Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 2)

[kgeaux]

It was reported that the tiger's hind claws showed wear. But, they should. Cats use their hind quarters to push off and jump (she could and likely would have within her enclosure) and to run up inclines. That her hind claws had wear only means that she was active. It does not necessarily mean that she attempted to escape previously.

Lion

All cats back claws will show wear. The back legs are their drive legs, longer, and much stronger, than the front legs.

Thank you, both, for responding. I was listening to a 'talk show' and they equated the wear on Tatiana's back paws with previous escape attempts. I guess I need to re-think this point, don't I?

 

[Buzz Mills]

But whether the trio had been drinking before going into the zoo won't be known until after the results of toxicology tests are released, said San Francisco Police Sgt. Steve Mannina said.

San Francisco tiger attacks story turning into a circus

It happened at the zoo, but the story of the San Francisco tiger attacks is turning into a circus.

The Christmas Day mauling at the San Francisco Zoo that killed one San Jose teenager and injured his two friends have drawn international media from China to Brazil and sparked headlines in New York City tabloids. Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos has signed on to represent the two San Jose brothers who survived Tatiana the Siberian tiger's attack. And San Francisco crisis-control guru Sam Singer was just brought in to be the zoo's frontman.

The case against the zoo and the city of San Francisco that funds it - both in court and out of it - is sure to be a doozy.

Already the two sides are posturing:

On Wednesday, zoo officials held a press conference ostensibly to announce the reopening of the zoo today after eight days of lockdown since the tiger killed one young man and injured the two others. But they used the media spotlight to refute Geragos's claims that zoo employees were hesitant to act when his clients frantically sought help from the rampaging tiger. To the contrary, zoo director Manuel Mollinedo told reporters, his employees were "heroic." (He couldn't elaborate on that heroism, unfortunately, he said, because of the ongoing investigation.)

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7866040?source=rss

 

[LionRun]

Thank you, both, for responding. I was listening to a 'talk show' and they equated the wear on Tatiana's back paws with previous escape attempts. I guess I need to re-think this point, don't I?

I heard this reported on the news, and I figured that the wear on the hind claws would be considered "proof" or at least "reliable evidence" that the tiger tried to escape previously. It is easy for all of us, including the media and at times LE to jump to conclusions.

Lion

 

[Buzz Mills]

But the case will revolve around two fundamental issues: liability and damages.

No matter what the young men might have done to provoke the tiger, legal experts say the zoo is responsible to keep the tiger confined. If it escapes, the zoo is "strictly liable," said Peter Keane, law professor at San Francisco's Golden Gate Law School.

"If you have a wild animal and you keep it and it gets out of your control, you're liable," said Peter Keane, law professor at San Francisco's Golden Gate Law School.

However, he said, any evidence of taunting could influence how much the zoo pays out in damages to the victims. If the case goes to court and a jury believes the men taunted the tiger and were partially responsible for the attack, the amount of the jury award can be reduced.

"If they just stood there and said, 'nah nah nah nah nah nah, you're a lousy tiger,' that would be one thing," Keane said. "The taunting itself would have to be some kind of conduct that a reasonable person would know would be dangerous, like going up on top of the fense and trying to lure the thing out. It would have to be more than throwing peanut shells at the tiger."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7866040?source=rss

 

[LionRun]

Thanks for the update, Buzz!

Lion

 

[Buzz Mills]

Speaking of cat's claws, my large cat Buddy likes to lay lengthwise on my legs, while I am at the computer, with my legs stretched out, and with my heels resting on the computer work table. His front claws are like needles, and it only takes a minor body adjustment by him, to puncture my shins; my shins always look as if they have been attacked by a cactus. in the meantime, his back claws are dull, by comparison.

 

[LionRun]

It is the same with my cats, too. Yet, part of the reason why a cat's front claws are sharper is because they sharpen the front ones and not the back.

I do want to add that we may learn that there is credible evidence besides just wear on the tiger's hind claws that she attempted to escape via scaling the grotto. But, we don't have any evidence of prior attempts at escaping. And, the claw wear could have and likely would have occurred just from being active in her enclosure.

Lion

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Also in the above linked article:

"The case has led to rumors published in the New York Post and elsewhere that one or more of the young men - brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal and their friend, 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr., who was killed - used slingshots to taunt the animal. But police told the Mercury News on Wednesday they had no evidence of either. "

 

[LionRun]

Thanks for the update, AlwaysShocked! The other day I heard a report on cable news, and it was stated that a sling shot was found in the men's car. Then the news anchors began to discuss the report, and said that sling shots were found with the men. I couldn't help but wonder if the report was not going by way of the telephone game. One sling shot in the car becomes sling shots with the men when they were found in the zoo injured. I could be mistaken, and I am not sure of what was meant by the discussion following the report.

Lion

 

[LinasK]

But it's NOT the first time!! Everyone agreed that her back claws showed 'wear' which indicates she'd tried this before. Right?

No, the "wear" could have come from scaling the wall this time. Noone knows that she jumped. My husband thinks she scaled the wall, then walked along it.

 

[LinasK]

But the case will revolve around two fundamental issues: liability and damages.

No matter what the young men might have done to provoke the tiger, legal experts say the zoo is responsible to keep the tiger confined. If it escapes, the zoo is "strictly liable," said Peter Keane, law professor at San Francisco's Golden Gate Law School.

"If you have a wild animal and you keep it and it gets out of your control, you're liable," said Peter Keane, law professor at San Francisco's Golden Gate Law School.

However, he said, any evidence of taunting could influence how much the zoo pays out in damages to the victims. If the case goes to court and a jury believes the men taunted the tiger and were partially responsible for the attack, the amount of the jury award can be reduced.

"If they just stood there and said, 'nah nah nah nah nah nah, you're a lousy tiger,' that would be one thing," Keane said. "The taunting itself would have to be some kind of conduct that a reasonable person would know would be dangerous, like going up on top of the fense and trying to lure the thing out. It would have to be more than throwing peanut shells at the tiger."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7866040?source=rss

I think slinging pine cones and sticks using a sling shot, is far more than peanut shells and would piss me off if I were a tiger...

 

[Texana]

By the time they finish paying for the attorney fees and lawsuit payouts, it will be obvious, it's cheaper to hire someone to just stand fulltime in front of the big cat enclosures and monitor the areas.

If nothing else, maybe that will be one good thing that comes out of this. The animals won't be taunted on a regular basis by idiots, and the idiots won't be mauled.

 

[PJs]

Except that zoos have to expect that there is among the human species a sub-species of man which thinks it is 'entertaining' to taunt an animal, and safe guards should have been in place to either prevent the taunting, or protect the taunter.

This is it!!! This is really what it boils down to. These guys may have been the ugliest of guests but the zoo still should have had enough safe guards to protect the public from any wild animal getting to a guest in the park.
What if these boys were surrounded by a car load of daycare kids?

 

[txsvicki]

I think it's disgusting that any news about slingshots got out before the proper authorities were able to do a full investigation. If the zoo is run by the city and there's a huge lawsuit won't the public end up paying this in higher taxes or cuts elsewhere? All because the zoo didn't do the safe thing. Now trying to accuse and equate taunting an animal with a kid being killed. Too bad no leaks of too low of fences got out to the public through the media in the last however many years it's been there.

 

[SeekingJana]

Two things come to mind:
If those two survivors recover monetary damages, which I am sure they will, I wonder what their lives will be like in 2 years when this is settled and they have their money?

I hope a competent necropsy was done on the tiger. If she was hit with large objects antemortem, there might be proof on necropsy. Not saying that she was, but that she might have been.

IMO, Tatiana the tiger is the one blameless entity in the entire saga. She did what a tiger does instinctively.

 

[LionRun]

This is it!!! This is really what it boils down to. These guys may have been the ugliest of guests but the zoo still should have had enough safe guards to protect the public from any wild animal getting to a guest in the park.
What if these boys were surrounded by a car load of daycare kids?

This is so true. And, maybe zoos all over will now measure, test or do whatever it takes to ensure that all enclosures are secure and at least to standard. This is one good thing that come come from this.

Lion

 

[kgeaux]

Also in the above linked article:

"The case has led to rumors published in the New York Post and elsewhere that one or more of the young men - brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal and their friend, 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr., who was killed - used slingshots to taunt the animal. But police told the Mercury News on Wednesday they had no evidence of either. "

This is getting really weird. One by one, all the things I've heard about the young men and what they did to 'deserve what they got' are being systematically proven to be false.

Shoe in the moat....false (alleged by zoo director, refuted by police chief)
dangling of leg........false
plank over moat......false
pinecones and sticks in moat.......(?)
boys armed with slingshots..........false
editing to add.....shoe print on enclosure wall.......(undetermined if it matches any of these guys' shoes)


What I know that has proven to be true:

enclosure was much lower than zoo director claimed.....
evidence is showing Tatiana could have scaled the wall without assistance....
moat was not as wide as zoo director first claimed....
zoo workers delayed calling 911, and when they did call, they downplayed the incident, alleging that the bloody guys screaming for help were mentally impaired....

The two brothers have now alleged that the cafe workers refused to allow them to enter the cafe when they were banging on the door and begging for sanctuary. I don't know how THIS allegation is going to turn out, but I'm not going to be surprised one bit if it turns out to be true.


I don't know about the rest of you guys, but from where I'm sitting, the zoo is looking worse and worse. (Nobody plays CYA with such persistance unless there is something to cover!) And the guys, while far from pure, are looking more and more like victims who may have done NOTHING, or done very little, to provoke the attack.

I'm waiting for someone to verify the guys taunted the tiger in some sort of way to cause provocation before I even consider adding taunting into the equation......has there been a single witness to taunting? Have I missed something?

 

[kgeaux]

Also in the above linked article:

"The case has led to rumors published in the New York Post and elsewhere that one or more of the young men - brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal and their friend, 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr., who was killed - used slingshots to taunt the animal. But police told the Mercury News on Wednesday they had no evidence of either. "

Thanks for the update, AlwaysShocked! The other day I heard a report on cable news, and it was stated that a sling shot was found in the men's car. Then the news anchors began to discuss the report, and said that sling shots were found with the men. I couldn't help but wonder if the report was not going by way of the telephone game. One sling shot in the car becomes sling shots with the men when they were found in the zoo injured. I could be mistaken, and I am not sure of what was meant by the discussion following the report.

Lion

Thank you, AlwaysShocked, and Lion. No slingshot. Not even one in the car, Lion! The article says an empty vodka bottle was found in the car. There really seems to be a concerted effort to place all the blame for this on the three young men. The only entity to gain from that tactic is the zoo.

No, the "wear" could have come from scaling the wall this time. Noone knows that she jumped. My husband thinks she scaled the wall, then walked along it.

I think slinging pine cones and sticks using a sling shot, is far more than peanut shells and would piss me off if I were a tiger...

Thanks, Linas. I heard the news about her back claws on a talk show, and they all acted like that was definitive evidence of past escape attempts. I swallowed it, hook, line and sinker. I've been educated now!

We now know police are denying that any slingshot was found......and unless I've missed it, police have not confirmed that pinecones, sticks and other objects that could not have reached the area naturally have been found in the moat. Do you know if that has been confirmed?

 

[southcitymom]

Don't get me wrong- I am pretty sure these guys are jerks/louts who may very well have been acting like jerks/louts.

But those who say they got what they deserved- that's very harsh. We don't physically punish people for being jerks in this country.

And regardless of what the AZA may have believed about the fence/wall, it wasn't high enough to protect the public. The tiger got out. And killed a 17 year old boy.

If the kids in my neighborhood throw rocks at my vicious Rottweiler (I don't actually have a dog) and the dog gets out and attacks them viciously--well, of course, I am responsible for not properly protecting the public from a vicious animal.

Within minutes of the reporting of this attack , speculation began that the boys were taunting the tiger. Where did that come from if not from the common opinion that zoo animals are taunted? And since we all "know" that the public taunts the animals, then the zoo people must surely know that as well.

And plenty of knowlegeable experts have agreed that a 12-13 foot wall would not be high enough to keep the tiger in. It wasn't. The boys were attacked, and they would not have been if the tiger were properly enclosed. Allowances must be made for the fact that not every zoo-goer is smart, or noble, or well-intended. The ignorant and cruel deserve protection as well as the gentle and wise.

But for G-d's sakes, those guys didn't deserve to be attacked or killed! How can you say these young ignoramuses deserved what they got?

Maybe I am just a bleeding heart who considers even punks to be deserving of life and health, unless they have committed a crime for which the sentence is death. Throwing rocks at a zoo animal, although cruel, is not a crime which would ever call for the death penalty.

I agree 100% with everything you wrote!!!!

 

[kgeaux]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7866040?source=rss

Also from the article:


Mollinedo - who has acknowledged that the tiger exhibit wall is four feet below national guidelines - indicated again that he believes that the tiger was taunted.

"All I know is that something happened to provoke that tiger to leap out of her exhibit," Mollinedo said. "The police are investigating it and until they can come up with some definitive answers, it would only be speculation on my part at this point."

Here is an example of what I've been talking about (the systematic effort to blame the young men.)

"All I KNOW is that SOMETHING HAPPENED TO PROVOKE that tiger." No, he does not know that. He does know his wall was short enough that every tiger expert is saying the tiger could have scaled the wall with no assistance. He may BELIEVE the boys taunted the tiger. But he cannot KNOW it unless there are witnesses to taunting......he won't KNOW this until the police finish their investigation, or until people come forward saying they saw Carlos and the brothers dangling themselves over the wall or saw them throwing sticks at Tatiana, etc.

Mollinedo admits it's just speculation on his part, but he is using strong definitive language to get it out there that the boys are responsible. He knows he is liable, and he is trying like heck to limit his liability.