--it really doesn't happen that often. I've volunteered at the zoo in Wichita since 2000, so I have experience with these things. I'm not just spouting random stuff.

The thing you have to understand is that the majority of animals in zoos are dangerous in some way. Birds can do a LOT of damage, buffalo can stomp you to death, emus and ostriches can disembowel you with a kick, a lot of the the frogs and snakes are poisonous... And you may not believe it, but the enclosures are mostly to protect animals from the people.

Animals are easy to predict. They act on instinct, for the most part, and it's easy for their handlers to understand how they're going to act. If an animal does something out of the ordinary, it wasn't thinking "hey, I'm gonna switch things up today and EAT people". There's something wrong, whether it was an outside factor, or illness, or whatever. But there's always something.

Now people, on the other hand, are far less predictable. So the enclosures and exhibits are supposed to keep people on the paths where they're safe, and nothing should happen to them if they don't stick their fingers into cages or taunt or throw things or bother the animals.

Where you run into problems is when someone decides to ignore all those nice guidelines. The animals are used to those guidelines, and if you do something unpredictable, the animal is going to react to it with instinct. You run up to a bird and try to pet it, it's going to bite you. Taunt a tiger, you get mauled. And then the animal, obviously, gets blamed and usually killed for it.

[OUDoc]

who's at fault for the tiger escape: the idiots or the zoo?

It's like off-setting penalties. We need a do-over.

[KABOOKIE]

It's like off-setting penalties. We need a do-over.


EXACTLY!

The herd has been thinned and the zoo will make the neccessary changes to the the tiger exhibit. It's a win-win situation. Why does anyone need to sue?

[Partial Qualifier]

I think some of you are totally missing my point.

The tiger was able to JUMP OUT of it's cage! That's all I'm saying.

If "taunting" can justify a 350-pound tiger jumping out of his cage and killing people, then we have to start allowing for anything that could possibly go on in the mind of a siberian tiger, whether it's mentally healthy or not. How can we possibly do that? we can't, just make sure the tiger can't escape.

[proud gonzo]

nah, I'm not missing your point, I just don't think it's as significant as you think it is. Just don't taunt animals, it's pretty simple.

[sooner_born_1960]

What if it were arachnids that were so inadequately caged? Did you ever think about that one, PG? :)

[proud gonzo]

you can stomp arachnids. But for the record, I'd rather go in a tiger pen than stick my hand in an arachnid cage.

[Fraggle145]

I'm with PG on this one.

Human entitlement wins, Animal dies... Just sad really. I dont feel bad for those *******s one bit.

Think about this, nobody else has gotten mauled in SFzoo and there probably have been multiple opportunities... These guys did something different.

[yermom]

what if said tiger was sick and had decided to eat humans that day? it still shouldn't be able to jump out of it's cage...

[Partial Qualifier]

That is like saying totally child proof a medicine bottle or totally puppy proofing your home...

You can make it more difficult for a kid to get a child proof lid off but that does not mean that the child can not get the lid off. You can spray bitter apple spray on all your furniture and give your dog toys to chew on but that does not mean the dog wont eat holes in your underware.

apples and oranges. These guys werent attacked while running around inside the tiger's cage..

[GrapevineSooner]

I actually agree with PQ on this one.

I think the idiot's behavior ought to preclude them from getting any damages.

But I also think the Zoo should probably be fined and forced to construct a cage capable of containing a 350-pound Tiger. No matter how idiotic it's customers are.

[Partial Qualifier]

nah, I'm not missing your point, I just don't think it's as significant as you think it is. Just don't taunt animals, it's pretty simple.

:O

I think you're still missing it.

The zoo made their enclosure shorter than was recommended and a tiger jumped out of the cage.

Look at it this way: you and your family are at the zoo. Some random tards climb up on a railing outside the tiger cage and taunt the tiger; said tiger jumps out of the cage to get them and by sheer bad luck on your part, sees your family first.

What's more important at that point, the taunters or the fact that a ****ing tiger got out of his cage and is about to snack on your fam?

The zoo can't control the people in the zoo. They *can* control where the tiger goes. I don't feel sorry for the idiots and yes they're poster-perfect Darwin Award winners but the zoo is ultimately responsible. Not for cash to the victims but to make sure that can't happen again.

[BigRedJed]

Actually, I do agree with PQ. The zoo had a responsiblity to keep the animals caged; the zoo failed. There will be liability. My point was that the tards won't get much sympathy from a jury (witness this thread), and won't score a huge financial windfall.

Now, if a mother had been innocently walking her children past the cage and a tiger had jumped out of the bushes, snatched her baby out of a stroller, devoured it in one gulp, and then mauled her and her other childern, well then she'd be a very sad, very rich gazillionaire. The drunk, stoner, misbehaving tards? Not so much.

[BigRedJed]

Thanks for stealing my example while I was typing it, PQ. Tard.

[proud gonzo]

:O

I think you're still missing it.

The zoo made their enclosure shorter than was recommended and a tiger jumped out of the cage.

Look at it this way: you and your family are at the zoo. Some random tards climb up on a railing outside the tiger cage and taunt the tiger; said tiger jumps out of the cage to get them and by sheer bad luck on your part, sees your family first.

What's more important at that point, the taunters or the fact that a ****ing tiger got out of his cage and is about to snack on your fam?

The zoo can't control the people in the zoo. They *can* control where the tiger goes. I don't feel sorry for the idiots and yes they're poster-perfect Darwin Award winners but the zoo is ultimately responsible. Not for cash to the victims but to make sure that can't happen again.
no, I'm not missing your point. I disagree with you strongly. If that situation happend, I wouldn't blame the animal OR the zoo, but the people who provoked the animal. When my dad pesters my bird and the bird chomps a hole in my finger, I don't blame the bird for it.


Tigers can get about 13' long, they can jump about 16' vertically and about 35' horizontally. If you think an extra 4' was going to make a difference to a ****ed off tiger, you're sadly mistaken.

[proud gonzo]

what if said tiger was sick and had decided to eat humans that day? it still shouldn't be able to jump out of it's cage...usually when animals get sick, they don't eat and they try to conserve their energy. Sick animals are prey, not predator.

[Partial Qualifier]

Thanks for stealing my example while I was typing it, PQ. Tard.
but you had the whole mental image of a tiger jumping out of the landscaping and gulping down a baby in one go.. I mean, that's worth something

[Partial Qualifier]

Okay PG, we disagree. Sorry - I thought I simply wasn't being clear enough.

But I must know: did you chuckle, or at least snicker at my 'snack on your fam' statement ??

[proud gonzo]

i chuckled a bit.

In these situations, however, I will always side with the animal rather than the people. I've been around enough dangerous animals (without dying) to know it's usually the human's fault when something goes awry, and the animal suffers from the misunderstanding. People should know better, but you can't expect an animal to do anything more than be itself.

[KC//CRIMSON]

The zoo is at fault for not having the moat walls tall enough to contain the tigers. It doesn't matter if they were drunk, stoned, and holding their cocks in their hand taunting the tigers. The zoo is liable.

[BigRedJed]

no, I'm not missing your point. I disagree with you strongly. If that situation happend, I wouldn't blame the animal OR the zoo, but the people who provoked the animal. When my dad pesters my bird and the bird chomps a hole in my finger, I don't blame the bird for it.


Tigers can get about 13' long, they can jump about 16' vertically and about 35' horizontally. If you think an extra 4' was going to make a difference to a ****ed off tiger, you're sadly mistaken.
This is where I chime in and say I don't blame the animal... ...at all. It's a shame that the tiger was killed for being a tiger. Still the correct action, considering it was in the act of mauling someone when they took it down.

But I do believe that the zoo AND the antagonists can BOTH be at fault. If an extra 4' on the wall wasn't enough, there should have been an extra 10'. They should err on the side of caution.

So yeah, the zoo does bear some responsibility here. Especially since their wall was below the standard height necessary for accreditation. That was irresponsible to both the visitors AND the animals.

But I still say those tards aren't going to become gazillionaires off of this, nor should they.

[Fraggle145]

I want to know when the recommendation for tiger fence height was published... before or after the zoo's construction? how did they get the measurements for tiger jump height or climbing ability? How many other zoos across america dont fit these standards? how many of those have people getting mauled by tigers?

BTW there is not "standard" height, it is all "recommendation"

just some thoughts... I think its the persons responsibility to not be an idiot. If you are an idiot and you get deaded then it your fault. **** you, the end, you are lunch.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

i chuckled a bit.

In these situations, however, I will always side with the animal rather than the people. I've been around enough dangerous animals (without dying) to know it's usually the human's fault when something goes awry, and the animal suffers from the misunderstanding. People should know better, but you can't expect an animal to do anything more than be itself.

Yep on that. My cousin grew up on a dairy farm. One day we get this call that my cousin was kicked in the head by a cow. Everyone is all upset and worried for him. Then....we find out that the cow wasn't moving out of the pen and he was wacking it all over the head and other places with a cane. The cow got ****ed and laid her back hoof in the middle of his forehead. Feeling bad for my cousin after hearing that, not so much.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The zoo is at fault for not having the moat walls tall enough to contain the tigers. It doesn't matter if they were drunk, stoned, and holding their cocks in their hand taunting the tigers. The zoo is liable.

Don't know about that. If so, then every zoo in the country better cage up their open exhibits. I think SFO had walls to the minimum, but a consultant recommended a taller wall that was higher than the minimum. I don't know if the design was poor, but they will have to answer for walls different than recommended while stilll meeting minimums.

[Desert Sapper]

If you think an extra 4' was going to make a difference to a ****ed off tiger, you're sadly mistaken.

The real question is...how much of dead jackass was dangling inside the cage? I'm willing to bet that 4' below standard wall + 3 feet of average human leg length = enough for Tiger to grab, climb, and get out.

I agree with the posters that say the jackasses should get no dough, but the zoo should have to amend it's protective enclosures. If a tiger can get out by any means, the zoo needs to do a little adjustment. If all it takes is a few wasted dumb****s, the zoo is partially culpable.

Contrary to what you have said, there is an expectation of safety (regardless of the reality) at a zoo. That expectation will be enough to force the zoo to fix it's problems. ASAP. And publish widespread accounts of how much safer the zoo is now.

[yermom]

usually when animals get sick, they don't eat and they try to conserve their energy. Sick animals are prey, not predator.

well, by "sick" i mean "There's something wrong, whether it was an outside factor, or illness, or whatever."

what ever it is that would make them want to attack a human

[BigRedJed]

I'll tell you what would make them want to attack a human: THEY'RE ****ING TIGERS!!!

[1stTimeCaller]

KABOOKIE sumed it up. Well done, chump.

[SoonerJack]

If I get on that jury, I'm voting in favor of the tigers. I say retire that tiger's stripes and put his name on the ring of honor. That way the other tigers could look back and say, "yeah, I remember the day ol' stripey just snaped. He says, 'Jake, I just cain't take it any more. I'm gonna eat that punk.'"

Also, doesn't the chance that you can be eaten by something in the zoo make it a more memorable visit? I mean, getting cotton candy and peanuts and little monkey visors is one thing, but going in thinking, "ok, kids. There's a chance we may not all leave together, so if you got a peace to make with someone, let's make it now."

[VeeJay]

How does one taunt a zoo tiger?

What do you say to it?

Standing up on the ledge, waving a bloody eye of round roast, shout "Hey, Mr. Tiger - ya want this?"

I mean what were these goobers doing exactly?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Standing up on the ledge, waving a bloody eye of round roast, shout "Hey, Mr. Tiger - ya want this?"


with the exception of the eye of round, pretty much that and waving their arms and hands and probably a little more...

[Frozen Sooner]

Point of common law here:

Zookeepers have strict liability for any and all actions of dangerous animals. Period. The discussion of whether the fence was at the recommended height or whether the idiots were taunting the tiger is immaterial to a discussion of liability. Had the tiger not been brought into a populated area, the attack would not have happened. For certain activities negligence doesn't have to be proven for liability to accrue.

That being said, the zoo should be able to recover the cost of the tiger, but they're going to end up paying out to the dude's family if they sue.

[Frozen Sooner]

How does one taunt a zoo tiger?

What do you say to it?

Standing up on the ledge, waving a bloody eye of round roast, shout "Hey, Mr. Tiger - ya want this?"

I mean what were these goobers doing exactly?

They were probably singing Survivor songs at it.

"Rising up, straight to the top..."

[C&CDean]

Dude, you didn't even read the story. It was a ****ing tiger. Geez.

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. It even magically transformed from a tiger to a lion in the middle of my post.

I'm doped up on cough medicine. :(

[Frozen Sooner]

Anyhow, here's the thing: certain activities are held to be inherently dangerous by the courts. Nuclear waste disposal. Demolition. Handling wild animals is one of those activities. The zoo is toast here, and the only question now is how much they're going to pay.

[yermom]

something really should be done about these tigers, they are a menace

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_nov2003/TigerAttack.gif

[Frozen Sooner]

You can always quote William Blake at them. They hate that.

[Jerk]

Anyhow, here's the thing: certain activities are held to be inherently dangerous by the courts. Nuclear waste disposal. Demolition. Handling wild animals is one of those activities. The zoo is toast here, and the only question now is how much they're going to pay.

According to one of our resident scumbags, er, I'm sorry, attorneys, non-profit orgs can't be sued in most states.

I'm trying to hold back the tears, guys, for the young precious boys who were attacked by that viscous creature..

Just give me a minute to re-coupe my emotions...

Ok, I'm alright now.

[Frozen Sooner]

According to one of our resident scumbags, er, I'm sorry, attorneys, non-profit orgs can't be sued in most states.

I'm trying to hold back the tears, guys, for the young precious boys who were attacked by that viscous creature..

Just give me a minute to re-coupe my emotions...

Ok, I'm alright now.

That can't be correct, otherwise credit unions wouldn't bother to carry insurance. The NCAA is a non-profit, and it's been sued multiple times.

I'm not saying that the legal theory is correct in this case, but that's what stare decisis is. Personally, I think they were acting like asshats and aren't entitled to one sou.

[BigRedJed]

Anyhow, here's the thing: certain activities are held to be inherently dangerous by the courts. Nuclear waste disposal. Demolition. Handling wild animals is one of those activities. The zoo is toast here, and the only question now is how much they're going to pay.
I agree with this, however, to answer your question: they're going to pay a hell of a lot less to these tards than they would have paid to the aforementioned fictional mom with the swallowed-whole baby. I have enough faith in my fellow man to believe a jury will adjust the award to compensate for the victims' asshattedness.

[Jerk]

. I have enough faith in my fellow man to believe a jury will adjust the award to compensate for the victims' asshattedness.

Dude...

The jury will be hand-picked from the finest citizens of San Fransisco.

[Getem]

Dude...

The jury will be hand-picked from the finest citizens of San Fransisco.

Uhoh.. they been itching to get back at tigers since one of em got Roy

[BigRedJed]

Hah!

[KC//CRIMSON]

Point of common law here:

Zookeepers have strict liability for any and all actions of dangerous animals. Period. The discussion of whether the fence was at the recommended height or whether the idiots were taunting the tiger is immaterial to a discussion of liability. Had the tiger not been brought into a populated area, the attack would not have happened. For certain activities negligence doesn't have to be proven for liability to accrue.

That being said, the zoo should be able to recover the cost of the tiger, but they're going to end up paying out to the dude's family if they sue.

Exactly. Spot on, homeslice.

And it doesn't matter if it was a bunch of drunk teenagers or a one month old baby screaming it's head off. Once a wild animal is *issed off, it's *issed off. The zoo becomes liable.

[SleestakSooner]

something really should be done about these tigers, they are a menace

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_nov2003/TigerAttack.gif

How do you turn a fruit into a vegetable?














Let the tiger drag him off the stage!

[GottaHavePride]

Except in that situation what actually happened is that he had a stroke onstage (or heart attack, whatever) and the tiger drug him offstage to protect him. The tiger was not the problem there. Once again, tards in the audience panicked and misinterpreted what had happened.

And for the record, I would be WAY more concerned with an escaped buffalo than an escaped tiger. A ****ed off buffalo weighs three times what a tiger weighs.

A tiger's a big cat. Generally, if you aren't ****ing it off it's not going to bother you. The guys at the zoo failed to learn this.

[Jimminy Crimson]

Would it be fair for the zoo to offer the families free lifetime passes? :O

[Partial Qualifier]

And for the record, I would be WAY more concerned with an escaped buffalo than an escaped tiger.



Come on GHP, that's completely ridiculous.

[tbl]

As dumb as these guys are, the zoo should be responsible for making sure there is no way a 350-pound tiger can escape, short of someone opening a cage door.

I mean... right?
Absolutely. The taunting is really a moot point... Yeah it makes the victims look bad (I guess), but ultimately the tiger should NOT have been able to jump out. What if it was a little kid in his stroller acting out and the tiger interpreted that as taunting? Would it be justifiable then?

[tbl]

Come on GHP, that's completely ridiculous.
Why? Tigers eat people, buffaloes eat... alfalfa.

[OUDoc]

A tiger's a big cat. Generally, if you aren't ****ing it off it's not going to bother you. The guys at the zoo failed to learn this.
Yeah, it's a shame no one had a giant ball of string handy.

[LoyalFan]

Apparently I can't spell as well...:(

Well they may not be victims after all...Drunk and chroniced.

Apparently they WERE taunting the tigers... (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/18/tiger.attack.ap/index.html)

Awww, yew spill az wel az moste uv us'ns hear dew. Bedder then sum, in fack.

And yes, the deceased (and partially digested) got what he deserved. Sad that the cops killed the tiger (tiger, burning bright.) though. I sorta though she deserved a medal (and a small pig) for improving the gene pool.

LF

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

:O

I think you're still missing it.

The zoo made their enclosure shorter than was recommended and a tiger jumped out of the cage.

Look at it this way: you and your family are at the zoo. Some random tards climb up on a railing outside the tiger cage and taunt the tiger; said tiger jumps out of the cage to get them and by sheer bad luck on your part, sees your family first.

What's more important at that point, the taunters or the fact that a ****ing tiger got out of his cage and is about to snack on your fam?

The zoo can't control the people in the zoo. They *can* control where the tiger goes. I don't feel sorry for the idiots and yes they're poster-perfect Darwin Award winners but the zoo is ultimately responsible. Not for cash to the victims but to make sure that can't happen again.Done. Lock it up, mods. nothing more to say.

[GottaHavePride]

Come on GHP, that's completely ridiculous.
Average weight of an adult buffalo is 1600 pounds.

1600 angry pounds is a LOT harder to stop than 350 pounds. It's the same reason that a hippopotamus is actually FAR more dangerous than a crocodile.

[Desert Sapper]

Average weight of an adult buffalo is 1600 pounds.

1600 angry pounds is a LOT harder to stop than 350 pounds. It's the same reason that a hippopotamus is actually FAR more dangerous than a crocodile.

Might I add that 350 pounds is predatory, very fast in the short distance, bearing extra long claws, and sporting some awfully fearsome teeth? Trampled would suck. Getting toyed with by a giant kitty before being devoured? Much worse IMHO. And I think it depends on how close you are to a crocodile as to how dangerous it is.

[GottaHavePride]

Heh. You guys telling me these things won't make me any more scared of tigers. I'm not saying they aren't dangerous. I'm just saying that a well-fed tiger in a zoo is not that high on my percieved threat list. I really think the morons did something to warrant the tiger flipping out ninja-style on them.

A good general rule is don't make loud noises or sudden movements around wild animals. I'm no Jack Hanna, but I've been around a fair number of different kinds of animals, and I've never been attacked by any of them.

Except wasps. **** wasps, man. I'd take a tiger over a pack of hornets any day of the week.

Come to think of it, Jack Hanna is a twitchy sumbitch. How has he not been eaten like 700 times by now?

[LoyalFan]

Not only should one eschew the practice of taunting large felines who possess impressive dentition but it's also wise to remember...

You should nevAr smile at a Crocodile.

Chomp...chomp, chomp.

Hook, Captain
Deceased

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Uhoh.. they been itching to get back at tigers since one of em got Roy

Err, I'm thinking they are so PETA that they will put the boys in jail and fine their behind big time for causing the death of the tiger, doing what it is supposed to do. ;)

[tbl]

Average weight of an adult buffalo is 1600 pounds.

1600 angry pounds is a LOT harder to stop than 350 pounds. It's the same reason that a hippopotamus is actually FAR more dangerous than a crocodile.
Buffalo
http://www.ecoliblog.com/buffalo.jpg

Hippo
http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/mraz/hippopotamus-05a21021.jpg

I'm thinking a hippo is a little more dangerous than a buffalo, what with the large tusks and extremely territorial and aggressive nature.

[yermom]

hippos are supposed to kill more people in Africa than anything except mosquitos

[Partial Qualifier]

...somebody's been watching Man vs. Wild.


:D

[jeremy885]

hippos are supposed to kill more people in Africa than anything except mosquitos


General "Butt Naked" would disagree with you :eek:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/01/21/liberia.general.ap/index.html

[yermom]

me?

nah, that guy is a total poser ;)