Teen killed by tiger had drugs, alcohol in his system

The 17-year-old San Jose teen mauled to death by a San Francisco Zoo tiger on Christmas Day had some alcohol and pot in his bloodstream, according to a coroner's toxicology report.

Carlos Sousa Jr. had 0.04 percent ethanol and 6.6 nanograms of Delta-9 THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his blood stream, according to a report performed almost six months ago by NMS Labs in Willow Glen, Pa.

The toxicology attachment is part of a larger examination of Sousa's death - caused officially by "blunt force injuries of the head and neck (predatory cat bites)" - released Monday by the San Francisco Medical Examiner's Office.


Neither NMS Labs or the medical examiner's office would comment on the report.

But Halle Weingarten, a certified forensic toxicologist who runs Independent Toxicology Services in San Jose, said "It's absolutely impossible to say" how the drug and alcohol affected Carlos, who was 6 feet 1 inch tall and weighed 272 pounds.

"This doesn't tell you how much he smoked, only that he had smoked it recently, probably within the last two hours," said Weingarten, Santa Clara County's chief crime lab toxicologist for 20 years before she retired. "You just don't know what individual tolerances are. While alcohol can increase risk-taking behavior, pot usually mellows people out."
Report: Teen killed by tiger had drugs, alcohol in his system

DON'T smoke weed people....a tiger might eat ya up!:wtf: This is a first time I've ever heard that a person toking will give wild animals super powers to jump out of, what is suppose to be, secure areas.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Soon there will be signs at the entrance of zoos that say, " Coming to the zoo under the influence of drugs or alcohol will anger the animals and they may kill you."

damned brazilians... hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha

There's no excuse for having zoo where a tiger can get out of it's enclosure, no matter what the reason. Otherwise, how can we be sure we can get wasted and taunt the animals without instant karma dropping the hammer on us?

"We already know he had a very low amount of marijuana," said Michael Cardoza, an attorney representing the Sousa family. "But it's totally irrelevant. They are using this to divert people down the primrose path to say, 'See, they were under the influence.' "

That's funny , if they hadn't been stoned they would've easily outrun a full grown tiger. :wtf:

Yeah! cause we're all Linford Christies really. :D

Did they test the tiger? I bet it was on PCP.



(Not that I want to open a discussion about the banned tiopic of PCP --- just accounting for its super-tiger wall-jumping strength and irrational teen-eating behavior.)

This was caused from stupidity, not drugs.

I don't really feel bad for this kid. I'm just glad he didn't breed, we don't need this goober's seed floating around society.

Who has ever been so high that they look over to their friends and go, "Fuck, we should go pay 15.98 a peice and fuck with the animals at the zoo!"

No one, damnit. Except maybe that Sigfried and Roy guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

This was caused from stupidity, not drugs.

I don't really feel bad for this kid. I'm just glad he didn't breed, we don't need this goober's seed floating around society.

Who has ever been so high that they look over to their friends and go, "Fuck, we should go pay 15.98 a peice and fuck with the animals at the zoo!"

No one, damnit. Except maybe that Sigfried and Roy guy.

---

"Carlos and San Jose brothers, Kulbir, 24, and Paul Dhaliwal, 19, were at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day when a Siberian tiger named Tatiana leaped out of her grotto and attacked them. Sousa died and the Dhaliwal brothers were injured. Police shot Tatiana dead. There were allegations that the trio had been taunting the tiger, but an investigation did not produce evidence of wrongdoing.

The sensational mauling also revealed that the fence to the zoo's tiger enclosure was four feet shorter than industry standards. The zoo spent $1.7 million in safety renovations, and the fence now stands at 16.4 feet."

- Concluded no wrongdoing

-fence was shorter than regulations

Yes, lets blame the dead 17 year old teen who wanted to go to the zoo, was a little buzzed from some alcohol and pot... but its his fault.......

I'm lost in this opinion you have.

Calling out a dead guy is lower than making fun of a person with cancer....

I hear that the kid is being awarded a posthumous Darwin Award.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

I hear that the kid is being awarded a posthumous Darwin Award.

---

If he had climbed into the enclosure then he would deserve it but being the victim of an escaped tiger isn't in the same league.The fact that the enclosure was wrongly built is the reason the cat escaped and the reason he is now dead.
I doubt you or Rebgirl would've fared any better if you were faced with the same beast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

If he had climbed into the enclosure then he would deserve it but being the victim of an escaped tiger isn't in the same league.The fact that the enclosure was wrongly built is the reason the cat escaped and the reason he is now dead.
I doubt you or Rebgirl would've fared any better if you were faced with the same beast.

---

The zoo is at fault for having an enclosure that the tiger could escape from. That is completely unexcusable and led to the death of this kid AND the tiger. The fact that they were stoned or drunk is completely irrelevant. However, I do believe that they were taunting the tiger, and I have no sympathy for anyone who would torment an animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

If he had climbed into the enclosure then he would deserve it but being the victim of an escaped tiger isn't in the same league.The fact that the enclosure was wrongly built is the reason the cat escaped and the reason he is now dead.
I doubt you or Rebgirl would've fared any better if you were faced with the same beast.

---

Sorry to disagree, but I have enough sense *NOT* to torment an animal, and cause it to escape its confines to attack its tormentor. That exhibit had *NEVER* had a problem before until those idiot kids started throwing rocks and stuff at the cat.
I have been to that zoo many times and have seen the exhibit. Common sense tells you that there won't be a problem until somebody comes along and makes it a problem.

There is no such thing as "idiot proof", because they keep making smarter idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

There is no such thing as "idiot proof", because they keep making smarter idiots.

---

Surely that's an oxymoron ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Surely that's an oxymoron ?

---

Yup...just like Progress and Congress

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

This was caused from stupidity, not drugs.

I don't really feel bad for this kid. I'm just glad he didn't breed, we don't need this goober's seed floating around society.

Who has ever been so high that they look over to their friends and go, "Fuck, we should go pay 15.98 a peice and fuck with the animals at the zoo!"

No one, damnit. Except maybe that Sigfried and Roy guy.

---

While I normally silently agree with your posts... I feel you seriously need to go back and re-read the article of how this happened and the eye witness accounts of the boy who actually died.

People acknowledged that this boy was not antagnozing the animals. His friends were, but since when were someone elses actions our own? :P

The issue here is not the boys. Would you share the same cold callous sentiment if a 5 year old boy had been mauled and mamed for throwing something at the tiger? I seriously doubt you would.

The issue here was the Zoo security and making sure animals stay inside their enclosures.


Yes I do get stoned and decide to go to the zoo. There is nothing wrong with that.

While I agree you shouldn't antagonize animals no matter what the age.. I very much strongly disagree with the disgusting notion that you deserve to die if you go to the zoo to have fun and jackass around with the animals.

:wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

The zoo is at fault for having an enclosure that the tiger could escape from. That is completely unexcusable and led to the death of this kid AND the tiger. The fact that they were stoned or drunk is completely irrelevant. However, I do believe that they were taunting the tiger, and I have no sympathy for anyone who would torment an animal.

---

The kid who died was not taunting the tiger.. His two idiot friends were though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

Sorry to disagree, but I have enough sense *NOT* to torment an animal, and cause it to escape its confines to attack its tormentor. That exhibit had *NEVER* had a problem before until those idiot kids started throwing rocks and stuff at the cat.
I have been to that zoo many times and have seen the exhibit. Common sense tells you that there won't be a problem until somebody comes along and makes it a problem.

There is no such thing as "idiot proof", because they keep making smarter idiots.

---

Listen to yourself...

It never happened before.. therefore it could never possibly happen unless someone makes it happen? That just sounds ridiculous. Read that sentence over and over again because that is the basic summary of your post.

Regardless if someone made it happen or not that is not the point or issue at hand. The point is that it shouldn't be able to happen even if someone were to provoke an animal. The zoo has to think about the safety of the community of the people in the Zoo... not just the individual viewing the exhibit.

In that regards it is the ZOO's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that incase some jackass jerk provokes a tiger.. that it can't get out and hurt innocent people.

Going to the zoo stoned is great, and I have done it several times. I'd hate to think I might get eaten by a runaway tiger and then get blamed for it when my postmortem blood tests came back. That's adding insult to injury (or to death as the case my be).

Maybe it was stressed. Couldn't get high so it ate something with the chemical flowing already in it.

Smart cat.

Poor dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Surely that's an oxymoron ?

---

Smart idiots?

Nah that just means high IQ people or people with a relitivly inteligent mind structures. That do stupid thing because they dont use there gifts to reason.

Thus the smart idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFGurrilla

Smart idiots?

Nah that just means high IQ people or people with a relitivly inteligent mind structures. That do stupid thing because they dont use there gifts to reason.

Thus the smart idiot.

---

I think "There is no such thing as "idiot proof", because they keep making smarter idiots," means the people are constantly coming up with new, innovative and ingeniously idiotic things to do. Some people are so creatively idiotic that it boggles the mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Listen to yourself...

It never happened before.. therefore it could never possibly happen unless someone makes it happen? That just sounds ridiculous. Read that sentence over and over again because that is the basic summary of your post.

Regardless if someone made it happen or not that is not the point or issue at hand. The point is that it shouldn't be able to happen even if someone were to provoke an animal. The zoo has to think about the safety of the community of the people in the Zoo... not just the individual viewing the exhibit.

In that regards it is the ZOO's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure that incase some jackass jerk provokes a tiger.. that it can't get out and hurt innocent people.

---

OK....so your defending cruelty to animals, and saying its OK for some stupid kids to provoke wild animals, and torment them, and your also saying that the stoopid kids bear no responsibility for their actions?????

Thats pretty ignorant.

FWIW, even if the fence had been at the suggested height, when the cat got mad enough, it was gonna get out anyway.

You can't protect people against their own stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

OK....so your defending cruelty to animals, and saying its OK for some stupid kids to provoke wild animals, and torment them, and your also saying that the stoopid kids bear no responsibility for their actions?????

Thats pretty ignorant.

FWIW, even if the fence had been at the suggested height, when the cat got mad enough, it was gonna get out anyway.

You can't protect people against their own stupidity.

---

They should be able to design an enclosure that the cat cannot get out of even if you wrapped yourself in bacon and catnip, threw rocks and called him a big "pussy." There is no excuse for having an enclosure that a tiger can get out of.

You might not be able to pretect someone from their own stupidity, but I want to be protected from somebody elses stupidity. So if THEY provoke a tiger, it doesn't get out and eat ME. Otherwise I'm never going to the zoo again.

That said, I totally agree that anyone who taunts a tiger should pay a price. I'd be OK with throwing the kid in with the tiger, as long as the tiger did not get out and hurt anyone else....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

OK....so your defending cruelty to animals, and saying its OK for some stupid kids to provoke wild animals, and torment them, and your also saying that the stoopid kids bear no responsibility for their actions?????

Thats pretty ignorant.

---

Please show me where I defended cruelty to animals?

Show me where I said it's ok for stupid kids to provoke a wild animal?

It's ignorant to place words in people's mouth and then convince yourself they really said them.

What I said was that it is the Zoo's responsibility to ensure that everyone inside the Zoo remains safe. Even if someone antagonizes an animal the Zoo needs to be confident that no one will get hurt.

Kids are going to do stupid things, that is just what kids do. If the Zoo can't take this into consideration when designing their cages and exhibits for safety then that Zoo needs to be shut down.

Secondly you are taking this to extreme... Human life/Safety vs the life of an animal.

You should read and re-read posts before you start name calling because everything you accused me of saying... I did not say.

Quote:

---

FWIW, even if the fence had been at the suggested height, when the cat got mad enough, it was gonna get out anyway.

---

Really? Where is your scientific fact to back this? I suppose that everyone who has researched how tall a tiger exhibit needs to be is wrong and you're right?

Apparently Tigers are like the incredible Hulk and gain super powers when they get pissy?

I don't mean to sound like I'm demeaning you but do you read what you post before you type them? It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the height of an enclosure does not matter when it comes to securing an animal that can jump signifigant heights.

So if the enclosure was 50ft high you think the Tiger would still some how magically leap over it?

Quote:

---

You can't protect people against their own stupidity.

---

You're right. All you can do is smack them down when they call you ignorant and completely misread your post.

As you can tell your arrogance and eagerness to start flinging mud is not appreciated. In my original post replying to you I never once condescended you and even agreed that kids that would provoke an animal are pretty stupid.

Did I do something to piss you off?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

That said, I totally agree that anyone who taunts a tiger should pay a price. I'd be OK with throwing the kid in with the tiger, as long as the tiger did not get out and hurt anyone else....

---

Your post was very well written up to this point where I suddenly became confused at your 180.

Perhaps you can shed some light on this for me. I assure you this is a genuine question.

What is it that makes people wish harm on others they don't even know?

The boy who died in this mauling was not even the one who was provoking or antagonizing the Tiger.

People have said that you deserve to die for doing this.

When you're a teenage boy is it really worth Death when you're doing something stupid and childish? I agree that the individuals should be punished if caught, but to wish death upon them is a bit extreme.

Nobody here was there at the Zoo that day to see what happened and it baffles me how people can so coldly say that another person deserves to die.

The world is not "lawyer proof"

Stoopid people(and their buddies) do stoopid things and they pay the price. Too bad the cat didn't get all three of them.

OTOH, liberals want to sue gun manufacturers because somebody else, not even remotely connected with the gun manufacturers, pulled the trigger. Maybe we should sue the automotive manufacturers when a drunk driver kills somebody. If the idiots had been throwing rocks at a bee hive and got their asses stung...how are you gonna make a bee hive idiot proof?? You can't protect stoopid people from themselves.

I don't have any sympathy for the stoopid kids that do stoopid things that they *KNOW* they are not supposed to do, and then get themselves and/or somebody else hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

The world is not "lawyer proof"

Stoopid people(and their buddies) do stoopid things and they pay the price. Too bad the cat didn't get all three of them.

OTOH, liberals want to sue gun manufacturers because somebody else, not even remotely connected with the gun manufacturers, pulled the trigger. Maybe we should sue the automotive manufacturers when a drunk driver kills somebody. If the idiots had been throwing rocks at a bee hive and got their asses stung...how are you gonna make a bee hive idiot proof?? You can't protect stoopid people from themselves.

I don't have any sympathy for the stoopid kids that do stoopid things that they *KNOW* they are not supposed to do, and then get themselves and/or somebody else hurt.

---

Who was talking about Lawyers? Who was talking about liberals and guns?

We're talking about a Zoo and them meeting industry regulations for the height requirement of a tiger Exhibit.

If they were throwing rocks at a bee hive then they were probably at a location by themselves and other people are out of harms way.

If a 5 year old had been the one provoking the animal would you wish death upon him?

If a 5 year old was throwing rocks at a bee hive would he be stupid? Or would he be a 5 year kid doing what little 5 year old kids do?

The Age of these kids in this situation should not be a factor. Regardless of their age the fact remains that they were still children/teenagers. That's all that's relevant in terms of age.

I agree whole heartedly that it is stupid and wrong to tease an animal, but I disagree that someone deserves to die for essentially being immature and a child.

Example:

Do you slap your kid when he spills a glass of milk? I mean it's stupid to spill a glass of milk. Let's totally ignore the fact that they might not have the same motor skills as an adult. Or that their depth perception may be off a bit... or that their hands might not fit around the glass like ours. IT's stupid to spill a glass of milk? Right?

Let's ignore the fact that these young people are still developing mentally and still maturing. Let's ignore the fact that it's a bunch of boys hanging around each other... because you've never done something immature in your life right? They should act like adults as soon as they pop out of the womb right?

It's just ridiculous to suggest that someone deserves death for being a kid.

It was never the kids responsibility to protect everyone in the zoo. It may have been their job to not jackass around like that but not to maintain the safety of the zoo. That was the ZOO's responsibility, and part of that responsibility was to make sure the Tiger could not get out of it's exhibit no matter what the cause.

I do think the two remaining kids should be punished to learn from their actions. The death of their friend will probably haunt them forever as it is, but they don't deserve to die for essentially being an immature kid/teenager.

It's not like they went out with a gun with the intent of purposefully taking a life. They were just being immature idiots and karma reared it's ugly head.

btw Mississippi Steve,

Thanks for apologizing for falsely accusing me of supporting animal abuse.

And thank you for retracting calling me ignorant. </sarcasm>


I never expected you to retract the ignorant statement but I at least thought you would be decent enough to apologize for saying I support tormenting and animal cruelty when I OBVIOUSLY said no such thing.

Thanks, you're a true gem :wtf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

btw Mississippi Steve,

Thanks for apologizing for falsely accusing me of supporting animal abuse.

And thank you for retracting calling me ignorant. </sarcasm>


I never expected you to retract the ignorant statement but I at least thought you would be decent enough to apologize for saying I support tormenting and animal cruelty when I OBVIOUSLY said no such thing.

Thanks, you're a true gem :wtf:

---

The way you came across, you make it sound like its the zoo's fault for the kids tormenting the cat and the zoo's fault for the cat retaliating, and that it was OK for the kids to torment the cats, and just blame the zoo for the kids stupidity. Your not ignorant, but your statement certainly was.

The simple fact remains that the kids were doing something that they *KNEW* was wrong. There is no excuse for that. They also paid the price for it.

If you do something that you *KNOW* is wrong, and you get your butt in a jam for it or worse, then its your fault alone, and not the responsibility of anybody else, regardless of the situation or circumstance.

In short, if they hadn't put themselves in a position where somebody had to *DO* something about it in the first place, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

The way you came across, you make it sound like its the zoo's fault for the kids tormenting the cat and the zoo's fault for the cat retaliating, and that it was OK for the kids to torment the cats, and just blame the zoo for the kids stupidity. Your not ignorant, but your statement certainly was.

The simple fact remains that the kids were doing something that they *KNEW* was wrong. There is no excuse for that. They also paid the price for it.

If you do something that you *KNOW* is wrong, and you get your butt in a jam for it or worse, then its your fault alone, and not the responsibility of anybody else, regardless of the situation or circumstance.

In short, if they hadn't put themselves in a position where somebody had to *DO* something about it in the first place, then there wouldn't be a problem.

---

So let's let all the animals roam free since they won't attack unless someone does something stupid.

You are still disregarding the fact that it is the Zoo's responsibility to ensure the safety of it's visitors. It is not the responsibility of the individual.

And you still have not retracted your statement about me and animal abuse. Which is pretty obvious in plain view that I never said that.

And again you call me ignorant for simply pointing out the fact that it is the Zoo's responsibility to ensure everyone is safe from the animals that they put on exhibit? Am I wrong? If it's my job to keep everyone safe in the Zoo then you bet your ass that I won't be going to the Zoo ever again. I can't keep everyone safe in there and I would hope that people wouldn't place responsibility on me to make sure a tiger stays in his exhibit. To say that I have the ability or skill necessary to keep an animal in their cage is insane.

No one ever said the kids weren't stupid or immature. But to insist it's not the Zoo's job to ensure the safety of it's visitors is just moronic. You are placing blame on the kids for the tiger getting out and while it was stupid and idiotic to antagonize an animal that weighs about 10x you do the point of the matter is that the tiger should not have been able to get out of it's exhibit even if someone were to do that.

In Houston Zoo we have about a 20 ft gap between the fence and the tiger area, between this 20 ft gap there is a trench that is about 16-25 ft deep. Zoo care takers go to great lengths to ensure that it's visitors are safe. Many exhibits are constantly shut down for upgrades and renovations to further the safety and overall experience of Zoo visitors. Something the San Francisco Zoo OBVIOUSLY overlooked or simply did not care about until it was too late.

You've still failed to respond to a number of things in my post in regards to maturity and the developing mind.

All your arguements have been to the tune of "stupid kids, stupid kids, stupid kids.". I'm sorry but you fail to back your argument with anything of substance what so ever.


I'm done debating this with you. Your lack of ability to reason is uncanny and I won't be checking back in on this thread.

I am a structural engineer and the building requirements are extremely strict , If I chose to ignore the guidelines and rules and a building I worked on collapsed then I would be liable .
The zoo has a responsibility to ensure the safety of visitors and failed to do so by not having a secure enclosure , just like if your dog gets onto the street and bites someone you are responsible for public safety too.
No lawyer in the world is going to be able to lay blame anywhere but at the zoos door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

So let's let all the animals roam free since they won't attack unless someone does something stupid.

You are still disregarding the fact that it is the Zoo's responsibility to ensure the safety of it's visitors. It is not the responsibility of the individual.

And you still have not retracted your statement about me and animal abuse. Which is pretty obvious in plain view that I never said that.

And again you call me ignorant for simply pointing out the fact that it is the Zoo's responsibility to ensure everyone is safe from the animals that they put on exhibit? Am I wrong? If it's my job to keep everyone safe in the Zoo then you bet your ass that I won't be going to the Zoo ever again. I can't keep everyone safe in there and I would hope that people wouldn't place responsibility on me to make sure a tiger stays in his exhibit. To say that I have the ability or skill necessary to keep an animal in their cage is insane.

No one ever said the kids weren't stupid or immature. But to insist it's not the Zoo's job to ensure the safety of it's visitors is just moronic. You are placing blame on the kids for the tiger getting out and while it was stupid and idiotic to antagonize an animal that weighs about 10x you do the point of the matter is that the tiger should not have been able to get out of it's exhibit even if someone were to do that.

In Houston Zoo we have about a 20 ft gap between the fence and the tiger area, between this 20 ft gap there is a trench that is about 16-25 ft deep. Zoo care takers go to great lengths to ensure that it's visitors are safe. Many exhibits are constantly shut down for upgrades and renovations to further the safety and overall experience of Zoo visitors. Something the San Francisco Zoo OBVIOUSLY overlooked or simply did not care about until it was too late.

You've still failed to respond to a number of things in my post in regards to maturity and the developing mind.

All your arguements have been to the tune of "stupid kids, stupid kids, stupid kids.". I'm sorry but you fail to back your argument with anything of substance what so ever.


I'm done debating this with you. Your lack of ability to reason is uncanny and I won't be checking back in on this thread.

---

The point that I made and that you are refusing to accept is that the big problem here is that there is no more common sense in the world, its all about deep pockets and not about actual personal responsibility, or lack thereof.

People are no longer being held responsible for thier actions. Its about placing blame. When you are grown, and have raised kids of your own then you might look at it in a different light.


Let me pose a question to you.... Even if the enclosure was the correct height (only a 4 foot difference from what it was), and the cat got out...what then??? Are you still gonna go after the zoo when they did things according to the letter of the law?? Are you going to still ignore the simple fact that these kids had been tormenting the cat?? What then???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

The point that I made and that you are refusing to accept is that the big problem here is that there is no more common sense in the world.

---

That's a very broad generalisation and very untrue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

Let me pose a question to you.... Even if the enclosure was the correct height (only a 4 foot difference from what it was), and the cat got out...what then??? Are you still gonna go after the zoo when they did things according to the letter of the law?? Are you going to still ignore the simple fact that these kids had been tormenting the cat?? What then???

---

If cows could fly noone would be safe... IF is a very dodgy word IMO
The enclosure WAS NOT built to spec , no if's no but's.
Nobody is ignoring the fact that they were wrong to annoy the animal but that isn't the reason the cat was able to escape now was it .

Raising kids is no sign of sense (I know some really stupid parents) and when you talk about responsibility a couple of questions jump to mind.
Who is responsible for safety in a zoo ?
Who was responsible for the building of the enclosure ?
Would you still feel the same way if the animal had simply escaped (because the enclosure was unfit which of course it was) and killed a passerby ?

You talk of responsibility but fail to realise that the simple fact is the animal should never have had the ability to escape but it did because the zoo failed to secure the animal properly , that was thier responsibility.

Due to the animals and life involved, I followed that case. It was on a local news (however correct, I don't no); but the kids admitted they had been smoking some pot. I do dumb shit when I smoke pot. That cage was approved, etc. Always in question. Final results just came out very recently and that cage was extremely too low for those Tony the Tigers! Maybe those kids thot they were playing with Tony, aaargh! But, I would not build my house on sand in Calif.! Accidents will always happen regardless of how careful you think you are and have been. But, those kids that remain alive, will need a lot of medical care and it isn't cheap. Working in a field that I also could be sued, I always carry insurance for case's that could happen. Not because of the fear of being sued. I believe it is my responsibility to help anyone injured in any process I had a finger in, even if I wasn't wrong. If people need help as a result of things that went wrong, whether intention or not--then we need to help them in any way we can. Surely, the insurance company have broken the financial backbone of this country. And if you ever have a ligitimate claim for almost anything, the first thing the insurance co. does is try to screw the hell out of you (most of the time). So, I think they have bred this process themselves. Plus, it employs a lot of people. medical, legal, zoo enginers, etc. . . . Not that I condone their behavior or the Zoo's, but I just don't think anyone is perfect! And it is fun to go visit Tony the tigger once in a while and feel safe. Which it will be now with the modifications made! Shit happens!

A thot! If you drove your car drunk or loaded would it be any different than what the kids did! Most likely they were being safer walking, could have gotten away in a car! I did very impulsive things as a youngun at their age--feeling invincible. Looking back, it is a wonder I am alive! I could say, I have more sense than that, looking in hindsight. But, in hindsight, I did not at that age and at times, I am sure I don't even now. It is devastating to lose a love and I've lost lots of my little pets. I can only imagine the grief the family is in! Frankly, I am not sure I feel one way or the other about the lawsuits, as I think, sometimes, you have to walking in their shoes (or flying)! And insurance, like oil is going to get so darned high anyway, I doubt it makes much different in the long run. Oil co. and Insurance Co are pretty rich! Not that the rich need to 'get it.' I doubt anyone will ever know all the true facts! As in divorce, etc!