Woman Loses Thumb, Fingers To Bear At Zoo

[The Interpreter]

Ignores signs, then bear chomps on her:

Police say a bear bit off a woman's fingers at a Wisconsin zoo after she ignored barriers and warning signs to try to feed the animal.The Lincoln Park Zoo in Manitowoc closed after the incident Friday morning. Police say the 47-year-old woman lost a thumb and a forefinger, and two other fingers were partially severed.

The woman's boyfriend was bitten as he tried to pry the bear's mouth off her hand, but he didn't lose any fingers. Her 3-year-old granddaughter wasn't injured.

A mayor's office statement says alcohol played a factor....

http://hosted2.ap.or...e2b451cefc6e4d6

Sigh...I bet she sues...

She put her hand through the enclosure fence, it goes on to say, along with that it's unclear which of two bears did the chomping and that the bears likely won't be euthanized. The bears did what bears do...but doubtless it will be argued this woman should not have been able to reach the bears' mouths...and in the future guests will have a much longer viewing distance and/or some sort of physical barrier. The story also mentions a three year old was with these two humans, and that alcohol played a factor. Alcohol to that extent? Reckless endangerment of a minor? After all, they could have easily fed the bear the three year old's fingers, too.

[The Interpreter]

A much more detailed article:

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20100306/SHE0101/3060432/1973/SHE0201/Manitowoc-zoo-bear-bites-off-woman-s-fingers

[jzarley]

Something almost Darwinian about this...

At least the granddaughter will have a great story for show & tell...Grandma got drunk at the zoo and her hand was eaten by a bear.

[mtl2013]

It will be intersting to see what ends up happening. They will probably sue, adn the zoo will have to create new barriers of some sort.

[Cory Butcher]

Something almost Darwinian about this...

At least the granddaughter will have a great story for show & tell...Grandma got drunk at the zoo and her hand was eaten by a bear.

You read my mind! I hope she learned not to feed bears!

[SonofBeast07]

Bear 1: "hey look they have food"

Bear 2: "and they are bringing it too us!"

Bear 1: "chomp... eww it's arby's"

Bear 2: "eww..yuck!"

Bear 1: "I'll just go for her fingers... tastes better"

[Browntggrr]

I wonder when people will figure out that even though animals in the zoo are not in the wild, they are certainly not domesticated and should still be treated, and respected, like a wild animal. \

Now what I find intresting in the article is the normal term "alcohol was involved". How much alcohol? Were the victims legally intoxicated, or just had a few drinks?

If the victimes were under the legal limit, how can alcohol play a part? And if they were over the legal limit, why were they not chanrged with public intoxication?

[The Interpreter]

Being under the "legal limit" merely provides a rebuttable presumption that one was not intoxicated. One can be charged with public intoxication, etc., if one has even 0.01 percent alcohol on a breath test, or even if there was no test at all...

Here's an illustrative example from the State of Washington:

...For example, a single drink is usually not enough to get your alcohol concentration above the legal limit, but it might be sufficient to get you arrested for DUI in Washington State if a police officer thinks it affects your ability to drive to any appreciable degree. In our years of defending DUI cases throughout Washington State, Fox Bowman Duarte attorneys have seen DUI charges filed with BAC results as low as .02%....

http://www.foxbowmanduarte.com/duiarrest/howmuch/

[shark6495]

In the AP book of writing style (as of 2006) the "correct" way was to say that alcohol was involved. According to the AP you cant mention specifically how much alcohol was involved until it was officially released from the hosiptal/police. For example, a reporter could be on the phone and talking to an officer. The officer says "yeah they had a bunch of alcohol in their system" the reporter says "is that official?" and the police would then say "no, not yet." Same thing if the officer/doctor/etc would say there was slight alcohol in the system, the reporter has to use the generic term of "alcohol was involved."

[The Interpreter]

And the fact that charges have not been filed at an early time after an incident does not necessarily mean they will not later be. Prosecutors have discretion, investigations must be made, in some cases grand juries are involved...

[Tomkatt7]

In our sue-happy society, I would like to see the zoo sue this couple for the cost of whatever new barriers they will undoubtedly have to install to protect the idiots from the animals. After all, it was all their fault that the new barriers are necessary.

[jzarley]

I think the zoo should sue for "mental anguish" experienced by the bear!!

[Browntggrr]

Being under the "legal limit" merely provides a rebuttable presumption that one was not intoxicated. One can be charged with public intoxication, etc., if one has even 0.01 percent alcohol on a breath test, or even if there was no test at all...

Here's an illustrative example from the State of Washington:

...For example, a single drink is usually not enough to get your alcohol concentration above the legal limit, but it might be sufficient to get you arrested for DUI in Washington State if a police officer thinks it affects your ability to drive to any appreciable degree. In our years of defending DUI cases throughout Washington State, Fox Bowman Duarte attorneys have seen DUI charges filed with BAC results as low as .02%....

http://www.foxbowman...arrest/howmuch/

That is an excellent example of the law concerning alcohol when driving a motor vehicle in Washington, not an example of what the article insinuates as public drunkeness.

Also, per Article 1 of the Constitution, public intoxication is not covered under federal law, but rather with each state. And in this case, Wisconsin does not have a law for public intoxication, with the exception of Milwaukee.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/public-intoxication.htm

[HTCO]

Bear 1: "hey look they have food"

Bear 2: "and they are bringing it too us!"

Bear 1: "chomp... eww it's arby's"

Bear 2: "eww..yuck!"

Bear 1: "I'll just go for her fingers... tastes better"

Ha! This made me laugh.

This is exactly why you keep all your fingers and toes away from the cage... Common sense.

[The Interpreter]

Being under the "legal limit" merely provides a rebuttable presumption that one was not intoxicated. One can be charged with public intoxication, etc., if one has even 0.01 percent alcohol on a breath test, or even if there was no test at all...

Here's an illustrative example from the State of Washington:

...For example, a single drink is usually not enough to get your alcohol concentration above the legal limit, but it might be sufficient to get you arrested for DUI in Washington State if a police officer thinks it affects your ability to drive to any appreciable degree. In our years of defending DUI cases throughout Washington State, Fox Bowman Duarte attorneys have seen DUI charges filed with BAC results as low as .02%....

http://www.foxbowman...arrest/howmuch/

That is an excellent example of the law concerning alcohol when driving a motor vehicle in Washington, not an example of what the article insinuates as public drunkeness.

Also, per Article 1 of the Constitution, public intoxication is not covered under federal law, but rather with each state. And in this case, Wisconsin does not have a law for public intoxication, with the exception of Milwaukee.

http://www.criminald...ntoxication.htm

Thanks. I did not know that!

As for driving and highways, using federal public funding for highways, the Federal Government has greatly influenced state laws on intoxication, demanding, for instance, the presumption for DWI/DUI purposes be lowered from 0.10 to 0.08, or that the state(s) involved lose a portion of their federal highway funds. There is a strong lobby on each side of the alcohol regulation issue, and some very strange decisions. For instance, in Kentucky, a person has been found guilty of DWI...the offense? Intoxication while riding a horse!