I don't think "intimidate" is exactly the word you're grasping for but hey--English is hard. Anyway, back before the psychos took over the tort business there used to be a concept called "contributory negligence." Reality is a little more complex than the comic book version created by the John Edwards's of the world.
Like the cat could have done that at any time ~ and so could another cat and another and another.
How is it possible for any victim to "contribute" to that underlying problem?
Everyone seems to be under the impression that the cage wasn't simply unlocked and that cat turned loose, with the cage then being relocked.
The Joker would do such things you know, so it's not unthinkable. The Penguin would do worse.
Think about why everyone is rejecting the hypothesis that someone let a cat loose ~ is it because the same Administrator who told us the enclosure was high enough at 20 feet, and then 16 feet finally 'fessed up that 12.5 feet wasn't really enough is an unimpeachable source of information in this matter? Even the uberLiberal Wikipedia.com crowd says these cats can jump higher!
Somebody at the zoo knows what happened and they are not talking. Maybe the guy at the Cafe who wouldn't let 2 of the victims inside to escape the cat knows.
Think about it, here he is in charge of the only safe viewing place and he refuses to let 2 guys on the run from that cat in. Was he waiting on the fun?