Boy goes on zoo rampage

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:34 am UTC

He's actually claiming that you are as legally culpable for the cat's death as he is.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Azrael » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:56 am UTC

... which I'm not. Just to be clear.

If he stepped on my rake that I'd left lying around on the ground, tines up, then yes, he could sue me for his medical bills to fix his foot (tines) and nose (levered up handle). I *might* be criminally negligent if he was killed or injured by shorting my giant Tesla coil that I'd left outside after the previous night's party. And although the whole 'had-to-climb-over-fence' part would make his case tricky, the presence of a giant Tesla coil would severely harm my ability to deny that I was maintaining an attractive nuisance.

But regardless of what 'I' did to him, the fucker is legally responsible for killing my friend Catherine.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:02 am UTC

Re: your legal culpability for the cat - no shit, Sherlock. =P

Re: your rake - even then, I can't see how you can be culpable for his stepping on a rake on YOUR property.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Azrael » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:08 am UTC

I believe that unless he could demonstrate that I was maintaining an attractive nuisance, he'd have no case.

AND TO BE CLEAR, THE REST OF YOU: He'd *still* not have an excuse to kill my friend Catherine.

:D

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby clintonius » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:09 am UTC

What if he were attracted to the maintained nuisance that was your cat?
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Azrael » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:24 am UTC

I guess that if the cat were in a box, for instance, that were attached to some interesting game of chance where there was a 50% chance of it's head being bashed in with a rock ...

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby clintonius » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:35 am UTC

"This just in: the Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of a young Massachusetts boy accused of trespassing and killing his neighbor's cat. The Court's decision gave rise to an exciting but limited new legal tactic dubbed 'the Schrodinger defense.'

" 'For all we knew, the damn cat was already dead,' commented the boy's attorney."
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Kaiyas
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:57 pm UTC

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Kaiyas » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:41 am UTC

clintonius wrote:"This just in: the Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of a young Massachusetts boy accused of trespassing and killing his neighbor's cat. The Court's decision gave rise to an exciting but limited new legal tactic dubbed 'the Schrodinger defense.'

" 'For all we knew, the damn cat was already dead,' commented the boy's attorney."

Genius.
Image
clintonius wrote:This place is like mental masturbation

Green9090
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:40 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Green9090 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:19 am UTC

clintonius wrote:"This just in: the Supreme Court today overturned the conviction of a young Massachusetts boy accused of trespassing and killing his neighbor's cat. The Court's decision gave rise to an exciting but limited new legal tactic dubbed 'the Schrodinger defense.'

" 'For all we knew, the damn cat was already dead,' commented the boy's attorney."

LOL
Belial wrote:A man with more arms than the entire hindu pantheon and thirty goddamn dicks has no time for logic! He must consume ever more bacon to fuel his incalculable manhood!

Silas
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:08 pm UTC

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Silas » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:42 am UTC

Azrael wrote:If individual had been injured during the whole shebang, the zoo could face negligence charges. Yes.

But the fact that the zoo *could* face negligence charges does not protect the individual from prosecution for their own illegal activities.

EDIT: Nor, getting back to my point, can you claim that it wasn't illegal to enter my house and kill my friend Catherine with a rock even though I'd left the front door unlocked while I was in the shower ... or if you prefer the analogy, that you climbed into my fenced in back yard where I'd left my friend Catherine during the work day and killed it with a brick from my patio.

Look, the kid was a bad boy. Nobody's saying he shouldn't not-get-dessert-for-a-week. But that's domestic- as far as the public sphere is concerned, an unpredictable kid is a force of nature.

Normal ill-behaved children are one of those hazards a zoo has to take into account. You have a security guard (among other things, of course) to keep a too-enthusiastic kid from coming and playing with the orangutans after hours or doing something else stupid. It's to be expected; children (sometimes, but predictably often) make dumb decisions. If the zoo lets kids romp around unsupervised in the reptile pens and one of them flips out and starts squishing things, that's a failure of the zoo.

This kid wasn't one of those. No reasonable person could have seen this one coming. There's as little (public-sphere) guilt involved as there would have been if a pack of wolves (wolves! in urban Australia!) grizzlies (grizzly bears! in Alice Springs!) had padded in and started munching on a gazelle. Sometimes, crazy shit just happens and you have to pick up the pieces.

Edit: thinking about, it, Alice Springs isn't exactly Chicago
Felstaff wrote:Serves you goddamned right. I hope you're happy, Cake Ruiner

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby 22/7 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:28 pm UTC

Where I come from, at least, the attractive nuisance liability is 100% gone when you put up a fence and keep that fence locked.
WraithXt1 wrote:The zoo didnt take the reasonable precautions to prevent somone from being injured or performing an illegal activity.
Yes, they did. They put up a fence. That's quite reasonable.
WraithXt1 wrote:If I left a bunch of guns on a bench on an open lot that I owned and someone shot a bunch of rare birds, you're damn right I would be in trouble, and so would the moron who killed the animals.
That's probably the worst analogy I've ever heard for anything. Ever. This is actually a lot more like someone breaking into your house and going into your basement (a place that they couldn't have seen earlier, but happened to know that you had pets there), looking around and finding a bunch of blunt objects, and murdering your pets with them. This has absolutely no relation or similarity whatsoever with a bunch of loaded guns sitting on a bench out in the open.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Waldo
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:59 pm UTC
Location: Other side of the Internet

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Waldo » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:37 am UTC

My first thought when I read the article: "Man, this kid is really determined to recreate the end scene of Jurassic Park."

This has to be the strangest thing I've read all hour.
[Signature pending...]

User avatar
Solt
Posts: 1912
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:08 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Solt » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:30 am UTC

22/7 wrote:So if a 7 year old could get past the fence, then it's at least partially the zoo's fault? Where do you draw the line there (both with the age of the kid and the requisite security measures)?


Before you pull one of your not understanding the whole situation things, let me start this post with the disclaimer that I am not only responding to what I have quoted, and not only to you.

What is the point of having security if you are going to blame the person who breaks in? I mean really, you're saying it's the fault of the person who does it, not the fault of the person who got broken in to. Why have security at all? I think it's ridiculous that a child broke in to this zoo (which did have "security" I imagine) and no one is blaming the zoo. A child.

You guys call it the child's fault or the parents' fault, but you know what the zoo's insurance company is going to call it? Gross negligence. For having such crappy security that a dumb kid can completely get past it. Failure to take reasonable measures to protect what is being insured. And they will refuse to cover the costs. You know what the owners are going to call it? Incompetent management of their investment. And people at the zoo are going to get fired for it. You know what the [source of animals for zoos] is going to call it? No more animals for that zoo! All the real world elements are going to make the zoo suffer for FAILING. No one cares about blaming the random kid, when there could be more kids like him out there and it is the zoo's JOB to keep them out.

It also strikes me as odd that very few people are being consistent here. If the kid had managed to get into the alligator pit and get eaten, everyone would be up in arms about the lax zoo security, with only the occassional joke about darwin. But here we have essentially the same situation but with a total of about one detail different, and NO ONE is blaming the zoo. Very hypocritical.
"Welding was faster, cheaper and, in theory,
produced a more reliable product. But sailors do
not float on theory, and the welded tankers had a
most annoying habit of splitting in two."
-J.W. Morris

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby GhostWolfe » Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:00 am UTC

Solt wrote:For having such crappy security that a dumb kid can completely get past it.

I think you're grossly underestimating both the intelligence and athleticism of 7-year-olds.

The Article wrote:the boy entered the zoo by jumping over the security fence and evading sensor alarms.


/angell
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Jesse » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:12 am UTC

Also, if a dude is going to enter a place illegally and then get himself eaten by a crocodile; pretty much his own fault.

When I owned a shop, I had a sensor alarm in that shop. Should a person have entered the shop and broken all my stuff I would still have received the insurance money even if the alarm didn't work, so long as I myself had switched the alarm on before I left. Now, if someone wilfully invaded that (Broke into the top floor wehre there is no alarm) I would STILL be covered because there is no reasonable way to expect that will occur. The same way there's no reasonable way to assume that anyone will jump a fence and manage to evade sensor alarms in a zoo.

You say regular patrols would have caught him. Blackpool Zoo here has two night security guards, it takes them just over an hour to complete a circuit of the place. Zoos can be pretty big places.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Azrael » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:34 pm UTC

Solt wrote:What is the point of having security if you are going to blame the person who breaks in? I mean really, you're saying it's the fault of the person who does it ...

Yes. It is the fault of the person who does it. That's the way the law works. That's the way modern, fundamental property rights work. The point of security is the reduce the likelihood that someone will break in [thus reducing cost, inconvenience, lost business, increased insurance charges] and to legally protect a business from negligence charges.

Solt wrote:You guys call it the child's fault or the parents' fault, but you know what the zoo's insurance company is going to call it? Gross negligence ... And they will refuse to cover the costs. You know what the owners are going to call it? Incompetent management of their investment. And people at the zoo are going to get fired for it. You know what the [source of animals for zoos] is going to call it? No more animals for that zoo! All the real world elements are going to make the zoo suffer for FAILING.

So says ... you. Are you an insurance actuary? Otherwise, great opinion, but just because you say it will happen doesn't mean it will. Typically insurance companies mandate certain security / safety measures are in place and inspect the property to make sure they exist. Afterwards, if a claim is filed and the property is in the condition that was insured, the company can't refuse a claim for those measures being insufficient.

Solt wrote:It also strikes me as odd that very few people are being consistent here. If the kid had managed to get into the alligator pit and get eaten, everyone would be up in arms about the lax zoo security, with only the occassional joke about darwin. But here we have essentially the same situation but with a total of about one detail different, and NO ONE is blaming the zoo. Very hypocritical.

Until that situation arises and someone argues the converse, no one is a hypocrite. Stop putting words in our mouths and judging us for your own constructions.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby 22/7 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:17 pm UTC

Solt wrote:Before you pull one of your not understanding the whole situation things, let me start this post with the disclaimer that I am not only responding to what I have quoted, and not only to you.
Fewer personal shots, more legitimate discussion, thanks.
Solt wrote:What is the point of having security if you are going to blame the person who breaks in? I mean really, you're saying it's the fault of the person who does it, not the fault of the person who got broken in to. Why have security at all? I think it's ridiculous that a child broke in to this zoo (which did have "security" I imagine) and no one is blaming the zoo. A child.
The point of security is to deter those who would consider breaking in and possibly foil the ones who actually attempt to. I cannot believe I had to actually type that. And of course we blame the person who did it. They did it. What's the point of taking a self-defense course if you're still going to blame the rapist, eh?
Solt wrote:You guys call it the child's fault or the parents' fault, but you know what the zoo's insurance company is going to call it? Gross negligence. For having such crappy security that a dumb kid can completely get past it. Failure to take reasonable measures to protect what is being insured. And they will refuse to cover the costs. You know what the owners are going to call it? Incompetent management of their investment. And people at the zoo are going to get fired for it. You know what the [source of animals for zoos] is going to call it? No more animals for that zoo! All the real world elements are going to make the zoo suffer for FAILING. No one cares about blaming the random kid, when there could be more kids like him out there and it is the zoo's JOB to keep them out.
Azrael already covered this. Your conjecture is not particularly convincing.
Solt wrote:It also strikes me as odd that very few people are being consistent here. If the kid had managed to get into the alligator pit and get eaten, everyone would be up in arms about the lax zoo security, with only the occassional joke about darwin. But here we have essentially the same situation but with a total of about one detail different, and NO ONE is blaming the zoo. Very hypocritical.
Show me a single inconsistency along the lines of "it's the kid's fault, but if the kid had gotten eaten by a crock, then it would have been the zoo's fault." Just one. In fact, show me where the people who have argued against the zoo being at fault here (me, for example) have contradicted themselves in another thread where, in a similar situation, they're holding the equivalent zoo at fault. Go ahead. But don't pull this "I've got nothing, so I'm going to call you all hypocrites" bull.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:22 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:
Solt wrote:What is the point of having security if you are going to blame the person who breaks in? I mean really, you're saying it's the fault of the person who does it, not the fault of the person who got broken in to. Why have security at all? I think it's ridiculous that a child broke in to this zoo (which did have "security" I imagine) and no one is blaming the zoo. A child.
The point of security is to deter those who would consider breaking in and possibly foil the ones who actually attempt to. I cannot believe I had to actually type that. And of course we blame the person who did it. They did it. What's the point of taking a self-defense course if you're still going to blame the rapist, eh?


Well, I mean - to be fair, that happens often enough too.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Azrael » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:29 pm UTC

Nougatrocity wrote:
22/7 wrote:
Solt wrote:What is the point of having security if you are going to blame the person who breaks in?
And of course we blame the person who did it. They did it. What's the point of taking a self-defense course if you're still going to blame the rapist, eh?
Well, I mean - to be fair, that happens often enough too.
Blame the agressor? It'd be pretty sweet if that always happened. I think you meant that all too often the victim is blamed. But lets move on before we prove Hammer's assertion that xkcd's Godwin isn't Nazi's, it's rape.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby 22/7 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:35 pm UTC

Sorry, didn't mean to xkcd-Godwin. My point by that sentence was that he's essentially blaming the victim. It's not the kid's fault for breaking the law it's the zoo's fault for existing and not taking unreasonably extreme measures to keep others from breaking the law.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:46 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Sorry, didn't mean to xkcd-Godwin. My point by that sentence was that he's essentially blaming the victim. It's not the kid's fault for breaking the law it's the zoo's fault for existing and not taking unreasonably extreme measures to keep others from breaking the law.


Right.

Looks like I wasn't clear that I firmly disagree with the position you paraphrased.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26726
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:53 pm UTC

Solt wrote:What is the point of having security if you are going to blame the person who breaks in?

Really? You really just asked that?

Personally, I lock my door because I don't want someone to fuck with my stuff. I don't think, "Hm, well, if I lock the door and someone steals my shit, that guy's to blame, but if I don't lock it and some guy steals my shit, I'm to blame." I think, "Well, if I lock the door, someone is less likely to steal my shit in the first place."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:57 pm UTC

The real question here is why you even need a locked door to keep someone from taking your poop.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby clintonius » Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:02 pm UTC

Have you ever seen a bearded turd before? It's hard to blame someone for a little breaking and entering when the prize is so rich.
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Jebobek » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:22 am UTC

Rich in minerals and nutrients!
Image

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby clintonius » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:32 am UTC

Spoiler:
Image
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby The Reaper » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:55 am UTC

So, I read that australia has no premeditated murder? Can I sneak into this kids house, past his security systems, bash his brains in with this nice hefty rock I have here, and then feed his siblings to a croc, and then come back to my own country? I dont see any problem with this. One sociopath takes out another, the world revolves once again, life goes on....

I'd say I'd eat him as well, but evil child might taste bad. :\

User avatar
Aikanaro
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:43 pm UTC
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Aikanaro » Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:48 pm UTC

That's why God gave us tabasco sauce.
Dear xkcd,

On behalf of my religion, I'm sorry so many of us do dumb shit. Please forgive us.

Love, Aikanaro.

Coffee Sex Pancake
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:45 pm UTC
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby Coffee Sex Pancake » Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:04 pm UTC

Irish babies are delicious, right? Surely Aussie ones aren't too dissimilar.
"It’s just part of the miraculous nature of life that whatever the problem is, sex can be the solution… even when the problem is also sex." - Amaranth, Tales of MU

zealo
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:36 am UTC
Location: perth, australia
Contact:

Re: Boy goes on zoo rampage

Postby zealo » Mon Oct 20, 2008 6:32 am UTC

Silas wrote:The zoo can't shelter itself (from the charge that it negligently allowed a child to get into a dangerous situation) by objecting that the boy was committing a crime at the time: children of that age are essentially a force of nature...

doesn't sound like the sort of system that would get set up in the NT.

i'm suprised that he could get into the zoo, but not the croc exibit. last time i went to the zoo in my city i remember it having a 10 foot electric fence arround the perimeter, and a 3 foot fence between the visiters and the crocs. most exibits were designed to keep animals in, with the dangerous animals/politeness of the vistors being the main way of keeping people out. (although the orangutans sure as hell could have got out if they wanted too, unless they strugle with climbing stairs.)

does anyone know how he got caught in the end?
ave_matthew wrote:in a perfect system a gallon of body fat is worth one third of the US GDP


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests