Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
LSemmens

[*] posted on 30-12-2007 at 11:22
The truth will out in an inquest. I've not heard any of those reports over here.
scholar

[*] posted on 30-12-2007 at 00:18
I just saw on NBC television news that actions from zoo people delayed the police response. When the police were called and told that a loose animal had attacked someone, the zoo said there were a couple people who said so, but they were "800" (police code for "mentally distrurbed"). When the police showed up, the zoo people initially would not let them into the zoo. While the young man who finally died was on the ground, bleeding, the zoo people were preventing the police from entering to help him!:(

When finally allowed in, it was the police who stopped the tiger, not the zoo people, even though the zoo was equipped with emergency weapons (e.g. tranquilizer rifles) which were not used.

The zoo officials are now saying that the wall measures a few feet less than the recommended height for a tiger barrier. However, the zoo had its facilities reviewed some years ago by a group that accredits zoos for safety, and the height of the wall was not noted as something that needed improvement.:(
the bear

[*] posted on 28-12-2007 at 00:04
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " police found a shoe and blood in an area between the gate and the edge of the animal's 25- to 30-foot-wide moat, raising the possibility that one of the victims dangled a leg or other body part over the edge of the moat."
article

The spokesperson in this article does not confirm that evidence, but does speak of a shoeprint between the low fence that was supposed to keep the public back and the edge of the enclosure.
spokesperson says in article

If the SF Chronicle was wrong, it's an example of how easily wrong information can get out into the public. I wonder if it was from just one source. Or, if it's true but the spokesman just wouldn't acknowledge it.

This article says that sticks and pinecones were found in where the tigers live, and the only way they would have gotten there was if someone had thrown them at the tigers.article

Going past the barrier fence is like going around a railroad crossing gate--stupid, and sometimes tragic. :( But, again, the spokesperson is not prepared to say if that happened (though somebody must have done so at some time, to leave the footprint).


Some people think that they are immune to any threat of danger, and consider "warning signs" only apply to other people.

Regards the Bear
scholar

[*] posted on 27-12-2007 at 23:53
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that " police found a shoe and blood in an area between the gate and the edge of the animal's 25- to 30-foot-wide moat, raising the possibility that one of the victims dangled a leg or other body part over the edge of the moat."
article

The spokesperson in this article does not confirm that evidence, but does speak of a shoeprint between the low fence that was supposed to keep the public back and the edge of the enclosure.
spokesperson says in article

If the SF Chronicle was wrong, it's an example of how easily wrong information can get out into the public. I wonder if it was from just one source. Or, if it's true but the spokesman just wouldn't acknowledge it.

This article says that sticks and pinecones were found in where the tigers live, and the only way they would have gotten there was if someone had thrown them at the tigers.article

Going past the barrier fence is like going around a railroad crossing gate--stupid, and sometimes tragic. :( But, again, the spokesperson is not prepared to say if that happened (though somebody must have done so at some time, to leave the footprint).
Quaver

[*] posted on 27-12-2007 at 12:31
More like Safari...
marymary100

[*] posted on 27-12-2007 at 09:40
I am surprised that the zoo was even open on Christmas Day.
scholar

[*] posted on 27-12-2007 at 01:21
deadly tiger article

This one has a fine picture of the tiger

I have heard that a wild animal expert says that the precautions at the zoo--which included a water moat, surrounded by a high wall--are undoubtably enough to keep the animal secure. He thinks something undisclosed must have happened, or the tiger could not have gotten out.

I am inclined to think some person is responsible, whomever made it possible for the tiger to escape. I certainly don't blame the tiger for following his nature.:(