Do You Believe it? Now officials are looking for a way to blame the victims of the tiger attack.?

Question

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/27/tiger.attack/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

It seems that the bigwigs of San Francisco are hoping to blame the victims of the tiger attack for the incident. The same officials who denied medical expenses for a zoo employee who was hurt by the same tigress last year. Seems to me the city officials are a bunch of heartless grinches.

Answer 1

well...it is possible...how do u think the footpront happened?

not saying he did it...but it is possible

Answer 2

Well, in my opinion, the zoo is to blame because quite obviously, when people go to a zoo, it is expected that the animals cannot get out and harm them, especially a tiger that has the capacity to kill easily. The wall at 12 1/2 feet simply wasnt high enough. What if the tiger had killed several more people? Blaming the guys isnt the issue here, if they were taunting the tigers, i agree, they are morons and should have been immediately booted out of the zoo, but the fact is that if a tiger can get out, it could easily kill uninvolved innocent people.

Answer 3

I'm in San Francisco. According to a recent (official) report from the zoo, the wall at the enclosure was 4 feet lower than the National standard. If that is the case, it changes things. As to whether or not the boys were taunting the tiger, I think we should wait for the entire story, instead of what is leaked to the press.

As for the tiger hunting down the other two, she followed the blood trail as they were injured while trying to help the friend that died.

Answer 4

If the sufferers provoked the tiger, then they deserved each and every thing they have been given. I nevertheless do no longer trust the actuality that they killed it - even with the actuality that I settle for that it ought to have been the sole situation achieveable in a short area of time. If that's discovered that they no longer in elementary terms provoked it, however the individuals who shot it had time to load a tranquiliser quite, then that's a shame. directly to the dogs - you ought to assert precisely an identical. If a dogs has been shown to be "risky", you do no longer permit your little ones flow close to it, and once you're an person, you ought to be attentive to greater suitable besides. that's stupid to taunt and galvanize a dogs - each and every person is conscious how risky ANY dogs may be if provoked - and you will hardly blame the animal for safeguarding itself against a perceived risk. If the animal has attacked for no reason, then truthful sufficient, yet while that's been provoked, then that's a distinctive tale.

Answer 5

Officials are simply looking to explain what happened and explain who/what was at fault, and so far it looks like the supposed "victims" are at fault. I've said it once, and I'll say it again. If they taunted the tiger in any way, those men got what they deserved. If the tiger was provoked, the two who are still alive deserved to have been mauled to death as well. People need to wake up and realize that just because these animals are in captivity, it doesn't make them tamed. They are still WILD ANIMALS. They deserve and demand respect. If you don't give them respect, you will suffer the consequences, as the three men obviously did, and very much deserved. They only have themselves to blame.

One of the men's father was quoted as asking why the tiger enclosure wasn't protected right. Why isn't he asking why his son was such an irresponsible jacka$$?

If you ask me, the only victim here is the tiger.

Answer 6

.

The surviving victims of the tiger attack and the family of the deceased should not get one red cent if it can be proved that the tiger was provoked. The zoo employee last year is a different story: he/she was just trying to do his/her job and should be compensated for medical expenses

The survivors should be charged in any legal way possible if their actions did directly lead to this tragedy.

That being said, I belive that the police had no other choice but to kill the tiger. There were other people in the vicinity who had nothing to do with teasing the tiger. These people were in harm's way and the authorities had to make a split second decision to protect innocent life. Sorry, but in a case like that human life has to trump animal life.

Answer 7

From the moment this story came out, the "victims" looked suspicious. That tiger didn't just suddenly get out by itself. And what were those guys doing wandering around near the tiger enclosure by themselves so close to closing time when the rest of the zoo was almost empty? The whole story sounds fishy and I'm more inclined to side with the city on this one.

Answer 8

so the tiger just happened to randomly hunt down people in different parts of the zoo who knew each other? Did it use some kind of super jungle sense to do that? Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one, instead of the bigwig consipracy theory

Answer 9

I've been to the Zoo many times and a Tiger has never killed me. A chimpanzee tossed poop at me once.

Answer 10

they are speculating that one of the guys might have been dangling his legs into the enclosure, which would explain the shoe in the moat as well as how the tiger got out in the first place

Answer 11

If they were the ones who were dangling their limbs over the fence teasing the tiger, then they deserved what they got! Now, the father of the dead kid is actually saying that teasing this tiger should be a "protected right?!" Is he joking?!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_on_re_us/tiger_escapes

I realize that San Francisco is the most liberal place in the country, but does this guy really think that teasing animals, let alone those that can kill you, is OK?! Unbelievable!