Lesson for the day, don't taunt a 400lb Tiger.
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/02/tig...l?iref=topnews

If you're in the USA I'm sure you all heard the Tiger mauling story, you probably didn't know that the two people still alive from the attack are not cooperating with police and want to sue the zoo...sadly for them, police are finding 'objects' that indicate they were either shooting sling-shots at the tiger or taunting it with sticks. Probably not the best thing to do to a wild cat that is build to kill.

poor tiger.
:(

I do feel badly for that cat... I had the feeling there was something fishy about this story. It's starting to look like Tatiana was provoked. The tiger lost its life because three drunk dumbasses decided to pick on her.

Juan

Hang on folks:

KTVU a local news station reports.............

Two San Francisco personal injury lawyers who have experience suing the city said the zoo is on the hook for a large payout -- even if it turns out the attack victims taunted the tiger.
"It's an incredibly strong case," said George Choulos, who is not directly involved in this case. "The bottom line is that you are always going to get kids who taunt the animals. The zoo has a duty to make things safe. The zoo should have made the enclosures safe for all foreseeable users. Not all users of the zoo will be model citizens."
Choulos also said that there appears to be a "smear campaign" against the two surviving victims by zoo officials and others who are "trying to keep the focus on the victims and away from their behavior and how the enclosure was too short." Another lawyer, Khaldoun Baghdadi, said "no matter what kind of taunting the kids did, the zoo is facing significant exposure because tigers shouldn't get out of there cages. You almost don't need a law degree to know that."

He also pointed to the tiger's previous attack on a zookeeper a year ago and the varying measurements zoo officials gave of the tiger enclosure's height as other factors that could be used to show the zoo's negligence. "The more that comes out, the worse it gets for the zoo," said Baghdadi, who's also not directly involved in the tiger case.

:iagree:

Great, not surprising in Cali...and the USA. Though it was 100% the fault of those killed/injured..let's find some f-n loop hole to blame the zoo for money. POS lawyers.

Quote > "He also pointed to the tiger's previous attack on a zookeeper a year ago"


Now that is some funny sh*t! Already trying to establish a pattern of bad behavior. Duh!!! it's a f-n tiger. :confused:

:iagree: and the zoo keeper was in the cage with the Tiger...

Tiger aka wild cat.

Exactly. the tiger didn't "attack" the keeper, and don't get me wrong, i have many friends who are zoo keepers at both the Bronx Zoo and San Diego WAP (including my sister who worked at both), the keeper put her arm into a tiger cage with food in her hand... The tiger was just being a tiger. I feel bad for the keeper i truly do, but you can't fault the animal for being a tiger and doing what a tiger does.

So kids can be kids but tigers can't be tigers? That's f'ing hypocritcal!

Yeah, the loop I saw was that the fence standards were from somewhere around 1940's and since then the law requires higher fences and larger moats. So a lawyer without a conscience will get his cut and the two kids will get rich.

Seems like the only one who got what he deserved was the dead kid. I wonder if his middle name was Darwin?

Your justice system at work.

+1

If you lived in a cage and had kids taunt you, wouldn't you attack them :rolleyes:

I wonder if there would be a jury out there that would side with the hoods knowing that if they don't taunt or prevoke the tiger the injuries do not occur. The injured keeper was in the inclosure and the punks were not. Seems to me if you do not drink a bottle of vodka and taunt a tiger the third guy is still alive.

I recall doing that to my Kidz, circa '67-'77, :rofl: ...

:rofl: :rofl: I should have expected that :D

I believe the saying is "Mess with the bull, get the horns." Dumb kids. Though if the point about the zoo security not reacting is true, thats going to cause some trouble.

I don't know, wild tiger running a muck and only one person dies...pretty good in my book.

We have been zoo members for a number of years and Tatiana was a beautiful tiger. We always go see her when we go to the zoo. She would roar and play, but we have never seen her really aggressive. The episode with the zookeeper last year shocked us, and this year we are sorry about what happened, both to the kids and to Tatiana.

It is very fishy when supposedly victims do not talk about what happened to law enforcement. When that happens, you can bet that there is more behind the story. And especially when the victims are kids, we in the community pretty know that something was not right. So here's today's story in the local papers with eye witnesses:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MN9TU8AGC.DTL

We will eventually get to the bottom of this, but I just hate attorneys right now who is putting his own spin on what happened to enrich himself!

Update: Tiger attack victim was drinking, admitted taunting
 

Well - looks like the truth comes out. Dumb people in this world.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/18/tig...ef=mpstoryview

yup, morons, and the result of their idiocy? a rare, beautiful animal is now dead. :( :thumbdown :bawling: :angryfire

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/18/tig...rss_topstories

Now I want to see the two surviving @ssholes brought up on charges, plus have to pay for a new tiger. An animal dies because these POS couldn't keep their act together...why couldn't they just fall in the pit so there would have been no reason to kill the cat.

I agree that the attack victims are complete idiots. But I'm not sure what they would charge them with except public intoxication and public mischief.

The zoo on the other hand does have an obligation to keep the public safe from an angry tiger. The reason the tiger is angry does not relieve them of their obligation. Unfortunately I do believe these idiots have a case, especially in California.

Also unfortunate is the fact that the tiger is the innocent bystander in all of this.

violation of probation, possession of illegal substance, etc..

animal cruelty, destruction of property (unfortunately, the tiger is labeled as property, and as it's now dead, it falls under this title), fraud, lieing to police, tresspassing.... there are a lot of charges that could be brought against those idiots. What they really need is a good old fashion ass kicking and some common sense beaten into them.

sorry, but no sympathy for them....

What I don't get is why the press is labeling these two as kids. They are 19 and 23! They are not kids anymore, they are just punks who are on drugs and alcohol, causes trouble, and are now unfortunately going to become rich because of this. Life is just not fair!

These three or at least the two remaining "victims" (I use that term loosely) contributed to the incident which resulted in the death of one of the three plus the death of the tiger at the zoo. That said the zoo also contributed to the incident by maintaining a tiger enclosure which was not up to universal standards thus making for a dangerous inevitable incident.

I'd be less likely to blame the Zoo if the enclosure walls were the proper height and this was a freak accident but as things stand the enclosure was obviously insufficient to contain that dangerous animal. Though there are signs that inform the public not to taunt the animals there needs to be a reasonable expectation that some level of taunting will take place at some given time. From what I understand the outer wall on the spectator side was only three feet high. Though it is forbidden to sit or stand on the wall...It being three feet high with no supervision I'd expect visitors would frequently ignore the signs.

However, in this incident, these three not only violated zoo warnings they played a pivotal role in the attack and should be held partially responsible. If it is found that one or both of the survivors were the instigators of this behavior he or they should be brought up on further charges of involuntary manslaughter for the death of their friend and the death of the tiger.

The zoo should also be culpable for damages and if evidence is found that they discussed the dangers at any time prior to this incident they should also be charged with involuntary manslaughter or endangering the public as well.

I don't know about everyone else, but I have a reasonable expectation that on my visit to the zoo with my little boy we will be safe even if some drunken fool is taunting the tigers in the next exhibit. Holding the zoo responsible is the only way to stress the importance of safety for the general public.

I'd have to disagree with some parts of that MrLabGuy. While I agree the Zoo did slouch on the standards, someone getting inside a pit with a Tiger is not the Zoo's responsibility. If we are going to force the Zoo to assume all liability (which is what the families initially tried) then we need to close down all Zoos and stick to the Discovery Channel. It is a wild animal, if you climb in/around it's enclosure...look out. If this had happened while people were simply walking by, I'd blame the Zoo..but it didn't. Remember the police found a shoe and some other 'crap' inside the Tigers enclosure....now how did that happen?? :)

I've not heard that they were physically "inside" the enclosure. They would have to had lowered themselves down a 12.5 foot wall. Instead they were on top of the wall which as I pointed out was only 3 feet tall on the pedestrian side of the fence. The police know this because there was a foot print on the top of the fence from one of the three.

Now what say you?

+1

Say me what, am I a cop at the scene? :rofl:

I hope not...Last place I'd want to be a police officer is in San Francisco and I live near there.

That said, I don't think there is any evidence that they were inside the enclosure. In fact it is very unlikely due to the sheer wall of 12.5 feet. They would have been eaten inside the tiger cage. It is more likely that the tiger grabbed a foot dangling over the side or just jumped over and attacked them where they fell.

That 3 feet tall fence does not matter in this case. It's the 12.5 foot wall that was the problem. The autopsy on the tiger indicated that he was scraped up pretty bad scaling that wall, which means that he was really mad and want to go after these guys. These guys ran 300 yards, and the tiger was still after them, which indicates that the tiger was really mad at them for something they did.

No, this does not mean that the zoo was not negligent in the cage design, but just that the two or three guys really did something to get the tiger this mad at them. Poor tiger and the two guys will get rich from this. Injustice!

That was a good reference photo. I'm not so sure they are going to get rich...A jury is sure to find them partially responsible and if I was on the jury I'd award the zoo an equal amount for the death of the tiger making any award a wash.

didn't the news tonight say the case will be dropped from both sides?

LOL...I watch the news every night except last night. That surprises me because most think they would still get a load of cash regardless of the taunting.

I'm glad to hear they dropped the case but I am shocked...Don't they know we live in a litigious society :rofl: What are all these trial lawyers going to do with themselves?

I would really be surprised if that happens. I have not heard that yet and it's not in today's papers. Attorneys are not going to go away that easily.

I heard that on KCBS. It's actually a lose lose situation for 2 of the parties. (City and the 2 brothers) That family with the son that was killed still has a case against SF Zoo. The 2 brothers on the other hand knows better to do anything since probation and drug charges will guarantee that the fools go to jail.

Interesting, Taunt or not, The Fence was too low, that in my opinion is enough for a large payout, taunt or not, and even so I'd be interested in just how "fair" a city-funded investigation about a city-owned zoo could be, just my 2 cents, and yes, I disagree with them taunting the tiger, but that is just what i've heard