Maypo
Where did you get the idea the zoo wouldn't allow them to take cover in the cafe'?
I totally, but respectfully, disagree. They
were taunting the tiger whether it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or not I don't know. I believe they found pinecones and other stuff that shouldn't be in the enclosure and there were several reports of some kids going around the zoo and taunting animals.
This tiger had
never escaped it's enclosure before. It took a severe amount of anger for this tiger to escape. The tiger didn't go after anyone but those three kids, hmm, wonder why.
These
are not good kids. They were high and drunk at the time and one of the kids shoe print was found on the inside wall of the tiger cage.
I have no problem believing they were doing something so unbelievable to agitate that tiger that it found the adrenaline to do something it's never done before!! The freaking moat is 25-30ft. alone. That tiger had to be very unhappy with those kids.
To put it another way the tiger didn't go crazy it went tiger. Don't agitate the man eating animals.
These kids got what they deserve. Our gene pool has been strengthened by that one kids death. Hopefully the tiger got the other kids enough so they can't reproduce. :cow:
I got the idea that the young men were denied entry into the cafe from the 911 calls, news releases by the zoo spokesperson, and investigative reports; all of those are available here in the earlier pages of this thread.
Throwing pinecones into a zoo enclosure is not unique to these three, IF they did that. Many of the zoo's early statements had to be retracted: Remember they said a slingshot was used? Then had to retract........they said branches were thrown, then had to retract. They said a shoe was
in the enclosure, then had to retract. There is NO evidence that the young men did anything more than a kindergartener would do......they made faces, made noises, etc.
It is also presumptive to assume that Tatiana reacted in anger. We do not know why the tiger jumped. Perhaps she smelled something that intrigued her? Didn't like Carlos's colonge? Maybe the young men were dirty and sweaty and stinky and THAT got her attention? Perhaps she was agitated before the young men ever showed up that day. We don't know. Wild animals are WILD and do not necessarily react to emotion. We cannot personify Tatiana, as much as we may want to, because Tatiana was not a person.
We do know this the first time she escaped, that is true, but there was some evidence that she had TRIED before (wear on her back paws) and this was just the first time she made it.
I really don't care if the young men who were attacked were virgin tee-totallers or not. I don't care if they were Hitler's youth, choir boys, executives or hoodlums, whether they were black, white, hispanic, oriental, etc.
What I DO care about is that the zoo has a legal and moral obligation to protect ALL its visitors, even the smarmy ones. The zoo is obligated to protect both its animals and its visitors by making sure enclosures are safe, comfortable and unescapable for ANY reason. And it failed to keep its obligation.
Unlike you, I can't rejoice in this young man's death. No one "deserves" to be torn apart by a wild animal that has escaped its enclosure, IMO. Ever. Carlos was young and acting stupid, that isn't cause for his death, and if it was nine-tenths of young men would probably be dead before their 21st birthday!
, but in the real world, the public should reasonably expect a zoo to keep dangerous predatory animals in enclosures that rise to the standards considered "reasonable and safe" within the industry. This zoo missed that mark, and will pay dearly for that.
