View Full Version : Details on the Lion Attack at SF Zoo
Dirty Ernie
01-21-2008, 12:13 AM
She actually did maul a zookeeper nearly a year to the day before this incident:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/23/BAG9CN57Q21.DTL&hw=tatiana&sn=005&sc=728
I don't know if the monkeys we taunted as 8 year-olds were mad enough to kill me. The zoo, fortunately, confined them in an escape-proof enclosure, otherwise who knows? I know that chimps have a reputation for slinging their poo at visitors, so maybe they would kill me if given the chance.
As for fault, the tiger is most certainly blameless, but there were many contributing factors that led to this event, one of which is the action of the young men in question. However, the fault must lie with the zoo itself, as the expectation of public safety is immutable.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 01:02 AM
She actually did maul a zookeeper nearly a year to the day before this incident:
I don't know if the monkeys we taunted as 8 year-olds were mad enough to kill me. The zoo, fortunately, confined them in an escape-proof enclosure, otherwise who knows? I know that chimps have a reputation for slinging their poo at visitors, so maybe they would kill me if given the chance.
As for fault, the tiger is most certainly blameless, but there were many contributing factors that led to this event, one of which is the action of the young men in question. However, the fault must lie with the zoo itself, as the expectation of public safety is immutable.
Excuse me, what is your fucking point? Tatiana bit a zookeeper, Tatiana is a friggin TIGER!
The monkeys you may have taunted as an 8 year old might have been mad enough to kill you (Then again, monkeys aren't fucking carnivores that instinctively hunt shit your size and larger) but the point is NONE OF YOU MORONS DIED. Had a chimp gotten loose and killed one of you in a group of, say, 5... the rest of you would be guilty of helping the other retard kill himself.
HOW you cannot see, even as devils advocate, what i was saying is beyond me. Two living things are dead. One died from his own stupidity in his retard group mentality (His balls were big with his dipshit friends aroung, till Tatiana showed him they weren't so big, i bet they shriveled up right quick once he saw that the animal that was soo helpless a moment ago was waiting in the bushes for a chance to strike, IF he saw her at all, her being a TIGER and all), one died because she wasn't caged enough to keep her from being who she was AND because some fucktard drove her to find herself even after years of imprisonment. I'd rather identify with Tatiana that the retard kid who fucked with her.
Edited: to remove an insult that never should have been there.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 01:22 AM
It was an ugly post, but i'll leave it stand because it was an honest one. I went and smoked a cigarette (and shivered) to cool off. Man, i am REALLY not ok with that tiger being dead. Those stupid fucking brats...
Dirty Ernie
01-21-2008, 01:32 AM
You should reread your definitions of negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter again. Neither apply. I'm just coming at this from a civil and criminal responsibility angle and you seem to be emotionally wrapped up in the unfairness to the tiger, which is fine, but no need to rail at me for representing the grown-up rational side.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 01:38 AM
Yeah, you're the grown up rational side, huh? Are you grown up enough to know that the Judicial branch of the govornment has the duty of interpreting the cold hard stone written words we call law? Are you grown up enough to see that the zoo is civily liable but the retarded kids are criminally liable and implicit in their friend's death IF anyone has the balls to prosecute?
Since you are so grown up and all.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 02:05 AM
That's enough of this shit. I aint getting points or banned on account of this.
Dirty Ernie
01-21-2008, 02:30 AM
I hope you feel the same way about the cow who was shot in the head with a bolt to provide the meat for your next Big Mac. It's estimated 20-25% of zoo patrons taunt the animals. That's an awful lot of accomplices. Who's to say the tipping point wasn't a prior group of taunters? The investigation into any criminal charges is winding down and likely to be shelved. The zoo, however, knowingly put an animal that previously attacked a human (non-taunting) into an open enclosure with a 12.5 ft wall. Contributory acts can and will be considered by a jury when deciding damages.
And as someone who knows several "retarded" people, I will just say, none of them would taunt an animal, so you might reconsider your phrasology.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 02:42 AM
A cow? A cow isn't a predator with a 100 mile range. Ever hear of TigerTipping? How many cows are in Zoo's caged into 1/100th of it's range. Lastly WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW A WILD MILK COW? Cows depend on us, we made them into 'cows,' Tigers don't. What part of 'domesticated' vs. 'Wild' is unclear to you?
Surely you have a better argument somewhere.
And mt phrasology is just fine. You offend me i offend you. My cousin's autistic, my other cousin's got down's. I know retarded when i see it, and few 'retarded' people fit the bill. They tend to be smarter than us "smart" folk,
twisterinAZ
01-21-2008, 03:53 AM
You took the words out of my mouth! It's amazing that some of these people think the boys deserved what they got, when I'm sure they have done something as sutpid as getting shit face drunk and then driven a car. Do they deserve to die because of that? According to their standards, I guess they do! Young kids do stupid things, we all have, but I don't think anyone deserves to die for just being stupid... Or most of us wouldn't be on this earth!
If you really think that kid deserved to die, according to my standards, the one that needs to be dead is you, for not showing any compassion to HUMAN RACE!
Oh God. This makes me want to puke. Ever hear the expression, " Fuck with the bull, get the horns ?" Ok well fuck with a tiger and he eats your sorry ass.
So I deserve to die then, dipshit ?
Jenny
01-21-2008, 05:42 AM
A cow? A cow isn't a predator with a 100 mile range. Ever hear of TigerTipping? How many cows are in Zoo's caged into 1/100th of it's range. Lastly WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW A WILD MILK COW? Cows depend on us, we made them into 'cows,' Tigers don't. What part of 'domesticated' vs. 'Wild' is unclear to you?
Surely you have a better argument somewhere.
It's not really clear to me; I actually don't get your point. So it okay to torture and kill a domestic animal, but worthy of death and a prison sentence to yell at a wild one? I mean, you might argue that I can't reasonably expect a cow from the cheese I'm eating to track me me to exact revenge; but you might not reasonably expect an animal to escape from a zoo exhibit either. And I'm pretty sure the cow from the cheese I'm eating suffered more, not less, than the tiger did. So maybe Ernie's point was just a "he without sin should cast the first stone"? And since when it comes to cruelty to animals we are, by definition of being human and in the developed nation, all sinful (or you would be leading a very surprising life)... Of course - I don't know. I eat cheese, but disapprove of setting cats on fire. I agree that that institutionalized cruelty where you get something out of it is much easier on the average person than individualized sadism. But if we're handing out death sentences for causing and contributing to suffering in the universe, it is interesting to contemplate where we all fall. And of course - keep in mind that the real "torment" in this case was being caged in the first place. They boys yelled and there is some conjecture that they might have thrown things. In the tiger-topsy there was evidence the tiger wanted out - not that it had been viciously pelted with rocks at close range.
Twister - I don't know that I think any of the comments are death worthy - I do think it seems a little ridiculous that people are saying that yelling in a zoo is worthy of death, and that somehow knowingly keeping a dangerous animal in an enclosure that can't viable contain it is somehow less bad than yelling in a zoo. As for being criminally liable - personally I don't think a bunch of teenage boys could reasonably expect that the tiger would escape from the cage and maul them. I don't think it is an issue of "having balls to prosecute". It's a matter of fitting their actions into the framework of a crime. I mean, if anyone knows the statutes for California offhand we could all subject them to our individual analysis! Wouldn't that be fun?
Pamela
01-21-2008, 09:55 AM
Why oh why do zoos keep stocking wild animals for other to see.
It's one thing to preserve the species, but showing them for profit is WRONG.
I hate zoos or putting any WILD animal on exhibit for the almighty dollar.
Tigers are NOT social animals. They don't hunt or live amoung each other.
Taunting an animal can put your ass in court. Especially in a controlled environment like the Tiger was in.
I firmly belive the zoo should be sued. And never again allowed to display Tigers. Period. It was the zoo who was at fault first for not having the Tiger in an enclosure sufficent for it's safety.
I also believe the other guy who survived should be issued a hefty fine for taunting an animal.
I FIRMLY believe that Tiger should not have been killed for acting out how WILD animals will under the circumstances.
Jenny
01-21-2008, 10:44 AM
Taunting an animal can put you in court? Like, how? Under what statute? You're saying that everytime I make fun of my cat I'm breaking a California law? My cat is in a very controlled environment. And I mock the hell out of her. So like every person who taps on the glass at a petstore is fined? We have a zoo act, and we have an animal welfare act and we have certain elements of the criminal law that deal with cruelty; none of them, to my knowledge, deal with "taunting." I mean, we don't really protect humans from taunting. Yes - that is right. Anyone who feels like it is allowed to walk up on the street and taunt me as much as they want (well, until it becomes stalking). Just like mimes.
And while I agree that an animal kept in a zoo shouldn't be destroyed for behaving in an entirely predictable fashion, in this case the animal was not killed as some kind of punishment; it was killed to prevent it, at that moment, from killing someone. It was not a "you're a bad tiger" killing; it was an "ahh! I don't want to die!" killing. Again, if the zoo had better emergency procedures it probably wouldn't have happened.
Djoser
01-21-2008, 11:12 AM
And I'm pretty sure the cow from the cheese I'm eating suffered more, not less, than the tiger did.
I'm sure the cow suffered a lot being born from the cheese. Fortunately it got out before you ate it as well.
Granted the dairy farms are often inhumane (especially in Florida, apparently), but unless you have spent a lot more time than I think researching the conditions under which Tatiana was kept, and the various conditions to be found in dairy farms across the nation, how radically these conditions depart from those of tigers and cattle in the wild, and the psychology of tigers and cattle, respectively, there is no justification for this statement.
I don't think a bunch of teenage boys could reasonably expect that the tiger would escape from the cage and maul them.
I don't think the tiger could reasonable expect to be kept in conditions that were so unnatural for tigers that she would want to kill people as a result.
But tigers don't make the rules in a world where animals have no rights. Some of us deplore the situation, and have more sympathy for the tiger, who had to die that day as well, because humans put her in an enclosure she didn't belong in, and humans provoked her into attacking them.
The tiger died, and an extremely stupid, cruel 19 year old died. I feel worse about the tiger. So sue me...
I do think it seems a little ridiculous...
Yes, this thread is indeed becoming ridiculous.
No one here threw rocks at a tiger. No one here mauled any sadistic, idiotic teenage boys. No one is really going to sentence anyone to death. We all agree the zoo is basically at fault.
No one else cares very much what we think. No tigers will be affected by this, and stupid, mean people will continue tormenting helpless animals, in a society in which torturing a cat to death means you have to wash a few cop cars.
Oh, but that was just ridiculous to bring up, and has no bearing on this whatsoever, does it?
"It's just an animal..."
I think that if those poor, innocent teenagers enjoyed taunting every available helpless caged animal in a zoo, as witnesses indicated, they would have done far worse in a situation where no punishment was forthcoming for torturing animals. Oh well, boys will be boys.
You may disagree, of course, as you usually do.
There are actually a few things we can possibly all agree upon.
It's mean to be cruel to animals. Human beings have a long history of being mean to animals anyway. Sometimes the animals get mad, and actually get to inflict a little pain and suffering in return, before they are executed.
The animals lose every time, in the end, but I do see a sort of justice in Tatiana's furious vengeance.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 11:48 AM
It's not really clear to me; I actually don't get your point. So it okay to torture and kill a domestic animal, but worthy of death and a prison sentence to yell at a wild one?
Death? I'm not calling to kill a soul; my point is that sometimes idiots kill themselves with their stupidity. And in some of those cases their dumbfuck friends help them do it.
Point #1 Tatiana didn't ask for any of this, the brats did. Had they kept their idiot mouths shut they would all be alive and relatively unmarred.
Point #2 Milk cows were bred for a thousand years to be as stupid, slow, and meaty as possible. If humans were to disappear tomorrow they would be extinct within a year, while Tigers would likely be saved from extinction. Is it nice that we fucked over Cows so badly that they'd be lion bait without us? No, but what is... is. Set all the Milk cows free, see how long they last. Set Tatiana free, see how long she does. Lets go ahead and take everything to it's extreme, shall we?
Point #3 should we be cruel to milk cows? We have already screwed the milk cow to the point where without us they can not live. To me, that's the cruelest thing of all. Will that stop me from barbequing, no. Color me a hypocrite. I don't care.
Pamela
01-21-2008, 11:53 AM
Taunting an animal can put you in court? Like, how? Under what statute? You're saying that everytime I make fun of my cat I'm breaking a California law? My cat is in a very controlled environment. And I mock the hell out of her. So like every person who taps on the glass at a petstore is fined? We have a zoo act, and we have an animal welfare act and we have certain elements of the criminal law that deal with cruelty; none of them, to my knowledge, deal with "taunting." I mean, we don't really protect humans from taunting. Yes - that is right. Anyone who feels like it is allowed to walk up on the street and taunt me as much as they want (well, until it becomes stalking). Just like mimes.
And while I agree that an animal kept in a zoo shouldn't be destroyed for behaving in an entirely predictable fashion, in this case the animal was not killed as some kind of punishment; it was killed to prevent it, at that moment, from killing someone. It was not a "you're a bad tiger" killing; it was an "ahh! I don't want to die!" killing. Again, if the zoo had better emergency procedures it probably wouldn't have happened.
Taunting is not playing with YOUR animal...And yes, i have been there. My dog taunted through his fence, jumped it, you can only have 4' in the front yard man got bit....he was cited on the spot we went to court i won!!!
I don't think you actually understand what i am saying here. I'm not taling about people taunting people, but oh yea, depending on the outcome...that CAN BE illegal too.
Anyhoo....you can not taunt animals. tapping on class at a petstore is NO different, just not enforced until shit goes down..Ever see signs that say "please do not tap on the glass"? We have them in many stores that carry animals. It's a "form" of taunting, but usually without intent to rile up an animal, more likely to wake the animal up so they can see it move, or i hear "oh it's dead" Stupid people.... we pull wild animals in captivity and expect them to behave like the family dog....Aint gonna happen. WE are at fault...always the worst predator of all, MAN!
Pamela
01-21-2008, 11:55 AM
Death? I'm not calling to kill a soul; my point is that sometimes idiots kill themselves with their stupidity. And in some of those cases their dumbfuck friends help them do it.
Point #1 Tatiana didn't ask for any of this, the brats did. Had they kept their idiot mouths shut they would all be alive and relatively unmarred.
Point #2 Milk cows were bred for a thousand years to be as stupid, slow, and meaty as possible. If humans were to disappear tomorrow they would be extinct within a year, while Tigers would likely be saved from extinction. Is it nice that we fucked over Cows so badly that they'd be lion bait without us? No, but what is... is. Set all the Milk cows free, see how long they last. Set Tatiana free, see how long she does. Lets go ahead and take everything to it's extreme, shall we?
Point #3 should we be cruel to milk cows? We have already screwed the milk cow to the point where without us they can not live. To me, that's the cruelest thing of all. Will that stop me from barbequing, no. Color me a hypocrite. I don't care.
DITTO!!!!!!
Jenny
01-21-2008, 11:59 AM
I'm sure the cow suffered a lot being born from the cheese. Fortunately it got out before you ate it as well.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about right now.
Granted the dairy farms are often inhumane (especially in Florida, apparently), but unless you have spent a lot more time than I think researching the conditions under which Tatiana was kept, and the various conditions to be found in dairy farms across the nation, how radically these conditions depart from those of tigers and cattle in the wild, and the psychology of tigers and cattle, respectively, there is no justification for this statement.
Okay... if you honestly don't think factory farm conditions are worse than the conditions of most zoos... Okay, again, that is just absurd. The fact is that you want to give certain animals certain rights - fine. So do most of us. But if you're going to be all "please produce evidence that your exact cow was badly treated before comparing it to a licensed and funded zoo habitat", then we're just delving into absurdities. The fact that tigers are not generally factory farmed doesn't change what animals who are factory farmed suffer. And I suspect you are pretty comfortable with that suffering - or at least you don't feel that you need to be killed for your complicity in it. Again - that's fine. Most people would agree with you. But then you need to examine the moral basis for some of your claims. You are uncomfortable when a cat has it's feet cut off and you think the cat deserves rights; you are perfectly comfortable when a cow has it's feet cut off and ground up into jello; you are not concerned with the cow's rights. Saying "Nuh uh - the cow is perfectly comfortable until you prove otherwise" is ridiculous - especially considering that you are entirely inferring the tiger's suffering.
But tigers don't make the rules in a world where animals have no rights. Some of us deplore the situation,
Like I said - I would be extremely surprised if you "deplored the situation" in all circumstances. This is the exact problem with legislating animal rights - is how to separate animals that should have rights - tigers, kitties etc. - with those that shouldn't - cattle, chickens, etc. Well, okay - it is one of the problems.
and have more sympathy for the tiger, who had to die that day as well, because humans put her in an enclosure she didn't belong in, and humans provoked her into attacking them.
But you don't have sympathy with, say, a chicken who is born in an enclosure she doesn't belong in and while is unprovokable, is killed just because you like the way it tastes? Again - fine. Most people would agree with you. I still think if you are using this as your moral base that you need to at least try to make it coherent. I mean, if you want to make sense. If you don't - well, then why bother with this at all?
The tiger died, and an extremely stupid, cruel 19 year old died. I feel worse about the tiger. So sue me...
Your decision. I'm just questioning the seemingly arbitrary morality that went into that decision. This is not the same as saying to a vegetarian "do you watch videotapes"; we're not talking about a series of decisions in which, for each decision, it is better to make a "good" one than a "bad" one. This is a situation in which you are labeling a person expendable for a given action.
Oh, but that was just ridiculous to bring up, and has no bearing on this whatsoever, does it?
Not really, no. As I said - you cannot viably compare cutting off a cat's feet (or for that matter, a chicken's beak) to yelling at a tiger and expect any sort of reasonable result.
You may disagree, of course, as you usually do.
Yes. I have this pesky interest in "making sense".
Jenny
01-21-2008, 12:06 PM
Point #1 Tatiana didn't ask for any of this, the brats did. Had they kept their idiot mouths shut they would all be alive and relatively unmarred.
Again - I think you and I have a different opinion over exactly how bad yelling in a zoo is.
Point #2 Milk cows were bred for a thousand years to be as stupid, slow, and meaty as possible. If humans were to disappear tomorrow they would be extinct within a year, while Tigers would likely be saved from extinction. Is it nice that we fucked over Cows so badly that they'd be lion bait without us? No, but what is... is. Set all the Milk cows free, see how long they last. Set Tatiana free, see how long she does. Lets go ahead and take everything to it's extreme, shall we?
I don't get it. So you're saying here that because cows are dependent on humans it is morally neutral to be cruel to them and to physically torment and kill them, whereas it is not neutral to yell at a tiger?
Point #3 should we be cruel to milk cows? We have already screwed the milk cow to the point where without us they can not live. To me, that's the cruelest thing of all. Will that stop me from barbequing, no. Color me a hypocrite. I don't care.
Okay... well, yeah, madcap, that is hypocritical when you are saying that this kid deserved to die for behaviour that you engage in without a thought and without any considered... distinction in the behaviour. I think when you've reached the point in a discussion where you acknowledge that your position is incoherent and hypocritical and are still unwilling to subject it to any closer scrutiny, even just to find a conceptual difference, there is kind of a problem.
Jenny
01-21-2008, 12:18 PM
Taunting is not playing with YOUR animal...And yes, i have been there. My dog taunted through his fence, jumped it, you can only have 4' in the front yard man got bit....he was cited on the spot we went to court i won!!!
Okay... but cited by whom and for what? Like what law/bylaw did he break? I am very interested in a statutory prohibition in taunting animals.
I don't think you actually understand what i am saying here. I'm not taling about people taunting people, but oh yea, depending on the outcome...that CAN BE illegal too.
I'm sorry - it can? Can you give me an example of illegal taunting? I mean that is not founded in another legal ground, like stalking, assault or libel? Like where just taunting is illegal? I'm very interested in these taunting laws.
Anyhoo....you can not taunt animals. tapping on class at a petstore is NO different, just not enforced until shit goes down..Ever see signs that say "please do not tap on the glass"?
Okay... but a posting a sign does not give it legal effect. I can post a sign saying "Please don't make fun of my hair. I am very sensitive." It doesn't mean that people are committing an illegal act by ignoring it.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 12:21 PM
*sigh*
Again - I think you and I have a different opinion over exactly how bad yelling in a zoo is.
Yelling and throwing things at a TIGER is an idiotic thing to do. It can get you killed obviously. So it's pretty bad. Go yell at the elephants. They can kill you for it as well, they found that out on Hawaii several years ago.
I don't get it. So you're saying here that because cows are dependent on humans it is morally neutral to be cruel to them and to physically torment and kill them, whereas it is not neutral to yell at a tiger?
Again you put words into my mouth. I said i don't give a flip about milk cows. Not that it is 'morally neutral' to do anything to them. It is immoral to torment and tease a milk cow, dumb as they are (Have you ever even seen a milk cow? I live in the midwest, they are all over the place. They are bag of hammers dumb, would they even recognize teasing? Walk at a herd and wave your arms and they run from you), but we are talking about a TIGER here, Jenny.
Okay... well, yeah, madcap, that is hypocritical when you are saying that this kid deserved to die for behaviour that you engage in without a thought and without any considered... distinction in the behaviour.
My opinion is that he deserved what he got because he was idiotic. If they hadn't have raised such stupid fucking kids we wouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. I also cheerlead when a drunk driver drives off a cliff. To me it's the same thing.
I think when you've reached the point in a discussion where you acknowledge that your position is incoherent and hypocritical and are still unwilling to subject it to any closer scrutiny, even just to find a conceptual difference, there is kind of a problem.
Nice and smarmy. Niiiice. Eating an animal bred for eating (and bred for centuries for that purpose), and stupidly throwing rocks at a ferocious animal are two different things. The Zoo IS at fault, but so are the retarded kids drinking beer and throwing rocks. The Zoo should have bounced those morons an hour before they started their behavior.
And, yeah, i'm unwilling to accept anything else. Sorry.
Pamela
01-21-2008, 12:27 PM
Okay this is real easy.
By law we can not PROVOKE an animal into attack. Taunting or provoking has a reason, to get a reaction out of that animal.
IF you walk by my home and poke sticks at my dog through the fence and he is going off on you on HIS property, yea your in trouble. You WILL be fined. Again, i have been there had it happen. Actually 3 times before i moved.
Posting a sign does not give it a legal effect? Very wrong. I have beware of dogs all over my fence/home, you enter and get attacked, or killed you broke the LAW. We also need to have signs for children and those who can't read of a snarlng dog on our fences and homes. This further protects my animals.
Yes taunting an animal is certainly going against law. And could be many more laws broken that are added on.
Florida does not take to kindly to jerks taunting our animals. Pictures, recording all help the case of this cruel act going down.
Jenny
01-21-2008, 12:37 PM
Okay Madcap - I seem to have conflated your position with some other positions here - my bad.
So you are saying that it was stupid, not morally culpable, and that is why the death is deserved?
Okay well I would first point out that taking joy in the death of another human being still isn't nice - even if they were driving impaired.
Second I would ask - how do you think the tiger recognizes teasing? Like how do you think the tiger understands the boys were yelling insults at it, as opposed the general yelling that goes on in a zoo?
Third - I would ask how in the world you are so sure that the tiger was hit with anything? The last I checked there was no indication (outside of the assertion of the zoo that it might have happened) that such a thing even occurred. The zoo has obviously checked whatever security cameras they had and found nothing. I mean, it sounds like you are saying that there is no way the tiger would have attempted an escape and attack if it weren't pelted with something - that is obviously not true. Like there is a reason they can't just put up a railing and sign saying "please don't throw things at the tiger". As you said - ferocious animal. It might not need to be hit with something to want out. Actually I read this morning (I wanted to review my facts before responding to your post); generally people have agreed that being hit with a rock would probably not incite a tiger to attack unless it was hit in the face; someone said that urinating might. And while public urination is distasteful - I still don't know that death by tiger is the answer.
Fifth - I would ask - if we are not dealing with moral culpability here, than the stupidity in question is not taunting a tiger, but believing that the zoo had properly contained it. If the zoo had properly contained it, there is nothing inherently stupid about taunting the tiger, since you are in no danger from it. And I would submit that many - most, even, people share that belief.
Jenny
01-21-2008, 12:40 PM
Okay, Pamela. All I'm asking is what law it is. If someone was cited immediately after taunting your dog, either you cited him or someone was conveniently there to do it. I thought you might know. I don't need like an exact citation - I would just like maybe some key words to google.
Posting a sign does not give it legal effect. There has to be, you know, a law. We don't just get to make up our own.
Okay this is real easy.
By law we can not PROVOKE an animal into attack. Taunting or provoking has a reason, to get a reaction out of that animal.
IF you walk by my home and poke sticks at my dog through the fence and he is going off on you on HIS property, yea your in trouble. You WILL be fined. Again, i have been there had it happen. Actually 3 times before i moved.
Posting a sign does not give it a legal effect? Very wrong. I have beware of dogs all over my fence/home, you enter and get attacked, or killed you broke the LAW. We also need to have signs for children and those who can't read of a snarlng dog on our fences and homes. This further protects my animals.
Yes taunting an animal is certainly going against law. And could be many more laws broken that are added on.
Florida does not take to kindly to jerks taunting our animals. Pictures, recording all help the case of this cruel act going down.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 12:51 PM
Okay Madcap - I seem to have conflated your position with some other positions here - my bad.
So you are saying that it was stupid, not morally culpable, and that is why the death is deserved?
Yup. Sometimes people walk into the fire on their own.
Okay well I would first point out that taking joy in the death of another human being still isn't nice - even if they were driving impaired.
Maybe not, but i'd rather they quit pissing in my gene pool.
Second I would ask - how do you think the tiger recognizes teasing? Like how do you think the tiger understands the boys were yelling insults at it, as opposed the general yelling that goes on in a zoo?
Fair question. Tatiana was a tiger. A predetor. Not to mention a LONE predetor. Tigers are smart, very smart. They have to be to survive. Plus, she zeroed in on THOSE kids, focused on them like a laser beam. She knew what they were doing to her. It's obvious.
Third - I would ask how in the world you are so sure that the tiger was hit with anything? The last I checked there was no indication (outside of the assertion of the zoo that it might have happened) that such a thing even occurred.
Not what i heard. I read they found soda cups and rocks.
The zoo has obviously checked whatever security cameras they had and found nothing. I mean, it sounds like you are saying that there is no way the tiger would have attempted an escape and attack if it weren't pelted with something - that is obviously not true.
How old was Tatiana? How long was she at the SF zoo? How many times before has she jumped out and killed someone?
She bit a trainer who was working with her, she didn't jump a wall to do it.
Like there is a reason they can't just put up a railing and sign saying "please don't throw things at the tiger".
No, they need to make her enclosure taunting-free. If humans can put a man on the moon, we can come up with a way to make a tiger enclosure "taunt-free." So those dipshits CAN'T throw things and she can't see or hear them.
As you said - ferocious animal. It might not need to be hit with something to want out.
How many times had she wanted to before?
Actually I read this morning (I wanted to review my facts before responding to your post); generally people have agreed that being hit with a rock would probably not incite a tiger to attack unless it was hit in the face; someone said that urinating might. And while public urination is distasteful - I still don't know that death by tiger is the answer.
Hey, if you're stupid enough to piss on a tiger... "Outta my gene pool."
Fifth - I would ask - if we are not dealing with moral culpability here, than the stupidity in question is not taunting a tiger, but believing that the zoo had properly contained it. If the zoo had properly contained it, there is nothing inherently stupid about taunting the tiger, since you are in no danger from it. And I would submit that many - most, even, people share that belief.
The zoo should have done it's job and protected Tatiana AND the public from those brats. They are the base of the problem. If they had kept their idiot mouths shut, we wouldn't be having this fight, they'd all be alive and smoking pot on one of their back porches, and Tatiana would be alive.
I love how you have NO SYMPATHY for the Tiger in this case.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 12:52 PM
I'm done, i don't want to get all pissed off at Jenny.
Pamela
01-21-2008, 12:54 PM
Okay, Pamela. All I'm asking is what law it is. If someone was cited immediately after taunting your dog, either you cited him or someone was conveniently there to do it. I thought you might know. I don't need like an exact citation - I would just like maybe some key words to google.
Posting a sign does not give it legal effect. There has to be, you know, a law. We don't just get to make up our own.
Well you got this right. I was recording the act with my camera! Yea i called 911 who called ACO's. One guy was bitten. Both guys recieved a ticket for harassment! We got a court date and they paid their fines. And all was well!!!!
Jenny "dog Law" Good book.
I mean what don't you get? You think people can go to public places where animals live and harass them. NO, they will get what they deserve, one way or another. I only feel very sad for that Tiger. That tiger was ONLY acting out to a situation. Animals do this. Dealing with wild animals, well- you get what you deserve. Don't fuck with them...
I have my will. And in my will i have listed if i ever fall death to one of my large constrictors, please do not kill that animal because of my stupidity!
Had to throw that in here. Because if my snake kills me, they will kill it!
I'm done. Signs are protection for our animals and a warning for the public. This is a subject i DO know alot about.
Not going to argue with you on this anymore. A person can not get cited due to harassment on an animal? That is absurd.
AS for the other punk at the zoo hope he gets his day in court just for being an ass to that Tiger. I watched MSNBC....it covered enough for me.
Djoser
01-21-2008, 01:02 PM
But if you're going to be all "please produce evidence that your exact cow was badly treated before comparing it to a licensed and funded zoo habitat", then we're just delving into absurdities.
Hey, you are the one that said the cow suffered more than the tiger. How the fuck do you know that? It's absurd for you to pretend you know what's going on in the mind of a tiger, and a cow, and to know which is more of a torment without doing a lot more research than I suspect you have.
And I suspect you are pretty comfortable with that suffering...
You actually don't have a clue how comfortable or uncomfortable I am.
But then you need to examine the moral basis for some of your claims. You are uncomfortable when a cat has it's feet cut off and you think the cat deserves rights; you are perfectly comfortable when a cow has it's feet cut off and ground up into jello; you are not concerned with the cow's rights. Saying "Nuh uh - the cow is perfectly comfortable until you prove otherwise" is ridiculous - especially considering that you are entirely inferring the tiger's suffering.
I don't need to do a fucking thing. Did I say I was comfortable with conditions in slaughterhouses? No, I did not, thank you very much for putting words in my mouth so you can then refute them. What's ridiculous is claiming that I am not concerned with the cow's rights, and that I said the cow was comfortable. I said neither such thing.
I am not merely 'inferring the tiger's suffering'. Something pissed it off bad enough to ruin its claws jumping an enclosure it had never chanced before, to attack an animal it doesn't attack in the wild unless it's ability to hunt has been severely impaired.
Oh wait, maybe she was just having a bad day.
Like I said - I would be extremely surprised if you "deplored the situation" in all circumstances.
]If you read a lot of history, you find--over and over again--incredible cruelty towards animals on the part of humans. Humans seem amazingly able to justify, gloss over, or ignore entirely the horrible nature of the crimes perpetrated on the animal kingdom. "Oh well, it's sad, but they are just animals."
Did I exclude farm animals? Then why the fuck are you surprised? Because you want to be?
But you don't have sympathy with, say, a chicken...I still think if you are using this as your moral base that you need to at least try to make it coherent. I mean, if you want to make sense. If you don't - well, then why bother with this at all?
Again, how the fuck do you know how I feel about the chicken? You don't. But you seem to enjoy a great deal the presumption that you do know how I feel about a great many things. Almost invariably, you are wrong.
I see no greater coherence in your statements than mine. What I do see is you repeatedly making assumptions about my beliefs, so you can then disagree with those assumptions. Yeah, that's some real coherence, alright...
Which ironically enough, does lend some small coherence to your question. Why do I bother with this at all? You aren't listening, you are intent on being contentious, and correct. Wrong again...
...the seemingly arbitrary morality that went into that decision. This is a situation in which you are labeling a person expendable for a given action.
Two beings suffered and died. One being was reacting to torment by the other, after being confined for a prolonged period of time in conditions producing extreme discomfort. The guy who went out of his way to torment caged animals was declared expendable by the tiger, not me. I just happen to sympathize with the tiger.
It's not 'arbitrary morality', it's life. Fuck with a tiger, you might die. Reasonable people can see the logic in this. I'm sorry if you cannot.
...you cannot viably compare cutting off a cat's feet (or for that matter, a chicken's beak) to yelling at a tiger and expect any sort of reasonable result.
The attitude is "It's just an animal." It's OK to inflict suffering. You apparently think the boys were just having good clean fun, fucking with every caged animal at the zoo. I think they were deliberately being cruel. Sadistic, in fact. Sadistic people enjoy torturing animals, and some of them are even surprised when they must face the consequences.
Imagine that! What a concept...
I have this pesky interest in "making sense".
You just failed miserably.
Jenny
01-21-2008, 01:11 PM
Madcap - I really do appreciate you not getting pissed off at me. I'm definitely not pissed off. However I must include this reply because I am very amused at my own tiger monologue. I know. I'm lame.
I'm not pissed off.
It's not an issue of having "no sympathy for the tiger." I think it is very sad to live in a zoo. I don't know that because I think it is sad to live in a zoo and get shot that I'm willing to jettison a few teenaged boys - I don't see this as an either or. For what it is worth, I don't think the zookeeper deserves to be killed either. Just held liable.
I would point out that there is no real way of connected soda cups and rocks to the three boys, and I didn't read anything in particular that even tried to form such a connection.
She was in the habitat for a few years. But again - this is just not logical. The notion that because the liability didn't happen before that the fault is on the victim is not tenable. You could say the same thing if she had been in there 1 year, 6 months or 2 weeks. The reason you need to have the enclosure designed so that the tiger cannot get out is because if the tiger can get out, it probably eventually will get out. The fact that it took a couple of years is not relevant (the example I used before was a house falling down).
Finally - if you think the tiger "zoned in like a laser beam" on those boys, to the exclusion of a mass of people you read something different than I did. The zookeepers did not believe that there was a tiger out at first, and disbelieved that there was a victim. I don't think there were a slew of people for the tiger to choose from. Not to mention, if there were, there would be a witness who could reliably say "Yeah, things were thrown" or "Yeah, one of them got in the habitat to give the tiger a boost out". Tigers are "smart" the way that tigers are "smart" - they are good at doing what tigers do. It doesn't mean that they form the same kind of logical and rational connections that humans do ("he's looking at me while making that noise. That bastard is mocking me! He is mocking me and my glorious stripes! Asshole. Wait, wait... I just have to jump over this... man, this wasn't so hard.. why did I never try this before? Oh yeah - the asshole mocking my magnificent stripes... Okay, up here.... ah, missed. Up again... dammit, I broke a nail. That's one less claw to wreak my vengeance on my enemies. My mocky, mocky enemies. Okay this time I'll make it... wait, wait... he's looking. It'll be way more sadistic if I lull him into a false sense of security that this puny enclosure can contain me, when in fact nobody has ever irritated me enough to try to break out... NOW! Yeah! Pounce! Wanna stare at me now? Huh? Now you've got my attention. Now you're seeing me up close and fucking personal! How do you like the zoo now, mocker?")
I'm ending the inner-tiger monologue before the shooting. Say what you will about my artistic integrity.
ETA - wow Djoser. You're hostile today. You need to learn not to take it so personally when someone questions your position on something. Or learn to post on things you're not so sensitive about.
Madcap
01-21-2008, 01:12 PM
You're right, i'm wrong. End of argument.
Djoser
01-21-2008, 01:32 PM
ETA - wow Djoser. You're hostile today. You need to learn not to take it so personally when someone questions your position on something. Or learn to post on things you're not so sensitive about.
Yeah, I've noticed you always bend over backwards to avoid sarcasm or any trace of condescension.
You need to take your own advice...
But in the interest in keeping peace, I will remove the reference to my joke you didn't get.
Jenny
01-21-2008, 01:44 PM
^^^
Um... yeah. I'm definitely satirical, and you might argue that I'm condescending. But I don't get angry or hostile at people for questioning or disagreeing with me.
Djoser
01-21-2008, 01:48 PM
Oh, neither do I!
Who says I'm any more angry than you are? We are both just typing on the internet. I'm not cussing out loud, disturbing the neighbors, and throwing things like I do when I'm actually mad, lol.
Jenny
01-21-2008, 02:22 PM
Well, you might be. And you are certainly engaging in the online equivalent. And I don't think you can deny that your last post was hostile no matter what you are doing in your house.
Look. I don't want to argue about whether or not you are mad at me. I just think you need to learn to engage with people who disagree with you without hostility.
Djoser
01-21-2008, 02:43 PM
Look. I don't want to argue about whether or not you are mad at me. I just think you need to learn to engage with people who disagree with you without hostility.
Then stop.
You need to learn to argue with people without incessant sarcasm, condescension, repeated claims that they are being absurd, ridiculous, arbitrary, that you know what they think--when you in fact don't, that you 'make sense' when they don't etc. And when you make no more sense than they do.
I think you like dishing out sarcasm and self-righteous rhetoric, but you can't take it when it's handed back to you. Suddenly that person is 'mad', but you aren't. I'm not in your living room, you're not in mine. You haven't a clue whether I'm really mad at you, or just dispensing the same caustic writing style you so frequently employ.
scarlett_vancouver
01-21-2008, 05:55 PM
MOD FIGHT!
hee. shut up both of you, how about? (Don't point me!) :D
"he's looking at me while making that noise. That bastard is mocking me! He is mocking me and my glorious stripes! Asshole.
:rotfl:
mollyzmoon
01-21-2008, 05:59 PM
If I teased a coworker's haircut, and then the next day he came into work with a shotgun, I'd consider death by gut-shot to be a disproportionate response. Technically I died by something I'd provoked, but not really something that seems like an appropriate reaction from the universe at large. I'm thinking that for all those people, young or old, who tease animals, I wouldn't say "death by tiger maul" is just desserts.
Also, cows are pretty smart, as far as herd animals go. If you take a group of cattle, open the barn door, they will each find their individual stall. I'm just saying that, it seems a little besides the point to compare the glory of sentient species when discussing which ones deserve to be tortured or killed for our convenience.
I think the tiger story is a terrible tragedy, and I am sad for the tiger. But not really more sad than I am for a car-squashed fox. Of course what she did was not her fault, because tigers are not culpable for doing what tigers do. Animals don't really 'deserve' things the way people might, because they don't really have the rational faculties we do to understand right or wrong. They're not really part of our moral arena...which isn't to say they deserve suffering. They don't, but that doesn't guarantee them a right to not be killed in certain situations. What happened was caused by gross, horrible negligence...not tiger-revenge. Tigers don't just attack people to exact 'revenge'...a polar bear roaming the streets of Churchill would also probably be euthanized, since predatory animals tend to be dangerous.
scarlett_vancouver
01-21-2008, 06:06 PM
You took the words out of my mouth! It's amazing that some of these people think the boys deserved what they got, when I'm sure they have done something as sutpid as getting shit face drunk and then driven a car. Do they deserve to die because of that? According to their standards, I guess they do!
I actually do think they would 'deserve it' (defined loosely) in a drinking driving situation. But in the zoo situation, there is no 'taunt a tiger, get mauled' precedent...it just doesn't happen much. Really, how could they have known? Maybe people should expect to be eaten if they taunt a tiger in a zoo, and maybe now they will, but there's no way these particular kids could or should have expected it. So I say they might be bad people, but they didn't deserve to die for taunting a tiger. If they'd driven drunk and killed a roaming tiger (or a deer, or child, let's say), I'd have less sympathy for them.
Djoser
01-21-2008, 06:09 PM
MOD FIGHT!
hee. shut up both of you, how about? (Don't point me!) :D
:rotfl:
Deal...
twisterinAZ
01-22-2008, 02:50 AM
Why doesn't anyone get the logical conclusion that if you torment a large and dangerous predator, it might get pissed off and try to kill you ? Seriously. It absolutely floors me.
PaigeDWinter
01-22-2008, 03:02 AM
Yet another thread killed by drama. Good job.