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.

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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.

__________________
Wake up every day that would be a start.

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....

__________________
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

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??

__________________

An unwavering defender of those I see worth protecting.

"promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare"

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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