I don’t think these three young men were thinking of money. They were drinking and decided teasing the tiger was a good idea. If they were drunk - say, if blood tests show alcohol in their system - then they are not going to get a dime from a reasonable jury.
If the evidence is true, they taunted the tiger while drunk.
It’s a shame the tiger had to die.
They were drinking and decided teasing the tiger was a good idea. If they were drunk - say, if blood tests show alcohol in their system - then they are not going to get a dime from a reasonable jury.Wow! You have a lot of faith in juries. I hope you're right.
In San Francisco?
That means they could still get a settlement.
The tiger should have died a year ago when it ate a zoo-keeper’s arm.
The problem is that a lot of juries are not reasonable, and if these are the facts, then it ought to be incumbant upon judges to throw out the case like this before they waste any more time, along with severe penalties on the idiot attornies who bring them.
I’m a bit confused . . .
I missed the part about
how juries in SAN FRANBUTTACO
are made up of REASONABLE people.
Have I slipped into the Tiwlight Zone?
Has the old SAN FRANBUTTACO been SWITCHED with a more sane, benign, ratioinal, normal SAN FRANCISCO???
Please clarify.
LOL.
This is San Francisco. Of course these boys will get a cash settlement.
Depends on where it happened. If it's California, all bets are off!