Tiger-attack survivors made silence pact; zoo admits polar bear enclosure not up to snuff

[NashVegas]

Source: SF Chronicle

oon after their 17-year-old friend was mauled to death by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo, the two brothers who survived the attack made a quick pact not to cooperate with the police as they rode in an ambulance to the hospital, sources told The Chronicle.

"Don't tell them what we did," paramedics heard 23-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his younger brother, Paul, 19.

..
On Friday, the San Francisco city attorney fired off a letter to the brothers' attorney, saying that the San Jose men have refused to let police see any photos taken or calls they may have made using their cell phones.

In the letter to the brothers' attorney, Mark Geragos, City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked that any evidence, including the records of calls and cell phone photos be preserved. Herrera suggests that experts working for the brothers be allowed to inspect the cell phones and car at the same time as investigators from his office.

...

The wall to the polar bear exhibit is also too short, the zoo said in a statement released late Friday. Work is underway install a chain link fence that will raise the wall of the enclosure to 16 feet - a height that satisfies guidelines from the Association for Zoos and Aquariums.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/01/04/chronicle/archive/2008/01/04/MNVKU9L9L.html

[msongs]

1. geragos will not get a wad of dough for his clients without cooperation of 2 "men" nt

[NashVegas]

2. Eh?

Are you referring to the paramedics?

You'd think it would be easy to get a warrant to check the cell phone photos. Certainly there's probable cause to think that if there was a record of illegal acts in reference to the tiger / zoo, that's where the evidence would be found.

[LisaL]

3. Right. Police would need probable cause to get the warrants.

If (and I don't know if that is the case) police can't get search warrants it would appear police does not have probable cause.

[lynnertic]

48. there's enough circumstantial evidence for a warrant I think

1. pine cones in the tiger's enclosure
2. footprint on railing
3. paramedics overhear 'pact'
4. the boys had slingshots on them when they were rescued
5. empty bottle of liquor in the car

[LisaL]

50. There were no slingshots.

Last time I heard police got all their shoes and was going to see if it matches the footprint-I haven't heard anything about the results.
As for pine cones, why exactly couldn't they have gotten into enclosure naturally?

[lynnertic]

51. I read there were slingshots

and the police and the zoo said that the pine cones wouldn't have gotten into the enclosure naturally.

[LisaL]

52. There were no slingshots.

"Police today flatly denied a report that the three victims of the Christmas Day tiger mauling at the San Francisco Zoo were carrying slingshots on the day of the attack, which claimed the life of a 17-year-old zoo visitor."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1

[uppityperson]

61. Thank you lizzy for posting that. Am tired of "but I read" making something reality.

I read there were wmds in Iraq. Now off to deal with comparing a tiger to a slave regarding ability to survive in wild.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Geragos

Why does this legal whore show up everywhere there is some guilty asshole who needs to be spared from the consequences of their actions?

[DesertFlower]

9. he's handling the case where the girl

was refused the liver transplant and died. so he does some good.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. This incident has sparked conversation about zoos and that's not a bad thing.

Wild animals on display for human entertainment. This conversation is long overdue. MKJ

[zonkers]

19. An excellent point. Some animals do not belong in zoos.

[tonekat]

46. I'd like to think you're referring to those two punks. n/t

[Barrett808]

72. But what about the Species Survival Plans?

http://www.aza.org/ConScience/ConScienceSSPFact

To my mind, these are very worthy.

[aquart]

5. "Experts working for the brothers"?

Is this in regard to the lawsuit they think they'll win? Because I favor a counter suit for the loss of an endangered animal and a young man.

Save the tiger skin. Make the boys wear it every day. After all, it's their trophy.

[DRoseDARs]

6. Fine, send them to prison for obstruction of justice AND manslaughter. n/t

[frylock]

8. a witness told The Chronicle this week that she spotted the young men teasing the lions..

so, as suspected, it looks like these fuckwads were tormenting the animals. it's a fucking shame that beautiful cat had to be killed. a fucking shame.

[DesertFlower]

17. i heard that too. nt

[LiberalFighter]

41. That should provide enough probable cause to search their phones.

I would think.

[DesertFlower]

10. i think it's very sad that a tiger

had to die because of 3 assholes. the tiger did what tigers do. and the tiger didn't ask to be in the zoo.

killing the tiger was like stopping the trains because some asshole played chicken on the tracks.

[LisaL]

11. She was born in the zoo. Where else would she be?

[DesertFlower]

13. she should have been out in the wild -- not in a cage for assholes

to taunt.

[LisaL]

14. She was born in the zoo.

She wouldn't be able to survive in the wild.

[DesertFlower]

15. okay i get your point,.

but do you think this beautiful animal should have been destroyed?

[DRoseDARs]

16. You know, there ARE programs to "repatriate" zoo animals to nature.

Would it have worked for this tiger? Probably not at her age, but you're making the assumption that once a zoo/circus animal, always a zoo/circus animal. There is still hope for at least some of them. Most of the rest, including this one had she not been killed, can at least be brought to specialized reserves that cater to the ones that can't be adapted back to a fully-naturalized state.

[zonkers]

21. I saw a show about repatriating a panda to the wild... she was mauled by the others. Ever been to

elephants.com? It is website of the elephant sanctuary in Tennessee. Great place.

[DRoseDARs]

23. Like I said, it works for some and the rest have "halfway homes" in the form of reserves.

It's sad but it's reality.

[kskiska]

29. There aren't any safe areas for tigers

(snip)

Knights, however, is skeptical about ever reintroducing tigers, even if it could be done in a large protected area. Predation isn't an easy trade to pick up, and wild cubs stay with their mothers for two years learning how it's done, being supported while they learn. "We haven't worked out how to reintroduce tigers into the wild yet," he says. At the same time, various projects with other big cats suggest that while the first generation will starve if they're not provisioned by humans, the second generation does fine. But it's true: tigers can't be reintroduced now. It's not safe for them out there.

(snip)

Currently, despite the best efforts of groups like Born Free USA and WildAid, the outlook for tigers in the wild remains dim. The only place where wild tigers are doing well is eastern Siberia, which is also the only tiger habitat sparsely inhabited by people. "Everywhere else, everything is failing," says Tilson. "It doesn't matter how much money there is. It doesn't matter how good the recovery team is. It comes down to: Is there a will from the government to put resources into it, to create laws, and to enforce those laws? For a real failure, go look at India." There, prosecutions for poaching don't stick; the Sariska Tiger Preserve has had every single tiger killed; and the Tribal Rights Bill now in Parliament would allow hundreds of thousands of people and their cattle to live in national parks.

more…
http://salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/05/tigers/

[TZ]

33. No tiger thats been around humans would be safe in the wild, FYI

Being raised around humans makes them lose their fear. Which means in the wild they are likely to approach humans and their dwellings as they would associate them with easy food. And that means they are likely to be shot as a potential threat..Look at what happens to alligators in FL. Any that get too bold and close to humans are shot.
They might not even be safe in a large reserve.

[pink-o]

67. The saddest testament of all to human evil...

...is that many of beautiful, exotic animals repatriated into the wild are killed by poachers.

It just sickens me. Cats are the prime carnivores, by evolutionary standards, those beautiful, dangerous self-contained killing machines should be flourishing on our planet. But some evil, ignorant moron wants a fucking trophy or thinks if he eats the heart or the dried penis of a tiger it'll make him more virile.

Cats only kill for food, or when the harsh laws of nature demand it. Humans kill for sport and because too many of my species have no respect and no conscience for anything outside their own trivial, stupid whims.

If any member of the animal kingdom needs their herds thinned, look no further than our own homo sapiens!

[lynnertic]

49. they said that about slavery too.

wrong is wrong.

[uppityperson]

62. Are you seriously comparing a zoo born tiger with a freed slave?

Are you seriously comparing a tiger's ability to survive in the wild with a human's ability to survive outside slavery?

[KingOfLostSouls]

12. mess with the bull, get the horns

or in this case, the claws.

[DRoseDARs]

24. Eyewitness said the kid that got killed was NOT doing the taunting.

Just so we're clear. His "friends" are complicit in the kid's death.

[RamboLiberal]

18. And they were legally drunk as well

From OP article: Sources also say that the younger brother was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough booze to have a blood-alcohol level above the .08 limit for adult drivers. The older brother had also been drinking and using marijuana around the time a 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped and killed Carlos Sousa Jr.

IMHO these guys did something that pissed off the tiger.

[LisaL]

22. They've been so many claims made by sources.

A lot of these claims turned out to be false.
I am not saying that this particular claim is false, because I have no way of knowing.
But certainly one should take whatever anonymous sources are saying with a grain of salt.

[daleo]

28. The zoo sells alcohol

It's a bit late for them to complain about alcohol, since they sell it at the cafe.

Leaping Lemur Café
The Leaping Lemur Café provides indoor and outdoor seating and is located in the center of the Zoo between the Thelma and Henry Doelger Primate Discovery Center and Flamingo Lake. A variety of foods are served, including pastas, sandwiches, salads, and kids’ meals along with hamburgers and hot dogs. Check for our chef’s daily special and don’t forget dessert! We carry a large selection of beverages, including sodas, juices, milk, coffee, tea, beer, wine and organic drinks.

http://www.sfzoo.org/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=13784&orgkey=1872

On edit: from their menu
Domestic Beer 4.00
Wine 4.25
Microbrew 4.75

[daleo]

20. It seems like someone is pretty worried about this killing

It appears that the zoo and/or media is going to great lengths to smear these victims of the escaped tiger. Maybe the zoo's director is behind it all. After all, he makes over $300,000 per year to run a substandard operation. That's a cushy job to lose.

From the article:
"Fire and police dispatch logs from Christmas night show that emergency crews were forced to wait outside the zoo as Sousa lay dying because zoo security guards were enforcing an emergency lockdown. Authorities were also hampered by a lack of emergency lighting and an absence of maps of the grounds."

No emergency lights, no maps, no coordination. Imagine if this would have been a terrorist attack instead of an escaped tiger.

[kskiska]

44. One article said that the zoo used to have a PA system

but it was dismantled because the neighbors complained about the noise. It's being re-installed.

[Tiberius]

63. "Maybe the zoo's director is behind it all."

That's quite a stretch. There's enough third party circumstantial evidence for a reasonable person to conclude they did something wrong.

Did the zoo director pay the paramedics to smear the guys? C'mon.

[LisaL]

64. What evidence would that be?

If you believe the City Attorney's letter, then apparently police haven't even been able to look at their cell phones. Which suggests that they can't get a search warrant.
If there is evidence of wrongdoing, why wouldn't police be able to get a search warrant?

[The Stranger]

66. Why are you always on these threads defending the perps in this?

[pipoman]

25. Has Geragos ever won a case or is he just a pro bono media whore?

[LisaL]

26. Here is wikipedia article about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Geragos

[daleo]

27. You can download ringtones that sound like polar bears from the zoo's website

Now you don't suppose a cell phone that roared like a polar bear might just annoy the animals do you? If so, the zoo is on pretty shaky ground if it wants to claim that people who make animal like vocalizations have contributed to their misfortune, should a tiger get loose.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/ringtones/polar-bear/

[uncle ray]

30. no i don't suppose

that a ringtone on a tiny cellphone speaker would even come close to making a tiger think another animal was near. the speaker just doesn't have the dynamic range to accurately duplicate that sound. a high end stereo would do the trick however.

[daleo]

31. The young men were accused of "taunting" the tiger with an imitation lion vocalization

Clearly, the zoo can't be worried about that if they encourage people to have cell phones whose ring-tones imitate the sound of wildlife. That's the point - it invalidates any legal argument they might have about mitigating liability on those grounds.

Similarly with the zoo's cafe selling alcohol. It invalidates (or at least diminishes) any legal arguments they might have about the young mens' behavior regarding blood alcohol content. After all, they may have drank the zoo's own alcoholic beverages, so the zoo would share in any liability.

Really, I would be surprised if the zoo doesn't wind up with a very large amount of damages to pay.

[depakid]

32. Looks like the zoo is liable- but

If the jury hears evidence of taunting, they could easily come in on the low side.

[daleo]

57. wild animal escapes are a textbook example of strict liability

I am not sure if the zoo has much of a hope, regardless of what mud they throw at the victims. Strict liability means the zoo is responsible for keeping the animals penned up, regardless of any mitigating circumstances, except perhaps an act of God (like an earthquake).

Of course you never really know until a case has gone to court.

[depakid]

58. The question is one of damages

Even under a neligence theory, the sort of behavior that's been alleged is foreseeable.

I would also note that the entity that accredited the zoo (despite the enclosure not meeting their standards) is also on the hook here.

And well they should be.

[daleo]

60. I don't know if this alleged behavior could be mitigating

I could see it if the young men had somehow breached the tiger enclosure, either by going inside or by somehow damaging its structural integrity.

I just don't think anyone could reasonably foresee that their behavior could cause a tiger to escape, short of actually breaching the enclosure. People (rightly) expect a zoo's cages to be 100% effective, or they would never go there. It might be stupid or ill-mannered to harass the animals, but it shouldn't have any bearing on whether they can get out of their enclosures. It's like saying "this cage is safe, as long as you don't do something that motivates the tiger enough to leap over the wall". The wall should be un-leapable, regardless.

If we were talking about a park or a nature preserve, then some assumption of risk from animals seems reasonable, and one ought to avoid dangerous behaviors (e.g. use the bear-proof food lockers while camping).

For the record, I don't think people should "taunt" zoo animals, but I don't think it has any bearing on whether they should expect to be safe from attack.

I agree that the entity that accredited the zoo will likely be part of the suit.

[City Lights]

40. The woman who came forward with the taunting accusation said they

were taunting the lion by roaring at it.

Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos - and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger's bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.

"The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them," the San Francisco woman said. "They were trying to get that lion's attention. ... The lion was bristling, so I just said, 'Come on, let's get out of here' because my kids were disturbed by it."


I haven't heard anything about taunting the tiger with a lion vocalization. Do you have a link for that?

[daleo]

56. I was under the impression that the men were supposed to be directing sounds at the tiger

If they were "taunting" a lion rather than the tiger that attacked, the whole incident is all the more irrelevant, even if true, in my opinion.

It turns out that the zoo sells cell phone ring-tones that replicate the sounds of polar bears and other endangered species (you can find this on their website). A tiger could have responded to such a cell phone, or anything else for that matter.

The zoo will have a tough time establishing that they consider "taunting" an animal by vocalizations dangerous behavior, given that they provided the means to do something equivalent (i.e. the cell phone ring tones).

People direct attention to animals in zoos in all sorts of ways - yelling, staring, pointing, laughing, whatever. This "taunting" via "roaring" is a red herring.

[TheMadMonk]

69. Well it's plain as the nose on Larsen E. Pettifogger's face, that you don't like...

..."exploitation" of animals.

Get over it.

You are not going to get enough people off enough land to provide these (all) endangered animals with safe and viable wild habitats.

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. NO WAY. NO HOW.

So zoos or museums? Take your pick.

Preserves and even "safari" parks have their place in conservation efforts, but it's zoos in cities, where the people are, that really drives public awareness.


A sad but true fact is that if humans can't make a buck out of something, then they will destroy/push that something aside, to make room for a different something that is profitable.


Zoos make wild animals profitable.

***

It was the polar bear enclosure that wasn't up to snuff. Events tell us that nor was the tiger's, but it would appear that it did meet the guidelines. If so, then I don't see how the zoo can be held liable.

Except in special (and generally rather questionable circumstances) an entity can't be held liable for complying with laws/regulations/guidelines that later prove to be inadequate.



Standard zoo rules: Do not taunt, feed or otherwise harass the animals.
The fact that the zoo sells animal noises and alcohol is utterly irrelevant and it does not in the slightest respect make them liable for what gets done with those noises, or what idiots do under the influence of alcohol.

A final observation. Your antipathy towards the "exploitation" of animals seems to be so great, that you seem to be perfectly willing to forgive or entirely ignore the apparent behavior of these yahoos, because you're set on blaming the zoo and seeing it "suffer" for it's "crimes against nature".

[daleo]

70. I think you are mis-reading me

I am ambivalent about zoos, but I don't necessarily think they are a terrible thing.

Escaped wild animals are a textbook case of "strict liability" as has been pointed out many times. That means the zoo will be found liable, even if it met standards (by the way, the tiger enclosure was only about 12 feet high, much lower than the zoo first claimed). The behavior of the men in question is irrelevant to the zoo's liability - thus "strict liability".

What I object to is the fact that these men are being pilloried in the press (and by many people on this site) on the basis of vague, often unnamed testimony, none of which has been given under oath. You, for example, are just assuming that everything stated is true (thus "idiots").

The other standard zoo rule - if the animals escape, the zoo is in big trouble.

"The common law developed a separate doctrine to help plaintiffs to prove their cases for certain situations. The doctrine of strict liability allocates the presumption of responsibility for certain types of accidents to the defendant instead of the plaintiff. This alleviates the burden of proof that usually rests on the plaintiff when trying a case. The courts regarded keeping wild animals and blasting, for example, as inherently dangerous activities. There arose a presumption that if a wild animal escaped, or a blasting accident occurred, the owner of the animal or whoever created the explosion was automatically liable for any injuries which could ordinarily be linked to these events. This raised the social cost to persons who engaged in dangerous activities.

An example of a ferocious animal case is Baker v. Snell, <1908>, an English case that concerned a savage dog. One employee had the responsibility of letting the dog out early and chaining it up before the other employees arrived. One day this employee brought the dog into the midst of the other employees and encouraged it to bite. The defendant-employer was strictly liable for the injuries unless he could prove that the employee let the dog loose with malicious intent. The basis for the decision was that if a man chose to keep a ferocious animal then he was bound to keep the animal secure at his own peril."

http://www.thelockeinstitute.org/journals/tortliability5.html

"Keepers of species that are normally considered "wild" in that region are strictly liable for the harm these pets cause if they escape, whether or not the animal in question is known to be dangerous. Because such animals are known to revert to their natural tendencies, they are considered to be wild no matter how well trained or domesticated."

http://law.jrank.org/pages/10551/Strict-Liability.html

[TheMadMonk]

73. Perhaps I am, but your language in several posts makes it easy to do so.

Yes, I am making some assumptions based upon the information available to me. That's all anyone can do. However, I do not automatically assume the absolute veracity of that information, even if I do proceed on the working presumption that is is true, pending the acquisition of better data.

People under the influence of alcohol often behave like idiots, and that was all I meant by what I wrote, though IF the reports of these young men's behaviour are even partially true then they do indeed qualify as idiots (and worse) in my book.

These young men are being pilloried because, regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the zoo, their apparent/reported activities led to the death of a (reportedly) innocent friend and the animal which attacked him. And perhaps some of the more extreme feeling against them comes from the knowledge that "strict liability" is going to see these "lads" escape the consequences of their actions and quite possibly be rewarded/compensated for their bad behaviour.



"One day this employee brought the dog into the midst of the other employees and encouraged it to bite."

Not sure how anyone could construe this as anything but malicious. Even if the ultimate intent was to take advantage of the doctrine of strict liability and take the employer to the cleaners.

[daleo]

74. It's best not to presume guilt, based on a few news stories, IMO

We only know two definite things here:

- a tiger escaped its enclosure and killed someone.
- in common law, this is a textbook case of strict liability.

Everything else is conjecture. A trial might be interesting, although I suspect the zoo will settle out of court, since their legal defense is pretty slim, if they have one at all.

As for the dog case, that's the thing about strict liability - it's strict. You may think "the law is a ass" as Dickens said (I think), but there it is.

[EFerrari]

34. Is it legal for the paramedics to disclose what patients in their care say?

[mtnester]

35. Yes...what they cannot disclose without a judge subpoena

is medical care provided or medical conditions/medications taken.

Utterances like "I was drinking so much I forgot where I parked" are releasable. So yes, they can disclose this. Now, if that patient uttered "my brother is HIV positive"...not releasable without court order.

[EFerrari]

36. Thank you. There's something a little funny about this report.

I can't quite finger it. Maybe it's just bad writing.

[LiberalFighter]

42. Bad writing on the part of the reporter?

What else is new?

[EFerrari]

47. Lol. He isn't one of my favorites. The direct quote just sounds

a little pat or stiff or something.

It's funny how you notice stuff like that more after you yourself have been quoted in a piece and you suddenly notice that the words are different, transliterated.

[NashVegas]

53. You Mean Like

Subtitles on a Chinese film?

"let us make quick work of these villains!"

[EFerrari]

54. Exactly!

LOL! Great comparison. :)

[Critters2]

59. I would think it would be a violation of HIPAA.

Don't know for sure, but it seems like it would be covered.

[ileus]

68. Not health related information.

[Ignis]

71. HIPAA only covers medical information, not criminal.

Confessing to a murder while on the operating table doesn't mean the doctor and nurses have any obligation to keep that information confidential.

[panzerfaust]

37. These poor innocent victims

It will be interesting to see how the millions they are going to be awarded get spent.

[blondie58]

38. when I think of the poor innocent victims

I think of their friend who was mauled and of Tatiana, the tiger.

[NashVegas]

39. I Was Thinking About That Last Night

No wonder these guys aren't talking.

On one hand, they're going to want to sue the zoo; on the other, they've got to protect themselves against a suit by Souza's family.

[Evergreen Emerald]

43. in the midst of an investigation Garagos gets nothing

What the hell is he doing, trying to obstruct an investigation?

[LisaL]

45. WTF does Geragos have to do with it?

Police have these phones right now, not Geragos.
In fact if police wants to look at the phones, they need to get a search warrant.
If (and I have no clue if the report is correct) police can't get a search warrant, then they don't even have probable cause.

[EFerrari]

55. His job.

[The Stranger]

65. Charge them with the death of a critically endangered species.

In addition to trespass, criminal mischief, and -- wait, how about the felony murder of their brother?

Now THAT would get them talking.