Two: Did they really have slingshots with them?
Doesn't matter
Three: If they had been drinking what was their blood alcohol level?
Doesn't matter
Four: Do you really think that someone deserves to be chewed and killed by a tiger for merely teasing it somewhat?
Doesn't matter. To determine who "deserves" any particular punishment requires a creature be cognizant of the concept of "right and wrong". Tigers are incapable of such cognizance. They react to stimuli and act instinctively. what are you going to say? "Bad tiger! No femur!"
Five: Where were the officials that are supposed to stop this type of teasing(if such really occurred)?
Apparently on Christmas break? I don't know. But I'm guessing the perps were on the lookout for just such "people" as they engaged in their activities. If not, then it was truly unfortunate timing for the perps.
Six: Why are you not calling the zoo officials assclowns for having a fence 4 feet lower than reccomended for containing tigers?
You have a point, there. Considering the number of "ass-cowboys" that SF has to placate, it probably had something to do with allocation of resources. Gotta keep those bath houses running without prejudice, ya know!
To answer your question about who evades Christmas to go get drunk at the zoo, I really don't know. What I do know is that evading Christmas and getting drunk at the zoo isn't a death penalty offense.
There were no lawyers present, I assume. An animal acted as it's nature dictates. Morons died. It's a case for the Darwin awards, not a legal challenge.
:}