Was it ever proved they were actually taunting the tiger?

The city should tack on the value of the tiger, which was euthanized for doing exactly what any intelligent being would expect a tiger to do.

Step D: either spell your steps out, or use their number value.

/PICK ONE
//Sorry...I'm crazy this morning and needed something to pick on

Both brothers remain in legal trouble for unrelated incidents. Paul Dhaliwal is about to be sent to state prison to serve a 16-month sentence he was given in Santa Clara County in August for violating probation by leading police on a 140-mph chase.

Kulbir Dhaliwal has been sentenced to 10 days in jail for a drunken scuffle with police that could cost him his security guard license.

Yea, no way these two were taunting the tiger...seem like such nice boys.

/think their friend Carlos got darwined....
//perhaps better if it had been a trifecta?

40oz_A_Knight: The city should tack on the value of the tiger, which was euthanized for doing exactly what any intelligent being would expect a tiger to do.

I was going to say they also owe the city a goddamn tiger.

How does a tiger magically escape it's enclosure anyway?
Did they magically taunt it over a fence or something?

Stupid to kill the tiger. It was just being a tiger. A really pissed off tiger. They could have put it in a better enclosure without taunters and it would have been fine.

These news surrounding this for a while was they couldn't keep their stories straight when they spoke to police, and it looks very clear they taunted the tiger. I live in SF and have seen the old enclosure. I'm not sure how the tiger got out, but if you push anything hard enough, anything is possible.

Stupid comment. You have to kill a Tiger while it is in the act of mauling someone. Obviously.

No taunting has been proven, and it's irrelevant anyway. Tigers don't get supernatural powers by being taunted. The enclosure should have been set up to keep Tigers in, taunted or not.

BlorfMaster: Was it ever proved they were actually taunting the tiger?

Why the fark does it matter? If you successfully taunt an animal to escape its confines you've designed an unsafe public attraction. They're completely farking farked no matter what.

Phil Moskowitz: BlorfMaster: Was it ever proved they were actually taunting the tiger?

Why the fark does it matter? If you successfully taunt an animal to escape its confines you've designed an unsafe public attraction. They're completely farking farked no matter what.


The zoo's claim is that the boys were dangling legs and stuff over the pit. The tiger leaped up, got a purchase on whatever was dangling and then continuing upwards.

The zoo is stupid for not having security cameras around so they can prove this.

BlorfMaster: Was it ever proved they were actually taunting the tiger?

Isn't being edible enough?

The Zoo is not stupid. The boys were.

Kazujin:
How does a tiger magically escape it's enclosure anyway?
Did they magically taunt it over a fence or something?

Generally you get high on drugs, and drink vodka under age. You go about taunting the tiger to get it mad, then you disobey posted warnings and violate the safety fence to get closer. You then swing your legs inside the enclosure, while continuing to throw stuff at the tiger and taunt it and are surprised when you just happen to be inside the tiger's leaping range. It then uses your legs to haul itself up and deals with the annoying thugs.

It is a shame the animal is always punished for people's stupidity.

isn't the zoo responsible for providing inadequate enclosure to a F*CKING TIGER?

ha-ha-guy: The zoo's claim is that the boys were dangling legs and stuff over the pit. The tiger leaped up, got a purchase on whatever was dangling and then continuing upwards.

A.K.A. the "Tiger Meat Ladder"

Phil Moskowitz: BlorfMaster: Was it ever proved they were actually taunting the tiger?

Why the fark does it matter? If you successfully taunt an animal to escape its confines you've designed an unsafe public attraction. They're completely farking farked no matter what.

THIS.

It's a public place where all sorts of people are going to visit with their kids. It is the responsibility of the zoo to ensure that no guest gets an up close and personal experience with a wild animal unless planned and supervised.

If there's a chance that a wild animal will get upset if taunted, they should've made certain that animal couldn't escape or it just shouldn't be in the zoo at all.

superlawyergirl: It's a public place where all sorts of people are going to visit with their kids. It is the responsibility of the zoo to en

What if people ignore multiple posted warning signs, climb over walls meant to keep people back and dangle themselves over the pit, to the point where one of them ends up dead?

It is like if some moron leaps off the sidewalk in front of an oncoming bus. It isns't the city's fault they didn't moron proof the sidewalk.

Well... it seems as if you can buy a used Bengal Tiger for a mere $28,000. (2005 pricing)

Link (new window)

/brought to you by "terrificpets.com"
//indeed
///is it me, or is EVERYTHING for sale?!

Isn't it easy to determine if a tiger used someone's legs as a ladder? I know when my cat tried to climb my legs it hurt like a biatch. And a tiger is much, much larger than a cat so wouldn't there be deep claw marks on his legs? No claw marks, no leg ladder.

Ghost tiger is mauling your wallets.

\punks

jafiwam:
A.K.A. the "Tiger Meat Ladder"

Hmmm; i may have a new name for my junk now.

Oops, nevermind, it seems we can buy them at Wal-Mart for a discounted price of $900 a piece. ($5500 for the pretty white ones)
Link (new window)

mandingueiro: isn't the zoo responsible for providing inadequate enclosure to a F*CKING TIGER?

Apparently, the tiger wasn't actually the problem. The enclosure was only inadequate at stopping drunken idiots from climbing over barricades, sitting at the top of the enclosure and dangling themselves into it while throwing shiat at the tiger.

When used in that way, it really doesn't make sense to say the enclosure design was at fault.

That's like rigging your car to run over yourself, then blaming the car manufacturer.

LoneVVolf: jafiwam:
A.K.A. the "Tiger Meat Ladder"

Hmmm; i may have a new name for my junk now.

Shouldn't that be Cougar Meat Ladder?

lamecat: Isn't it easy to determine if a tiger used someone's legs as a ladder? I know when my cat tried to climb my legs it hurt like a biatch. And a tiger is much, much larger than a cat so wouldn't there be deep claw marks on his legs? No claw marks, no leg ladder.

It will likely come out at the trial and be a key point, assuming it happened or looks like it happened. I'm assuming part of the zoo's defense will be to get experts up on the stand and have them testify that the claw marks in the corpse's legs looks like the cat climb up his body, etc. This will be a contested by the plantiff's lawyers, etc.

So no one is really making any kind of public statement to tip their hand yet.

Say what you want about these idiots. There is something strangely (albeit stupidly) badass about them -getting mauled by tiger; running from cops at 140 mph; getting in a drunken fistfight with cops...

This is made for TV movie to be shown right after Ow my balls.

No Tiger ever tried to get out since it was built by the WPA in 1940.Footprints showed they had jumped the railing and were on the moat side of the public fence.Whether they dangled their legs or not could only be proven by leg wounds .Either way, the Tiger came to the realization that it could make the jump.Being pissed off helps.
By the way , much was made of enclosure not being up to national standards.There are no such national standards.The AZA (Ass'n of Zoo's and Aquariums) has a recommended wall height.But they are not a government entity , and therefor not arbiters of a national standard.
How tall was the wall protecting the public from Seigfried and Roys Tigers?

ha-ha-guy: superlawyergirl: It's a public place where all sorts of people are going to visit with their kids. It is the responsibility of the zoo to en

What if people ignore multiple posted warning signs, climb over walls meant to keep people back and dangle themselves over the pit, to the point where one of them ends up dead?

It is like if some moron leaps off the sidewalk in front of an oncoming bus. It isns't the city's fault they didn't moron proof the sidewalk.

Well, to be honest, I was unaware that they were apparently half in the tiger pit when the attack started. I thought I read enough articles on the matter before forming an opinion and commenting, but the Fark comments section whas been the first place that said anything about this.
If this is true, I'm completely with you. Make them pay plus the cost of the tiger, the clean-up of the area, fixing whatever was broken, etc. I was under the impression they were being normal stupid kids, but from the normal viewing area.

Approves

but...

Unimpressed

This makes sense, whether he taunted the tiger or not. The city thinks that the San Francisco Zoological Society that runs the city-owned zoo is responsible, and if the society ends up paying him the medical bills, the city wants that money because they provided the services. It might seem strange that the city is suing him, but the city and the society are both found liable, this suit helps insure that the medical costs that the city has already incured will offset any judgment. If the guy is entitled to pain and suffering or punitive damages, then he should get them, but his attorney will also submit medical bills, and if he hasn't paid them, then the city should get any amount of a judgment that is tied to medical bills.

At least the tiger didn't have access to any dynamite.

If I remember correctly, blood from the dead victim was found inside the tiger enclosure on the wall across the moat. A blood trail was found from the moat to the victim's body and there were some rocks and a tree branch from the viewing side of the moat found on the tiger's side, indicating someone had thrown them into the enclosure.

There have been no previous escapes from that enclosure, so it is reasonable to assume it was adequate for the average visitor.

Why are so many people capitalizing tiger?

superlawyergirl: I was unaware that they were apparently half in the tiger pit when the attack started.

The only way they could've tried harder to get eaten is to have covered themselves in BBQ sauce. Drunk + Stupid + Zoo = Tiger Snack

chookbillion: Why are so many people capitalizing tiger?

Hey that WAS a badass tiger.

So a 400+lb cat can use a 150lb man as a meat ladder? I'm not sure how that works. Doesn't the tiger just pull the man into the pit? Or does the man wedged against a fence get a good hunk of his leg tore off -- and if so how could he run away from the enclosure afterwards?

Also IMO the zoo does need to moron proof their attractions. They are offering them to the public and charging money for it. What if the tiger mauled someone else while he was out and about?

slashmonkey: So a 400+lb cat can use a 150lb man as a meat ladder? I'm not sure how that works. Doesn't the tiger just pull the man into the pit? Or does the man wedged against a fence get a good hunk of his leg tore off -- and if so how could he run away from the enclosure afterwards?

Clothing and adrenalin.

Phil Moskowitz: BlorfMaster: Was it ever proved they were actually taunting the tiger?

Why the fark does it matter? If you successfully taunt an animal to escape its confines you've designed an unsafe public attraction. They're completely farking farked no matter what.

There's a small public zoo in Baraboo, Wisconsin with a wolf exhibit. They are mostly enclosed with ten foot chainlink, which motivated wolves can scale easily. The viewing public, however, only has a three foot wooden fence on a platform raised maybe six feet. It seems the wolves are content staying in the zoo. No one's been attacked there, perhaps because it would so obviously be a bad idea to make them angry.

/The chainlink isn't an internal fence either, it looks out onto a public park where the wolves watch little kids play.

Je5tEr: slashmonkey: So a 400+lb cat can use a 150lb man as a meat ladder? I'm not sure how that works. Doesn't the tiger just pull the man into the pit? Or does the man wedged against a fence get a good hunk of his leg tore off -- and if so how could he run away from the enclosure afterwards?

Clothing and adrenalin.

Also your two friends going "Oh shiat" and grabbing you. Then being crappy friends they dump your corpse and run because they're afraid of the tiger.

Desmo: There have been no previous escapes from that enclosure, so it is reasonable to assume it was adequate for the average visitor.

THIS.

So when morans visit Disneyland (new window) then loosen their restraints on purpose and stand up or fall from a ride then hit their head on a beam and die, it's not somehow their fault but the park's?

What do they have to do? Staple-gun or hot-glue people to their seats?

From what nanny state do people come from which expects 100% safety during reckless or malicious behavior when no prior risk presented itself in *decades*?

The "keeping a tiger" is a classic example of strict liability that is taught to every first year law student in Torts class.

Tigers are inherently dangerous animals. The owner of these animals (the city) has a responsibility to keep these animals contained. The city failed in this responsibility, therefore, they are liable, even if the tiger escapes through no fault of their own.

ha-ha-guy: Je5tEr: slashmonkey: So a 400+lb cat can use a 150lb man as a meat ladder? I'm not sure how that works. Doesn't the tiger just pull the man into the pit? Or does the man wedged against a fence get a good hunk of his leg tore off -- and if so how could he run away from the enclosure afterwards?

Clothing and adrenalin.

Also your two friends going "Oh shiat" and grabbing you. Then being crappy friends they dump your corpse and run because they're afraid of the tiger.

Also tiger only weighed 243lbs. Wanna moron proof the place: I say the tiger should have been kept alive and put on exhibit at the front entrance of the zoo with a large sign saying "Darwin is watching, don't prove him right."

Fark these brothers, you simply don't play with your life like that and expect to be able to shrug your personal responsibility when it catches up to you. They killed a tiger by being jackasses, they should be charged with murder for both their friend and the tiger herself.

After reading TFA, it's a damn shame the tiger didn't finish the job on these two given what fine, upstanding citizens both appear to be.

superlawyergirl: Phil Moskowitz: BlorfMaster: Was it ever proved they were actually taunting the tiger?

Why the fark does it matter? If you successfully taunt an animal to escape its confines you've designed an unsafe public attraction. They're completely farking farked no matter what.

THIS.

It's a public place where all sorts of people are going to visit with their kids. It is the responsibility of the zoo to ensure that no guest gets an up close and personal experience with a wild animal unless planned and supervised.

If there's a chance that a wild animal will get upset if taunted, they should've made certain that animal couldn't escape or it just shouldn't be in the zoo at all.



4/10. troll smarter, not harder.

wayward2: The "keeping a tiger" is a classic example of strict liability that is taught to every first year law student in Torts class.

Tigers are inherently dangerous animals. The owner of these animals (the city) has a responsibility to keep these animals contained. The city failed in this responsibility, therefore, they are liable, even if the tiger escapes through no fault of their own.

This is why the law system is a farking joke and people hate lawyers. Capitalizing on the poorly worded law rather then the spirit of the system for which it was created.

Situations like this or that classic of the burglar who successfully sued when he fell through a sky-light onto a knife set are perfect examples of gutter-fishing tactics that unfortunately are genuinely part of a lawyer's job. Whole thing should be re-drawn.

Don't tease me bro!!!

Desmo: There have been no previous escapes from that enclosure, so it is reasonable to assume it was adequate for the average visitor.

Bzzt. False conclusion. Just because something never happened before, doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Airplanes? WTC? For a glaring example.

You're also missing some facts. The enclosure was, IN FACT, NOT built to the recommended specs. The wall was actually lower than whatever the standard said it was supposed to be. This information was in previous articles about the boys' suits against the zoo.

I do know one of the worlds top experts (new window) on tigers, and he said that the enclosure was 12 ft for a tiger that can clear 15. The fact that the tiger exhibit was not previously interactive does indicate that it was provoked somehow.

Accolade: Desmo: There have been no previous escapes from that enclosure, so it is reasonable to assume it was adequate for the average visitor.

Bzzt. False conclusion. Just because something never happened before, doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. Airplanes? WTC? For a glaring example.

You're also missing some facts. The enclosure was, IN FACT, NOT built to the recommended specs. The wall was actually lower than whatever the standard said it was supposed to be. This information was in previous articles about the boys' suits against the zoo.

You're going to need to cite both what the standard is and what official governing body dictates it and how its determined to be the official governing body as well.

As previously asked: How high were the walls between Sigfried and Roy's cats and its audience? I'm some how thinking that if there was an official rule regarding that sort of thing that these guys would have been fined into oblivion over it by now.

Any ways, citations please.