I must wonder why you believe they did antagonize the tiger. I have only seen press reports promulgating opposing versions of the facts. I am not sure what Geragos did to justify an attack on his representation whether in jest or not. Certainly the zoo could have a claim against the boys if the boys aggravated the tiger so much that their actions caused injury or death to others under a theory of contribution among joint tortfeasors. Most wild animal liability is based on theories of strict liability which would impose liability based on the inherent dangerousness of the activity of keeping a zoo. Why don’t we do something novel by neo-con standards and wait to see exactly what facts come out in court and then render judgment on the actions of all concerned, including, of course, Mark Geragos.

Who’d have thought getting mauled and surviving a tiger attack on Christmas would cause someone to try and steal video game accessories!
Well, not really. But for some reason this article from the San Francisco Chronicle kept mentioning that the…