People should be put behind bars after reaching through them.

On Wednesday, December 29th, River Rosenquist, a member of a third-party cleaning crew at the Naples Zoo, entered an unauthorized zone near the tiger cages. The crew was hired to clean the zoo hospital, commissary, gift shop, and bathroom. For reasons only known to Rosenquist, he jumped the fences and decided to stick his hand into the tiger exhibit. Eko, the eight-year-old tiger in the exhibit at the time, latched onto his hand and was holding him there until the police arrived. During that time, Rosenquist was screaming and writhing in an attempt to free himself.

When the police arrived on the scene, the officer had under 40 seconds to assess the situation and make a decision. Ultimately, he decided to shoot Eko in the neck, to get him off of Rosenquist. The tiger then released his hand and retreated to the back of the enclosure, where he ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 

As of this writing, Rosenquist is currently in the hospital being treated for his injuries. The Collier County Sheriff’s Office is launching an investigation to decide on the charges. While Rosenquist has not yet been charged, it is no secret that this incident has caused a stir within wildlife advocates and some of the general public. The chatter has not died down; instead, rumors about fines and imprisonment are beginning to arise. With a case such as this, the legal system has essentially become a pathway of eggshells in which both prosecutors and defense attorneys must carefully cross in time.

This incident from a legal perspective involves zeroing in on the Florida statutes. The initial response is to look at Section 379.411, regarding the death of an endangered species. It states, “A person may not intentionally kill or wound any fish or wildlife species designated by the commission as endangered, threatened, or of special concern.”

Negligence can be defined by the Cornell Law School as, “ A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances.” Typically, negligence is viewed as more of a civil situation and because of this, the penalties may be more minor. This can be expressed by 768.81 in the Florida Statutes.

Due to the mild nature of civil negligence, Section 784.05 in the Florida Statutes introduces what is known as culpable negligence. The law applies to, “whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree…” Culpable negligence is considered to be criminal, thus opening doors to more severe penalties. Being charged with civil negligence can vary in title, ranging from a second-degree misdemeanor to a third-degree felony.

Solution 

River Rosenquist’s future as of now is still riding the thin line between a criminal record and an “accident”. He

deliberately behaved in such a way that was both harmful and reckless when he decided to make the decision he made. Rosenquist should be charged with culpable negligence in response to his behavior. However, he technically can not even be charged in this manner. The phrasing of the law involves people only, it states, “…exposes another person to personal injury…” 

This is no surprise with our anthropocentric society, but this is a scenario in which seemingly small details lead to much larger loopholes. There must be an auxiliary by-law that includes animals and property, acting as a deterrent for future events such as this. The addition would read, “Whoever, through culpable negligence, inflicts injury upon, or is responsible in the death or destruction of, property and or animals, shall be charged with a felony of no less than the third degree.”

You can end the life of one tiger, but you cannot silence their roar.