Here is the wall: It has kept tigers since the 1920s. These guys jumped the over fence, dangled body parts over the cement part and started throwing objects at the tiger. Yet somehow it isn't their fault? Tony disagrees. He says "Morons taste GGGGRRRREEEAAATTTTT!!!!!!"
So you're saying you still would have poked fun of rap to that large black man in the bar? That shouldn't equate to the tiger able to jump out of confinement and maul them though. Pissed off tiger in enclosure should have stayed pissed off tiger in enclosure. Your example of matches and forest fires is totally on the fault of whoever lit them, unless you think the store where the matches were bought should be sued. Same logic applies when someone falls into the Grand Canyon. But a zoo wasn't built in mind so a wild tiger can jump out from its enclosure and exact revenge on some punks taunting it. Your theory of chaos "anything can happen" shouldn't hold true in a zoo for the visitors (even though it did here). Why go to a zoo when you think there is a chance the animals can get free? We know that the guys were wrong for climbing the wall and taunting the tiger. That should not equal the tiger having the opportunity to jump that wall and chase after them.
so should the zoo build a 40 ft wall w/ armed guards and electrified razor wire fences so that visitors can onlt get w/in 100 yards of the enclosure? looking at that picture, i dont think a tiger would been able to just jump out on its own. w/o help the tiger would of had to jump and get its torso over the wall. those "kids" must have dangled a leg over the wall or something. someone correct me if im wrong, but isnt this the first time in the sf zoo's history that a big cat has escaped its enclosure by "jumping" over the moat wall. that tiger must have been on some roids or its the MJ of tigers.
The Tiger's family has hired a lawyer as well: Shere Kahn, the tough, smart, and bloodthirsty lawyer. I don't know where I fall on this, I have a good feeling that if I knew these guys, I'd think they were douchebags. That doesn't mean I think they deserved to die, but if they crossed that fence, weren't they technically trespassing? I don't think the Zoo should be held at fault for the kid's death, but if that wall was lower than it was supposed to be, then holding them at fault for the death and injuries to those guys might be the only way to "punish" the Zoo for not updating their enclosures. BTW, does anybody know if this pic from USA Today, back when the attack happened, is accurate? And for the sake of being accurate, the kid who died was 17, still a kid, and the brothers were 19 and 23.
