No, you don't tempt a tiger, ever. But the fact that concerns me most is that when the tiger was good and ready, regardless of the cause, it could get out. That is the scariest part.
Okay so normally it would stay in there, but let it get some extra adrenaline on any given day... then what?! NO tiger should be able to get out of one that is considered a safe enclosure for both its safety and my own. Luckily, it only attacked those who were "taunting" it. However, what if someone else had been harmed too? They would have been just standing around.
Now imagine if it was just a normal day and kids were waving and yelling or a school group was there and everyone's standing around and they're being loud and tiger gets a bit fussy...It's not supposed to come out. PERIOD. I go to the zoo to look, not interact.
Unfortunately, people probably tease animals all the time, hwoever, the zoo needs to be responsible for watching their animals, particularly their dangerous ones, for their health and our safety. Yes, it happens, but the thing is at probably almost any other zoo (at least one that is on the ball), no one would have died because tiger would have been pissed off yes, but pissed off inside the enclosure. End of story.

I feel the same way.

That would make me wrong, too.

I'd be curious to know if any of these boys' parents believed in Darwin's theory.

No. I feel sorry for the tiger too!

I feel sorry for the cat as well, but it appears, to me at least, that she may have been pre-disposed to violence:

"This is the second time in just over a year that Tatiana attacked a human.

On Dec. 22, 2006, the tiger chewed the flesh off zookeeper Lori Komejan's arm after a public feeding demonstration. A state investigation later ruled that the zoo was at fault for the attack because of the way the cages were configured."

You're kidding, right?

Ah! Finally someone gets to the root of the issue! Thank you, Jen. And co-sign to those who feel sorry for the tiger (not that it's not sad someone died, that's never an "ok" result of anything). But really, not only does this great animal have a limited, sucky existence on display in an unnatural environment, she has to spend her Christmas getting taunted by bored, inebriated teenagers. Every living being has its limits; hers were met that day. Don't mess with mother nature, people! Nature always finds a way.

I agree.

Even people have limits.... sometimes people just snap.

Regarding the whole "the tiger must have been subjected to violence thing"... it's an animal. It really doesn't know any better...

No, not really.

I don't know much about animal psychology, but I don't hear a lot about zoo tigers attacking humans, and this particular animal has done it twice in a couple of years.

It seems to me, uninformed as it may be, that like some humans are more prone to violence, that may be the case with this tiger.

I'm not defending zoos or their conditions. Nor am I defending keeping wild animals in captivity.

My premise may be entirely wrong, but that's the way it appears to me.

Police: Investigation into tiger attack on hold
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/30/tig....ap/index.html
Police: Investigation into tiger attack on hold



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Police have suspended their investigation into the tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo that killed a teenager as they wait for new witnesses or evidence to emerge.
The investigation has been put on hold "pending new witnesses being interviewed and/or new evidence being produced," city police said in a statement Tuesday. No criminal charges have been filed.

An escaped 250-pound Siberian tiger fatally mauled 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. and wounded his friends, brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal, after apparently climbing or leaping from its enclosure December 25.

"We didn't have, obviously, enough to move forward with anything," said San Francisco police Inspector Valerie Matthews, lead investigator.

Police were not actively pursuing new leads but have not closed the investigation in case new information arises, Matthews said. Police will probably decide in late February whether a probe should continue.

Investigators have not brought prosecutors any investigation results or recommended any charges, said Erica Terry Derryck, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office.

Police said in court documents that they believed the attack was in part triggered by the victims provoking the animal. They did not specify what, if any, crimes they thought had been committed.

Matthews declined to detail the nature of the potential crimes police were investigating.

A search warrant affidavit filed January 17 said the victims had marijuana in their systems, and toxicology results showed the blood alcohol level for Paul Dhaliwal, 19, was 0.16 percent -- twice the legal limit for driving.

His 24-year-old brother and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood, but within the legal driving limit, Matthews wrote.

Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, said Tuesday he believed the city had pressured police to unnecessarily prolong their investigation as part of a "smear campaign" against his clients. Geragos said they had done nothing wrong.

A police spokesman declined to comment on whether the department had been pressured.

Michael Cardoza, a lawyer for Sousa's parents, said that he does not understand why police would pause the investigation instead of closing it for good.

"They have had plenty of time to bring this case to an investigative conclusion," Cardoza said

sounds like a good Darwin award candidate.....