Tiger attack victims were taunting the animal

[VanCity Cowboy]

People who have been to the zoo know that people assume the zoo has taken the necessary safety measures, and they are protected.
Last time i was at the Calgary Zoo, there were lots of school children at the gorilla pen (the inside part) and they were all up at the glass, waving, tapping on the glass. And you know what their favourite part was? when the gorilla came rushing up to the glass and hit it. Everyone screamed a bit, but they were excited not scared because they *knew* the gorilla couldn't get through the glass.
Bottom line, if The Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the nation's accrediting agency. recommends that an enclosure be a certain height, usually because they've determined that this is the minimum height in order to keep the public safe, you should do it.

plus its not like it's a little low:
the recommended minimum height is 16.4 feet
the height of their fence was 12.5 feet

[The Yen Man]

Bottom line, both the teens and the zoo are at fault, and the only one innocent is the tiger.

[ricoFlame]

i highly doubt anything that these kids have said is true. the story keeps slightly changing, just like it does for every liar trying to weasle their way out of trouble. I'm curious if there was ever issues with the with the fence height during zoo hours...i highly doubt it.

[Locke]

Someone should have sold tickets to this. Watch a dude get mauled, get your tickets.

They shouldnt get a dime.

As for the fence, it was below revised Zoo Board recommendations.

It perfectly meets Zoo Board recommendations on the day it was built.

[Log]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Bottom line, both the teens and the zoo are at fault, and the only one innocent is the tiger.

I agree... I don't feel sorry for the ones who were injured and the guy that was killed.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Locke

Someone should have sold tickets to this. Watch a dude get mauled, get your tickets.

They shouldnt get a dime.

As for the fence, it was below revised Zoo Board recommendations.

It perfectly meets Zoo Board recommendations on the day it was built.

So?

If the recommendations are revised the Zoo has to accommodate them.

I guess buildings that are 100 years old shouldn't follow modern safety regulations either.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by JayP

So?

If the recommendations are revised the Zoo has to accommodate them.

I guess buildings that are 100 years old shouldn't follow modern safety regulations either.

evidently you have difficulty with the difference between recommendation and mandate. they don't HAVE to do anything. they probably should make the change, but until it's mandatory, there is nothing forcing any changes.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by JayP

So?

If the recommendations are revised the Zoo has to accommodate them.

I guess buildings that are 100 years old shouldn't follow modern safety regulations either.

They usually don't.

[Alpha_Q]

There should be a middle ground in this case; the zoo can pay for the incarceration of these 2 remaining fataheads for manslaughter, since they incited the animal to attack. I wonder who's fault it would have been if the fence had been at the right height - the state, or the national govt., or perhaps, imagine this, the a-holes in question.)

[Flashpoint]

Ok, so it was "after hours", while they were drunk, high, and taunting the tiger after driving several hours to do so? Then they lied to investigators by saying they didn't taunt the tiger?

They should be charged with trespassing, possession, DUI, animal abuse, and obstruction of justice. Then the zoo should sue them and their families for the cost of the tiger.

That would about put them on even footing.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

evidently you have difficulty with the difference between recommendation and mandate. they don't HAVE to do anything. they probably should make the change, but until it's mandatory, there is nothing forcing any changes.

Evidently I misread. Easy on the condescending tone.

Either way the kids are idiots, but the zoo deserves more heat for being too lazy to protect people.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Ok, so it was "after hours", while they were drunk, high, and taunting the tiger after driving several hours to do so? Then they lied to investigators by saying they didn't taunt the tiger?

They should be charged with trespassing, possession, DUI, animal abuse, and obstruction of justice. Then the zoo should sue them and their families for the cost of the tiger.

That would about put them on even footing.

It would be sweet if when the zoo gets sued, they counterclaim against the idiots for trespassing. The damages would be tiny in comparison, but still... sue them back.

[CaptainCrunch]

There are two non negotiable laws in life

1) Don't gamble against a person named after a geographic site (City, State)

2) Don't piss off a carnivore

[Winsor_Pilates]

Wow, tough crowd.

These guys deserved to get killed because they taunted an animal or were drunk?

I'm betting atleast 50% of us have at some point taunted a zoo animal, and 95% of us have been drunk in public. I fail to see how that means you deserve to die.

If doing something stupid, means you deserve to die, we all deserve to die for something we've done at some point.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'm betting atleast 50% of us have at some point taunted a zoo animal

And what percentage of us have climbed up a dangerous animal's enclosure?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Wow, tough crowd.

These guys deserved to get killed because they taunted an animal or were drunk?

I'm betting atleast 50% of us have at some point taunted a zoo animal, and 95% of us have been drunk in public. I fail to see how that means you deserve to die.

If doing something stupid, means you deserve to die, we all deserve to die for something we've done at some point.

They didn't deserve to die, but it is different than if they had just been regular patrons in the zoo looking at the animals.

And I've certainly been drunk in public -- I'm drunk right now on the C-Train -- but I've never taunted a zoo animal. I hope that half of us haven't done that. What kind of jackass does such a thing?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

They didn't deserve to die, but it is different than if they had just been regular patrons in the zoo looking at the animals.

And I've certainly been drunk in public -- I'm drunk right now on the C-Train -- but I've never taunted a zoo animal. I hope that half of us haven't done that. What kind of jackass does such a thing?

The same kind that get drunk, baked and go to the zoo.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And I've certainly been drunk in public -- I'm drunk right now on the C-Train

Rouge, is that you?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Wow, tough crowd.

These guys deserved to get killed because they taunted an animal or were drunk?

I'm betting atleast 50% of us have at some point taunted a zoo animal, and 95% of us have been drunk in public. I fail to see how that means you deserve to die.

If doing something stupid, means you deserve to die, we all deserve to die for something we've done at some point.

I dont think its so much that they 'deserved' to die. Its that this is poetic justice. Darwinism at its finest.
Like idiots that play chicken with trains and drunks that walk on the handrail across bridges, these guys deserve no sympathy.
Their idiocy caught up with them. As far as I'm concerned, that is good.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

And I've certainly been drunk in public -- I'm drunk right now on the C-Train

Posting on CP from the C-Train. You sir, are hardcore.

And as a minor no less.

Watch out for Tigers. They will try to steal your beer....

Then they get hungry...