Mark Geragos - taming the tiger?

[+ glutes]

Why have the two 'victims' of the SF Zoo tiger attack retained Mark Geragos?? Geragos past is an indicator: Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, Winona Ryder and Gary Condit.

May there be more going on than meets the eye?

Methinks so...

[+ ArVaGuy]

I had not heard that these guys had retained Geragos. He's got to be doing this pro bono for the publicity value since I doubt they could afford his hourly rate. Maybe he's counting on that CIGNA case payout to cover this one. :o

 

There's way more to this story than will ever be known. I am sympathetic to the family of the young man who was killed. However, someone did something to aggravate that tiger for her to leap over that wall and go stalking. Obviously the zoo is at fault in part given the condition of the facilities and no doubt there's going to be a huge pay out from an insurance company or the city of San Francisco.

 

Perhaps Geragos will have an explanation as to why his clients would visit the zoo with sling shots. x(

[Guest]

Where did you hear or read that they had slingshots? I haven't seen or heard any allegation by the mass media that the tiger was provoked, although I wouldn't be surprised. I guess if they had slingshots, that would explain everything. As for any liability on the part of the zoo or city, from what I've heard the tiger enclosure met all of the national guidelines for tiger enclosures, so I don't see how they could be found liable, unless it can be shown that the zoo kept the cage unlocked or something. And weren't the guys in the zoo after the zoo was closed? Why do these cases even get into the legal starting block? Only in America...x(

[+ glutes]

Sling-shots are just one of the items they brought to the zoo, vodka too! http://www.nypost.com/seven/12312007/news/nationalnews/tiger_attack_victims_used_slingshot_on_t_469573.htm

 

Rumors are rife out here that, 1.: this was a gang initiation that went awry, and 2.: one of the kids was using a video camera when they where molesting the tiger, and that the authorities have the camera.

 

The public also seems to be outraged as the details are leaked out, one comment at sfgate.com, "If the plaintiffs still have feet, the tiger did not eat!... Too bad the city can't counter with Johnny Cochran (may he rest in peace)"

 

Retaining a defense attorney like Geragos, these kids will need him!

[Guest EuropTravl]

>>from what I've heard the tiger enclosure met all of the national guidelines for tiger enclosures

 

From what I've heard it did NOT and even if there is video of the three taunting the tiger with slingshots, bottles, rocks, a tiger costume, a real tiger of the opposite sex, a map out of the cage, a ladder - the zoo is going to pay out because it wasn't 100% idiot-proof. If the tiger was still alive, the case would look bleaker because she'd have more supporters inside/outside the courtroom.

[kjun]

You are so correct Unicorn. Only in America would someone even think of such a suit. A court in most other countries would laugh in their faces.

 

the Cajun

[Barry]

The wall did not meet standards

 

>As for any liability on the part of the zoo or city, from what

>I've heard the tiger enclosure met all of the national

>guidelines for tiger enclosures, so I don't see how they could

>be found liable, unless it can be shown that the zoo kept the

>cage unlocked or something.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22422879/

 

Barry

[+ ArVaGuy]

Crazy as it sounds even though these boys may have gone to the zoo with the intent to antagonize the large cats, they had a reasonable expectation that the facility met all safety standards and there would be no danger of a tiger leaping out of an enclosure. Even a C-student lawyer would be able to win such a case. The lawsuits will certainly be filed but I'd surmise that everything will get settled out of court.

 

Zoos are not a place that young 20 year-olds go to hang out. These are family attractions for the younger set with their parents and grandparents. The more I learn about this story the more sympathy I have for that poor captive tiger at the hands of these "young-gansta's-in-training".

[twinkboylover28]

Only in America.

 

That's freakin' outrageous that a beautiful tiger was killed because 3 scum bags decided they would use a sling-shot on an innocent captive tiger? That is just EVIL.

 

They and their families should be the ones paying punitive damages to the zoo and the city of San Francisco!

[Guest]

>Crazy as it sounds even though these boys may have gone to

>the zoo with the intent to antagonize the large cats

 

You're right. It does sound crazy! :+

[Guest]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

That's wierd. Our newspapers here reported that the enclosure was well within accepted standards. It's amazing how difficult it is to get real facts. Someone's gotta be lying.

[+ glutes]

Tatiana, you should have gone 3 for 3!

 

The Endangered Species Act prohibits harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing and collecting listed species, unless specifically permitted, or attempting to engage in such activities within the United States or its territorial seas. Stiff penalties may be imposed for violations of the Endangered Species Act. Felonies may be punished with fines up to $50,000 and/or one year imprisonment for crimes involving endangered species, and $25,000 and/or six months imprisonment for crimes involving threatened species. Misdemeanors or civil penalties are punishable by fines up to $25,000 for crimes involving endangered species and $12,000 for crimes involving threatened species. A maximum of $1,000 can be assessed for unintentional violations. Rewards of up to $2,500 are paid for information leading to convictions. http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/legislation_endangered.php

[Guest EuropTravl]

RE: Tatiana, you should have gone 3 for 3!

 

"The Endangered Species Act prohibits harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing...."

 

Mark Geragos will just argue it would have been nice if the zoo had ENFORCED that act. But the zoo didn't stop the harassing, did it? Those poor boys could have been taunting that tiger for hours, couldn't they? Bad zoo! After all, if you own a home or a business, it must be idiot-proof. Read the warnings on a ladder next time you're in Home Depot ("Only place on solid surface. Do not place on water.")

[+ deej]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

Many of the earlier reports specifically said the enclosure was within requirements, and then it seems someone actually measured and the story turned around.

 

That's one of the dangers of today's "sound byte" news organizations. Early versions of almost any headline-worthy story are either incomplete or woefully inaccurate. :-(

[Guest]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

You're right. I heard on the news that the S.F. zoo intentionally misrepresented the facts in the first days after the mauling. That may end up being a very costly lie for them. It's difficult to imagine how they thought they would get away with it.

[+ deej]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

It's unclear at this point who first claimed the exhibit was within national standards, just as it's unclear about who first claimed the boys carried slingshots which is now pretty much discredited.

 

When we get past the media sound bytes we might find out what actually happened.

[Guest]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

[i/]On Wednesday, when news of the attack was first being reported, Manuel Mollinedo, director of the San Francisco Zoo, said he could not believe Tatiana escaped over an "18-foot" wall. He was quoted by the Associated Press on Thursday as saying, "Police and zoo officials are trying to figure out how Tatiana escaped from the grotto, which is enclosed by a 20-foot moat and an 18-foot wall."

 

Then, Friday's Times reported: "Mollinedo said the outer wall that separated 350-pound Tatiana from the viewing public is 12 feet 5 inches high -- not the 18 feet he reported Wednesday, and 4 feet below minimum Association of Zoos and Aquariums guidelines for tigers."[/i]

 

Apparently this misinformation came from the S.F. Zoo director himself. I personally believe he should resign. Whether he knew he was lying, or was talking out of his ass without knowing, is irrelevant. A zoo director should not be making false statements in a matter of this degree of seriousness, whether out of ignorance or out of intent to deceive.

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

I have absolutly NO proof or information of what went wrong.

 

But my GUT tells me that the tiger was probably taunted by these three guys thus being incited to take revenge.

 

If this is the case, too bad there is only one funeral taking place.

 

Wild animals have no right to be in zoos in the 1st place. They belong in the wilds, and anyone who would bait them in their enclosures deserves what ever they get.

 

How would you like to spend the rest of your life behind a fence and having people stare at you?

[Guest]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

Well, IMHO, if the three guys had been harassing the tiger, that should end any collection on a civil suit from those families. In fact, if the barriers had been of the height recommended by official guidelines, the families should have had to refund the zoo for the cost of obtaining a new Siberian tiger (including 1/3 from the parents of the dead 17 year-old). In any case, I think all parties should face the music on criminal charges (the teens and family for the harassment of the tiger, and the zoo for failing to meet national guidelines for tiger enclosures).

[+ glutes]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

It has been quoted in some paper that this Zoo Director makes $328,000/year, plus some expenses are picked - up!

[+ glutes]

Sound of Silence , "silence like a cancer grows"

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/05/MNVKU9L9L.DTL&tsp=1

[+ deej]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

>Wild animals have no right to be in zoos in the 1st place.

 

I agree. Let's send them back to where they belong! In the case of this tiger, it would be the Denver zoo where she was the result of breeding two other zoo-bred tigers.

 

This animal has never BEEN in the wild and would probably not survive there.

 

>How would you like to spend the rest of your life behind a

>fence and having people stare at you?

 

If someone wants to take care of my every need, bring me food, entertainment, and even sex partners, and all I have to do is sit around and lick myself, I'm all for it! }(

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

>>Wild animals have no right to be in zoos in the 1st place.

>

>I agree. Let's send them back to where they belong! In the

>case of this tiger, it would be the Denver zoo where she was

>the result of breeding two other zoo-bred tigers.

 

Sending zoo animals back to the wild is not a workable solution. It would take many years to achieve this but I would be in favor of no new zoos and no new animals being introduced either by capture or in-house breeding.

 

>This animal has never BEEN in the wild and would probably not

>survive there.

 

I wonder. Would it's natural survival instincts not take over?

 

>If someone wants to take care of my every need, bring me food,

>entertainment, and even sex partners, and all I have to do is

>sit around and lick myself, I'm all for it! }(

 

Watching you lick yourself might just be worth the price of admission.

[Louis]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

I have very mixed feelings about zoo's. There are a lot of negative things about them to be sure. The one thing I do like is that they have been able to save various species that were on the brink in extinction. I know people can say there is a better solution, but from what I understand several animals have been released back into the wild. Human contact with these animals while they are being kept in captivity is at a minimum.

Zoo's are improving, but there is a lot that has to be done.

I remember going to the Bear Pits in Burne, Switzerland. The tour bus stopped there, and everyone got out and took picture of these poor bears in the bear pits. I on the otherhand, took some fantastic scenic pictures from a bridge we crossed just beside the Bear Pits.

People asked me why I didn't go to the pits, and I told them that I see bears in the wild quite frequently, so why would I want to see them being kept in a small pit.

[+ deej]

RE: The wall did not meet standards

 

>Sending zoo animals back to the wild is not a workable

>solution. It would take many years to achieve this but I would

>be in favor of no new zoos and no new animals being introduced

>either by capture or in-house breeding.

 

So you're in favor of depriving animals of a natural instinct to mate?

 

You *are* cruel! }(

 

>I wonder. Would it's natural survival instincts not take

>over?

 

Not automatically, and not immediately. A tiger would fare better than other wild animals because it has few natural enemies. On the other hand, it would be introduced to the wild with NO hunting and/or self-defense skills.

 

It has been done before, and it generally requires a good bit of acclimation and even "tranining" to "be wild".