Zombie points were completely outside of the scenario - robbing a bank. Nicholas’ point was irrevelant - it wouldn’t matter so much what the kid’s intentions were, he shouldn’t have gotten that far in for so long.

Yours was really the only valid example, but I don’t have enough info about it to discuss it.

As for stating unequivocally, take a look at all the other unequivocal statements about the boy’s state of mental health - a lot of amateur psychologists passing judgment simply by reading an article about the kid’s behaviour.

I’m not arguing the philosophical merits of your position. I’m just giving a nearly identical case and legal findings as a counterpoint to it. You seemed, in your original post, to state unequivocally that the zoo in these situations is responsible. I have no problem with your arguing that the zoo SHOULD be responsible, but there is legal precedent for the opposite.

Say for example, while trying to feed an animal to the croc, he gets eaten as well..

No excuse for this type of behavior.

If the zoo has security that lax, then you only prove my point. It would be like one of those chicken-wire outfits that really doesn’t take very good care of its animals, and probably should be shut down.

I could be wrong, but I understand that if your car stereo is stolen, and the insurance company finds out you don’t lock your car doors, they could deny your claim since you didn’t exercise normal precautions.

But those comparisons are even further off-topic. What the boy did while he was in the cage (although reprehensible) is not what I commented on, but the fact that he was able to do it for half an hour in full view of a security camera.

And violet, I don’t know anything about the other circumstances you refer to.

I do know that the African Lion Safari was deemed liable for a couple who were attacked by a Bengal tiger whille driving through the park. The couple never admitted to opening their car window, although the tiger attacked them through the (undamaged) window.

by boyfriend also read a while back that almost 90% of CEOs show symptoms of sociopathy… which really comes to no surprise to me. i mean, just look at the people running this country– sure would make a LOT of sense, wouldn’t it? a $700 billion bailout plan is seen as a GOOD

but even so, its a terrible thing. Where is the boys parents?!

Say the boy didn’t go all “serial killer”, but simply let the crocodile loose, and that crocodile ate a little girl in a flowery pink dress. The zoo would have to bear at least part of that responsibility.

where were this kid’s PARENTS?!!??

look it up… it’s a VERB! as in “to PARENT”!!!!!!!

OY GEVALT!

In the meantime, feel free to pet Terry while you’re waiting for your check.

This kid is definitely suffering from a serious psychological disorder. You don’t behave like that without some seriously bad mental issues. And like someone else was wondering–where the heck were the parents?!

–TwoDragons

People are free to be incredibly stupid. It is not the fault of the environment in which they decide to perform their stupid acts if something bad results from that monumentally insane behavior.

When I come to neatorama 3 or 4 times a day I expect to be entertained, educated and to somehow come away feeling…well…neater.

Seriously, what’s your definition of “neat” these days? Why is an article like this even considered on a blog like this??

ted - I don’t get why his parents would be right to sue if Terry ate the freak. The kids the one who broke in and put himself in danger, how is any of that the responsibility of the zoo?

Good thing Terry didn’t eat the little bastard, or his parents would be suing. And rightfully so.