Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom
That’s the chance you take teasing wild animals.

No. The low wall was a chance that zoo officials took. We can only be thankful that no other people were killed by their negligence.

35 posted on 01/17/2008 7:58:34 PM PST by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: Mr. Brightside
No. The low wall was a chance that zoo officials took. We can only be thankful that no other people were killed by their negligence.

That is what the punk's attorney is going to present as an argument.

And that is how he is going to pay off his new Mercedes.

Right or wrong, the general objective of visiting a zoo is not to be eaten/attacked.

The zoo did put the public at risk. They might counter sue or appeal, but it's quite possible, with a tiger that has already attacked a human being, that any random innocent could have been a victim.

142 posted on 01/18/2008 4:30:56 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Brightside

no other people were killed by their negligence.


Proving they weren’t negligent.


162 posted on 01/18/2008 6:16:11 AM PST by Senator Goldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson