When Tiger(s) Attack

[outofplace]

The more I read about the brainiacs involved in this attack, the more I think this is a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Perhaps, but shouldn't the idiots running the zoo who let this happen have died then as well?

If these were kids who were too young to know better I might agree. But we're talking about adults here. If you're enough of an asshole to go to a zoo and climb over a fence you ****ing know you shouldn't climb over, you deserve to get eaten.

If it's proved that the tiger got out because he was able to leap up, grab hold of the guy he ate and pull himself over the wall, the zoo should sue the survivors for causing the death of the tiger.

Let's see...human beings....tiger...human beings...tiger...duh

This animal should not have been on display after attacking a handler. Don't want to destroy it? Fine. But no way you take the smallest chance that something like this happens.

And yes, you do have to idiot proof an enclosure for dangerous animals at the zoo. If the zoo isn't taking into account potential acts of stupidity by the paying public, the people in charge are kidding themselves....or just don't give a ****.

So barriers, moats and signs that specifically tell you not to climb said barriers aren't enough?

If you aren't smart enough to heed the warning we don't need you around polluting the gene pool anyway.

Tell that to the two other people who were mauled. Or everybody else that was endangered when that "beautiful animal" was loose.

It is pure ****ing luck that it wasn't some small child that got eaten. This animal already mauled a human being. No way the zoo shouldn't at least take some of the blame here, if not all. None.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The more I read about the brainiacs involved in this attack, the more I think this is a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Perhaps, but shouldn't the idiots running the zoo who let this happen have died then as well?

If these were kids who were too young to know better I might agree. But we're talking about adults here. If you're enough of an asshole to go to a zoo and climb over a fence you ****ing know you shouldn't climb over, you deserve to get eaten.

If it's proved that the tiger got out because he was able to leap up, grab hold of the guy he ate and pull himself over the wall, the zoo should sue the survivors for causing the death of the tiger.

Let's see...human beings....tiger...human beings...tiger...duh

This animal should not have been on display after attacking a handler. Don't want to destroy it? Fine. But no way you take the smallest chance that something like this happens.

And yes, you do have to idiot proof an enclosure for dangerous animals at the zoo. If the zoo isn't taking into account potential acts of stupidity by the paying public, the people in charge are kidding themselves....or just don't give a ****.

So barriers, moats and signs that specifically tell you not to climb said barriers aren't enough?

If you aren't smart enough to heed the warning we don't need you around polluting the gene pool anyway.

Tell that to the two other people who were mauled. Or everybody else that was endangered when that "beautiful animal" was loose.

It is pure ****ing luck that it wasn't some small child that got eaten. This animal already mauled a human being. No way the zoo shouldn't at least take some of the blame here, if not all. None.

It appears the victim and the two maulees were screwing with the tiger, which led to its escape. I don't have a whole lot of pity for them if that turns out to be true.

While the zoo admin certainly needs to re-examine its enclosures they are not responsible for the stupidity of the idiots who climbed a fence they should not have climbed in the first place.

If the victims were simply in the wrong place the wrong time and the tiger got loose as result of direct negligence on the part of the zoo that changes things. But that doesn't appear to be the case at this point.

 

[outofplace]

The more I read about the brainiacs involved in this attack, the more I think this is a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

Perhaps, but shouldn't the idiots running the zoo who let this happen have died then as well?

If these were kids who were too young to know better I might agree. But we're talking about adults here. If you're enough of an asshole to go to a zoo and climb over a fence you ****ing know you shouldn't climb over, you deserve to get eaten.

If it's proved that the tiger got out because he was able to leap up, grab hold of the guy he ate and pull himself over the wall, the zoo should sue the survivors for causing the death of the tiger.

Let's see...human beings....tiger...human beings...tiger...duh

This animal should not have been on display after attacking a handler. Don't want to destroy it? Fine. But no way you take the smallest chance that something like this happens.

And yes, you do have to idiot proof an enclosure for dangerous animals at the zoo. If the zoo isn't taking into account potential acts of stupidity by the paying public, the people in charge are kidding themselves....or just don't give a ****.

So barriers, moats and signs that specifically tell you not to climb said barriers aren't enough?

If you aren't smart enough to heed the warning we don't need you around polluting the gene pool anyway.

Tell that to the two other people who were mauled. Or everybody else that was endangered when that "beautiful animal" was loose.

It is pure ****ing luck that it wasn't some small child that got eaten. This animal already mauled a human being. No way the zoo shouldn't at least take some of the blame here, if not all. None.

It appears the victim and the two maulees were screwing with the tiger, which led to its escape. I don't have a whole lot of pity for them if that turns out to be true.

While the zoo admin certainly needs to re-examine its enclosures they are not responsible for the stupidity of the idiots who climbed a fence they should not have climbed in the first place.

If the victims were simply in the wrong place the wrong time and the tiger got loose as result of direct negligence on the part of the zoo that changes things. But that doesn't appear to be the case at this point.

Again, any enclosure that some idiot can get into and let a dangerous animal loose is proof of negligence by the zoo. And if the three victims were all being stupid, it is still blind luck that nobody else was maimed or killed.

My 4-year-old loves the zoo. No way in hell I would ever let her near a place where something like this happened.

 

[Bubbler]

Latest report I read speculated the victims might have put a board across the moat or something that allowed easier escape.

If that's the true, the zoo is more at fault for not monitoring its dip**** patrons more so than any negligence for the design of its enclosures.

And OoP, c'mon. At EVERY zoo I've ever been to, I wouldn't take THAT much to get into an enclosure if you were bound and determined. Don't try to sell that unsafe enclosure argument, these victims were baiting a dangerous animal.

And as far as that tiger "mauling" someone earlier, that tiger gauged a zookeeper's arm in its cage when it was being fed. Everything I read said that it's normal behavior for a tiger to do that under certain circumstances (the inference I read into it was that the zookeeper might have not been on the ball). So by that logic, let's go around blasting away all the tigers in every zoo.

By the way, I'm not trying to say it's tragic the tiger died, if it got loose, you have to kill it.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Latest report I read speculated the victims might have put a board across the moat or something that allowed easier escape.

If that's the true, the zoo is more at fault for not monitoring its dip**** patrons more so than any negligence for the design of its enclosures.

And OoP, c'mon. At EVERY zoo I've ever been to, I wouldn't take THAT much to get into an enclosure if you were bound and determined. Don't try to sell that unsafe enclosure argument, these victims were baiting a dangerous animal.

And as far as that tiger "mauling" someone earlier, that tiger gauged a zookeeper's arm in its cage when it was being fed. Everything I read said that it's normal behavior for a tiger to do that under certain circumstances (the inference I read into it was that the zookeeper might have not been on the ball). So by that logic, let's go around blasting away all the tigers in every zoo.

By the way, I'm not trying to say it's tragic the tiger died, if it got loose, you have to kill it.

Unless, of course, you have a crisis plan in place that allows for darting it and knocking it out if you can get to it in time. Most zoos have some sort of plan like that.

In this case though they had no choice but to shoot.

 

[outofplace]

Latest report I read speculated the victims might have put a board across the moat or something that allowed easier escape.

If that's the true, the zoo is more at fault for not monitoring its dip**** patrons more so than any negligence for the design of its enclosures.

And OoP, c'mon. At EVERY zoo I've ever been to, I wouldn't take THAT much to get into an enclosure if you were bound and determined. Don't try to sell that unsafe enclosure argument, these victims were baiting a dangerous animal.

And as far as that tiger "mauling" someone earlier, that tiger gauged a zookeeper's arm in its cage when it was being fed. Everything I read said that it's normal behavior for a tiger to do that under certain circumstances (the inference I read into it was that the zookeeper might have not been on the ball). So by that logic, let's go around blasting away all the tigers in every zoo.

By the way, I'm not trying to say it's tragic the tiger died, if it got loose, you have to kill it.

We don't really know what happened yet, and at least some information seems to be coming from zoo officials looking to cover their own asses. It's one thing for some idiot to get in. It's another completely for them to be able to let the tiger out.

I never said the tiger had to be put down after mauling the attendant. I said it shouldn't have been on display.

 

[bigpern23]

We don't really know what happened yet

There's got be video somewhere, whether taken by zoo surveillance cameras or various onlookers, right? When are we going to see that? I'm not trying to get some thrill out of seeing someone killed by a tiger or anything, but I'd like to see what the victims' behavior was like and how the animal escaped. There's got to be video. Nothing goes unrecorded these days.

Hell, there's video of feces escaping two girls' bowels and landing in a cup, isn't there?

 

[JackyJackBN]

We don't really know what happened yet

There's got be video somewhere, whether taken by zoo surveillance cameras or various onlookers, right? When are we going to see that? I'm not trying to get some thrill out of seeing someone killed by a tiger or anything, but I'd like to see what the victims' behavior was like and how the animal escaped. There's got to be video. Nothing goes unrecorded these days.

Hell, there's video of feces escaping two girls' bowels and landing in a cup, isn't there?

Most zoos aren't particularly well surveilled. This incident could add a new expense for zoos.

More great videos of crap-throwing monkeys and orangs would be one result.

 

[ARD]

IIR the story correctly, there are no surveillance cameras at that zoo.

Also, LA Times has people refuting the earlier reports:

(Zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo) also denied published reports that quoted him saying that one of the victims had danged their arm or leg over the sheer wall, perhaps allowing the tiger to pounce and use it to climb out of the grotto.

Police Chief Heather Fong said published reports that a shoe was found inside the tiger grotto also were incorrect.

"The tiger must have escaped from the front part of the exhibit," Mollinedo said.

 

[outofplace]

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=367367

For those who want to blame the victims, the director of the zoo is now admitting that the wall around the enclosure was lower than the recommended height and the tiger did jump out.

I really hope they are sued out of business by the survivors and the family of the kid who was killed.

 

[beefncheddar]

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=367367

For those who want to blame the victims, the director of the zoo is now admitting that the wall around the enclosure was lower than the recommended height and the tiger did jump out.

I really hope they are sued out of business by the survivors and the family of the kid who was killed.

And, yet, had kid not been ****ing around where he shouldn't have, there never would have been a problem.

 

[outofplace]

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=367367

For those who want to blame the victims, the director of the zoo is now admitting that the wall around the enclosure was lower than the recommended height and the tiger did jump out.

I really hope they are sued out of business by the survivors and the family of the kid who was killed.

And, yet, had kid not been ****ing around where he shouldn't have, there never would have been a problem.

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

 

[Armchair_QB]

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=367367

For those who want to blame the victims, the director of the zoo is now admitting that the wall around the enclosure was lower than the recommended height and the tiger did jump out.

I really hope they are sued out of business by the survivors and the family of the kid who was killed.

And, yet, had kid not been ****ing around where he shouldn't have, there never would have been a problem.

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

Odd that the other two kids are refusing to cooperate with authorities. You'd think they'd want to get the truth out there to stop the speculation.

Unless, of course, they had something to do with the tiger getting out.

 

[outofplace]

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=367367

For those who want to blame the victims, the director of the zoo is now admitting that the wall around the enclosure was lower than the recommended height and the tiger did jump out.

I really hope they are sued out of business by the survivors and the family of the kid who was killed.

Lots of assumptions. What we know is that a tiger that had wounded a human being previously was on display in an enclosure that the zoo director admits had a wall below the recommended height. That same director is also saying it does look like the tiger jumped and climbed to get out and Jack Hanna is now backing off his claim that it would have been impossible for the tiger to do so.

One person is dead. Two more were badly injured and it is pure dumb luck that it wasn't worse.

And I don't care if all three victims were making faces, shouting or throwing things at the tiger. They didn't deserve what happened and the zoo obviously didn't have the proper safeguards in place.

And, yet, had kid not been ****ing around where he shouldn't have, there never would have been a problem.

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

Odd that the other two kids are refusing to cooperate with authorities. You'd think they'd want to get the truth out there to stop the speculation.

Unless, of course, they had something to do with the tiger getting out.

 

[Write-brained]

Imagine being one of the two who were injured but not killed? Now THAT's a helluva story to tell people. If you can't get laid after telling your story of survival after getting mauled by an 800-pound tiger, well, you've problems.

Mike311gd has no idea why he has a sudden urge to visit the zoo...

Don't you think for a ****ing second that didn't cross my mind when I read that post, my friend. Having a right arm is overrated, anyway.

But can you do the shocker with your left hand?

 

[beefncheddar]

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

Because tigers in zoos don't generally hurdle 33-foot moats and 12-foot walls without provocation?

Because every animal expert I've read has said the leap was impossible (though, admittedly, they may not have known the exact height of the wall).

Because police are analyzing a footprint atop the wall.

Because the tiger *allegedly* never even went near the moat, being content to hang out at a different part of the exhibit.

Gee, why would anyone think the kid could possibly be at fault?

 

[beefncheddar]

From the Chronicle:

Either Amritpal "Paul" Dhaliwal, 19, or his 23-year-old brother Kulbir Dhaliwal answered the phone and told Sousa Sr. that his son wasn't with them. In reality, the three young men were either on their way to or had already arrived at the San Francisco Zoo, where they would later be mauled by a 350-pound Siberian tiger.

"I said, 'Have you seen my son?' and he said, 'No,' then he wished me a merry Christmas," the father said.

The Dhaliwal brothers have been hostile to police in the current death investigation and were "extremely belligerent" in an earlier encounter with police this year, authorities say.

After the zoo attack, authorities said, the brothers had refused to give their own names, identify the victim or initially give authorities an account of what occurred.

My new hypothesis: They fed his ass to the tiger.

 

[outofplace]

We don't even know that the kid did anything. That's one of the things that bothers me on this thread. We have conflicting reports, including denials from investigators regarding some of the speculation that led to people blaming the kid in the first place, yet a lot of people are ready to blame the kid who got killed. I don't even understand why.

Because tigers in zoos don't generally hurdle 33-foot moats and 12-foot walls without provocation?

Because every animal expert I've read has said the leap was impossible (though, admittedly, they may not have known the exact height of the wall).

Because police are analyzing a footprint atop the wall.

Because the tiger *allegedly* never even went near the moat, being content to hang out at a different part of the exhibit.

Gee, why would anyone think the kid could possibly be at fault?

Did you even read the last article linked above? Even the zoo's director is saying that it is looking like the tiger did get out on its own. And the loudest "expert" was Hanna, and he is backtracking now. I also read one yesterday that the part about the investigators denying the report about the footprint.

Edit: mustard's posts make me wonder what the heck happened. But that is actual information, not the speculation that has been driving much of this discussion.

If the enclosure wasn't up to specs, the zoo is at least partially at fault. Period.

 

[beefncheddar]

Actually, I just looked at a graphic on sfgate and it looks like the zoo's ****ed.
And I *still* think the kids caused it.

 

[beefncheddar]