Tiger's victims had slingshot, vodka

[shereads]

This just in -

Evidence is building that last week's fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo may have been provoked by the victims, who allegedly had a slingshot in their possession and an empty bottle of vodka in their car. A shoe and blood were found inside the fence that tops the tiger exhibit's walled moat, suggesting that one or more of the three boys may have been stradding the fence (to get a better shot?)

If this is true, it's further proof that teenaged boys should be watched at all times. Just not by me.

Question: if these allegations are true, should the two surviving boys be charged with manslaughter for the death of their friend? Previous mentions in the press of likely criminal charges - or even a second-degree murder charge - have involved the San Francisco Zoo, which stands to lose its certification at the very least. It seems to me that the zoo took appropriate measures to protect the public, failing only to predict that some idiot would take advantage of a nighttime event to taunt the animals with a slingshot and dangling feet. (What self-respecting predator wouldn't take a flying leap at that? I've been sent to the hospital by a four-pound kitten for far less offensive behavior.)

Note that the tiger is dead and can't testify in its own defense.

 

[Guest]

Is that why the two survivors aren't speaking to the media, I wonder?

Idiots.

 

[Emperor_Nero]

Is that why the two survivors aren't speaking to the media, I wonder?

Idiots.

Probably...

And should probably add a charge of cruelty to animals on to the manslaughter (or murder) charges.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I wouldn't really against a manslaughter charge. They might actually deserve that.

 

[rgraham666]

"There's only one capital crime. The sentence is death and carried out immediately and without mercy." - Robert A. Heinlein.

He's talking about idiocy, of course. And the dead jackass has proved it.

Said jackass should be nominated for a Darwin Award should these allegations prove true. His friends should get manslaughter and cruelty to animals charges.

The assholes.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If this is true, it's further proof that teenaged boys should be watched at all times . . .

Hmmm - some say that the height standards for walls around teenaged boys need to be reexamined. However, it appears that the wall around these boys was much lower than the minimum height suggested by the Association of Teenage Boy Keepers. Incidentally, the Association of Parents of Teenaged Girls has long recommended increasing that minimum.

 

[Guest]

This just in -

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/TigerandLawyer.jpg

Mark Geragos, known for his roster of high-profile clients from Michael Jackson to Scott Peterson, will represent the two brothers who survived a tiger mauling at the San Francisco zoo. A friend of the men was killed by the animal.
By MARCUS BARAM
Jan. 1, 2008

The brothers who survived the vicious tiger attacks at San Francisco Zoo last week have hired legal pit bull Mark Geragos in anticipation of filing a lawsuit against the zoo.

Geragos, who is known for his roster of high-profile clients from Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder to Scott Peterson and Susan McDougal, is already making claims about what he says is the zoo's "utter disregard for safety." His new clients, brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal, were released from San Francisco General Hospital Saturday and are recovering from injuries sustained in the attack that killed their friend, Carlos Sousa Jr.

"There are some very disturbing facts yet to come out about what happened," Geragos told ABCNews.com. "One of the brothers had absolutely no reason to be attacked. After Carlos was attacked, this brother ran to the zoo café and they would not let him in. The same guys who sold him nachos wouldn't let him back in. They locked the doors. Thirty minutes later, he was attacked by the tiger."

An employee barricaded in the zoo's Terrace Café reportedly made the first 911 calls, saying that one of the brothers was screaming outside. According to police logs obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, officers were initially skeptical of claims of an attack: "Zoo personnel dispatch now say there are two males whom the zoo thinks are 800 [mentally unstable] and making something up. But one is in fact bleeding from the back of the head."

According to those logs, firefighters and police officers were forced to wait outside for as long as six minutes by zoo security guards enforcing an emergency lockdown.

Geragos also claims that the zoo's security staff was missing in action. "Has anybody even talked to this woman who was in the security golf cart? She was motoring around in between the first and second attacks. What was she doing?"

In addition, Geragos cited the recent revelation that Tatiana, the 350-pound Siberian tiger, escaped her enclosure because the 12-foot, 5-inch wall was nearly 4 feet below industry recommendations.

Geragos cited a previous incident in which zookeeper Lori Komejan had the flesh chewed off her arm while she was feeding Tatiana in December 2006 as indicative of the zoo's negligence. Komejan filed her own suit against the zoo after that incident, and the zoo spent $250,000 on safety upgrades. The zoo is a partnership between the city and the nonprofit San Francisco Zoological Society. (continues)

 

[SlickTony]

Poor tiger.

I'd say the appropriate charge is negligent homicide, along with the cruelty to animals. I don't suppose those boys meant for anybody to be killed.

 

[Emperor_Nero]

This just in -

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/TigerandLawyer.jpg

Mark Geragos, known for his roster of high-profile clients from Michael Jackson to Scott Peterson, will represent the two brothers who survived a tiger mauling at the San Francisco zoo. A friend of the men was killed by the animal.
By MARCUS BARAM
Jan. 1, 2008

The brothers who survived the vicious tiger attacks at San Francisco Zoo last week have hired legal pit bull Mark Geragos in anticipation of filing a lawsuit against the zoo.

Geragos, who is known for his roster of high-profile clients from Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder to Scott Peterson and Susan McDougal, is already making claims about what he says is the zoo's "utter disregard for safety." His new clients, brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal, were released from San Francisco General Hospital Saturday and are recovering from injuries sustained in the attack that killed their friend, Carlos Sousa Jr.

"There are some very disturbing facts yet to come out about what happened," Geragos told ABCNews.com. "One of the brothers had absolutely no reason to be attacked. After Carlos was attacked, this brother ran to the zoo café and they would not let him in. The same guys who sold him nachos wouldn't let him back in. They locked the doors. Thirty minutes later, he was attacked by the tiger."

An employee barricaded in the zoo's Terrace Café reportedly made the first 911 calls, saying that one of the brothers was screaming outside. According to police logs obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, officers were initially skeptical of claims of an attack: "Zoo personnel dispatch now say there are two males whom the zoo thinks are 800 [mentally unstable] and making something up. But one is in fact bleeding from the back of the head."

According to those logs, firefighters and police officers were forced to wait outside for as long as six minutes by zoo security guards enforcing an emergency lockdown.

Geragos also claims that the zoo's security staff was missing in action. "Has anybody even talked to this woman who was in the security golf cart? She was motoring around in between the first and second attacks. What was she doing?"

In addition, Geragos cited the recent revelation that Tatiana, the 350-pound Siberian tiger, escaped her enclosure because the 12-foot, 5-inch wall was nearly 4 feet below industry recommendations.

Geragos cited a previous incident in which zookeeper Lori Komejan had the flesh chewed off her arm while she was feeding Tatiana in December 2006 as indicative of the zoo's negligence. Komejan filed her own suit against the zoo after that incident, and the zoo spent $250,000 on safety upgrades. The zoo is a partnership between the city and the nonprofit San Francisco Zoological Society. (continues)

Evidently Geragos got a whiff of money in the air and launched his own attack

 

[adetaildiva]

I'm married to a long-time hunter. Just read all this to him. He says anyone who goes hunting a tiger with a slingshot gets what he deserves. Always remember that the tiger is better armed than you are. Sadly, in this case, score 1 for the tiger.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It cant be manslaughter because the tiger did the killing. It's probably criminal negligence, where an unlawful deed results in death. Like tormenting a tiger or illegally modifying an appliance of some kind.

 

[gauchecritic]

It cant be manslaughter because the tiger did the killing. It's probably criminal negligence, where an unlawful deed results in death. Like tormenting a tiger or illegally modifying an appliance of some kind.

based only on watching Law and Order, if straddling the fence with the slingshot is a class b felony (I think) then anything at all that happens during its commission and as a result thereof is liable to charges of murder.

 

[shereads]

It cant be manslaughter because the tiger did the killing.

Wrong. A couple were convicted of murder after their vicious dogs mauled a woman to death in the hallway of her apartment building. When people are deemed responsible for the behavior of dangerous animals, it's no different than misusing a weapon.

BTW, everybody - I don't mean to imply that these boys got what they deserved. Nobody deserves a horrific death simply for behaving foolishly and irresponsibly. I just hate to see the zoo punished for something they could not reasonably have expected.

In Miami a few years ago, a zookeeper was found dead in the Siberian Tiger display, mauled to death by one of the zoo's rare white tigers. There was a small public outcry by people who thought the tiger should be put down - executed, as if it had behaved maliciously. More reasonable voices prevailed. The dead man, a zookeeper with more than a decade of experience, knew the security procedure at the tiger exhibit by heart, and didn't follow it that morning, for reasons no one knows. In a moment of complacency, he failed to make sure that all of the tigers were locked inside their nighttime enclosure. He expected them to be inside; they always had been. But not that time. He entered the outdoor display area to clean it, and found out too late that he wasn't alone.

The fact that his own negligence led to his death didn't make it any less tragic. But I was glad the zoo didn't execute the animal for doing what came instinctively.

My heart goes out to the family of the dead boy in San Francisco. Either he or his friends may have acted stupidly, but he and his family paid a terrible price. As did the tiger.

 

[shereads]

based only on watching Law and Order

Which Law and Order?

Law and Order III/Titillating Sex Crimes Division?

Law and Order IV/Traffic Court?

Law and Order XXV/Zoos and Public Parks?

Or the ubiquitous Law and Order/Criminally Bad Dialogue Writing?

 

[Guest]

Doink doink.

http://blog.rickbreslin.com/extras/doink_doink.wav

 

[Boxlicker101]

It cant be manslaughter because the tiger did the killing. It's probably criminal negligence, where an unlawful deed results in death. Like tormenting a tiger or illegally modifying an appliance of some kind.

I believe they could be charged at least with manslaughter. They acted illegally, and goaded the tiger into attacking. The fact that the zoo was negligent in having a wall too low wouldn't change that.

 

[sr71plt]

I believe they could be charged at least with manslaughter. They acted illegally, and goaded the tiger into attacking. The fact that the zoo was negligent in having a wall too low wouldn't change that.

Right, if what is suspected can be evidenced, they are open to manslaughter charges (and the tiger wasn't guilty of anything--it was just being a tiger).

From the meally mouthed type of wording I've seen about the wall height, I think there probably aren't actually any laws covering that in effect, so formal negligence charges there are probably beyond the boards as well. It might lead to some laws, though.

 

[Weird Harold]

This just in -

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1

...The brothers who survived the vicious tiger attacks at San Francisco Zoo last week have hired legal pit bull Mark Geragos in anticipation of filing a lawsuit against the zoo.
...

Personally, I think the Zoo should file a counter-suit against the estate of the deceased and the two survivors for the replacement cost of a the tiger. There seems to be ample evidence of deliberate provoction that directly resulted in the loss of an animal worth several million dollars.

I think anyone who lets a leg down for a Tiger to climb up -- and over a wall that it wouldn't normally be able to climb without that handy "leg up" should have to pay for the results of that action -- and not just in the Darwinian sense.

 

[sr71plt]

an animal worth several million dollars.

Several million dollars apiece? Wow. I must remember to check out back tomorrow in case I have one of those money tigers back there. (And if he answers to the name Tony, I guess he might be worth even more than millions, right?)

 

[elsol]

To be honest, I don't see the problem here.

1. It's a tiger.
2. It wouldn't mind too much eating us.
3. We keep it in close proximity as a form of entertainment.

To me, this reads like we accept that some of us may become a part of the entertainment.

Shit happens... no matter how high you build a wall.

 

[Weird Harold]

Several million dollars apiece? Wow. I must remember to check out back tomorrow in case I have one of those money tigers back there. (And if he answers to the name Tony, I guess he might be worth even more than millions, right?)

Just a rough guess, really. Transportation costs to bring in a replacement from Russia(?) or another Zoo is probably going to run over a million. Another Zoo might donate a replacement but the people who capture wild anmals for zoos don't work cheap (and neither do the government official who have to approve import and export permits.)

 

[Jagged]

I feel sorry for the female tiger especially if she was being taughted.

If a human being attacked several animals in a zoo the police would have tried to capture them and find out what happen. Instead they killed a beautiful animal who was probably pushed to far. Someone left flowers for her near her habitat, but I have heard little about what the zoo will do to better protect the animals who really should just be left alone in the wild and viewed from a tour bus. I used to love the zoo as a kid, but now I truly feel sorry for the animals. When you see a tiger in the zoo you haven't really seen a tiger.

I feel sorry for those who were attacked, but I also think there is reason they aren't talking to police about what happen.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I feel sorry for the female tiger especially if she was being taughted.

If a human being attacked several animals in a zoo the police would have tried to capture them and find out what happen. Instead they killed a beautiful animal who was probably pushed to far. Someone left flowers for her near her habitat, but I have heard little about what the zoo will do to better protect the animals who really should just be left alone in the wild and viewed from a tour bus. I used to love the zoo as a kid, but now I truly feel sorry for the animals. When you see a tiger in the zoo you haven't really seen a tiger.

I feel sorry for those who were attacked, but I also think there is reason they aren't talking to police about what happen.

In all honesty, the tiger was a danger to everybody, not just to the guys who had been taunting her. She had to be killed to protect human beings. It was a shame, but the zoo or the cops or whoever really had no choice. It wasn't until later that more facts started to be learned.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have a major problem with importing wild predators into the US because idiots let them loose.

We had a similar problem at our local zoo. Tiger got out of the pen and had to be killed. And this state is overrun with snakes and other critters people import and abandon.

 

[cantdog]

In all honesty, the tiger was a danger to everybody, not just to the guys who had been taunting her. She had to be killed to protect human beings. It was a shame, but the zoo or the cops or whoever really had no choice. It wasn't until later that more facts started to be learned.

The story I got was that the zoo had capture people out but the cops kept them away while they killed the creature. May or may not have been necessary, but there is always choice involved. You always have a choice. Sometimes you don't like the choices available, but you always have choices. Nearly every damn time someone says, "I didn't have a choice!" it is special pleading, and inaccurate.

Zoos function in many ways besides the mere 'form of entertainment' El-Sol was referring to. Some, I daresay, are mere menageries, but damn few, these days. We are all complicit in the destruction of wild habitat. Viewing from a tour bus, indeed.