More information is emerging about the scene at the San Fransisco zoo just before a tiger escaped from its enclosure and attacked three young men, killing one. According to court documents as reported by the AP:One of the three victims of a San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure.The zoo certainly has some responsibility in this matter, as the enclosure walls were 4 feet shorter than the recommended height. However, what a way to find out. What kind of people decide to do a few shots, get high, and go yell at tigers at the zoo?
Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot and each had "a couple shots of vodka" before leaving San Jose for the zoo on Christmas Day the affidavit said.Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents.
The two surviving victims must have known from the start that it was all going to hit the fan eventually, because they immediately hired high profile lawyer Mark Geragos, who began to spin a tale of the boys as victims -- focusing on the fact that they tried to get help for their friend while zoo employees were "dismissive." (Talk about dismissive! How about the fact that the reason their friend lay dying was that they had just been yelling and waving at the tiger?)
The brothers have not spoken publicly about this incident. The have however, apparently spoken with the father of the young man who died, Carlos Sousa, Jr. And the father, Carlos Sousa Sr., has spoken publicly:Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., said Dhaliwal told him the three stood on a 3-foot-tall metal railing a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat. "When they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes on him (Paul Dhaliwal)," the documents said.
Police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing, Matthews said in the documents.
23 comments:
(Talk about dismissive! How about the fact that the reason their friend lay dying was that they had just been yelling and waving at the tiger?)
Obviously, you are two sandwiches short of a picnic. The fact is that the enclosure wall was 4 feet shorter than required. How is their behavior relevant to the fact that a dangerous wild animal got out of its enclosure? What if a small child yelled at the tiger, or had it snapped for whatever other reason? Have you lost all of your ability to reason? It is Zoo's responsibility to keep animals and visitors safe, period. What the victims drank or ate, what music they listened to, or what they yelled at the tiger is completely irrelevant.
Guess they were lieing after all. So much for all their claims that they were not doing anything. I'm sure plenty of people are still going to fall for their sob-story, but frankly I have about the same level of sympathy for them as someone who gets drunk and walks on to a highway. Tragic yes but well into the category of 'their own damn fault'.
And the fact the tiger had to die because of them just pisses me off.
Had they climbed into the cage, then yes, that would be absolutely their fault, etc. Jumping, yelling, even throwing things into the enclosure should not result in the tiger jumping out. Lying about their conduct is while apprehensive, still irrelevant to the fact that the enclosure was 4 feet shorter than required. The tiger died because of Zoo's negligence. Get your head on straight, hippie.
Lets spell this out for you who dont understand something basic about animal behavior. These punks lied about provoking the cat to begin with, and an animal like that isn't just going to jump out of it's safe territory and track SPECIFIC PEOPLE THROUGH THE ZOO unless it has a reason, like kids pestering it and throwing stuff at it. And that wall kept the Tigers there for many, many years. And till these stoned drunk punk a$$ kids provoked it, that Big Cat was content to stay there. Blame the kids for causing this mess, not the Zoo or the Animal.
Obviously, you are two sandwiches short of a picnic. The fact is that the enclosure wall was 4 feet shorter than required.
Um, Anonymous #1, your logic does not follow. I said the zoo has responsibility for the fact that the wall was too short. From what I've read it was below the recommended height, not a required height.
I don't disagree that it would have been horrible to find out the wall's shortcomings with the tiger attacking some poor innocent soul. But the fact is these young men are not innocent. They got high and they waved and yelled at the animal. For what purpose? To get a reaction out of the tiger.
If they had admitted this from the beginning, maybe I'd have more sympathy for them. Instead they hired a sleazy lawyer and tried to spin a story of complete innocence.
The real victim in this sad story is the tiger, who was killed. He was betrayed by both the young men and the zoo.
Anonymous #2, yes -- it is about people taking responsibility for their own actions, which these guys at first refused to do.
Anonymous #3, Get your head on straight, hippie.?
Let me adjust my head. There, that's better. I disagree that the men's actions are irrelevant. They made a bad situation worse. They need to take responsibility for whatever part they had in the tiger attack. Maybe it's a small part, but it's not irrelevant.
By the way, I haven't been called a hippie in a long time.
Thank you!
I wonder if when they built the enclosure they told zoo officials, "okay, you're all set. Just understand that if anyone taunts any of the tigers, all bets are off." Or if when they got Tatiana they were told of specific words or hand gestures that she found particularly offensive and might send her over the inadequate enclosure. I happen to know a tiger that is just the sweetest thing, but if you moon her, she will eat you.
Tell me please, What is the legal alcohol level for a 17 year old. Isn't it 0.0. And he had what level??? Makes you wonder!!!!!
ah, 'hippie', nice.
Learn to use your head rather then your heart. Resorting to heart tugs and random assumption insults does not help you.
Enclosure standards (which change over time) are based off statical variance. Under normal (as in, every situation for the last 70 years) circumstances the SF Zoo it is more then enough to contain such a creature.
They were also lower then the _recommended_ height, not the _required_ one. The AZA inspectors (the ones who set the standards) have cleared the design on every inspection over it's lifespan. Those standards will probably now be changed to take into account REALLY pissed off tigers.
Now I will agree that the zoo was negligent in not kicking them out when other visitors were complaining about them. If they were that drunk they should never have been let in in the first place.
It's funny how you people try to moralize the story. Had the victims climbed into the cage and were mauled, fine! (Even then, Zoo barriers should keep people from doing that, but that's just my personal opinion.) Remember, the brothers are victims here. The fact is that the tiger is just a wild and dangerous animal which belongs in the wild, no matter what your Peta friends tell you. If Zoo decides to bring the animal into a situation where there is some degree of interaction with visitors/viewers, it is 100% Zoo's responsibility to keep that interaction safe and monitored, is it not? Especially, this is done for monetary gain, Zoo is a business, so they better spend the money and do whatever it takes to prevent incidents like this from happening. Focusing on the victims behavior, their conduct in front of the exposure is already putting a spin on the whole story. Why are you trying to bring "sympathy" into this anyway? This is a clear cut case of Zoo's failure, they are the business, and they are obligated to think through scenarios like this ahead of time, and take preventive measures - it's really this simple. "Sympathizing" is your private matter, it has to bearing on the outcome of the legal case.
"Being responsible for one's own actions" is important, and had the victims climbed into the enclosure, or got so close to the barrier, that the tiger reached them through the barrier, or something like that, you would be 100% right. The fact that the tiger got out trumps any other "emotional" arguments you can throw at it.
Heh, I just realized something.
If they were both drunk and stoned at the time, that would explain why the zoo employees took them less then seriously.
When someone drunk comes up to you and starts rambling about a highly improbable event, one generally assumes that they are just drunk, which if I recall the transcript is what the workers basically called in.
That would explain the lies since 'heartless employees dismissing them!' was probably one of the key heartstrings for both avoiding responsibly and any upcoming lawsuit.
None of us were there, so, we can't judge, but, if these men were drunk and taunting this animal, then, the results are due to their actions, and, not the animals, or the zoo's inactions.
Unlike humans, if animals feel threatened because they sense something is being done to harm them in some way, they will react immediately. This also explains the several zoological experts who said that the animals behavior was hard to understand on it's own - now it might be said that this has been explained. Unfortunately, many in society today have no respect for life of any kind, from humans to animals to even plant life...
Unfortunately, many in society today have no respect for life of any kind, from humans to animals to even plant life...
Best comment of the day -- thank you!
there are some sick people on this blog. tiger cages need need to be taunt proof. "the real victim is the tiger". So the people who were killed were garbage? They were worth that much less than the life of some animal who lives in a little pen? The same sort of twisted logic is used by serial killers and child murderers. its called psychopath logic. taunting an animal is a MISDEMEANOR, progbably punishable by loss of zoo admission fee. lets say you were speeding, a MISDEMEANOR, and you crash into my brothers car. I subsequently get out of the car and brutally murder you(like a tiger). under your logic the REAL victim would be my brother because his car insurance rates would go up. you are entitled to your opinion. HOWEVER THE ZOO SPOKESMAN blaming the victims is absolutely sick. I hope they get sued so bad they have to close the zoo and release those animals
Dang,
How hard is it to get? Fact1 - Tigers are dangerous, unpredictable and wild animals with well established and documented history of being able to kill/injure people, other animals. Fact2 - Zoo is a business which derives profit from exhibiting such dangerous animal to the public. As such, any and all responsibility arising from the animal getting loose on the premises is that of the Zoo, period. What the victims drank/smoked/drove, their race, sexual orientation, behavior or actions _in front of the enclosure_ is irrelevant. The tiger got out of its cage. the tiger killed and injured people. One has to be a complete numbscull not to understand this.
you are entitled to your opinion.
Well thank you!
The tiger should not have been able to get out of an enclosure period. I don't care how drunk or high the guys were, animals should not be able to get out of enclosures under any circumstance period.
Unfortunately, many in society today have no respect for life of any kind, from humans to animals to even plant life...
Best comment of the day -- thank you!
EXACTLY. ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC THEN ZOOS SHOULD BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS, BECAUSE THEY TRAP THESE PRECIOUS ANIMALS AND PLANT LIFE, FOR PROFIT, RIGHT?
EXACTLY. ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC THEN ZOOS SHOULD BE PUT OUT OF BUSINESS, BECAUSE THEY TRAP THESE PRECIOUS ANIMALS AND PLANT LIFE, FOR PROFIT, RIGHT?
Please don't shout.
No. The irony here is that through human lack of respect for animals, species such as the Siberian Tiger are now endangered, and the safest and most respectful place may be a zoo. It is the only place where they won't be shot. Usually.
In addition to making a "profit" many zoos are valuable research centers trying to save endangered species.
It never ceases to amaze me how clueless these hippy types are. I mean, most them are just plain dumb. Some, however, are wisted in a very disturbing way - they understand perfectly right and wrong, yet they choose to ignore inconvenient facts and truths. For example, not "respecting" wild life is wrong (your usual tree hugger attitude), however, a Zoo which keeps these precious life forms in horrendous conditions, against their free will, is Ok. Try to wrap your mind around that one...
Ugh.
America has become such a disturbingly pampered anti-personal-responsibly society. People expect to behave however they want to and expect magical institutions to make everything safe.
Just how idiot proof should a zoo be in the end? How much do we, as a society, need to protect people from themselves?
And has anyone noticed.... while there are polite and thoughtful people on both sides here, the bulk of the name calling and insults is coming from the 'zoo's fault' side.
As for the comments about relative value of life and psychopath logic... you are one step away from Godwin's law here by equating anyone with 'child killers'. Psychopathic logic has to do with a breakdown of internal ethics feedback.. it has nothing to do with what you see as more valuable or where you put the blame in a situation. Saying 'the human screwed up and an animal died' is not similar to 'I can't empathize with other life so I'm going to kill for fun'.
It should also be noted the psychopaths are actually pretty common... very, very few make the leap to going around killing people.
Post a Comment