Police: Victim Drunk During Tiger Attack

[Ghost in the Machine]

Police: Victim Drunk During Tiger Attack
Published: 1/18/08, 1:25 AM EDT
By MARCUS WOHLSEN

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - One of the three victims of 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, police said in court documents filed Thursday.

Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed, that the three yelled and waved at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into its pen to provoke the cat, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.

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.
{snip}

Okay, further on into this story I found something that just isn't right, and I take a little exception to it:

Toxicology results for Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16 - twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His 24-year-old brother, Kulbir, and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote. All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. 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.

See the part I boldened? Sousa was 17 years old... there is NO legally acceptable amount of alcohol for minors. Period. What about the 19 year old? Isn't the legal drinking age 21? Where are the charges for contributing to the delinquency of a minor? There's just all kinds of wrong going on here...

http://www.att.net/s/editorial.dll?bfromind=2755&eeid=5636259&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=ne

[MichaelHarris]

1. If

you eat marijuana laced humans can you get high?

[pnwmom]

2. So they taunted the tiger. Did they deserve a death sentence for that?

"There's just all kinds of wrong going on here." Maybe. But nothing that absolves the zoo of responsibility. This is all just smoke and mirrors -- don't pay attention to the zoo's culpability, folks. It was the victims' fault. They imbibed alcohol. They MADE FUN of the tiger!

What are we, nuts? Or just prejudiced against these three young men because of the way they look or the clothes they wear? What difference does it make if they had alcohol or marijuana in their system? If they'd been sober, would the enclosure have been any higher? What if an 8 year old blonde boy waved his arms and taunted the tiger? Would he have deserved to die? What if people annoyed a tiger all day and she finally jumped out and attacked a mother pushing a crying baby in a stroller? Would it have been the mother's fault for not keeping her baby quiet?

The enclosures have to be built to withstand the most powerful tiger in its most agitated state. Period.

And when those two young men, one with blood pouring from a head wound, were begging for help, the zoo employees' reaction -- to bar themselves inside the Zoo cafe and not let the two inside -- was reprehensible. While the youths were stuck outside, trying to get the Zoo people to send for help, the tiger came and attacked them AGAIN. And that second attack was avoidable, if the zoo employees had acted with compassion and sense.

[Azathoth]

3. Maybe I missed it, but when did anyone try to absolve the zoo of responsibility?

There's another poster on here tonight who seems to be spoiling for a fight on this same issue. When was it suggested that the zoo wasn't culpable in all of this?

[Guaranteed]

6. When people call it justice, absolving the zoo is implied. nt

[Azathoth]

10. That's not absolving the zoo

It's pointing out that the victim wasn't particularly innocent. One statement does not imply the other. OJ is still gonna go to jail, even though the "victims" in the case aren't really innocent either.

(And no, I don't think the kid deserved to die, but I do think he tempted fate.)

[Guaranteed]

12. No, justice means that things turned out right- as opposed to wrong.

Justice means there is nothing wrong with the result.

And if there is nothing wrong with the result, there is no liability.

[Maddy McCall]

14. There can be more than two responsible parties.

As there was in this case.

[Guaranteed]

15. Yet you still believe that they "deserved" to die.

Despite the zoo's responsibility.

For yelling at a tiger and standing on a railing.

[Maddy McCall]

17. I think that when you do something as incredibly stupid as...

taunt a tiger while stoned and drunk, crossing boundaries set up by the zoo to do so, if the tiger attacks you, well, you get what you deserve.

Because otherwise, they'd just be pussies for taunting a caged animal, right?

[Guaranteed]

19. No, because the tiger shouldn't have been able to get out.

If they didn't let the tiger out, that could have been anyone who got attacked. In fact, as things happened, a WHOLE lot more people could have been hurt. It's not just for the tiger to be able to get out- no matter what they did. That's what you're missing.

And being stupid isn't justification for a death sentence, either.

You aren't, by chance, anti-death-penalty, are you? I mean, for people who deliberately do things such as shooting/stabbing/poisoning/burning/beating their own family members, or complete strangers, to death?

[Maddy McCall]

20. Well, my tire shouldn't go flat while I'm driving 90 miles an hour.

I shouldn't get alcohol poisoning when I drink 2 liters of vodka.

I shouldn't lose a thumb when an M80 blows up in my hand.

The tiger shouldn't have got loose. It did. Had they not taunted the tiger to the point that she climbed out an enclosure that she had never climbed out of before, they'd still be alive.

Consequences. They suck.

[Guaranteed]

24. That's where you're wrong.

"Had they not taunted the tiger to the point that she climbed out an enclosure that she had never climbed out of before, they'd still be alive."

Anyone could have been killed having done anything unknowingly to set off the tiger. Even these boys, if they had not taunted the tiger, could have been killed under any kind of circumstances that the tiger simply didn't like.

In fact, everyone who saw that tiger in that pen was ALREADY IN DANGER of being killed by it simply by being NEAR it.

You think that's right?

[Maddy McCall]

25. Let me be clear.

I think that the enclosure should have been higher. I think that the agency that inspected the wall three years ago shouldn't have approved it as it was, since that's the agency that sets recommended heights on zoo enclosures (among other recommendations for habitats).

I also think that if you fuck with a tiger, even one that shouldn't be able to leap out of its enclosure, and if that taunting enrages the tiger to the point that it gets out of its enclosure, then you get what you asked for.

That's how consequences work.

[pnwmom]

40. The boys weren't asking to be killed. And they obviously trusted, as most

zoo visitors would, that the enclosures would meet every reasonable safety standard.

And any reasonable safety standard would keep the tigers inside NO MATTER WHAT.

[Maddy McCall]

44. Yeah, they trusted that the zoo enclosure would protect them as they taunted a wild animal.

They thought wrong. Sad, isn't it?

[pnwmom]

54. Of course they trusted that. Any zoo enclosure should meet every safety

standard for keeping animals enclosed, NO MATTER WHAT.

[Maddy McCall]

61. Do you go through life always expecting everything to be 100% guaranteed safe?

Because even stuff that's guaranteed to be failsafe can fail.

[pnwmom]

75. I go into our zoo expecting that it meets all the relevant accreditation standards.

But obviously this has shaken that expectation.

If I were on that jury, I wouldn't hold the zoo responsible for the tiger getting loose IF the enclosure met current height limits. But it didn't. On the other hand, I would hold the zoo liable for the actions of its employees, who refused to help the injured boys (other than calling for 911) and barred them from the zoo cafe, even knowing that one was bleeding from the head.

[Maddy McCall]

83. Good. You should never consider yourself 100% safe, no matter where you are.

If I were a juror, I'd find the zoo liable.

As a private citizen who won't sit on the jury, I can voice my opinion that the three dipshits contributed to their own demise in a very sad and stupid way.

[uppityperson]

144. Yes, it is very sad. The tiger should not have been able to get out. It is sad.

[jbnow]

85. Taunting a tiger...

what does it even mean? "your mother is so fat..."

Why would they think motions they made with the tiger on the other side of the fence would enrage it?

How does enraging a tiger reach a point it gets the tiger out of the enclosure? It doesn't lower the enclosure.

It was not a natural consequence. It would have been a natural one had they climbed in the enclosure or had unlocked the gate.

They sound like stupid teenagers doing stupid things they do when stupid who faced consequences that should not have been possible.

[Maddy McCall]

87. But which, unfortunately, were.

[Ghost in the Machine]

63. You keep building up this strawman and knocking it down..

"Anyone could have been killed having done anything unknowingly to set off the tiger. Even these boys, if they had not taunted the tiger, could have been killed under any kind of circumstances that the tiger simply didn't like.

In fact, everyone who saw that tiger in that pen was ALREADY IN DANGER of being killed by it simply by being NEAR it."

The simple fact is this: NO ONE ELSE GOT ATTACKED. PERIOD! Even when the tiger was loose, it went off then came back to the VERY SAME people that had tormented it... it didn't attack others who were standing around, did it? It went straight for its tormenters and attacked them. Do you think animals are just plain stupid or what? Do you think she didn't have the scent of those who tormented her???

Please stop with the strawmen... it's getting ridiculous...

Thanks..

Ghost

[jbnow]

90. The zoo was almost empty, was closing time nt

[Maddy McCall]

91. It was an hour before closing time, and numerous people reported...

seeing these guys taunting other animals--not just the tiger.

[pnwmom]

33. You don't know that. Perhaps that tiger had PMS. I'm serious. Perhaps

she had been teased by other people just before these youth arrived. I'm not implying that the young men didn't "taunt" her -- they admitted they did. But ANYONE walking in the area could have been attacked if the tiger happened to be irritated enough for whatever reason. There's no guarantee that this tiger wouldn't have killed somebody either that day or on some other occasion. She was strong enough to make the leap and the enclosure was too low.

[Maddy McCall]

35. Ok, that has to be it. It had to be tiger PMS.

Because it certainly couldn't be attributed to three drunk, stoned dipshits crossing zoo boundaries to provoke a wild animal.

Occam's razor, dear.

[onenote]

114. if others had died, they'd be partially to blame

In hindsight, its clear that having a taller enclosure would've kept this from happening -- among other things, I assume it would've kept these guys from getting on the top of the railing where they could, drunkenly and stupidly, try to incite the tiger (and that is what they were trying to do). But that enclosure had safely held the tiger for many years. We can debate all day as to what was the proximate cause of the tiger's escape, but its clear that if these guys hadn't done what they did -- and what they were doing was stupid and not what they should've been doing -- this event wouldn't have happened.

[liberalhistorian]

116. The tiger shouldn't have been able to get out, and the zoo

employees' actions were reprehensible, maybe even criminal. But it was pretty goddamned stupid to taunt a wild animal that weighs hundreds of pounds and can kill you in an instant and that wasn't that far away from you. That's just standing up and screaming "trouble, here I am, come get me, I'm yours!" The tiger is only following instinct. That's not to say that they deserved to die, of course not. That's saying that they were about 70% responsible for what happened to them.

Of course, I don't believe in sticking and cooping up wild animals like tigers and lions, etc., in a zoo, anyway, but that's another thread.

[pnwmom]

32. I might agree IF the boys had been attacked inside the enclosure.

But they were not. The boys were attacked on the zoo grounds after the tiger was able to escape an improperly designed enclosure.

I'm sure kids wave their arms and shout at animals every day at zoos across the country. But you don't hear about this kind of incident because most zoos are able to keep dangerous animals where they belong.

[Maddy McCall]

36. Yet, of all the times kids have shouted and waved at this tiger...

she never attempted to escape, until this time.

Tells me that the taunting must have been pretty bad. The net result certainly was.

[pnwmom]

47. It doesn't tell us anything about the taunting. The tiger might have been

having an exceptionally bad day, for whatever reason. Or maybe the tiger had finally gotten old enough and strong enough to do what she'd been itching to do forever -- and the teasing incident was simply the final straw.

[Maddy McCall]

49. You should go into animal psychology.

The tiger whisperer. Perfect job for you.

[pnwmom]

57. You should learn something about human psychology.

I'm sure the people who design zoos account, in their design, for the fact that many kids, teens, and even older people might "taunt" or "tease" the animals. And it is the designer's responsibility to make sure that the facilities keep people and dangerous animals apart at all times.

[Maddy McCall]

59. I'm not going to rehash the same ol' arguments I've had with you ad nauseum.

The new facts, since last you and I discussed this, bear out what I said was probably the case a month ago.

The guys taunted the tiger.

Therefore, in my understanding of karmic justice, they got what they deserved.

[Common Sense Party]

142. You keep saying "boys," as if they were some 10-year olds on a lark.

Only ONE of them was a minor. The other two were adults.

All were, apparently, old enough to drink vodka, smoke dope, and taunt tigers.

[pnwmom]

28. Any reasonable person visiting a zoo will assume that all of the enclosures

have been built with safeguards to keep all dangerous animals permanently in their enclosures -- even if boys-with-beer taunt them. Would any parent take their child to a zoo if they thought it was possible that another visitor could tease a tiger into jumping out of its enclosure and running loose?

That zoo is lucky that an entirely unrelated individual wasn't attacked. What if a baby in a stroller had been in its path? What a P.R. problem they would have then. Instead, they can play the blame-the-victim game and lots of people will be happy to play along with them -- especially because the victims "look" like "gang-bangers."

[Maddy McCall]

30. ...

"That tiger could have been surrounded by 10,000 people," says Dave Salmoni, the Animal Planet network's predator expert, who spent years training big cats; but if the animal has a mission, "it will avoid all of those people and just to go to those three people." Says Salmoni, "There's nothing more focused than a tiger who wants to kill something." The thing is, though, it's not easy to prompt such enmity: "To get a tiger to want to fight you is pretty hard," says Salmoni. "Tigers don't like to fight. They hunt to kill and eat. That's it." Unlike lions, which grow up in groups and are used to sparring, tigers are solitary animals, responsible for their own food and survival, Salmoni says. They will take the risk to fight only "if they feel they have to."

[pnwmom]

38. That's just one "expert." And it doesn't matter: the lion enclosure is probably too low as well.

[Maddy McCall]

42. Of course it was too low.

That's not a fact in contention.

And I'd trust that animal expert's opinion over yours, unless you have a doctorate in biology with focus in predatory behavior.

[pnwmom]

50. Zoo visitors like those young men are not required to be experts in

animal behavior. They shouldn't be expected to know that lions may attack just for fun but tigers will zero in on . . . well, whoever waves their arms and shouts, apparently.

It's the responsibility of people who design zoos to account both for animal behavior -- tigers can leap -- and human behavior -- boys will tease.

[Maddy McCall]

52. Sure. The fence was too low.

Again, not a point in contention.

Still, it is a special kind of karma when idiots taunting an animal expecting the enclosure to protect them find that their expectations were wrong. Shall I say...much to their detriment.

[onenote]

117. any reasonable person wouldn't climb on top of an enclosure and try to provoke an animal

No reasonable person thinks that its appropriate to climb on top of the enclosure. No reasonable person thinks its appropriate to taunt and provoke animals in a zoo. If you saw someone doing those things would your reaction be:"gee, how reasonable of them"...

[pnwmom]

120. Two of these people were teenagers. You can expect that teenagers,

in the course of growing up, will do stupid things. In fact, neurologists can tell us why -- the risk-taking part of the brain develops several years before the part of the brain that urges caution and forethought. That's why young males tend to get in so much more trouble than older men -- the sensible part of the brain isn't fully developed until 25 or even later.

Anyone designing a safe zoo has to take into account BOTH wild animal behavior and human (animal) behavior. The enclosures should be well designed both to keep the wild animals IN and the human animals OUT. This enclosure didn't succeed in either.

[onenote]

122. If that's the case, then no teenager should be given a driver's license

As a legal matter, in considering negligence, a teenager's driving isn't judged by a different "reasonable teenager" standard, just as a 90 year old isn't judged by a "reasonable senior citizen" standard. While a very young child might be held to a different standard, older teens (and that's what these are) are not, at least not in my experience. If you could point me to a case in which a court has held teens to a lower standard of reasonableness than adults, I'd be very interested.

And yes, its important to take into account both animal and human behavior. But that leads me to ask you this: in most jurisdictions, homeowners are required to put up a fence around a swimming pool. The standards vary. Some places require at least a four foot fence, some a five footer, some even go as high as six (and some impose maximum height limits too). SOme allow chain link, some don't.

But the truth is that whether its a four footer, five footer, or a six footer, a detremined teen or adult (and in the case of a chain link fence, even an adolescent) can scale such a fence. If a drunk, stoned 17 year old climbed over your neighbor's fence -- a fence built to code, but nonetheless not a "perfect barrier" -- and then fell in the pool and drowned, would you hold the victim a little responsible, a lot responsible, completely responsible, or not responsible at all. WOuld it matter to you if the local code was fairly lax (four foot) and not as stringent as the most stringent code? Would it matter if the fence was built to the most stringent code in the country, or even beyond it, but it still turned out that a determined teen could get over the fence?

[pnwmom]

125. It certainly can be argued that teens shouldn't have driver's licenses.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Concerning your fence question, the difference is that in the situations you're describing, the teenager would be trespassing -- and the fence was built to code. In that case, I wouldn't hold the property owner responsible.

[onenote]

135. but the law does allow teens to drive and does hold them to the same standard as adults

As for my swimming pool hypo: should the city be held responsible for not requiring a higher fence? And if instead of the tiger event occurring during regular hours the teens had snuck in after hours, would you place the blame on them instead of the zoo?

[Maddy McCall]

13. Yep...

and fate kicked his ass.

And I agree with the rest of your post. :thumbsup:

[pnwmom]

27. It's attempting to absolve the zoo from the FULL responsibility which it deserves.

The zoo's lawyers are probably counting their lucky stars. Because it could have been just as possible that the enraged tiger, after being taunted all day by kids of all ages, could have jumped out of its enclosure and attacked an entirely unrelated person -- a five year old girl just walking by with her grandmother.

Instead, the zoo lucked out. Maybe they can divert people's attention from the zoo's responsibility, to questions about the three young men's character.

[Maddy McCall]

29. According to an expert on predatory behavior:

"That tiger could have been surrounded by 10,000 people," says Dave Salmoni, the Animal Planet network's predator expert, who spent years training big cats; but if the animal has a mission, "it will avoid all of those people and just to go to those three people." Says Salmoni, "There's nothing more focused than a tiger who wants to kill something." The thing is, though, it's not easy to prompt such enmity: "To get a tiger to want to fight you is pretty hard," says Salmoni. "Tigers don't like to fight. They hunt to kill and eat. That's it." Unlike lions, which grow up in groups and are used to sparring, tigers are solitary animals, responsible for their own food and survival, Salmoni says. They will take the risk to fight only "if they feel they have to."

[Guaranteed]

37. You're posting that as if a tiger's feelings are predictable.

You're still missing the point. The tiger's focus isn't even the issue.

So a kid whines kind of loud- oh, the tiger knows he wants THAT little one, and he's scared, for real. Well, as long as he knows what he wants....???

[Maddy McCall]

41. Yet, of all the times kids have shouted and waved at this tiger...

it never lept out of its enclosure and attacked crying babies.

[Guaranteed]

No. It attacked someone who stood on the railing and yelled.

(which I'm sure a child would never do)

Oh, and they had been drinking.

[Guaranteed]

43. No. It attacked someone who stood on the railing and yelled.

Oh, and they had been drinking.

[Maddy McCall]

45. Yep.

And one died. That's some fierce sort of karma, imo.

[Guaranteed]

46. And I'm sure a child would never stand on a railing and yell. nt

[Maddy McCall]

48. There's no evidence that they have.

Funny that the footprint on the boundary fence was so easily associated with the victims.

Still doesn't change the fact that this was the first time that Tatiana clambered out of her enclosure to take down idiots who were taunting her.

[pnwmom]

58. So what? She might have made earlier attempts, but wasn't big enough yet. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

64. She might have dressed in a lace garter and lipsynched "Me So Horny."

She might have done a lot of things.

Again, Occam's Razor.

[pnwmom]

69. There's nothing more likely about your scenario, which posits that never

in her life had this tiger been so provoked.

I find it much easier to believe that this tiger had never liked being penned up -- what tiger would -- and she finally got strong enough to do something about it.

[Maddy McCall]

72. Believe what you want.

I think that three dumbasses played with fire, and got badly burned.

[Solly Mack]

97. I just want you to know I was a while cleaning out my keyboard

I spewed in a downward motion :(

lololol

[Maddy McCall]

128. Eek. Sorry.

:hi: :D

[pnwmom]

51. And any expert in human behavior will tell you that kids (of all ages)

may wave their arms and shout at animals in the zoo.

And the enclosures damn well better keep the animals inside if they do.

[Maddy McCall]

53. Yet, for all the taunting done by all the "kids" that passed through this zoo...

Tatiana only decided to give chase to these three men.

Perhaps their judgment was impaired by the pot and boose. Perhaps they just wanted to have a little fun at a wild animal's expense.

Whatever they did, they suffered the consequences for their bad judgment that day.

[pnwmom]

60. Your lack of compassion is stunning. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

66. Your imagination is awe-inducing.

[Occulus]

96. No, I agree with her

your lack of compassion and empathy is truly fucking stunning. Never mind that people are dead and injured, no, that's unimportant. The only important thing is how dumb they were. Never mind that they were/are young, with lives ahead of them; that doesn't matter. Their talent or accomplishments, their own hopes and dreams, the love of their families... none of that begins to approach how stupid they were.

Does it matter to you that young people do stupid things all the time and don't die, Maddy? They should expect to die when they wake up in the morning because it's just part of life and it could happen any time, according to you. No, they shouldn't have played with fire, and they were drunk (well, not above the legal limit, but they were minors, so any amount is 'drunk') and stoned and so it's their fault. Darwin Award. End of story.

Nobody needs to feel sorry for them or their relatives; after all, they weren't worth anything to begin with, were they, Maddy? They were, to paraphrase Huckleberry Finn, just a couple losers, right, Maddy? Never mind how they might have behaved otherwise, never mind the sorts of people they were before that day- we can assume those things.

Right, Maddy? We can assume those things.

(I read your entire little exchange up to this point, and I can't stomach it any more. What a sad, cold, and lonely world yours must be.)

[pnwmom]

100. I think it's important for some people

to think that life makes sense, that risk is controllable, that if you just behave yourself and keep your nose clean, then you'll be better off than 99% of people. So when other people do dumb things and get hurt, you can pat yourself on the back and think: "Nope! Nothing bad like that will ever happen to me, because I'm smart. I do everything right."

Unfortunately, one of life's lessons is that bad stuff happens to good people -- and vis versa. And when you learn this, it tends to increase your compassion. We all suffer, at times greatly, and no amount of good behavior will let us off the hook.

[jbnow]

89. They sound innocent enough

Making motions outside of the enclosure might be stupid but don't sound like tempting fate.

As far as two survivors, pressing charges for the drinking seems overboard considering the tiger pretty much punished them enough...as did the long wait for help to come.

[Azathoth]

92. They were standing on the wall, drunk, shouting and waving at it

They're lucky one of them didn't lose his balance and fall into the enclosure.

I can't believe people are rushing to these kids' defense. They were taunting a friggin tiger. I've been to plenty of zoos in my lifetime, and I've never once felt the urge to see how badly I could piss off one of the big cats. Maybe it's just me :shrug:

[pnwmom]

101. Do you want to visit a zoo with enclosures that don't meet safety standards?

Wouldn't you expect the enclosures to be tall enough to keep the wild animals in no matter who was waving and shouting at them?

I'm a quiet person, so I don't go around yelling at animals either. But I've observed plenty of kids trying to get the animals' attention, yelling and waving. It never occurred to me that a dangerous animal could suddenly leap out of it's grotto.

[Guaranteed]

7. See post #5, below. nt

[Maddy McCall]

9. No, I agree...

It is the zoo's responsibility to contain animals so that they can't leap out and kill irresponsible drunk people taunting them.

We always have to protect the lowest common denominator from their own stupidity.

[pnwmom]

26. Over and over again, people have sought to blame the victims, or to say

they share the blame.

You can look through the threads yourself.

But you probably won't notice, if you can't even see the "blame the victim" mentality of the OP. For example,

"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.


------

The tiger wasn't ABLE to escape because it was taunted. The tiger was able to escape because the enclosure was too low and didn't even meet minimum accreditation standards.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. I never said they deserved to die, did I??

It was a horrible incident, but one that could have been avoided. The zoo is also culpable, seeing as the enclosure walls were 4 feet lower than the "recommended" height. What needs to be looked at here though is the difference between "recommended" and "required" to find just how negligent and culpable the zoo was...

They were dumb drunk kids being dumb drunk kids, and the tiger was merely a ferocious animal being a ferocious animal... all in all, it was a bad day for all involved...

I totally agree with you here:

"And when those two young men, one with blood pouring from a head wound, were begging for help, the zoo employees' reaction -- to bar themselves inside the Zoo cafe and not let the two inside -- was reprehensible. While the youths were stuck outside, trying to get the Zoo people to send for help, the tiger came and attacked them AGAIN. And that second attack was avoidable, if the zoo employees had acted with compassion and sense."

The zoo should be held responsible for that, no matter what. They failed to render aid...

[Guaranteed]

11. The tiger got out on its own. The zoo is liable.

I promise.

[depakid]

140. But the Zoo may not be on the hook for big damages

A jury could easily award $1 under the circumstances. And judging by some of the comments in the SF papers, that could be the sort of thing they do...

Wait and see!

[Scout]

99. "Did they deserve a death sentence for that?"

not all of them died, and the one who did die did not deserve a death sentence ... and NEITHER did the tiger, who was murdered through no fault of its own.

I'm much more saddened by the loss of a magnificent tiger than the loss of the average human being--especially when the human being dies because of their own stupidity.

[pnwmom]

105. Why are you assuming that the man who died was an average human being?

Because he didn't look like any of your friends? We'll never know what he might have accomplished with his life.

But one thing I know is he didn't die because of stupidity on his own part -- it was stupidity on the part of the board that accredited the zoo, despite the faulty enclosure, possibly combined with the zoo employees dithering around after the attack. It's still unclear whether prompt medical attention could have saved him.

[Scout]

110. nothing wrong with being an average human being, I am one myself

:shrug:

he died because he stupidly taunted the tiger. actually, he probably died because his stupid ass friends taunted it.

do you think the tiger would have just spontaneously jumped out of its enclosure and attacked them? i don't.

sometimes average humans pay for stupidity with their lives ... that's a fact, get used to it.

[never_get_over_it]

112. Thank you SO much for saying that

I am very sorry the kid died - but I am furious that they taunted the tiger - which led to her death - I think there are less than 1000 of these tigers left and these three dumb ass kids thought it was a good idea to taunt. I sure don't think he deserved to die - but I sure don't feel sorry for any of them - and if I was on the jury they wouldn't get one cent - because their ridiculous actions led to the death of that tiger.....freaking idiots plain and simple.

[pnwmom]

119. Kids probably shout and wave their arms in zoos every day.

All zoo visitors rely on the zoo designers to meet safety standards with enclosures that will keep the animals inside, no matter what. The people you should be blaming are the people who accredited this zoo even though it didn't meet minimal standards.

[Maddy McCall]

127. Yay...you've finally taken my line, re the accreditation agency.

Glad to see that all my time wasn't wasted in discussing this with you.

[Guaranteed]

4. Wait, he was DRUNK, standing on a RAILING, and YELLING?

....at an ANIMAL?!?!?

Off with his head! And any innocent bystanders around him, as well.

[Maddy McCall]

5. You fuck with nature...

sometimes you get what you deserve.

[XboxWarrior]

16. It isn't exactly...

..."Nature".

It's a Zoo.

Had the boys been out in Glacier National Park chasing Grizzly bears, while
imbibing.....then no national story. (happens to a few hikers every year)

However, they paid their money to harass a caged animal, and in the end,
it wasn't a very good idea, or a good cage... ;)

[Maddy McCall]

18. So, what does that make a person who taunts a caged animal?

They thought they could abuse the animal and it wouldn't be able to issue any form of retribution.

In this case, they were wrong.

(And putting a wild animal in a cage does not terminate its natural instincts--thus, nature.)

[pnwmom]

67. It makes the person a victim of poor management on the part of the zoo. n/t

[Maddy McCall]

68. The cult of perpetual victimhood.

No one should ever be responsible for their own behavior, even when doing something as assinine as going into a zoo drunk and stoned, and taunting a wild animal.

Poor victims.

[pnwmom]

77. Spoken like a Rethug. The institution is always right.

Blame the individual instead.

[Maddy McCall]

80. See...this is where you're letting your emotions get in your way.

I said that the zoo was wrong.

I said that the guys were wrong.

If in your mind that makes me a "Rethug," I doubt I'll get any sleep tonight. :cry:

[pnwmom]

65. Guess what? A zoo isn't natural.

If someone was in a jungle and taunted a tiger, yes, they'd get what they deserved.

But these three were in a ZOO, not in nature, and they had a right to expect that the enclosure would meet safety standards and would keep the tigers safely inside.

[Maddy McCall]

70. You are as incredibly dense tonight as you were when we had the same discussion

a month ago.

A zoo isn't "the wild." But even wild animals born in captivity have innate instincts.

[pnwmom]

78. Most people would think someone who calls a zoo "nature" is kind of dense.

:shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

82. Nope. The animal, even in captivity, retains natural instinct.

It would be apparent to anyone not so clouded by emotional irrationality that nature is reflected in the animal, not in the setting.

Poor thing. You're having a hard time tonight keeping up with things, aren't you?

[pnwmom]

84. No, I'm just having trouble understanding your animosity and lack of

compassion for these young men.

[Maddy McCall]

86. No animosity. Lack of compassion? Yep.

[Sanctified]

21. Sounds like Poetic Justice to me for some reason.

Sorry but when you fuck with nature sometimes it will turn around and bite your head off.

[MichaelHarris]

22. you guys keep fightin'

I'll Google a recipe for pot-laced humans.

[Maddy McCall]

23. Marinated in Grey Goose, please.

:D

[MichaelHarris]

31. the problem

is getting them to lay still in the batter.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. The "all kinds of wrong" is the scramble to blame the folks who got attacked by a fucking TIGER.

And why the cops are so gung-ho to participe, I dunno. One thing I've noticed about San Francisco, wonderful city that it is, is the entrenched political and power interests tend to engage in an awful lot of blatant protecting of each others' asses. I seem to remember "burritogate", where an off duty cop who was the son of a high-up poohbah in the police department went on a drunken rampage, beat the crap out of some guy on the street for no reason- and stole his dinner. Same shit, big game of blame the victim and cover the ass of the connected.

Were these kids possibly drunk and doing stupid shit? Yeah. OH MY GOD- alcohol use at age 17? Stop the fucking presses! I'm sure none of US were ever drunk at age 17. No, never.

......Right? :eyes:

And you want someone charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".. who? The dead guy? The tiger? If they're all minors, who is doing the contributing?

Yes- lets ignore the fact that SOMEONE AT THE ZOO FUCKED UP MASSIVELY BY BUILDING THE TIGER ENCLOSURE WALL TOO LOW, and work ourselves into a righteous froth over the fact that the dead kid was drinking.

This story has been pissing me off. The zoo fucked up, I don't care if the kids were yelling at the tiger or if even if they were slurring their words AS they yelled at the tiger. THE ZOO FUCKED UP.

[Guaranteed]

39. Thank you for having some fucking sense. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

55. Perhaps some reading comprehension classes are in order for you, huh?

The "all kinds of wrong" was the reporter stating that the 17 year old had a LEGAL level of alcohol in his blood. Last time I checked, there was a ZERO TOLERANCE level for alcohol in a MINOR'S blood. Even the 19 year old was below drinking age.. was he not?

No one ever said minors *don't* drink, but obviously you condone and encourage it... right??? "I don't care if the kids were yelling at the tiger or if even if they were slurring their words AS they yelled at the tiger."

"And you want someone charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".. who? The dead guy? The tiger? If they're all minors, who is doing the contributing?"
If you bothered to read the story or knew any facts, there was a 24 year old involved also...

[Guaranteed]

56. And, because of all that, you think the tiger should have been able

to get out of its pen, on its own?

*brickwall*

[pnwmom]

73. You need to check your own reading comprehension.

The "all kinds of wrong" statement didn't come from the "reporter." It came from the poster.

The fact that there was a 24 year old involved was irrelevant, because the boys' drinking or pot smoking shouldn't absolve the zoo from any responsibility.

[EFerrari]

76. There is at least one other reported incident of a tiger trying

to take a swipe at a visitor from this enclosure. That was in the late 90s and the visitor was a mom with a small child.

The negligence of the zoo management is APPALLING. I can't believe I walked around that place with my nieces.

[pnwmom]

79. I know. It's a scary thought, isn't it?

I know I'll be looking around our own zoo with more educated eyes.

[Occulus]

98. From the exchanges above, it looks like someone forgot that n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. ummm, no it's your comprehension in question here

because I am the one who posted the OP and I am the one who said "there was all kinds of wrong" and if you read it again I also didn't attribute *that* to the reporter, I said he's the one who made the statement about the legal alcohol levels in a 17 year olds blood.

Here, read it again:

"The "all kinds of wrong" was the reporter stating that the 17 year old had a LEGAL level of alcohol in his blood. Last time I checked, there was a ZERO TOLERANCE level for alcohol in a MINOR'S blood. Even the 19 year old was below drinking age.. was he not?"

Have a cup of coffee or something and wake up a little more before you respond again.... you're making yourself look silly right now, and I'm just tired enough that I don't mind pointing it out to you and making you look sillier....

[pnwmom]

103. No, it's writing skill that's in question. This is what you said:

"The 'all kinds of wrong' was the reporter stating that the 17 year old had a LEGAL level of alcohol in his blood."

The sentence appears to be quoting the reporter as saying: "all kinds of wrong." I'll remember next time, though -- your writing demands a very close reading.

[Ghost in the Machine]

108. Maybe you should look at your own writing,,,,

YOU are the one who put 'all kinds of wrong' in parentheses in your reply... I just followed your lead and showed you that no, the "all kinds of wrong" was in the statement made by the reporter about legal levels of alcohol in the bloodstream of a 17 year old.

Anyone who would think that the way I wrote it attributes the "all kinds of wrong" to the reporter really *does* have poor comprehension skills. Feel free to keep digging your hole though.. I don't mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Obviously, you condone and encourage tigers eating people, too.

Give me a fucking break.

What I'm saying is, spare me the breathless, shocked, lets-all-clutch-our-crinoline-doilies-to-our-chests outrage that "these people were underage and DRINKING" -gasp!- and explain to me why you're so seemingly eager to protect the zoo and find a reason, any reason- to blame the kids who got attacked by a FUCKING TIGER.

[pnwmom]

107. Well said. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

109. I didn't blame anyone.... I posted a newsworthy topic...

Do you know the difference??

[Warren DeMontague]

113. You're having a lot of fun hurling lame, petty insults around the thread, that's for sure.

It's very simple, Jack- whether or not the kids were drunk, the zoo fucked up mightily.. and actually, their blood alcohol levels are totally irrelevant.

Irrelevant enough that I suspect the real story here is why the SFPD and the SF Chronicle, a paper known for agenda-based cheap smear jobs (cough. Kevin Shelley. cough.) are obsessively focusing on it.

Beyond that, it's an awfully obnoxious philosophical piece of ground to stake out to suggest- as some certainly seem to be doing, here- that somehow these kids "deserved" to be attacked by a tiger because they were obnoxious, drunk and/or high.

[Madrone]

132. I'd say the kids deserved to be attacked -

- in pretty much the same way the tiger deserved to be taunted by a bunch of "macho" assholes. Macho as in "ooohh.... look at what a big man I am! Tormenting and taunting a wild animal into a frenzy because I'm big, bad and brave behind this nice safe fence!" ... Oops! I guess they misjudged that one!

You know ... like the same fuckers that tease, poke and enrage a dog behind a fence or shut in a car.

The zoo is absolutely culpable in this incident. Their enclosure didn't keep the tiger in. Period. The sole LEGAL responsibility for this occurring is the zoo's.

The dumbass kids share non-legal responsibility - as Maddy said it's what's called consequences. Every action causes a reaction. Usually we get lucky, sometimes we don't. They didn't.

The ONLY being 100% innocent of responsibility in this incident is the TIGER. She's also the only one that didn't deserve her consequence.

[Ghost in the Machine]

133. I respond to insults with insults, and intelligent debate with intelligent debate...

choose your weapon... I didn't hurl the first insult, I just responded in kind...

Whether *you* view it as a smear job on the victims is irrelevent. The story is important because it shows that there were mitigating circumstances in the attack. The tiger didn't just climb out of it's enclosure and attack these guys at random. They agitated and antagonized the animal. Period. In their altered states of mind, they maybe thought they were being funny, cool, whatever... but the point is that they were NOT just innocent bystanders. Can you agree with that or not??

Now.... was the zoo negligent? Apparently so. Like I said way upthread though... it's going to be up to the courts to decide that as there is a difference between recommended enclosure height and required enclosure height. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference, but there it is in black and white. Deal with it.

[EFerrari]

62. The law agrees with you. The zoo is screwed. They are going to

lose the civil case massively.

[pnwmom]

71. I agree. The zoo fucked up. And the smug hypocrisy in the reaction of

some here is mind boggling.

[Dawggie]

74. Considering none of them most likely had never experienced or learned anything to do with tigers...

and they felt the zoo was a safe place, I cannot attribute any blame to the dead.

Yes, to many of us, they behaved stupidly. However, the blame must be placed on the zoo for constructing an enclosure for these animals that was designed for public display and did not protect the public no matter how stupidly they behaved.

[Ghost in the Machine]

88. most likely had never experienced or learned anything to do with tigers...

Yes, I'm sure they thought tigers just brought them Frosted Flakes like Tony the Tiger or put gas in their car like the Exxon Tiger... :eyes:

Thats it!! LET'S BLAME THE CORPORATIONS!! :rofl:

Sorry.. just trying trying to interject a little lighthearted fun into this thread and saw this as an opening...

:hi:

PEACE!

Ghost

[spanone]

94. so ?

[pnwmom]

104. Exactly. n/t

[distantearlywarning]

95. Now, now, stop all this fighting. You're all wrong!

Another DUer has determined the real solution in this thread here - the tiger is the one who needs to be held accountable for this tragedy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2710592#2710790

[Hell Hath No Fury]

102. This story is still not over...

I know the railing they are talking about -- it is a pipe railing that is no more than a few inches across, virtually impossible to stand on top of without having something to balance on. Plus, there was blood on the sign behind the fence. It still looks to me like they had moved beyond the fence and towards the moat edge.

[pnwmom]

106. Even if that were true, it doesn't change anything.

The tiger shouldn't have been able to leap out of the moat, no matter where the humans were. And the fence should have been designed to make sure the humans were kept out.

[Scout]

111. "Idiot proof the world, and the world builds a better idiot." n/t

[never_get_over_it]

115. I agree with you I'm thinking these kids

are not telling the full story - they have been holding out for weeks and I'm sure they are minimizing their actions....

[pnwmom]

121. Their actions aren't important. All this is just a diversion.

A properly designed zoo enclosure will keep the wild animals IN and the human animals OUT, no matter what. The San Francisco zoo failed to meet standards, and they were improperly accredited.

[never_get_over_it]

131. Their actions ARE IMPORTANT

and contributed to this - even if the enclosure was not designed properly if they had not taunted the tiger - the tiger wouldn't have wanted to get out of the enclosure to go after them....you wait and see it will come out that they did a little bit more than wave their arms and shout. What is wrong with both the zoo AND these kids taking responsibility - I don't get you. Lets forget the enclosure's short coming for one moment - can you even see that their behavior was inappropriate?

[pnwmom]

137. You're assuming they did more to the tiger than shouting and waving

their arms. I'm not.

[onenote]

118. Can I pose a hypothetical based on a real life situation

A friend of mine lives in a neighborhood that is built around a small lake. Its not a fancy gated community, just a neighborhood. There is a little sandy beach area and a place where some residents chain up canoes and rowboats. During the summer, a lifeguard is on duty at the beach during daytime hours. At night the parking lot is blocked by a barrier and there are signs declaring private property, no trespassing.

One night during the fall season, four 20 somethings from a neighboring community got drunk, parked their car near the beach, and stole a canoe. THe canoe had been secured by a lock and chain wrapped around the canoe's seat, but these guys broke the seat so they could slip the canoe free of its chain. Then, drunk, wearing heavy clothes,without paddles, and in the middle of the night, these four guys pushed the canoe into the lake and climbed in. None of them knew how to swim. Within minutes, the canoe had capsized. They were still in relatively shallow water and two of them managed to struggle to a point where they could stand up. But two of them drowned.

Now, you could argue that the neighborhood shouldn't have allowed canoes to be docked in an area accessible to the public, or that there was a better way to chain up boats so that they couldn't be stolen. But if anyone was to argue that these guys were blameless, I'd say that person was being ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

123. This is a completely different situation.

These people weren't paying visitors to a the lake. They were trespassing there at night, unsupervised, and stole someone else's canoe.

And the water didn't jump out of the lake and drown them. They climbed into the stolen canoe and capsized. So yes, they were at fault.

[karlrschneider]

126. Didn't you get the memo? As Democrats, we must insure that no person can ever,

no matter how stupid, drunk or crazy they are, be held accountable for their actions. It's what makes us so progressive.
:eyes:

[Common Sense Party]

143. LOL!!!

That's what it feels like around here sometimes.

[Jed Dilligan]

124. Stupid, but also cruel

They should monitor anyone who is cruel to animals, many go on to hurt or kill people.

[pnwmom]

129. Don't you think it was cruel of the zoo employees at the cafe

to refuse to let the bleeding boys inside? Or to even give them towels to hold against the wound? And for the zoo management to keep the police and the paramedics waiting at the gates for at least 16 minutes?

Because of the Cafe employees refusal to give shelter to the boys, the tiger was able to attack them again. And it was able to continue the attack until the police finally were allowed inside after 16 minutes of waiting.

[Jed Dilligan]

130. I didn't comment on the zoo

I don't think we need zoos. It's not educational to look at doped up animals crashed out in cages.

I do have sympathy for someone who would choose not to expose himself to a tiger attack in order to protect two ASSHOLES. Zoo employees aren't sworn officers, they do not have to risk their lives on the job to save patrons.

[pnwmom]

136. There wasn't any tiger there when the Cafe people wouldn't let them inside.

In fact, they thought the tiger was a figment of the boys' imagination -- although they knew one of them was bleeding from the head.

They didn't know anything except they had a couple of extremely upset boys on their hands, claiming a tiger attack, and bleeding. The employees were sure the boys were wrong. Why would they think it would be risking their lives to let the boys inside? Or to hand them towels for their wounds?

Why would the employees assume these boys were "ASSHOLES," undeserving of help? No one knew anything about the boys at the time, or anything about the attack.

If I ever got hurt or had an emergency, or one of my children, I would hope strangers would respond with more compassion. But having read the comments in this thread, I'm beginning to wonder.

[Jed Dilligan]

145. So the problem is either the boys are lying,

which makes them assholes, or there is a tiger, which makes it unsafe to open the door. Either way, I wouldn't open the door to them. Unless giving first aid is part of your job, you shouldn't do it on the job. Major liability issues.

[kskiska]

134. Looks like the cops are dropping the case & the city & zoo are on their own

Seems they can't get the goods on these creeps.

Judge allows San Francisco, zoo to search tiger victims' cell phones
(but not their car)
more…
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8012066?source=rss

SFPD about to shelve criminal investigation into tiger attack
more…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/18/BAKDUHQRQ.DTL

[pnwmom]

138. Good for the judge for not allowing the car search without probable cause. n/t

[pnwmom]

139. And these teens are creeps because . . . ?

The police failed to find any incriminating evidence on their phones or in their car. Maybe they have actually been telling the truth. Maybe this has been the zoo's lawyers, trying to throw up a smokescreen.

[orleans]

141. the whole thing is very sad. n/t