Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 2)

[scandi]

It's a local story for me, as I'm less than an hour away from S.F.

Lucky girl you are Linask, with so much to see and do there. Is this the zoo with the famous Aviary?

Off to bed, but I heard Buzz loud and clear and agree. One story I heard is that the guy that died was really trying to protect one of the other two from getting attacked by the tiger. I hadn't heard they were drinking. Or if all 3 knew each other.

I think I have to give kudos to the tiger, a wild animal in a changed environment to where his natural distrust of human beings has been changed by captivity. Kudos might be the wrong word, but it is late. xox

 

[kgeaux]

This has been stated in quite a few articles. The 9 lb. is new with regard to the previously stated rock; that may have come from CNN late yesterday

Buzz, it's never been confirmed by police officials. So much of what has been stated in articles has been proven to be false. We were first told the zoo enclosure was the proper height and up to all standards. That turned out to be false. We were told a shoe was found in the moat. Police tell us that is not true. We were told slingshots were found. Police say NO slingshots were found. That's why I asked if POLICE had confirmed this allegation. Because until it is confirmed that pinecones, sticks and other objects which could not reach the moat through natural means were found, then I'm remaining skeptical.

I'm not saying things weren't found. Just that the reporting on this has been so wrong so often that I can't help but wonder if this is one more falsehood that is being perpetrated.

 

[kgeaux]

I read in an article that the slingshots were found on the brothers at the hospital. Perhaps the police didn't frisk them which is why they didn't find them, doesn't mean it wasn't true. Why would hospital workers lie???

I don't know why the hospital workers would lie, or if they did. It might be a case of somebody said a hospital worker said something that the worker never actually said. Somebody said somebody else said is how the majority of the rumors we've been fed occured in this case, IMO! All I know is that in one of the latest links Buzz provided, the police flat out say NO slingshots were found. Which means none, anywhere. This is an official police investigation, and I know the police have been in touch with the hospital as a part of that investigation, and I know that if slingshots had been found, the cops would not be lying and saying they didn't find any.

 

[kgeaux]

I'm just going to keep following you around and saying ditto. You and I are very much of a like mind about this story so far.

:blowkiss:

Can't we all agree that regardless of what the facts in last week's attack turn out to be, the tiger was not at fault?
.

Yes, I agree. It's the zoo's fault. Totally and completely the zoo's fault. Because they failed to contain their animal and failed to protect their visitors.

The tiger is blameless, but still I thought it meaningful, that Tatiana targeted the three boys, even to the point of tracking the two brothers down at the Terrace Cafe. It was said that Tatiana first attacked the older brother just outside the enclosure, I wonder if any of his blood was found there?? We only have the word of the two brothers as to what actually happened, and when it happened. Is their story true??

We do not know that Tatiana targeted the brothers and tracked them to the cafe because they taunted her. We do know one of them was bleeding profusely from a head wound caused by Tatiana's biting him near her enclosure. That has been confirmed. The older brother showed up at the cafe door, begging for help, bleeding from his head. Remember the 911 call from the cafe worker, saying they had a bloody mental patient claiming a tiger had bit him? Knowing that he was injured, was bleeding, isn't it then perhaps logical to assume Tatiana followed the blood trail or the scent of blood.

There's a lot of personification of this tiger going on. Her grumpy expression has been discussed! She was a tiger, not a person.......and tigers normally track their prey down for reasons other than being pissed off. The KISS principal would seem to me to the most simple reason Tatiana followed the brothers is because one of them dripped his tasty blood all over the ground for her. He laid a trail right to himself, in other words.

My point is - on the one hand we want to say that a tiger is a tiger and that wild animals are wild and unpredictable and that their attacks can mutilate and kill (which I agree with 100%) and on the other hand we want to say "That tiger only did what she did because she was cruelly provoked - it's obvious that something must have made her very very angry to have done this."

These two positions seem, IMHO, a little screwy. Yes - this tiger might have targeted these boys because they violently provoked her or this tiger might have targeted these boys because they were there and the tiger was in a tetchy mood that Christmas day.

That's my only point. I don't blame a tiger for being a tiger, but I'm also not willing to accept whole-cloth that a tiger has human-like feelings and responses. Might a tiger attack because of stupid human error coupled with the fact that it's a tiger - sure. But it also just might attack because it's a tiger and by it's very nature unpredictable.

I am repeating myself and don't know if I'm making any sense. I am surely interested in facts that might prove these boys were throwing things at the tiger. I just haven't seen any such evidence yet.

Oh, ditto. To everything. Yes, some of it is a repeat, but well worth repeating! Tigers do bite the arm that feeds them, without provocation. And it is ridiculous for the zoo to then turn around and insist she had to have been severely provoked to try to escape her confines. Tigers jump and climb. And if she jumped and climbed and this time ended up outside her enclosure, she may have attacked for the simple reason that she is a tiger.

And for the "experts" who've been all over tv lately talking about how tigers shun human contact, and will avoid humans at all costs: me thinks they are forgetting about the maneating tigers in India. Those little suckers go out of their way to have contact with humans. Tigers are unpredictable. No expert can say anything absolute about any tiger.

 

[southcitymom]

I understand what you are saying and yes you are making sense. I really would like to hear more from a "tiger" expert. Sounds like some cats attack without provocation,just because they are wild animals. i got the impression that tigers are more inclined to walk away from trouble unless they are protecting themselves,or their food.
I think if the cat had just been tranquilized,as opposed to shot,I'd feel a whole lot better.

Yes - I surely wish Tatiana did not have to die for being a tiger. That is truly heartbreaking.

I have read - in the past - a few things about tigers who taste human meat developing a taste for such flesh - this is one of the reasons that I keep mentioning the zoo keeper who she bit. It may be as likely that Tatiana had developed a taste for human flesh as it is that she was taunted at. Or - as we have stated before - it may just be that she is a tiger and we just don't know why the attack happened on this day or to those people.

 

[southcitymom]

I have a question.
This may sound dumb, but if the zoo can prove that the brothers were taunting and aggravating the tiger (throwing sticks and rocks at her, yelling, going into her enclosure, etc), but Mr. Sousa did not taunt the tiger, can they then say that the brothers were responsible to some extent for Mr. Sousa's and Tatiana's deaths ? Maybe they can cancel out the brothers' legal action if they counter sue in some way.

I know the brothers were hurt in the attack, but giving them any money would be like rewarding bad behavior. It just riles me to think that these two bums are going to benefit from their idiotic actions, when they don't seem to have any remorse for the murders they caused.

I don't think it's a dumb question at all. If the zoo can indeed proove such a thing it would certainly reduce the damages they will pay - in a settlement or in the eyes of a jury. I see no hope of the zoo not paying something to the brothers - and probably a large something. Also, without further evidence - I think it would be extraordinarily difficult for the zoo to prove that the brother's were taunting Tatiana but that Souza was an innocent bystander.

If it became clear that the brother's abuse led to Tatiana escaping and killing Souza, criminal charges may even ensue against the brothers. But here is the question with that - would a reasonable person think that slingshotting things at a tiger caged at the San Fran zoo enrage the tiger enough to escape? I just don't know about that - I think most people feel certain that a tiger at a zoo cannot escape no matter how hard it tries.

The zoo should and will pay - alot. We might grieve that they will pay Plaintiffs we don't like and that Plaintiffs we don't like were attacked, but would we rather be having this discussion surrounding a youmg child whose parents brought suit because the tiger escaped and killed their young son and maimed their young daughter?

I personally don't believe that anyone's life is more important than anyone else's, but I think many people do (and in a civil case the type of victim matters) and I think most people would be happy that the zoo found out about this large dangerous flaw in their establishment with these three victims as opposed to finding out on a girl scout troop or other young children.

 

[southcitymom]

I think the zoo should also be sued for slander by all involved if it can be proven that they leaked any taunting rumors. They should also be fined for animal endangerment since keeping animals is their business and the fencing was way shorter than it should have been. I'll never believe that the tiger getting out was done on the first try after these years of being kept there or that no one ever saw her trying to get out before. In fact, I believe a woman did report that she had seen the tigers trying to scale the wall quite awhile back.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[southcitymom]

Too Good River

Even though I know the tiger did nothing wrong, have we heard any more about these guys using slingshots? I also heard a report on FOX TV News that they found a bloody shoe print behind the barrier where anyone from the public should have been. That was quite early on and I never heard it repeated on the news.

There is no truth to this, though it was leaked as real information early!

 

[southcitymom]

Lucky girl you are Linask, with so much to see and do there. Is this the zoo with the famous Aviary?

Off to bed, but I heard Buzz loud and clear and agree. One story I heard is that the guy that died was really trying to protect one of the other two from getting attacked by the tiger. I hadn't heard they were drinking. Or if all 3 knew each other.

I think I have to give kudos to the tiger, a wild animal in a changed environment to where his natural distrust of human beings has been changed by captivity. Kudos might be the wrong word, but it is late. xox

I'm fairly certain all 3 knew each other if only for the fact that Souza's family called the brothers Christmas day looking for their son and the brothers said they didn't know where he was. But that call tells me the three were friendly enough that the father of one of them had the other two's numbers.

 

[southcitymom]

Buzz, it's never been confirmed by police officials. So much of what has been stated in articles has been proven to be false. We were first told the zoo enclosure was the proper height and up to all standards. That turned out to be false. We were told a shoe was found in the moat. Police tell us that is not true. We were told slingshots were found. Police say NO slingshots were found. That's why I asked if POLICE had confirmed this allegation. Because until it is confirmed that pinecones, sticks and other objects which could not reach the moat through natural means were found, then I'm remaining skeptical.

I'm not saying things weren't found. Just that the reporting on this has been so wrong so often that I can't help but wonder if this is one more falsehood that is being perpetrated.

I did not know that - it does look bad for the zoo that all these facts that turn out to be untrue keep getting released. If I were a zoo who had an escaped tiger who had killed and mauled a paying customer or three on Christmas Day a year after maiming one of my workers, I'd be shuffling to spin spin spin the story to my benefit in any way possible. It's not laudable behavior but it is understandable.

 

[southcitymom]

:blowkiss:



Yes, I agree. It's the zoo's fault. Totally and completely the zoo's fault. Because they failed to contain their animal and failed to protect their visitors.



We do not know that Tatiana targeted the brothers and tracked them to the cafe because they taunted her. We do know one of them was bleeding profusely from a head wound caused by Tatiana's biting him near her enclosure. That has been confirmed. The older brother showed up at the cafe door, begging for help, bleeding from his head. Remember the 911 call from the cafe worker, saying they had a bloody mental patient claiming a tiger had bit him? Knowing that he was injured, was bleeding, isn't it then perhaps logical to assume Tatiana followed the blood trail or the scent of blood.

There's a lot of personification of this tiger going on. Her grumpy expression has been discussed! She was a tiger, not a person.......and tigers normally track their prey down for reasons other than being pissed off. The KISS principal would seem to me to the most simple reason Tatiana followed the brothers is because one of them dripped his tasty blood all over the ground for her. He laid a trail right to himself, in other words.




Oh, ditto. To everything. Yes, some of it is a repeat, but well worth repeating! Tigers do bite the arm that feeds them, without provocation. And it is ridiculous for the zoo to then turn around and insist she had to have been severely provoked to try to escape her confines. Tigers jump and climb. And if she jumped and climbed and this time ended up outside her enclosure, she may have attacked for the simple reason that she is a tiger.

And for the "experts" who've been all over tv lately talking about how tigers shun human contact, and will avoid humans at all costs: me thinks they are forgetting about the maneating tigers in India. Those little suckers go out of their way to have contact with humans. Tigers are unpredictable. No expert can say anything absolute about any tiger.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Pharlap]

Off topic for a sec.

Was looking to see if other zoo's around the world had 16 foot walls for there tigers.
Didn't think I'd find this omg.....Tg our zoo's are much better then in China.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1266775,00.html

 

[Lurker]

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

With all due respect to you LionRun, as I'm sure you are more knowledgeable than I on this subject...

While I'm sure the scientific studies mean well....humans have been deciding what makes other beings happy for a long time and they're not always right. I just have to wonder who ever asked the animal? I'm sure that nature didn't intend them to be caged even if the enclosure is like it's natural habitat albeit a fraction of the real thing. These animals were meant to roam, to take big long runs and to hunt. They need space. No human creation can even come close to the real thing. I'm sure the animals feel this. I bet they get the urge to run all of the time but a footbal field size just can't compare to safari. They are hunters, stalkers by nature but I've never seen a zoo keeper throw a live gazelle into the lion pen so that they can be who they are. It just seems cruel.

The animals always look so sad to me.


btw, I too think circus's are the scurge. One look into the elephant's eyes when it had to bear all of those screaming. squirming kids on it's back was enough for me to never, ever go again. That is not what she was meant for. More and more, I am embarrassed to be human.

 

[Lurker]

Here's something that's been bothering me. The brothers that survivied the attack, what the heck is their deal? They lied to the dead guys father saying they hadn't seen him and they aren't cooperating with the investigation?

Hmm, why is that?

 

[southcitymom]

Here's something that's been bothering me. The brothers that survivied the attack, what the heck is their deal? They lied to the dead guys father saying they hadn't seen him and they aren't cooperating with the investigation?

Hmm, why is that?

My theory is that they lied (probably with Souza's full cooperation and consent) because they were all out up to no good - drinking vodka, getting high, copping dope - whatever - just mischief making in general).

I think they didn't cooperate with the investigation for a few reasons - 1) they don't trust or like LE and have a history with LE; 2) the zoo's initial response to them when they appeared bloody and said a tiger was loose was not helpful to them and in fact scornful of them and 3) they wanted to talk to an attorney first because they knew they had a lawsuit. The attorney is probably telling them not to talk now unless he is present.

Also, I think they were traumatized and probably reverted to their natural state of being and self-protection - which seems to be 'a-holes'.

 

[JBean]

My theory is that they lied (probably with Souza's full cooperation and consent) because they were all out up to no good - drinking vodka, getting high, copping dope - whatever - just mischief making in general).

I think they didn't cooperate with the investigation for a few reasons - 1) they don't trust or like LE and have a history with LE; 2) the zoo's initial response to them when they appeared bloody and said a tiger was loose was not helpful to them and in fact scornful of them and 3) they wanted to talk to an attorney first because they knew they had a lawsuit. The attorney is probably telling them not to talk now unless he is present.

Also, I think they were traumatized and probably reverted to their natural state of being and self-protection - which seems to be 'a-holes'.

I can think of many reasons to not talk to the cops about what happened.

But what bothers me is that they wouldn't give their names. Now that is highly suspect of something...I just don't know what.

 

[southcitymom]

I can think of many reasons to not talk to the cops about what happened.

But what bothers me is that they wouldn't give their names. Now that is highly suspect of something...I just don't know what.

Could it have been because of their prior problems with LE? - I'd think we would have heard by now if they had outstanding warrants or anything like that.

Actually I am sure when they decided not to talk to LE, that decision was total - I can see not giving your names as working into that. If you're not going to help - why help at all?

 

[JBean]

Could it have been because of their prior problems with LE? - I'd think we would have heard by now if they had outstanding warrants or anything like that.

Actually I am sure when they decided not to talk to LE, that decision was total - I can see not giving your names as working into that. If you're not going to help - why help at all?

SCM, not talking to the cops does not typically involve refusing to give your name. that can turn into a problem of it's own. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law so not giving an account is understandable. But not giving a name is indicative of more. There is no way around it. Your name can't be used against you.

 

[Buzz Mills]

SCM, not talking to the cops does not typically involve refusing to give your name. that can turn into a problem of it's own. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law so not giving an account is understandable. But not giving a name is indicative of more. There is no way around it. Your name can't be used against you.

The brothers have a history with the San Jose PD; drunkeness, and disorderly, and they were very disrespectful to their neighbors; lots of complaints about them to the police..

 

[Buzz Mills]

SCM, not talking to the cops does not typically involve refusing to give your name. that can turn into a problem of it's own. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law so not giving an account is understandable. But not giving a name is indicative of more. There is no way around it. Your name can't be used against you.

To me, not giving their names, was an attempt at hiding their guilt re; the situation.