Thread: Should they have let the bear eat her?

Originally Posted by Big Red

Probably the reason I've not yet gotten on a Jury, I WANT to be on one. and I want it to be for a really idiotic case like a woman tripping over her own kid in a store and suing, or the guy that got locked in a garage during a burglary and sued for pain and suffering because he had to live on dog food for days.

I've served on two juries and the reason there are twelve people is to cancel out extreme opinions like yours and, hopefully, come up with something that's reasonable.

As for letting her be eaten, is it really reasonable to ask the people on the site to make all kinds of calculations during an emergency, such as, "She jumped in so we shouldn't save her" or "She was pushed, so we have to save her"? In a crisis, you have to act quickly to save human life and then sort out what happened later.

When I read some of the Neanderthal opinions in this forum, my first reaction is that there's just too much testosterone floating around and there's a bunch of adolescents competing to demonstrate who has the biggest testicles.

LOL thats probably part of the answer to why there are so many stupid people.
The others just think too responsibly to outweigh them.
Maybe you should reconsider if you're not yet too old to have kids.

From what I saw, that would have been cruel to the bears.

Originally Posted by Big Red

And I hope that Germany is not like the US, where likely all kinds of groups would be clamoring for the bears destruction.

I can't comment for Germany.
But sometime ago, we had a similar case in Belgium.

A woman who sponsored 2 of the leopard had a habit of entering the leopard cages after closing hours. It was suspected that she had an unofficial understanding with the zoo people. Supposedly, they'd let her, and she wouldn't tell.

In any case, eventually she got killed and ripped to pieces.
The leopards still live. The father of the woman also said that he did not want to have the leopards put down because it was not their fault that his daughter assumed that she could treat wild animals as pets.

Greatness!

Just read through some of the blogs attached to the cnn report
and one of them quoted a zoo employee, who said that they were about to shoot the bears
if they had attacked her any further. Just a matter of seconds.

Also just read today that it was a suicide claim.
Before I thought it was an accident.
Makes me really speechless that someone usually responsible for kids can be so ignorant attempting to present them such a picture. Same as jumping in front of a train - traumatising the poor conductor and everyone who has to collect the leftovers from the tracks or anyhow dealing with that matter.....

Well Chim, if thinking people should be responsible is an extreme view then damnit I'm guilty of that. Juries need people like me on them because I won't let emotion color the judgement. Law is law, and evidence is necessary to find somebody guilty. it is supposed to be must be proven guilty, too often our courts give the impression that it is needed to prove innocence. and all too often juries get swayed by the emotional argument, by how traumatized a person was. My friend was on a jury, and fortunately didn't give up and swayed it to a good outcome, where a guy was suing his mom because she had him arrested. he was arrested because he violated a restraining order she had against him to keep him from stealing from her to pawn it for drug money. many of the jurors wanted to rule in his favor, ignoring the fact that he was breaking the law and that was why he was arrested. you know what they were arguing, the JURORS, that it was his mom and it was wrong for her to have him arrested.

and I didn't ask "what would you have done at that moment", in fact, i even alluded to in the very first post that considering the "audience" I would have pulled her out.

I guess for those that are going to nitpick it over I could have said

"if you, by yourself and without the presence of recording devices that could somehow disseminate the footage to underage or sensitive viewers, saw a woman wantonly (which is how I read it before I posted this, she JUMPED ON PURPOSE) jump into a pit of bears during their feeding time, and their would be no consequences to the bears for their behavior (and furthermore would not have been emotionally hurt themselves by what to them would have been a simple act of dining); would you risk your life to pull her out against her clear wishes to be there?"

I agree with Olivia that it is one thing to commit suicide, I guess that is a personal matter between a person and their conscious, but doing it in a manner that affects other, shouldn't that be the last responsible thing a person try to do? why can't suicide be done privately where nobody that loves you would see or find you? My brother's best friend came home from high school one day to find his brother had shot himself through the head. bad enough losing your brother, but finding them? do it in private, don't make a show of it.

As far as responsibility and having kids, smart people will never outweigh the uneducated moronic masses for number of kids for just that reason. My wife and I have great jobs, we discussed both kids. I get asked constantly if I will try for another just because I have two girls and everybody assumes I need/want a boy. My answer is always the same, we can't afford any more. that's responsible, and that's what ideally everybody capable of having kids should go over in their heads and with each other. Sadly not everybody capable of having kids even thinks about it.

I'm related to somebody, by marriage, that has two kids now and can't afford to pay their PG&E bill but the husband can afford to spend money on his drugs every month. let's say both kids are brilliant, is it fair to them to be in that environment and what are the chances they'll be able to maximize their potential? what opportunities will they have?

I have a coworker with 5 kids, why, because her husband doesn't like birth control and wouldn't get fixed and obviously didn't have any self-control. in the end she had the invasive procedure and got her tubes tied.

I guess i've really taken this off topic. sorry.

Red

It's a good thing thet pulled her out ... now she can pay the fine. Take that, stupid lady!

My vote - Go ahead and rescue the woman, IF it can be done without permanent injury to the bear.

Then, bill the woman for the ENTIRE cost of the rescue, including the medical care for any injuries the bear received, AND throw her in jail for a year because society needs to be protected from that level of stupidity.

Originally Posted by Big Red

Well Chim, if thinking people should be responsible is an extreme view then damnit I'm guilty of that. Juries need people like me on them because I won't let emotion color the judgement. Law is law, and evidence is necessary to find somebody guilty. it is supposed to be must be proven guilty, too often our courts give the impression that it is needed to prove innocence. and all too often juries get swayed by the emotional argument, by how traumatized a person was. My friend was on a jury, and fortunately didn't give up and swayed it to a good outcome, where a guy was suing his mom because she had him arrested. he was arrested because he violated a restraining order she had against him to keep him from stealing from her to pawn it for drug money. many of the jurors wanted to rule in his favor, ignoring the fact that he was breaking the law and that was why he was arrested. you know what they were arguing, the JURORS, that it was his mom and it was wrong for her to have him arrested.

Well Red, you rambled a bit, so I guess I can, too. My experience on two juries was similar to your friend's, i.e., that there is a wide range of opinions, most not rational. After I posted here, I started a thread about jury duty and the interesting things for me were (1) that very few people came and (2) that no one came forth and said that they had served on a jury. I guess, if you're an intelligent person in our society, you demonstrate it by getting out of jury duty.

Originally Posted by Big Red

and I didn't ask "what would you have done at that moment", in fact, i even alluded to in the very first post that considering the "audience" I would have pulled her out.

I guess for those that are going to nitpick it over I could have said

"if you, by yourself and without the presence of recording devices that could somehow disseminate the footage to underage or sensitive viewers, saw a woman wantonly (which is how I read it before I posted this, she JUMPED ON PURPOSE) jump into a pit of bears during their feeding time, and their would be no consequences to the bears for their behavior (and furthermore would not have been emotionally hurt themselves by what to them would have been a simple act of dining); would you risk your life to pull her out against her clear wishes to be there?"

"If..." The scenario you describe ain't never gonna happen. In the real world, we have to make snap decisions and our "ethics" have to be clear and simple. My rule is "Never let anyone be eaten by a bear, if you can help it."

Originally Posted by Big Red

I agree with Olivia that it is one thing to commit suicide, I guess that is a personal matter between a person and their conscious, but doing it in a manner that affects other, shouldn't that be the last responsible thing a person try to do? why can't suicide be done privately where nobody that loves you would see or find you? My brother's best friend came home from high school one day to find his brother had shot himself through the head. bad enough losing your brother, but finding them? do it in private, don't make a show of it.

I agree with Olivia, too. Sometimes people commiting suicide are very angry at someone else and killing themselves is a way of having the last word and "winning" the argument.

Originally Posted by Big Red

Well Chim, if thinking people should be responsible is an extreme view then damnit I'm guilty of that. [...] Law is law,Red

I'm not so sure about this Red. The thing is, Law is so full of shades of grey and not black and white. If 'law was law' with no doubt about any of the detail and no ambiguity whatsoever, we probably wouldn't be living in such a litigious society (if only!). The fact is, law can be disputed successfully in so many ways, that you can't rely on it as a golden rule in life. I guess that's why there are plenty of lawyers -- the vagaries and nuances of law requires a lot of practitioners to help us navigate them!

As an example of what I'm trying to say, in this case personal responsibility might not apply. You're right, people should be responsible. All things being equal. But they're not, and we have seen many cases explained away in law by dint of "diminished responsibility". The woman in this case might fall into such a category. If her state of mind (which she genuinely might not be able to control) leads her to swim with the bears, then 'diminished responsibility' might apply here?

In which case I personally wouldn't be as bullish about her situation -- perhaps she does deserve some sympathy.

On the other hand, she could just be an idiot. But I guess that's what the courts or medical profession is there to find out.