Man injured in tiger attack sentenced to prison for violating parole

[kskiska]

Source: SF Chronicle

The younger of two brothers who survived a Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo has been sentenced to 16 months in state prison for violating his probation in a felony reckless driving case where he led police on a 140 mph chase through San Jose in April 2007.

Paul Dhaliwal, 20, was sentenced in December to 30 days in the Santa Clara County jail and three years of probation in that case, but three days after sentencing he was cited for marijuana possession when he was found with about 1.8 grams in his pocket while in the parking lot of a Milpitas hotel, court records show. He was also arrested in March on suspicion of shoplifting video-game controllers at East Bay Target stores.

Dhaliwal was sentenced last week in Santa Clara County Superior Court to 16 months in prison for violating probation in the chase case, Deputy District Attorney Stuart Scott said. Dhaliwal also pleaded guilty Wednesday to misdemeanor battery on a police officer, resisting arrest and public intoxication stemming from a drunken scuffle with San Jose police in September, Scott said.

(snip)

Paul Dhaliwal's older brother, Kulbir Dhaliwal, 27, who also survived the tiger attack and is charged in that September altercation with San Jose police, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go to trial on Monday.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/BAET12C6BP.DTL

[Bob Dobbs]

1. These are the assholes who tormented a tiger until he jumped the fence

and attacked them. The tiger was shot and killed. The police shot the wrong guy again.

[pnwmom]

2. The police never found anything in the enclosure that didn't belong there,

and when they searched the car, they didn't find the slingshots that were supposedly used.

The youths shouted at the tiger and waved their arms. That "crime" doesn't deserve a death sentence.

On the other hand, the people in charge of certifying the zoo ignored the fact that the enclosure didn't meet the height standard (by 5 feet), and didn't require the zoo to cut back the tree (which was too tall). By their sloppy work, they put all the daily visitors at risk.

[Auggie]

3. "Don't tell them what we did."

The most telling item, IMO, is when a paramedic in the ambulance heard one brother tell that to the other. They refused to cooperate with police and hindered the investigation every step of the way.

Those kids were taunting a 350 pound Siberian Tiger living under a different code of conduct than humans. Whether their actions do or do not warrant a death sentence is irrelevant considering all the players involved.

link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/05/MNVKU9L9L.DTL

[pnwmom]

22. "Don't tell them what we did" in legal terms is "the right to remain silent" --

a fundamental right that the Constitution guarantees to all of us, and that no jury is allowed to take as an expression of guilt. Funny how easy it is for some of us "progressives" to toss out our civil liberties.

My statement was relevant since I was responding to a poster who said the police shot the wrong person.

The article you posted is outdated. When the police finally did examine the cell phone and the car, they found no evidence to support prosecution.

[piedmont]

52. "Don't tell them what we did" is in itself breaking silence, and suggests conspiracy. nt

[LisaL]

76. Conspiracy? Oh dear.

They have not been charged with anything to this date related to the zoo incident, so WTF are you talking about?

[The Stranger]

65. It is an admission of guilt and a waiver of the right to remain silent.

Also, the question is not its admissibility or whether they were given Miranda warnings -- they chose to admit that they did something wrong notwithstanding their rights.

[LisaL]

82. Admission of guilt?

They haven't been charged with anything related to the zoo incident to this date. So, what guilt were they admitting, do tell.

[The Stranger]

89. You don't have to be charged to be guilty of something.

And if you can't figure out from this thread or any of the innumerable news stories what they admit guilt of, then I'm afraid even I cannot help you.

[LisaL]

94. Oh I see. I should assume someone is guilty of something because of

what I read on DU's thread, even when the individual hasn't been charged with anything related to the incident? Ludicrous. And I don't need your help.

[The Stranger]

95. Assume whatever you want, lizzy. The fact is that their statement appears to be an admission.

And they are free to make admissions of guilt -- or not -- the rights are theirs to waive.

[LisaL]

107. Nonsense.

If they admitted they are guilty of something, why haven't they been charged with anything related to the incident? I am pretty sure whoever is in charge of the zoo would have been pretty happy about that. I believe police also examined their cell phones and found nothing incriminating.

[The Stranger]

117. What makes you think they won't be charged? Also, check the original post.

I think it may indicate something about charges and parole violations.

[LisaL]

120. For driving violations, which had nothing to do with the zoo incident.

[tidy_bowl]

104. The Miranda right is clear.....

....you have the 'right to remain silent', followed by, 'anything you say may used against you in a court of law', not, you have the 'right not to have any statements you make out of sheer stupidity used against you'. The operative word here is 'silent'. You are conveying more rights on them than are guaranteed in the constitution.

[question everything]

115. And, for a long time, refused to meet with the family of the one who died

family members who just wanted to know what happened.

[alphafemale]

4. Tigers do not respect the Laws of men.

This was Darwin.

I'd of loved to have seen the look on those taunting little punks faces when that 500 lb puddy tat came over the fence.

[merwin]

17. puddy tat! LOL.

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

23. Which is exactly why the enclosure should have been constructed to meet

the known standard.

It could have been a couple of nine year olds waving their arms and shouting at the tigers who were killed. In fact, that kind of thing probably happened on a daily basis. The tiger may have experienced taunting off an on all day. But if the enclosure had been properly built and maintained, the tragedy wouldn't have happened.

[alphafemale]

27. Sometimes there is not enough safeguards in the world to prevent people from the Darwin.

The tiger had to live her life in a cage, but got to take out a couple of assholes at the end.

Good kitty.

[pnwmom]

28. If a three year old had been killed, would that have been okay with you?

The tiger acted like a tiger. The zoo administration is entirely responsible for what happened. It had been warned more than ten years earlier.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/14940100/detail.html

Marian Roth-Cramer wrote to the zoo after she saw a tiger leap at her three year old son.

"She says she saw a tiger, housed in the same grotto as Tatiana, the one that mauled three people this week, jump dangerously close to her little boy.

The animal left the yard, leapt crossed the moat, and got a paw up on the grassy area by the fence where the public stands.
"I saw the tiger leap off of that and disappear," Roth-Cramer said. "Then I saw a paw on top of the grass, which was maybe 4 or 5 feet in front of my son."
Roth-Cramer said she wrote a letter to the zoo, but never heard back."

[SOS]

31. And what if a three year old had been killed

when this imbecile was driving 140 mph through San Jose?

[pnwmom]

34. Then he obviously would have been responsible for that death. n/t

[alphafemale]

35. It wasn't a three year old. It was a couple of assholios.

They didn't live long enough to rape and pillage further.

I do not weep.

[pnwmom]

36. A tiger in that enclosure got within a few feet of a three year old.

According to the three year old's mother, the tiger had its paw up on the ledge just a few feet away from the child.

This was a disaster waiting to happen.

[alphafemale]

37. So? Stop going to zoos Zoos suck anyways.

I hate zoos. Circuses too.

[pnwmom]

62. If a city is going to have a zoo, then it has to assure the safety of

workers, patrons, and nearby residents.

But it would be fine with me if that zoo were shut down.

[The Stranger]

66. Zoos are not designed to prevent drunk criminals from trespassing and harrassing animals.

No matter how well they are designed.

[pnwmom]

78. But they can be designed to keep any human and any animal safely apart.

A tiger in that same enclosure had PREVIOUSLY tried to make a leap for a three year old (and a paw had landed on the grass just a few feet away). The zoo ignored the letter from the 3 year old's mother.

It wasn't just rowdy youths that were at risk. It was anyone at the zoo.

[The Stranger]

88. They are designed to keep apart animals and humans that are NOT DRUNK AND COMMITTING CRIMES.

It doesn't matter what you design if drunk criminals are going to try to defeat it. You cannot plan for that contingency.

[pnwmom]

91. No, it wasn't. It was NOT constructed according to safety standards.

The walls were too low, and the structure wasn't maintained, leaving metal barriers to rust out and vegetation to overgrow. Also, the whole zoo was understaffed and there was no attendant in the area when the tragedy had occurred. This was all included in the accreditation org's report.

Again, the three year old could have been the first victim. The fact that ONE of the three youths was inebriated had something to do with the risk that day, but there was a significant risk every day, considering how the enclosure was built and maintained.

Which of the three was charged with a crime for the events that day? Do you have a link for that?

[The Stranger]

96. Those safety standards still would not have prevented drunk and high criminals from doing this.

It doesn't fucking matter whether they have been yet charged with a crime. The evidence is the evidence, and they may still yet be charged.

[pnwmom]

100. Those safety standards WOULD have prevented the tiger from escaping.

And there is no "this" that the three youths have been proven to have done, other than the fact that one of them got killed.

Do you understand that a blood alcohol content of .04 isn't even close to drunk? That only one of the three had a level that exceeded .08? And that "evidence" -- whatever exists in this case -- is not "proof"?

[The Stranger]

118. Bullshit. Those safety standards would be circumvented by the drunk and high assholes harrassing

the fucking animals.

And you admit that one of them was drunk -- not to mention the fact that pot was also found by the police. That is more fucking proof than exists every day where people are arrested.

[Scout]

119. "Idiot proof the world, and the world builds a better idiot."

yup, when assholes want to be themselves, not much will stop them.

i feel bad for the tiger.

[merwin]

16. If you're dumb enough to shout at a tiger, you deserve what you get.

In fact, I'd give them a Darwin award.

Just because these animals are caged up doesn't mean that you can't get them pissed off enough to get out.

[pnwmom]

24. If the cage were properly constructed and the tree wasn't too high,

the cat wouldn't have escaped.

Designers of zoo enclosures must assume the worst, and that includes stupid humans who wave and shout.

[JeanGrey]

42. Yes we do need to provide better structures thereby enabling

us to torture animals even more.

[pnwmom]

48. If we're going to have zoos at all -- and I'm not advocating that we do --

then we have to have them built to keep the animals and the humans safely apart.

[JeanGrey]

56. I do not believe that we can ever be 100% (see posts about

elephants).

[pnwmom]

60. Maybe not. But this zoo didn't even meet minimal standards

for construction, maintenance, or staffing.

[The Stranger]

67. Designers of zoo enclosures cannot prevent drunk criminals from doing what they do.

No matter how well the zoo is designed.

[LisaL]

71. WTF is that supposed to mean?

This zoo admits the wall was shorter than recommended. The zoo couldn't build a wall tall enough because some "drunk criminals" will do what they do? Ridiculous.

[The Stranger]

87. It fucking means that zoo designers could build the wall 30 feet tall and drunk criminals would

still find a way over or around it. Go back and read the post again (and again and again, if necessary), it is fairly straightforward.

[pnwmom]

92. Builders of zoo enclosures can build the walls to standard. This enclosure

wasn't built with high enough walls.

This isn't rocket science. This tragedy could have been easily prevented.

[northernlights]

5. Tatiana is the one who didn't deserve to die

Multiple witnesses (initially a couple and their kids, later corroborated by another visitor) saw them roaring at Tatiana. The witnesses were disturbed enough by what they witnessed -- and they saw it was upsetting her -- that they left the area. Too bad they didn't report it right then to the zoo authorities.

Tatiana unfortunately got the wrong one -- Carlos was the only one who wasn't harrassing her and supposedly when she went after one of the ones who was, he distracted her to save his friend's life. So that's unfortunate, but he clearly was hanging with the wrong crowd.

Police found a shoeprint on the fence and a shoe inside her enclosure, between the fence and the moat. So somebody did more than just shout and wave their arms at her, some jackass entered her territory. They provoked the attack and deserved what they got -- you eff around with and threaten wild animals, you're begging for trouble. Too bad the assholes apparently didn't learn anything from it.

The zookeepers also found pinecones and sticks in her enclosure that didn't belong there and didn't get there by themselves.

There wasn't a tree that was too tall inside her enclosure. They found bits of concrete in her toes during the autopsy, so concluded she climbed the wall. The fence was 4 feet shorter than the *current* recommended height, but it also was built back in the 40s or 50s, and this was the 1st escape from it.

The jerks that caused her death had an open bottle of vodka and pot in their car. They were in trouble for stealing within days of the attack. Not only did they refuse to cooperate with police -- they wouldn't even give their names and were outright hostile to the people who saved their sorry, useless lives.

They are a waste of the air they breathe and a danger to society. Police shot the wrong one, all right.

The zoo put up new signs begging people to not harrass the animals. As a horseowner, I feel for them. People trespass, harrass your animals, create chaos, and then sue when they get hurt as a result. Personally, I think they should put the money into video surveillance and then they can catch the assholes on video and throw their sorry asses out.

[Corgigal]

8. thanks for putting all that info out here

I'm still on Tatiana side. It just goes to show that she could have jumped over the wall for years but that one night she had a need. They pushed her because like bullies they thought they were safe. Tiger thought differently.

I'm glad one of these guys are in jail. Society might be a bit safer.

[pnwmom]

25. None of those "facts" were supported by a link. n/t

[JeanGrey]

43. These guys are no different from other drunk punks. Or drunks

period. God I've seen so many of them, once they get drunk they really think their shit doesn't stink and they can go around saying and doing whatever they want. Only this time, they picked the wrong thing. What a shame.

[pnwmom]

49. You're making a prejudiced statement, since you don't know the

facts about the situation. Only one of the boys had an alcohol level above .08. One of them had one of .04 -- which is not even close.

And the kid who died was said by onlookers not to have been one of the ones yelling at the tigers.

[JeanGrey]

55. Yes, Tigers have a way of getting angry when they are teased

and sometimes the wrong people get hurt.

Check out elephants. Elephants in captivity are known to go berserk and kill people and do a lot of wrecking. I guess every time that happens it is the "zoo" or "circus" fault, right? They become depressed and angry and snap easily because of captivity, but hey, why stop?

[pnwmom]

64. Exactly what I was saying. A completely innocent child could have

been killed in this situation -- because the enclosure was not properly designed, maintained, or staffed. And teasing wasn't necessary -- one of those tigers had tried to attack a three year old in the past.

There wasn't even a sign posted warning of the danger until AFTER the killing.

[yardwork]

15. That sums the case up well. The boy and tiger did not deserve to die.

I agree with your assessment of the survivors. They got off lucky. Total jerks.

[LisaL]

18. If you ask me, that zoo should have put that tiger down

after she attacked and mauled her keeper's hand. The tiger attacking these men was not the first time she attacked a person.

[JeanGrey]

44. The tiger should've been in it's own environment instead of a zoo

in the first damn place. If I had my way it would be illegal to have zoos.

[LisaL]

72. This tiger was born in the zoo.

Where do you think its natural environment is in the first damn place?

[JeanGrey]

74. IN THE WILD

[LisaL]

75. How was she going to survive in the wild when she was

born in the zoo? By the way, in the wild, man eating tigers are hunted down and killed.

[JeanGrey]

97. You really have a thing against "man eaters" don't you?

Have you harbored this long or just recently? I bet you thought men would put tigers on a las vegas stage and jumped around in front of them nightly in tight spangly suits were doing the world a favor too, up until one of them started acting like what he was and somebody got hurt.

Bet you were on the human side then too.

[LisaL]

112. WTF are you talking about? Siegfried and Roy?

Not the safest thing in the world to do what they were doing.

[wordpix]

93. unfortunately, Siberian Tiger habitat is mostly gone-same with other endangered species

That's why most are endangered in the first place.

[JeanGrey]

98. They could come back.

[superconnected]

108. Many animals won't live in the wild now a days. Even the fish aren't safe.

You'd think the tiger would have been safe in the zoo.

edited to say - because of man, hunting, etc. We've destroyed much of the natural habitat many of the animals at the zoo lived in. My cube mate told me we've now made 75% of the worlds spieces extinct in the last 100 years.

[The Stranger]

68. lizzy, you always show up with posts favoring the destruction of innocent animals.

Always.

[LisaL]

69. And that's a bunch of crap.

I don't favor destruction of innocent animals. This animal had mauled her keeper in the past, killed one young man and injured two others. When police saw her, she was attacking one of the men again. WTF do you propose police did with her?

[The Stranger]

86. lizzy, that animal is a tiger. It was doing what tigers do. Why do you constantly come here to

propose the destruction of this animal for being what it is and doing what it has dome and evolved to do millions of years before there were zoos? Why, lizzy, why?

[LisaL]

90. This is beyond ridiculous.

The police shot the animal as it was attacking the man. I have absolutely no clue as to what you think the police should have done-let the tiger to finish him off?

[LisaL]

20. Oh the poor zoo.

It's exhibiting the animals for money. If it's such a hassle, with people harassing "your animals" close the darn thing up.

[pnwmom]

26. You don't support any of your facts. For example, no shoe was found in

the enclosure.


http://cbs5.com/local/tiger.escapes.zoo.2.618600.html


Also, refusing to cooperate with police -- the right to remain silent -- is an important civil liberty.

[BrklynLiberal]

39. I agree with everything you ahve posted.

There is only so much stupidity that one can protect the world from. Tatiana, and that one innocent guy paid the price for the stupidity of two morons. Their actions after that incident show what kind of people they really are. Too bad that the two lives that were lost were not the ones that deserved it.

[Lorien]

59. I completely agree. I have a couple of friends who are zookeepers

and dealing with assholes is a daily part of their jobs. One told me recently that one guest has been asking again and again if he can pay a fee and come in and SHOOT some of the animals. What do you want to bet this asshole tries to bring a loaded weapon into the park some day? There are some real nuts out there alright.

[CreekDog]

6. They are scum

:rant:

[Canuckistanian]

7. These guys have serious illegal thrill issues

I'm guessing they grew up in a rich privileged home and figure they can do anything they want.

[Tutonic]

9. Gotta say that anyone that is expressing a sentiment about the

animal killing the two brothers needs to take some time out. When you post messages about ending wars and not attacking nations you advocate a course of peace. Yet when you post messages about ending these two young men's lives (no matter how screwed up) and not attacking an animal you advocate what?

[DCKit]

10. Consequences n/t

[bean fidhleir]

14. Exactly: consequences. (nt)

[Orangeone]

11. Idiots

shouldn't have expectation that the world is completely safe. Protecting every idiot from himself is going against natural selection, by doing that we are inadvertantly selecting for stupidity. I'm mean it's possible to breed out intelligence-it has happened with some domesticated animals.

[madmusic]

13. You're so right!

Visit freeperville for proof and we can tell when they visit here.

[pnwmom]

32. The youths had a reasonable expectation that the enclosure had been safely

built and that the tiger couldn't get out -- no matter what.

If there were any "idiots" it was the people who certified the zoo as safe even though it failed to meet height standards, and the zoo administration who failed to properly maintain the enclosure -- allowing barriers to rust and vegetation to overgrow.

[JeanGrey]

45. They were drunk. I doubt they had "reasonable"

expectation of much at all.

[pnwmom]

47. One of the youths was. Not the other two. And all of the onlookers in the

area -- including mothers with small children -- would have had that expectation, too.

[JeanGrey]

54. Were the mothers with small children teasing the Tiger?

Not likely they would've had much to worry about.

[pnwmom]

61. Not true. Anyone in the area was at risk. A mother complained to the

zoo years ago (in a letter) that a tiger in the enclosure had tried to leap at her three year old and that its paw had landed in the grass just a few feet away from her child.

And the zoo did nothing. A TV station said that reports like that were commonplace and weren't taken seriously.

[Bob Dobbs]

12. Compassion for tormented animals and disgust at hubris riddled humans.

Humans are supposed to be the smarter being, but mostly they are the most evil and mean.

[LisaL]

19. As opposed to what? Tigers who are nice and sweet?

This very animal has attacked her keeper before she attacked these men. What did her keeper do to her, except trying to feed her? So, give me a break crying about this tiger.

[JeanGrey]

46. Are you for real? Suppose someone came and snatched you

from your family and stuck you in zoo. How do you think you'd like it?

[LisaL]

70. Are you for real?

Tigers aren't exactly grass eaters, in case you didn't know. Do you think they go around smelling flowers all day? Some tigers will kill humans in the wild. In India, those "man eaters" are hunted down and killed, if possible.

[Bob Dobbs]

73. Thank you for proving my point

about hubris riddled humanity.

[pnwmom]

30. Notice how quick these "progressives" are to dispense with

civil liberties? Suddenly, they're all insisting that these guys must be guilty because they chose to invoke the right to remain silent.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. Why can't you acknowledge the concept that...........

.........telling your cohort "don't tell them what we did" is NOT remaining silent? In fact, that statement can and should be used against them (if this ever makes it to any court). More importantly, for this forum and your casting asparagus on fellow progressives, that statement can and SHOULD be used against them in the court of public opinion.

[pnwmom]

63. Because it's not true.

Deciding not to speak to the police without the advice of a lawyer is every citizen's right.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

77. Obstructing justice by conspiring to lie to the police or silence a witness is........

......NOT a right enumerated in the constitution.

[pnwmom]

79. They weren't conspiring to tell a lie. One was reminding the other

of the right to remain silent.

Neither one said: let's tell a falsehood. But one of them (supposedly) did say: "don't tell" -- which is everyone's right.

[kestrel91316]

21. We haven't heard the last of these two, either, I'm thinking.

They appear to have chosen their path in life, and will probably get in MORE trouble.

[frylock]

106. that's what i said immediately after the innocent..

these idiots will get someone else killed. take it to the bank.

[pnwmom]

29. Here is a link to the Accreditation agency's report detailing the deficiencies

of the zoo. Considering the inadequate height of the walls and the lack of upkeep (rusted barriers and overgrown vegetation), and the inadequate staffing, this was a tragedy waiting to happen.

http://cbs5.com/local/tiger.attack.report.2.680051.html

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Coventina]

38. Given the evidence we have about the character of these thugs

makes it very difficult for me to think that they had nothing to do with provoking Tatiana's attack. Maybe she was more aggressive than the average tiger, I don't know. But I do note that thousands of people had visited her safely for years without incident.

As for the attack on the keeper, the keeper admitted that she had provoked the attack by reaching in and handling Tatiana's food while the tiger was feeding, IIRC.

These guys are going to come to a bad end, one way or another. I, for one, won't mourn them.

[LisaL]

41. She has mauled her keeper,

seriously injuring her hand. If you ask me, that zoo should have known that they had an aggressive animal on their hands.
As for the keeper admitting to provoking the tiger? Hello? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this claim? Somehow I doubt you have a shred of evidence to support the idea that the keeper admitted to provoking the tiger. The keeper is planning to sue the zoo, and is alleging the zoo created a "dangerous condition" at the feeding area.
http://www.nbc11.com/news/15452300/detail.html?rss=bay&psp=news

[Coventina]

80. I conceed your point. I cannot find what I thought I read at the time.

I did write "IIRC" in my post, and it appears that I didn't.

I will point out, however, that the attack occurred at feeding time. The keeper was within reach of Tatiana. Predatory animals are EXTREMELY dangerous when it comes to their food. After all, only one in 20 hunts is successful in the wild, and it is literally life or death to them. A captive animal (even one bred in captivity) doesn't leave its genetic programming behind. The zoo was found to be responsible in that case. Not Tatiana.

[LisaL]

81. I don't see how the tiger can be found responsible for

anything. It's an animal. Who is going to sue the animal for damages? Even if somebody has a vicious dog, it's the owners who might be liable if the dog attacks someone.

[Coventina]

84. Well, you had said, "The zoo should have known it had an aggressive animal on its hands"

As if that particular incident proved that Tatiana was more aggressive than the average tiger. *Any* tiger at feeding time may just be the most aggressive animal on the planet. The daily feeding show was done to show off the ferocity of the animals. (An ill-advised spectacle, IMHO).

[LisaL]

85. The zoo already had to modify the feeding exhibit, because

of this very tiger, after she mauled her keeper. Whether she was more aggressive than the others or not, she was the one who mauled her keeper. Had she been a dog who attacked someone, the owners would have been on notice that their dog is aggressive, and their liability, in case next attack happened, would have gone up, I believe. Now, while the zoo was modifying their feeding exhibit, maybe they should have checked how high the tiger's enclosure wall was.

[Coventina]

116. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.

Yes, the zoo's feeding mechanism was determined to be unsafe. But there was nothing about that incident that would indicate that Tatiana was "more aggressive" than the average tiger. All tigers are aggressive! Every tiger is extremely dangerous when it comes to food. Heck, every tiger is extremely dangerous, period. What is your proposal? Wipe them off the face of the earth?

[LisaL]

121. How about, if the zoo is going to exhibit them, the zoo

should make sure they are kept in an enclosure from which they can't escape? As for a level of aggression of an individual animal, I am pretty sure all animals are not the same. How aggressive the animal is will probably depend on individual animal, whether it was born in captivity, whether it is neutered, and probably on subspecies the animal is, the animal's age, whether it's a female or a male. While it's safe to assume that a tiger is a dangerous animal, some might be more aggressive than the rest.

[Coventina]

122. Well, you had brought up the food-aggression incident and compared it with vicious dogs

A vicious dog is unacceptable, as it is a domesticated animal and behavior such as food-aggression is a fault. Most shelters will euthanize dogs displaying food-aggression (although, since they are domesticated, you can often correct the behavior if you have the patience and want to take the risk). But to kill tigers for being food-aggressive, you would have to kill all tigers everywhere. Their individual level of aggression is pretty irrelevant.

As for escape-proof enclosures, well, nothing in this world is fail-safe. The enclosure had been escape proof for - what? 60-70 years? And two criminals (they both had a criminal history at that point), under the influence of drugs and alcohol come with their friend, lingering on their own past closing time, and viola! Tatiana suddenly is able to do something that no other tiger has been able to do for decades!

If you don't think those guys did something to get their friend killed, then I suggest you let your kid go to the zoo with these guys to prove what upstanding, safety-minded citizens they are.

Until then, you are wasting your breath with me. You are trying to believe in something that defies logic.

[LisaL]

123. Well, if you want to use logic.

I don't care that no tiger escaped from this enclosure for decades. It doesn't mean much to me. Minnesota bridge also seemed to be fine for years, until one day. Chernobyl was working just fine until one day. It doesn't mean much. First of all, according to some reports published, there were close calls at this zoo, where the tigers were close to getting out. Second of all, walls could potentially deteriorate over time. Did the zoo inspect these walls to make sure they were smooth with no cracks? Do you have an answer to this question? Furthermore, different subspecies of tiger and different individual animals also could have different jumping and athletic abilities. I am pretty sure if this ever goes to civil trial for damages, these kinds of questions are going to be asked of this zoo.

[Coventina]

124. Comparing a tiger exhibit to a nuclear power plant is logical?

Look, I never said that the zoo might not be found to be negligent. In fact, it's likely that they might. After all, McDonald's was found guilty of serving hot coffee!

It still doesn't change the fact that these guys did SOMETHING that day that caused their friend to die. Like I said before, let your kid hang out with those two if you think they're so innocent.

I really won't be fussed if they win their case. They'll just use the money to kill themselves some other way.

[pnwmom]

50. A mother of a three year old had complained to the same zoo several years

earlier that a tiger had made a leap trying to escape the enclosure, and that his paw had landed on the ledge, just a few feet away from the three year old. Other reports had also been made. The zoo didn't respond.

Should we blame the three year old for provoking the tiger? Or the zoo which didn't properly build or maintain the structure?

It is all too easy to blame these youths, but the victim could just as easily have been that three year old or his mother.

Marian Roth-Cramer wrote to the zoo after she saw a tiger leap at her three year old son.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/14940100/detail.html


"She says she saw a tiger, housed in the same grotto as Tatiana, the one that mauled three people this week, jump dangerously close to her little boy.

The animal left the yard, leapt crossed the moat, and got a paw up on the grassy area by the fence where the public stands.
"I saw the tiger leap off of that and disappear," Roth-Cramer said. "Then I saw a paw on top of the grass, which was maybe 4 or 5 feet in front of my son."
Roth-Cramer said she wrote a letter to the zoo, but never heard back."

[Coventina]

83. Well, the courts will decide if the zoo was negligent or not I suppose.

The mother's complaint you posted about shows that the barrier was working, the tiger was not able to escape. There had been no escapes from that enclosure for, what? 60 or 70 years since it was built?

There is not a doubt in my mind that these guys did something that they are now covering up, and their friend died because of it.

Their rap sheet shows that they are not people who can be trusted with other people or animals.

They may get a big settlement from the city of San Francisco, but chances are they will use the money to kill themselves in some spectacular fashion.

[daleo]

40. I am still waiting for a lawsuit

All of the so called facts of the tiger mauling case can be entered into evidence then. Until then, it is all speculation.

[CreekDog]

51. i should clarify that though i think he is scum, the zoo is responsible for keeping the tigers in

their enclosure.

i think he is scum because he and his brother have records and, they did taunt the tiger, they had drugs and alcohol around the minor who was killed.

he's a piece of work. his brother too.

[ForrestGump]

53. You're probably right about them

But did it warrant the death penalty?

I'm definitely not one to automatically side with the human, or even with our entire species, but I see pnwmom making a lot of sense in this thread and think many others here need to take a good look at what they're really saying.

And you're certainly right about the zoo. Ultimately, they messed up and are responsible, and their responses were very transparently disingenuous and entirely dishonorable.

[CreekDog]

57. no i don't think the kid who got killed was scum, by no means

witnesses said he was trying to protect the others from getting attacked.

also he was a minor, not culpable and it was the older guys with him that had the alchohol and drugs.

[lolly]

102. Plenty of blame on both sides

People have become so polarized on this case--either the zoo was completely at fault, or the victims deserved to die.

It seems to me like a convergence of idiocy on both sides. Of course the zoo should have followed guidelines. I'm sure they will have to pay for their mistake, either in a civil suit or perhaps fines or problems with re-accreditation.

The young men involved should have been thrown out of the zoo and refused entry on any further visits, like shoplifters in a store. The zoo should have more personnel to monitor visitors' behavior.

[paparush]

99. Do not meddle in the affairs of Tigers, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup! nt

[pnwmom]

101. And three year olds would be especially tender and tasty.

If something had happened to the three year old (whose mother had written a letter to the zoo complaining that a tiger had leapt up to land a paw within a few feet of her son), would you have blamed his mother for bringing him to the zoo?

That tiger exhibit was a disaster waiting to happen.

[paparush]

103. The article in question is referring to the "MAN" not the 3 yr old. Lighten up.

[pnwmom]

105. The zoo's tiger enclosure posed a risk to anyone in or near the zoo.

And the zoo has had a long history of poor management. I think the city Supervisor's proposal to close the zoo and turn it into an animal refuge might be the best solution.

[paparush]

110. On that point, my friend, we both agree! :-)

[PfcHammer]

109. Hope they tuch his but in the big house

bwahahaha.

[FloridaJudy]

111. Sounds like they need to go back

And read "The Life of Pi". Tigers do not tolerate fools well!

[mbperrin]

113. Good riddance to one asshole. He's officially convicted, so

it's quite accurate to say that. Hope his brother joins him soon. Don't need to say more; the world will be safer with him elsewhere. Demonstrably.

[progressivebydesign]

114. I guess the fences weren't fool-proof. n/t