Comments on: Tiger beat: Judge rules cops can examine victims’ car, phones

By: Lil Mike

Lil Mike — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:55:46 +0000

my thought on your observation darren is that it is a "moat".

a "mote" is a small dust particle, or in computer technology, a small distributed network sensing device.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:52:41 +0000

Anyone out there that thinks the whole key to this tiger being able to scale a 12′ wall is the lack of water in the mote?
Here’s my thinking on this:
these enclosures are designed with a mote for a reason. If the mote is filled with water, say 3-4 feet, an animal is unable to propel itself up the wall. It’s like trying to jump up while treading water. Can’t do it. If the water is drained, the animal now has a solid base to propel itself up. Any thought out there. I’ve been dying to hear someone bring this up, but nothing yet. Any thoughts on my observation?

By: Juan

Juan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:31:48 +0000

The tiger didn’t go crazy. The tiger went tiger.

Don’t fuck with wild animals.

By: Seattle Crime Blogger

Seattle Crime Blogger — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:49:31 +0000

Aaron, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If people are going to be douchebags and taunt an animal in a cage, they deserve whatever comes to them. It’s that simple.

Whenever we step out of our front door into the real world, we enter a social contract that we are all expected to uphold. Saying that those taunting animals should be booted but not face criminal liability is letting people who are refusing to uphold their end of this social bargain off the hook.

If it turns out that these men did in fact taunt this animal – which is still unclear at this point – then they deserve to be punished for behavior that is socially, morally and legally unacceptable.

One thing is clear. In an era where we can see the natural world as it was meant to be seen through television and the Internet, zoos have been rendered obsolete. Hopefully this case will lead to a widespread realization of that fact.

By: Richard Ault

Richard Ault — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:21:11 +0000

You study law Aaron?

By: Aaron B. Hockley

Aaron B. Hockley — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:35:14 +0000

Taunting the animal into a rage should probably get you booted from the zoo, maybe even permanently. Criminal liability? No.

By: Richard Ault

Richard Ault — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:42:08 +0000

Interesting comment Aaron.

The enclosure should both protect the zoo visitor and the animal. In this case it seems to have failed both.

The Zoo will be punished for their inability to maintain a safe facility. I think we are guaranteed that at this point.

Would you not agree that these men should take responsibility for their actions if indeed it turns out they taunted the animal into a rage?

By: Aaron B. Hockley

Aaron B. Hockley — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:21:42 +0000

Absolutely effing ridiculous. Only in America would we try to blame the victim when a tiger escapes from a zoo. I don’t care if you’re standing outside the tiger enclosure with a truckload of steak, the animal shouldn’t be able to get out of the pen.