Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Ire of the Tiger
In my column last week, I cited the recent fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo as an example of blame shifting, because it seemed likely that one or more of the men who were mauled did something to provoke the tiger. Since then new details have reinforced that impression:
1) A witness told the San Francisco Chronicle she saw the two men who survived, Kulbir and Paul Dhaliwal, taunting the lions at the big-cat house where the tiger escaped. Notably, she said Carlos Sousa Jr., the 17-year-old who reportedly died after distracting the tiger from the Dhaliwal brothers, thereby saving their lives, did not participate in the taunting and seemed embarrassed by his friends' behavior.
2) The police saw an empty vodka bottle in the front seat of the car the Dhaliwals took to the zoo.
3) Paramedics told the
Chronicle they overheard
Sources told
the Chronicle that paramedics overheard Kulbir Dhaliwal
instruct his younger brother, "Don't tell them what we did."
The Dhaliwal brothers, who have retained a lawyer and almost certainly plan to sue the zoo, still have not given a complete account of the attack, even to police. Since it failed to build a wall high enough to keep an agitated tiger from escaping, the zoo is not blameless. But whoever agitated the tiger enough to provoke such an unprecedented attack should not receive a windfall as a result.
[via Overlawyered]
|1.7.08 @ 5:08PM|#
This all reminds me of that old SNL skit where Chris Farely and Co. all bet they can jump into the Polar Bear cage at the zoo and beat it swimming.
|1.7.08 @ 5:12PM|#
3) Paramedics told the Chronicle they overheard Kulbir
Dhaliwal instruct his younger brother, "Don't tell them what we
did."
Isn't it kind of against the law for EMTs to divulge incriminating
things the patient said to them?
|1.7.08 @ 5:13PM|#
This is why you should always carry a red laser pointer to the
zoo.
In the event of a tiger attack, you can distract him by getting him
to chase the red dot.
|1.7.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I had a friend who spent a couple of years in Fairbanks Alaska. The Zoo there has a polar bear named binky. He told me two years in a row someone jumped into Binki's cage and was promptly eaten. In Alaska you are not the top of the food chain. Someone took to selling bumber stickers that read "Binki 2 Tourists 0"
Bingo|1.7.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Has there ever been a lawsuit in regard to a zoo not doing
enough to keep humans out of the animal pen?
It seems like it could be a pretty good path to a seven-figure
settlement.
1) Jump into lion pit
2) Get mauled
3) Sue zoo for not providing enough protective measures from
dangerous animals
4) Profit
5) Reconstructive surgery
Gus|1.7.08 @ 5:16PM|#
" Carlos Sousa Jr., the 17-year-old who reportedly died after
distracting the tiger from the Dhaliwal brothers, thereby saving
their lives, did not participate in the taunting and seemed
embarrassed by his friends' behavior."
A pity the tiger didn't kill the brothers insteard.
|1.7.08 @ 5:19PM|#
"Has there ever been a lawsuit in regard to a zoo not doing
enough to keep humans out of the animal pen?"
If there was a minor involved, I would bet there has been. A lion
in a cage is certainly an attractive nuisence to a child and the
zoo has a duty to build high enough fences to keep the dumb little
bastards out. I am not condoning the law, just telling it.
New World Dan|1.7.08 @ 5:20PM|#
I think it's a bit speculative to say that the tiger wouldn't have escaped without provocation. I cite as an example, my dog. Given enough time, if there's a way for him to escape the back yard, he will eventually find it and escape for no other reason than because he can. What's to say that the flash on someone's camera or a crying kid couldn't have set it off. Either way, when you visit a zoo, you have a reasonable expectation that the animals aren't going to escape.
|1.7.08 @ 5:21PM|#
The tigers hate us for our freedom, because we give our females
rights, because of our free market in zebra meat. It has nothing to
do with taunting!
I was there on 12/25, I don't ever want to see an attack like that
happen again!
Episiarch|1.7.08 @ 5:22PM|#
I will never understand why anybody would fuck with an animal that can kill you with one swipe of its paw. Even if said animal is behind a fence. Hadn't these idiots ever seen what a tiger is capable of (or in Binky's case, what fucking bears are capable of)? Maybe watch a little Discovery Channel or NG?
|1.7.08 @ 5:22PM|#
If the dudes had said "I got mauled by a tiger cause I taunted it" that might be covered because it was stated for the purpose of getting medical attention. From what was said above, the conversation was more for the purposes of obstructing justice between the two brothers, and so probably isn't covered.
|1.7.08 @ 5:23PM|#
"because it seemed likely that one or more of the men who
were mauled did something to provoke the tiger."
No amount of taunting should make it OK that a freakin' tiger
escaped. Rule #1 in Zookeeping: The animals probably shouldn't be
able to escape.
Repeat after me: No amount of taunting makes it OK that tigers
could escape from their pen. It is never OK if a tiger escapes from
its pen. Tiger pens should hold the tigers. A tiger pen that does
not hold the tigers ceases to be a tiger pen, by its very
nature.
|1.7.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Didn't some rich idiot pay to play with a chimp and get his face and balls ripped off. Same zoo I think.
|1.7.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Safari Tourist: I've heard that if you carry a long pole, tigers
won't attack. Is that true?
Safari Guide: It depends on how fast you carry the pole.
|1.7.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Too bad they didn't put webcams on all the large animals' heads at the zoo (my idea if I ever own a zoo). This would have been great Internet theater, not to mention probably giving the evidence to save the zoo big $$ in the forthcoming lawsuit.
|1.7.08 @ 5:27PM|#
The way this should have gone is as follows: Drunk yahoos tease Tiger. Tiger goes ballistic, and escapes it's enclosure. Tiger eats drunk yahoos. Tiger sleeps off the residual booze. Sadly, the Dhaliwal's chose wisely in their friends
|1.7.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Everything about this is just sad and tragic. None of the entertaining hilarity of Roy Horn or Timothy Treadwell.
Job, Hand|1.7.08 @ 5:28PM|#
"Didn't some rich idiot pay to play with a chimp and get his
face and balls ripped off. Same zoo I think."
In Ess Eff, you pay extra for the ball ripping.
|1.7.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Isn't it kind of against the law for EMTs to divulge
incriminating things the patient said to them?
I'm not sure what the law is as far as it pertains to EMT's.
Generally speaking, the policy reasoning behind recognizing such
confidentiality is to encourage patients to fully disclose their
condition to treaters without fear of self-incrimination. In this
situation, if the EMT simply overheard one making the statement to
another, and it wasn't made to the EMT for purposes of treating
him, there's a good possibility the statement wouldn't be
privileged. Of course, I'm looking at it in terms of what would be
admissible in court should the victims sue, as opposed to what
would possibly leave the EMT open to civil or criminal
liability.
|1.7.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Oops... Just noticed Toxicroach already said pretty much the same thing. Must... skim... more carefully.
|1.7.08 @ 5:35PM|#
My suspicion, based on nothing other than my suspicious nature,
is that these two bozos hired Geragos for a reason other than that
John Edwards couldn't take the case.
How many years had that tiger been living in that "exhibit" without
demonstrating any interest in leaving?
Winnie the Pooh|1.7.08 @ 5:36PM|#
What's wrong with Tiger? Tiger is my friend! Tiger would never hurt anybody!
|1.7.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Mr. Sullum seems to think that a tiger is like the Incredible
Hulk, where the madder it gets, the stronger it gets. Not so. If
the tiger was capable of leaping the wall in response to some
taunting jerks, then it was capable of leaping the wall in response
to a noisy kindergarten class. The zoo just got lucky that the
latter didn't happen.
It's not the victims who are shifting blame here, but rather the
zoo (and Mr. Sullum). Why shouldn't the zoo have to take
responsibility for the negligent design of its enclosure?
BakedPenguin|1.7.08 @ 5:37PM|#
I will never understand why anybody would fuck with an animal that can kill you with one swipe of its paw.
At my old job, we had a lake behind our building. Like a lot of
lakes here in Florida, it had gators. There were people dumb enough
to feed these animals. Too bad there's no such thing as tard
repellent.
|1.7.08 @ 5:39PM|#
IMRO, tigers are the most beautiful mammals on the whole planet. I mourn the noble beast and note that it's name has not been provided. Surely the relatives have been notified by now.
Plant Immigration RIghtrs Supp|1.7.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Baked, I also live in Florida. Were these people from Massachusets or New York? Has to be one or the other.
|1.7.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Tom T.
In 9th grade biology I performed experiments on frogs and adrenaline.
Guess what? That hormone works with animals other than humans.
Sheesh.
|1.7.08 @ 5:48PM|#
I don't give a damn if the tiger was superman on steroids. Make the cage so that the tiger can't fly out after changing out of his business suit in a phone booth. If the cage doesn't hold the animal at its most pissed off, the design is faulty. Ultimately, Tom T. is entirely correct that a kindergarten class could have set that tiger off.
Mark|1.7.08 @ 5:49PM|#
"If the tiger was capable of leaping the wall in response to
some taunting jerks, then it was capable of leaping the wall in
response to a noisy kindergarten class."
Perhaps its escape was aided by the dangling of drunk's feet...
|1.7.08 @ 5:50PM|#
"Perhaps its escape was aided by the dangling of drunk's
feet..."
Then the fence should have been 3 feet higher.
|1.7.08 @ 5:53PM|#
Yeah, building cages that actually hold the animals is utter bullshit. Why not make a day at the zoo more like a death lottery?
|1.7.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Cast the brothers into the den of the tigers; if they be
righteous then may their god preserve them.
...Or however the fuck Daniel goes. Stupid Bible, so boring.
|1.7.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Fuck that natural habitat bullshit- put the animals in good, old-fashioned CAGES! Then we can poke sticks through the bars to our hearts' content.
|1.7.08 @ 5:56PM|#
The city zoo in Boise used to have a huge male bengal tiger in a chain link enclosure. The only thing between the walk path and the cat was that 1 piece of chain link supported by 3 inch steel pipe. you could stick your fingers in and pet him. that was in 97. he died soon after that and I havent been back. Zoos are depressing to me as I get older.
lunchstealer|1.7.08 @ 5:57PM|#
BUMP!
BUMP-BUMP-BUMP!
BUMP-BUMP-BUUUUUMMMM!
Risin'up,
Back on my fee-et ...
GLENN!
GLENN-GLENN-GLENN!
GLENN-GLENN-GLENNNNNNNNN!
Glenn's the man
Goin' to work
He's got a tie
got ambition
Middle management
is right in his grasp
It's a dream he will
ne-ver let diiiiieeee!
|1.7.08 @ 5:58PM|#
No amount of taunting should make it OK that a freakin'
tiger escaped. Rule #1 in Zookeeping: The animals probably
shouldn't be able to escape.
Hear Hear.
And what Tom T. said as well.
What kind of nonsense is this "well they taunted the tiger" crap.
So what?
This is merely a "look over there" measure to try and shift
blame.
Even if they taunted the shit out of the tiger, the tiger should
not have been able to escape, and the zoo is entirely at
fault.
I have witnessed a number of people taunting animals at the zoo. In
particular the fling shitting monkeys and the red-assed
baboons.
I have also seen some animals at zoos that get agitated by flash
photography or the mere presence of onlookers. Some animals just
don't like people and captivity or any combination of the
sort.
Are you trying to tell me the zoo only has an obligation to make
sure agitated animals can't get free?
|1.7.08 @ 5:59PM|#
Washington Park Zoo in Portland Or. has the dry moats and tall walls on the exhibits for the big cats and bears. I always worried a bit about the cats being able to jump the gap. Ive seen my house cat jump 6 feet straight up to catch a bird on the feeder and he is about 6 lbs.
|1.7.08 @ 6:00PM|#
Correction:
Are you trying to tell me the zoo only has an obligation to make
sure un-agitated animals can't get free?
|1.7.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Yeah, building cages that actually hold the animals is utter
bullshit. Why not make a day at the zoo more like a death
lottery?
Used to have cages like that.
Those were the good old days.
bruce|1.7.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Actually, Binky was in Anchorage, not Fairbanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binky_(Polar_bear)
Taunting a tiger is not a reason to get mauled by a tiger, getting
mauled by a tiger you've taunted is not a reason to get gazillions
of dollars, either.
|1.7.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Sorry Lamar, I can't agree. I think the animal needs a fighting
chance. I think it unlikely that a "noisy kindergarten class" would
provoke an attack the way drunk taunting teenagers do. If that were
to happen, well that's what law suits are for. I think the zoo's
liability could be minimized simply by posting a sign at the
gate:
WARNING: BIG CAT MAY GET BUG UP IT'S ASS AND KILL YOU
|1.7.08 @ 6:10PM|#
"WARNING: BIG CAT MAY GET BUG UP IT'S ASS AND KILL
YOU"
Then point his finger up in the air and say, "they're
Greeeeeeat!!"
|1.7.08 @ 6:11PM|#
"Taunting a tiger is not a reason to get mauled by a tiger,
getting mauled by a tiger you've taunted is not a reason to get
gazillions of dollars, either."
But having a tiger get out of its pen is a very good reason to
penalize the hell out of the zoo.
|1.7.08 @ 6:21PM|#
I found this video of the brothers giving an extremely brief
account of the attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
Rusty Trombone|1.7.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Why not make a day at the zoo more like a death
lottery?
Would certainly make a trip to the zoo much more exciting...
If the tiger was capable of leaping the wall in response to
some taunting jerks, then it was capable of leaping the wall in
response to a noisy kindergarten class.
Well, I bet those kids that survived would learn a valuable lesson
about proper behavior and respect for Mother Nature.
Interactive, hands-on learning is always better than pictures in a
book. Plus, next time one of the brats started acting up all the
teacher would have to say is, "now Tommy, you saw what happened to
Billy when he wouldn't do as he was told... do you really want me
to let the tiger out again?"
|1.7.08 @ 6:25PM|#
WARNING: BIG CAT MAY GET BUG UP IT'S ASS AND KILL
YOU
Well, it fulfills the "aberrant apostrophe" requirement for such
signs.
|1.7.08 @ 6:28PM|#
The tigers hate us for our freedom, because we give our females rights, because of our free market in zebra meat. It has nothing to do with taunting!
I was there on 12/25, I don't ever want to see an attack like that happen again!
I believe what the WWF teaches us about blowback. The way we should
look at this is, how would we feel if the tigers were doing it to
us? How would we feel if a tiger came up to our window and dangled
its paw just inside? We'd be furious, and rightly so, so why should
we be surprised when the tigers are?
|1.7.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Without looking at even the TINIEST details of this incident, I
am quite comfortable in saying the following:
1) If the person was fully in the cage -- that is, had climbed the
fence, passed through a gate, jumped down, or in some manner
deliberately bypassed the "cage" portion and got eaten by a tiger
-- totally his fault. Tiger was safely contained.
2) If the tiger was NOT in it's cage, but in fact out of it, then
it is the Zoo's fault.
If it's some weird case, I base it entirely on whether the eaten
person in some way abetted the tiger's escape -- like opened a
gate, bent the bars, or smuggled in a tiger-launching catapult.
|1.7.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Anyone remember the Sambos restaurants? They used to tell the story of Little Sambo and how he chased the tiger until it became butter. Perhaps that's what the brothers were trying to do...but they were spread too thin...ha.
|1.7.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Chicago Tom, Tom T. -
Let's reframe the discussion. It's not the zoo, it's your yard.
It's not a tiger, it's your dog, Mullethead. Two drunk punks start
tormenting Mullethead, who has never breached your yard enclosure.
In fact, no dog has ever breached your yard security. Mullethead,
who has never tried to attack other pedestrians, gets out of the
yard. Dogs do that from time to time, even with conscientious
owners like yourselves. Mullethead then proceeds to giving theses
punk ass youths what they most assuredly deserve. A ripped achilles
tendon results, ending the promising hockey career of
aforementioned drunk punk tormentor.
Just give the animnal abusing reprobate title to your home,
right?
Mgoblue|1.7.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Going back to my 1L torts class, the zoo is gonna have to pay up regardless of whether idiots were taunting the tiger. The taunting of a tiger by idiots is reasonably foreseeable, which is precisely why the fence needed to be higher. The zoo will not be able to get off by arguing that what the victims caused the calamity because it is the actions of such idiots that makes the zoos failure to build a high fence negligent.
Pepe|1.7.08 @ 6:41PM|#
I'll concede that these guys were acting like morons. But it's
not as though they jumped into the habitat. It's not really fair to
compare it to cases where people get up close and personal with
wild animals on purpose. They expected that it was safe to piss off
the tiger since the tiger was in an enclosure and they were
standing outside of it. By the logic of some people, anyone who
goes to a zoo should expect they might get eaten....even if I don't
taunt the tigers, if someone else does it might get out and kill
me.
I think it's reasonable to expect that deadly carnivores can't get
out of their enclosures at the zoo. If they can get out when they
are really pissed, well isn't that especially when you don't want
them to get out? Tiger pens should be pissed-off-tiger proof, end
of story.
Oh and the chimpanzee case someone mentioned. That wasn't in SF. I
believe it was in Riverside, and it wasn't a rich guy who paid to
play with chimps. It was a guy who actually had a pet chimp.
Eventually he couldn't care for it anymore and donated it to a
nature preserve. He was there visiting his chimp when some other
chimps attacked him.
Rusty Trombone|1.7.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Audio, identified as the teenagers in question, picked up by a
nearby tourist's video camera from the zoo:
Paul: No, kitty kitty, that's mah pot pie. No! That's a bad kitty
kitty.
Kulbir: Hey, Paul, what do we do if that tiger gets out?
Paul: Well duh Kulbir, we run, you 'tard. Now I see why mom and dad
gave you the dumb name.
Kulbir: You really think you can outrun a tiger, Paul? (sound
similar to that hand slapping head) Hey that hurt you
butt-licker!
Paul: I don't have to outrun a tiger, Kulbir, I just have to outrun
you.
Kulbir: Uh... (several seconds elapse) oh! Hey! Wait a minute...
um, maybe we should find someone we can both outrun...
Paul: Hey Carlos, come here, you gotta see this tiger!
|1.7.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Why not make a day at the zoo more like a death
lottery?
"They do say," Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, "that over in the north village they're talking of giving up the zoo."
Old Man Warner snorted. "Pack of crazy fools," he said. "Listening to the young folks, nothing's good enough for them. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to go back to living in caves, nobody work any more, live that way for a while. Used to be a saying about 'Visit the zoo in June, corn be heavy soon.' First thing you know, we'd all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns. There's always been a zoo," he added petulantly. "Bad enough to see young Joe Summers up there joking with everybody."
"Some places have already quit zoos." Mrs. Adams said.
"Nothing but trouble in that," Old Man Warner said stoutly. "Pack of young fools."
Peter|1.7.08 @ 6:49PM|#
"No amount of taunting should make it OK that a freakin' tiger
escaped. Rule #1 in Zookeeping: The animals probably shouldn't be
able to escape."
I'm glad someone said it. When I heard this news story, I just
thought ... "holy crap." then they start talking about the guys
taunting the tigers ... LIKE THAT'S EVEN FUCKING RELEVANT!!! As if
to say, "Well, it's a tragic story, and we pray for those involved,
but they only brought it on themselves."
By the way, the Tigers don't hate us because we're free, they hate
us because of our interventionist foreign policy.
Rusty Trombone|1.7.08 @ 6:51PM|#
im in ur vieween area eatin ur visitors
Too funny! Someone so needs to do a "loltigers" bit on
this!
|1.7.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Just give the animnal abusing reprobate title to your home,
right?
In your example, nothing changes. I am liable. I should be
liable.
Just because the dog in question doesn't have a history of attack
or escape, and just because the dog may have been provoked, doesn't
make me any less responsible for my dogs actions or the securing of
my dog. *I* have a responsibility to make sure my dog is restrained
regardless of how I would expect other to act around my dog. I have
an obligation to make sure that my dog can not escape regardless of
how excited he may get.
If no one came onto my property and the dog got free, chances are
the dog, regardless of provocation, would be put to sleep by the
local powers that be.
And if I happen to charge admission to my property for people to
look at my confined dog, and one of them does something that
provokes the dog, I am still liable.
If my dog got agitated at the sound of loud music, and a neighbor
was blasting his radio on his porch -- should I not be liable of
the dog gets loose and attacks him? Apparently, in your world, I
shouldn't be. Because my neighbor brought it on or something?
People taunt animals. It happens all the time. I used to taunt my
neighbors dogs all the time. That doesn't mean that those keeping
the animals get to be negligent and not have to worry about making
sure the animal, even in an excited state, can't get free.
They are animals, and anything could potentially set them off.
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 6:54PM|#
What needs to be kept in mind here is that there really isn't a
whole lot of knowledge out there about the physical limits of
tigers under provocation.
It isn't like it's been tested rigorously.
Just about all modern "open air" zoo caging is based on the
anecdotal experience of zoo handlers, "legends" of animal
capabilities, and guesswork. They will surely now raise the fencing
on this exhibit four feet, but that won't guarantee that some
really pissed off tiger won't jump that shit too at some point in
the future. Zoo animals routinely exceed handler expectations for
both physical ability and intelligence.
So in a very real sense, the tiger was in fact like the Incredible
Hulk, because it's entirely possible that under provocation we saw
a behavior from the tiger that we previously did not know it was
capable of. I bet if you taunt an orangutan long enough, it will
suddenly figure out enough metallurgy to make a key to get out of
its cage and fuck you up.
|1.7.08 @ 6:56PM|#
1. There is talk that one of the hosers facilitated the escape
of the Tiger by lowering something down in the pen. So in essence,
he turned the whole zoo into a pen, and so you could say that he
was in the pen.
2. How many people died in the SF commute that morning? Why is this
so important? I'd rather die in the jaws of a tiger than get hit by
some ditsy driver on a cellie.
3. Why are you people such humanists? That Tiger was being a Tiger,
and it seems that those humans were not being very humane.
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 6:56PM|#
I have an obligation to make sure that my dog can not escape
regardless of how excited he may get.
That's not true. There are lots of areas where there aren't even
any leash laws. You're under no legal obligation in those areas to
restrain your dog from leaving your property, and under those
conditions the history of the animal and your actions in provoking
its attack would absolutely be relevant to my liability for your
injuries.
Rusty Trombone|1.7.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Didn't they say the attack happened in the cafeteria? Couldn't someone have just thrown the cat a couple cheeseburgers? Seems that would have distracted him long enough to run away or at least order some chili-dogs.
|1.7.08 @ 7:01PM|#
"I have an obligation to make sure that my dog can not escape
regardless of how excited he may get."
What if some no-brain retard lets your vivious dog off his
leash...?
|1.7.08 @ 7:01PM|#
I regularly mock animal rights supporters. I support testing eye makeup on bunnies. I am gladdened that these punks got their asses handed to them by a tiger.
Luke P.|1.7.08 @ 7:04PM|#
This column seems to take for granted this idea that animals are
somehow subject to logic; We'll, the Tiger must've been "provoked",
which is total nonsense, of course. The vast majority of animal
attacks do not involve any kind of provocation.
It's absolutely the Zoos' responsibility to indsure the safety of
its visitors.Period.
|1.7.08 @ 7:10PM|#
I bet if you taunt an orangutan long enough, it will
suddenly figure out enough metallurgy to make a key to get out of
its cage and fuck you up.
Probably, but by that time it will have already typed up the
collected works of Shakespeare, so it's a win-win.
|1.7.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Prove negligence by the zoo to me and I, as a juror, will determine appropriate damages. Absent proof of negligence, tough titty, reprobates.
|1.7.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Interesting that the tiger could have jumped that wall any time
that it was there, which I understand is years. It was only when it
was taunted that it finally was motivated to jump.
Might be a lesson there in human motivation, too.
|1.7.08 @ 7:15PM|#
What if some no-brain retard lets your vivious dog off his
leash...?
Then he's at fault. If the dead guy had gone over and opened the
tiger cage, it'd have been HIS fault.
Although the Zoo probably still has SOME liability for having a
cage a yahoo can open.
If the man had jumped into the tiger pen, he'd certainly be at
fault. Since it appears the tiger got OUT of the pen, the zoo is at
fault.
|1.7.08 @ 7:15PM|#
I heard that the Tiger was seen with Barry Bonds before the attack.... 'Roid rage perhaps?
Dave B.|1.7.08 @ 7:19PM|#
From the articles I read when this first occurred, there are standards for how high tiger enclosure walls are supposed to be, which the zoo falsely claimed to have met. They were aware of how high a wall needs to be to keep people safe from tigers and did not build their walls that high. Somehow, they passed inspection like this, but its hard to claim that they took reasonable precautions to prevent tiger escape.
|1.7.08 @ 7:22PM|#
So from now on, they'll have to have the Tigers in cages that no
yahoo can open; and enclosures from which the Tigers cannot escape,
even if someone throws them a 50-ft. ladder...
Where does personal responsibility come in? We always want to blame
someone. Maybe they should have posted a sign, "If you facilitate
the Tiger's escape from the enclosure, it will eat you." Then
you'll have to sign a waiver... DUH!
|1.7.08 @ 7:23PM|#
Seems like a pretty simple case of comparative negligence: the
zoo was negligent in designing containment for the tiger, but the
maulees were negligent in taunting the tiger, and their recovery
should be reduced accordingly. Considering the tiger hadn't escaped
in the past, the maulees appear to have engaged in awfully
negligent behavior if it was taunted to the point of escape, and
thus recovery ought to be low.
Of course, keeping a dangerous animal may fall under strict
liability, so a group of absolute jackasses taunting a 600-pound
killing machine can get a windfall. Yay for personal
responsibility.
|1.7.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Isn't it kind of against the law for EMTs to divulge
incriminating things the patient said to them?
Yes, it certainly is.
|1.7.08 @ 7:27PM|#
The single greatest example of negligence I have heard so far is
the way that, for the first few days after the attack, the zoo
informed the public that the wall was 18 feet high -- well above
the 16 foot recommendation from the AZA.
Then one day the zoo announces that the wall is actually 12.5 feet
high. The media locked onto this as, "Zoo wall shorter than
accepted standards." They should have locked onto it as, "Zoo
doesn't know how high its wall is."
They didn't even know it was below standards, much less
make a considered decision that it was acceptable that way.
I heard that news and said, "Eight figures. Seven for the
survivors."
|1.7.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Wall height for containing dangerous animals: There are recommendations, and there are minima. The height at the SF Zoo was below the recommended height... but what was the acceptable minimum height? Maybe it's just "Don't let the Tiger escape" height. Does anyone know what is the actual rule on the height, not just the recommended height?
Rudy G.|1.7.08 @ 7:43PM|#
By the way, the Tigers don't hate us because we're free,
they hate us because of our interventionist foreign
policy.
Same difference. What good is freedom if you can't use it?
|1.7.08 @ 7:48PM|#
"By the way, the Tigers don't hate us because we're free, they
hate us because of our interventionist foreign policy."
Maybe they'd understand our foreign policy if they drove a big
fuel-gulping Dodge truck and gave in to the general materialistic
societal standards. I think they are too smart for that - to drive
a Dodge I mean.
contemporary 17-year-old|1.7.08 @ 7:50PM|#
This is all I knew tigers were capable of until last month.
|1.7.08 @ 8:13PM|#
This is all I knew tigers were capable of until last
month.
Alas, today's youth. Tigers are also capable of this.
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Well, the AZA has no power to create or enforce standards for
wall height or anything else.
If I declare myself the American Tiger Association and proclaim
that the minimum wall height is 1000 meters, it means exactly jack
and shit.
And I believe that the reason there's some ambiguity about the
height of the wall is because it abuts a dry moat. If you measure
from the bottom of the moat, you get one height. If you measure
from the main part of the enclosure, you get another height.
|1.7.08 @ 8:37PM|#
The tiger has the mind of a fucking tiger, you cannot set standards of it's social interactions with humans, especially in court. It must be the absolute and total legal responsibility for the zoo to contain it's animals, and it's failure must be an automatic liability.
|1.7.08 @ 8:40PM|#
I'm sorry a perfectly good tiger was wasted on these bozos. I
wish she could have finished the job before she was killed for just
being a tiger, doing what tigers do. People are stupid for
expecting anything different.
/I always cheer for bears being able to open up campers and houses
and getting away with it. I'm sad when they are killed.
/I am always more concerned about cougars when there are reported
sightings than the dumbass humans being dumbasses and getting
killed by cougars.
Hooray wild animals!
Boo stupid humans!
Smart humans do not taunt the wild animals or act like prey.
Pepe|1.7.08 @ 8:42PM|#
The Tiger never escaped in the past but it did rip the flesh off of a zoo employee's arm a year ago, so there was some history of this particular tiger being a problem. Add to that the fact that the wall was below accepted standards and that they probably won't be able to prove the brothers were taunting the tiger and I think the Zoo will be paying a pretty large settlement.
|1.7.08 @ 8:56PM|#
Well, the AZA has no power to create or enforce standards
for wall height or anything else.
That is why I thought the media was misguided to point out that the
wall was too short by the conventional standard instead of pointing
out that the zoo didn't even know how tall it was.
And I believe that the reason there's some ambiguity about the
height of the wall is because it abuts a dry moat. If you measure
from the bottom of the moat, you get one height. If you measure
from the main part of the enclosure, you get another
height.
Unless you know something the Chronicle
doesn't, you believe wrong.
|1.7.08 @ 9:18PM|#
According to the Wikipedidia:
In the wild, tigers can leap as high as 5 m (16 ft) and as far
as 9-10 m (30-33 ft), making them one of the highest-jumping
mammals (just slightly behind cougars in jumping ability).[citation
needed]
Well, now we have a citation available for the entry "In captivity,
tigers can leap as high as high as 12.5 feet."
|1.7.08 @ 10:18PM|#
I just got here and haven't had time to read the whole thread
yet, but just in case no one said it already:
"Ire of the Tiger" = Best H&R Headline of
2008!
Tigger|1.8.08 @ 12:31AM|#
A human can only jump 7'4". But humans are crafty. That's why you keep a few million of them behind 30' electrified, barbed wire fences.
Dave W.|1.8.08 @ 6:15AM|#
Man, this is even stupider than Mr. Sullum's corporatist entries
usually are:
1. Drinking and roaring (if that is all that occurred) should not
be enough to defeat zoo liability, or to characterize compensation
as a "windfall" here. It is also understandable that the brothers
would want to remain silent about this until they consulted
counsel.
2. The zoo would not believe the brothers that a tiger attack had
happened. The brothers claim that it took one half hour of trying
to convince two zoo employees (or contractors) that an attack had
occurred. This while one of the brothers was bleeding. We haven't
really heard from the zoo about this, but: (i) the 911 call by the
zoo employee indicates that he did not believe an attack had
occurred; and (ii) by not allowing the injured brothers into a
secure building a second attack occurred on the brothers; and (iii)
by not allowing the brothers into a secure building the tiger had
to be killed rather than tranquilized.
3. Mr. Sullum points out that the brothers did not talk. Why does
he not point out that the zoo security guard did not talk? Why does
he not point out that the zoo cafe employee has not talked? Does
Mr. Sullum believe that corporations should be forced to talk
immediately or face a presumption of guilt? Even if we were to
ignore the fact that it would be legally unwise for the brothers to
talk about the legal case while still unrepresented, bleeding and
probably sedated under any circumstances, it is
understandable that the brothers would be mad as hell if
they couldn't convince a zoo employee to let them in a building and
prevent their 2d mauling.
4. Sullum ignores widespread rumours that were spread in the week
following the case, which have now been disclaimed. The first was
that there was blood in the cage (many media sources). The second
was that the brothers had slingshots (NY Post, repeated without
criticism in many media sources). Where did these rumours come
from? Since these tantalizing tidbits have been discarded, it seems
that we should be pretty wary about jumping on the new generation
of zoo-favourable rumours.
5. Sullum needs to go. Not just this article -- he is wandering
into dumbness more and more as time goes by. He lets his Rolodex
show too often. I wonder if Justin Raimondo is available to take
his place?
6. No word on whether Mr. Gillespie ate the tiger.
7. I am open to the possibility that the brothers did do some
"comparative fault" actions here. Either large comparative fault
stuff like letting the tiger out, or mild comparative fault stuff,
like climbing on the outside of the wall, or throwing pinecones
into the cage. drinking and roaring ain't gonna cut it here
however.
|1.8.08 @ 8:56AM|#
Sorry, Jacob, clean out your desk. I don't know who you pissed off, but whoever it was, he's big.
Episiarch|1.8.08 @ 9:02AM|#
Dave hates the zoo because they only serve Coke and Pepsi in the cafeteria and there are no sugar based soft drinks available. Dave, I heard that when the tiger broke into the cafeteria he said "I KAN HAZ BOYLAN?", but all the people heard was "ROOOAAAARRR".
Dave W.|1.8.08 @ 9:15AM|#
I heard that when the tiger broke into the
cafeteria
No. The zoo employee was safe inside the cafeteria. The brothers
were outside begging to come in bcs a tiger was on the loose. The
zoo employee would not let them in. Eventually, aftr some time
passed, the tiger wandered by and began to maul the brothers again
while the zoo cafe employee watched, secure in the cafe.
Sullum wants to know why we* haven't gotten the full story out of
the brothers. He is not at all curious about why we haven't gotten
the full story out of the skeptical cafe worker who watched from
his safe vantage point in the cafe. It is this selective curiosity
that betrays Sullum's biases here and makes him unworthy of
Reason magazine.
For my own part, I don't think the brothers or the zoo have a
moral, ethical or legal duty to talk (until subpoena'd), but if you
are going to criticize one sides silence here, it is the zoo's
silence that seems less understandable.
FOOTNOTE:
* Sullum says that the brothers have not given a full story to
police. I am not sure that is true. So far as I am aware
the police interviews have not been made public.
|1.8.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Settle down folks. If a tiger mauls you in the zoo, do not, I repeat, DO NOT talk to the media, cops, zoo workers, or insurance reps without consulting with a lawyer. Despite the assertions of some in the media (ahem), silence does not equal guilt of some kind, nor does it mean that you have something to hide. It means you're not stupid.
VM|1.8.08 @ 10:29AM|#
And, Epi, don't forget that they substituted the Karo Syrup with
pure, clear pepsi, resulting in hilarity and mirth all
around.
Hay jerk (yoooo know whoooo), Calvin and Hobbes is missing a
punchline. Return there, pls.
Jeez. You really are in need of instruction, you dumb fuq.
Mark|1.8.08 @ 10:52AM|#
"They will surely now raise the fencing on this exhibit four
feet, but that won't guarantee that some really pissed off tiger
won't jump that shit too at some point in the future."
Many years ago, I saw a tiger on National Geographic that was so
fast and powerful, he literally ran on water for about 20-30 yards
in order to catch a water bird. It was the most fucking amazing
thing I have ever seen!
Dave W.|1.8.08 @ 10:56AM|#
You really are in need of instruction, you dumb
fuq.
VemSter, if you keep up like this I will begin to think that you
took the filter down again. Tsk, tsk!
|1.8.08 @ 11:34AM|#
"but that won't guarantee that some really pissed off tiger
won't jump that shit too at some point in the future"
Which is why the fences have an extension at the top that curls
backwards into the enclosure. Many also have electric wire and
spikes. Don't make this out to be a slippery slope of some kind.
That fence was substandard.
Dave W.|1.8.08 @ 11:56AM|#
"but that won't guarantee that some really pissed off tiger
won't jump that shit too at some point in the future"
Which is why the fences have an extension at the top that curls
backwards into the enclosure. Many also have electric wire and
spikes. Don't make this out to be a slippery slope of some kind.
That fence was substandard.
Actually, it is the known dangerousness and unpredictability of
tigers that make this a strict liability situation (albeit with
"comparative fault" contribution in most states). Because it is a
strict liability situation, the height of the fence isn't even
relevant, except perhaps as a way to mitigate any comparative fault
that might otherwise be found.
Of course, here all the comparative fault we know about thus far is
rumour & innuendo so the fence isn't yet relevant. There would
be liability with a million foot high fence.
Neu Mejican|1.8.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Lamar is right.
Substandard fence = liable...SF zoo fucked up.
But...
Albuquerque Zoo had Cheetahs escape their enclosure when it did
meet the standards.
Sometimes it is hard to predict whether your design will work in
all circumstances.
I am mainly concerned, if Dave W.'s facts are correct, that the zoo
did not have a better response to an escaped animal.
Tigers eat bears in the wild.
Their containment needs to be taken very seriously.
Neu Mejican|1.8.08 @ 12:04PM|#
The family of the dead friend should be awarded any an all gains that the taunting idiots get from the zoo.
cgee|1.8.08 @ 12:07PM|#
@Neu Mejican
What, you don't think that the dead teen's estate will be suing
everyone, zoo and taunting idiots included?
|1.8.08 @ 12:15PM|#
I should clarify: the fence being substandard is not relevant to
strict liability. I said before, I don't care if the tiger all of
the sudden turns into superman and flies out of the enclosure, the
zoo is still liable. The zoo has to keep people and animals
separated. That is slightly different than saying the zoo has to
keep the animals in their enclosures.
The substandard fence just makes it all the worse. The reason I
brought that up was to counter some of those who think no
guarantees can ever be made. The truth is that zoos should build
their fences well in excess of the standards. The fact that this
particular fence was substandard is just bizarre.
Dave W.|1.8.08 @ 12:24PM|#
The part that disturbs me is the inferences that people are
drawing against the "taunters." We rely on juries to find facts and
not to lightly assume facts not in evidence. Not just here, but in
other internet discussion of this case, it seems that people are
willing to assume "taunting" because someone saw roaring and there
was an empty vodka bottle in a vehicle. What kind of a basis is
that?!?!?!
Then there are things like the slingshot article in the NY Post.
Why would the Post publish such a rumour (which seems to have been
thoroughly discarded by now)? Under what innocent circumstances
could such an inflammatory false rumour end up in the paper. The
likeliest inference is that someone from the zoo told them this. I
mean, would the Post accept this kind of info from an anonymous
caller? It had to be the zoo or the police. And it doesn't seem
like the police. Moreover, if the zoo did plant this rumour, why
would they plant it if they knew it would be rejected by the
police? Can you imagine a set or circumstances where the zoo
thought that this rumour would be accepted by the police?
This is just speculation. However, it is just as plausible as the
speculation about the "taunting" and it is much more
disturbing.
Whom from the zoo has Mr. Sullum spoken with, I wonder.
|1.8.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Other facts emerge.
The shoe of on of the boys was found inside the enclosure. The
speculation is that the tiger made a leap for the wall, grabbed the
kids leg and pulled himself out of the enclosure.
That would make the guys guilty of facilitating the escape.
These animals do not randomly go to the lengths to escape their
enclosures. They are maintained as well fed and are not a danger
unless some fool tries to provoke them or get into their
territory.
|1.8.08 @ 2:36PM|#
If that is the case, and the hosers facilitated their escape, it's just like unlocking the doors to their cages. Of course, the zoo will still be held liable because their enclosure was not idiot-proof; however, the hosers might be held partially liable for their friend's death, as they put him in harm's way.
|1.8.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Where's the love for the poor tiger? She was the victim of taunting and she tried to stop it in the only way a tiger can, by trying to eviscerate her taunters. I hope the taunters get a tiger sized dose of cat scratch fever.
|1.8.08 @ 3:10PM|#
"The zoo would not believe the brothers that a tiger attack
had happened. The brothers claim that it took one half hour of
trying to convince two zoo employees (or contractors) that an
attack had occurred."
Wow, she was a killer. If the tiger wanted to kill these two bozos
she would have, she had plenty of time. She just wanted to be left
alone. She gave them the tiger equivalent of, "BACK OFF!". These
guys asked for every scratch and bite they received and they
deserve absolutely no compensation.
Kolohe|1.8.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Don't make this out to be a slippery slope of some
kind..
Wasn't the fundamental problem that the slope from the enclosure
was not slippery enough?
Kolohe|1.8.08 @ 3:26PM|#
it seems that people are willing to assume "taunting"
because someone saw roaring and there was an empty vodka bottle in
a vehicle. What kind of a basis is that?!?!?!
Because many, including myself, were once asshole teenagers that
occasionally got drunk?
|1.8.08 @ 3:45PM|#
I might have been a crazy teenager who got drunk, but I was not stupid enough to become a nominee for the Darwin award. Maybe because I got lucky...
Dave W.|1.8.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Because many, including myself, were once asshole teenagers
that occasionally got drunk?
did you taunt tigers when drunk to the point where they were going
crazy trying to get out of their cage?
If not, then doesn't that mean the brothers would tend to be
innocent based on your experience?
|1.8.08 @ 6:00PM|#
RE: "Pepe | January 7, 2008, 8:42pm | #" - ding, ding, ding ... we have a winner! Add to that, SFPD detained for several minutes at South Gate, meanwhile zoo personnel attempt to "calm down" tiger (instead of blasting its brains out). They "knew" when the tiger nearly resulted in arm amputation of the trainer, they they would have to put it down, but they failed. There has been an ugly calculus at work folks. Namely, the SF Zoo valued Sasha more than it values you. Think about it. You pay to go there a few times. Sasha brought thousands of customers. Add to that, the fact that although some of the more extreme animal rights people hate zoos, these days, you will find a fair number of people who value animals more than humans working in the zoo biz. And that's a fact Jack. Heads must roll including criminal justice. Starting at the top.
Tony the T|1.8.08 @ 10:44PM|#
Three friends get high and go to zoo,
they decide to screw with the big kitties,
big kitty gets pissed and gets out of kitty enclosure. I imagine
that was quite a rush. I always disliked people that picked on
animals, but usually they pick on little animals. It's true the zoo
should have made sure the kitty couldn't get out, but when she did,
she didn't go after any kindergarten kids. That must have really
killed the buzz. Bet they don't screw with big kitties any more.
Also, the tiger got shot for being a tiger.
TheLawMadeMePutDownMyPit|1.8.08 @ 11:21PM|#
If my pit escapes from my yard and bites you, the law tells me I
must put him down because he is a bad seed. And yet, the tiger
bitch almost tears off a zoo keeper's arm (Google it, it happened
Dec 22, 2006) and nothing happens. This bad seed is left in
deficient enclosure waiting for her day. The day arrived,
ironically same time of year as last incident. Getting dark, many
biped primates with their backs turned, walking away as it's
closing time. Dusk, hunting time. Bad seed. Jump, grab branch with
one paw, other paws snagging cracks in moat wall. Throat.
Bite.
The management knew this could happen. When it finally did, they
told no one, told injured brothers they were crazy. Delayed cops
who were coming with hollow points, because they wanted to keep
their money maker going. A few customers killed? Oh well. That's
how it goes.
Arrest the bastards, starting at the top. The charge is murder.
Dave W.|1.9.08 @ 9:22AM|#
still have not given a complete account of the
attack
but when she did, she didn't go after any kindergarten
kids
Look, either there are witness to the tiger roaming around the zoo
or there aren't. Since we haven't heard from them yet (thru lawyers
or otherwise), I would assume that there really aren't. No
kindergartners were passed as the tiger slowly made its way from
its breached enclosure to the cafe, 300 yards away. However, if
there are witnesses to the tigers journey across the zoo after all
somehow, we need to disbelieve them under the Jakey Sullum
dumblogic(tm) where if you don't give a full account right away
then it means you are lying.
|1.10.08 @ 11:29AM|#
This is probably a little late, but it is called contributory
negligence. It can change the distribution of the settlement
amount. If the brothers are seen as contributing 20% then the
settlement will be reduced. I do not think the zoo is trying to get
out of paying. It knows it will pay. I think it is trying to reduce
the amount it will pay and rightfully so. Too many people no longer
have to be responsible for their behavior, and as a society I think
we have had enough.
Case in point an old friend of mine got locked in her 3rd floor
bathroom - she knew the door knob was not working correctly, and
never told the landlord! She had some sort of panic attack and
decided to exit through the window because she didn't think three
stories was that high. She shattered both ankles, had compound
fractures, and broke her back. It took her six months to recover.
She did sue the landlord because somehow the landlord should have
know about the door knob I guess. In the settlement however her
landfall was cut in half because of her own contributory
negligence. (I don't think she should have gotten a dime!)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245