Lesson for the day, don't taunt a 400lb Tiger. - Page 4

Wagner · #31 01-19-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

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?

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

Sponsored Links

MrLabGuy · #32 01-19-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wagner

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

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.

AutoXer · #33 01-20-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

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?

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!

MrLabGuy · #34 01-20-2008, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AutoXer

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.

SANguru · #35 01-20-2008, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

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?

MrLabGuy · #36 01-20-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SANguru

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

What are all these trial lawyers going to do with themselves?

AutoXer · #37 01-20-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SANguru

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

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.

SANguru · #38 01-21-2008, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AutoXer

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.

blondboinsd · #39 01-21-2008, 02:53 AM

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

Sponsored Links