Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 2)

[philamena]

Ever since the Scott Peterson case, Mark Geragos's name is MUD in Northern CA. The two young men, who taunted Tatiana, have about 2 1/2 strikes against them, just by retaining MG. Losers all deserve one another.

:clap: Yep, truer words were never spoken.

 

[southcitymom]

Well, I am glad Geragos had taken their case, on contingency probably. he seems to be on quite a losing streak!

I am sure they will come to some kind of settlement, even IF it turns out they were tormenting the tiger. Sad too, cause if that were the case they wouldn't get a DIME from me!

You're right. Geragos would have to work hard not to get a settlement from the zoo. It will settle, IMHO - and not go to trial.

 

[JBean]

The fact that that hired Geragos means two things to me:

1) They are stone cold 100% guilty of, at the very least, everything they've been accused if;

2) If taken to trial with Geragos as their attorney, they will be found guilty and punished appropriately.

So all in all I consider this a positive development.

Happy New Year Ad. You are so right. I think I heard MG say they were factually innocent.

 

[southcitymom]

The fact that that hired Geragos means two things to me:

1) They are stone cold 100% guilty of, at the very least, everything they've been accused if;

2) If taken to trial with Geragos as their attorney, they will be found guilty and punished appropriately.

So all in all I consider this a positive development.

There's no guilty/not guilty in a civil trial. There is only liability and amount of damages. The brothers will not be punished in a civil trial.

The zoo will pay something - although it will certainly pay less if it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the brothers had a hand in provoking the tiger to escape.

 

[Morag]

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.

 

[kgeaux]

Continue on...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/02/tiger.attack.ap/index.html

Here we go...they cannot talk to the police about what happened, but they sure as hell can talk to their mouthpiece Gerragos.

The ONLY thing that keeps me "open minded" about these two is that the zoo started very early on dropping hints that the tiger was taunted. IF these two 'maulees' did NOT taunt the tiger, hearing the zoo try to blame it on them MIGHT explain their behavior.

 

[LinasK]

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.

Okay, first of all, let me state that the zoo should have changed the tiger exhibit years ago, it's obvious by looking at it when you are there, that the walls were too short. That being said, the tiger never had enough provocation in the past to escape.
These guys pissed her off. Reportedly they found a bottle of vodka in their car, the Dhaliwal brothers lied to the victim's father, were uncooperative with the police, and pinecones and sticks were found in the tiger enclosure as well as slingshots found by medical workers on the Dhaliwal brothers. I do believe they got what they deserved. An endanger tiger also got killed because of these jerks stupidity and cruelty! Now the zoo is no longer a safe place, they have ruined it for everyone, and Souza died unneedlessly, believing these idiots were his friends.

 

[kgeaux]

I feel that way too, although I also feel the zoo director lied, and they should have changed the tiger exhibit years ago.
I would like to be able to return to that zoo, but I'm not sure I'll feel safe.

He lied from the get-go. We should not forget that. Thanks, Linas, for reminding us. There has been a concerted effort to make people believe the three young men #1, dangled a leg over the edge of the enclosure, as proved by a shoe being found in or near the moat (later proved false) #2. the enclosure was the proper height, no way could the tiger have gotten out without "assistance" (read: no way could Tatiana have gotten out if she did not grab onto someone's leg and use that leg to get out) Status of this claim: FALSE: the enclosure was NOT as tall as the zoo director first said. The tiger COULD jump out without assistance, indeed, the wear on her back nails indicates she has tried numerous times before. In fact, the zoo director is now saying it has become increasingly clear that Tatiana was able to escape her enclosure UNAIDED. #3. speculation was raised the the boys actually laid a fricking board across a 35 foot span to enable Tatiana to cross the moat (false!) #4. sticks and pinecones in the moat prove the young men were taunting the tiger......(this one is still up in the air.)

Although these young men are not your basic Sunday School attendees, I am going to keep in mind that MUCH of what the zoo has alleged has been proven to be false. So might it ALL be false?

Ever since the Scott Peterson case, Mark Geragos's name is MUD in Northern CA. The two young men, who taunted Tatiana, have about 2 1/2 strikes against them, just by retaining MG. Losers all deserve one another.

Mark Gerogos is slime. Totally agree. That does not necessarily equate to his clients are scum. OR that they taunted Tatiana; so far that is speculation. Even the zoo is only HINTING that the tiger was taunted. She may well have been, but we do not know that yet.

So you believe that the tiger was well-entitled to attack them for "taunting" (whatever that might mean) her? And that death or grievous bodily injury is justified in a case of face-making, name-calling, whatever?

I have been somewhat shocked to read on Websleuths, a board devoted to justice for victims, that many people think these young men got what was coming to them. If every foolish person, young or old, who has taunted or teased zoo animals were punished in this way, there would be thousands of deaths and injuries each year.

If we accept the fact that wild animals are to be displayed for the education and pleasure of humans, then we are obliged to accept the fact that the humans need protection from the animals, and vice versa. If it were that easy for the tiger to escape, she could have also mauled "innocent" bystanders.

I'm sorry that the tiger was captured, caged, and ultimately killed. But the death and injuries of these guys was in no way justified. A fine, a banning from the zoo, but death? and mauling?

The huge error on the part of zoo officials which allowed this to happen is shocking and should be harshly dealt with. Someone will surely lose his/her job, and the zoo will be financially penalized. Surely you don't think that the zoo keepers should be thrown to wild animals? Those victims could have been helpless infants...and perhaps they were not taunting the tiger. QUOTE]


Nothing shocks me here, anymore. I have seen people here call for the torture and death of people who are only suspected of wrong-doing. All I can think is that some people are either highly excitable, or don't really mean what they say, or we are visited by evil. And of course, at this time, for all we know, your last point is one hundred percent accurate.

 

[kgeaux]

Okay, first of all, let me state that the zoo should have changed the tiger exhibit years ago, it's obvious by looking at it when you are there, that the walls were too short. That being said, the tiger never had enough provocation in the past to escape.
These guys pissed her off. Reportedly they found a bottle of vodka in their car, the Dhaliwal brothers lied to the victim's father, were uncooperative with the police, and pinecones and sticks were found in the tiger enclosure as well as slingshots found by medical workers on the Dhaliwal brothers. I do believe they got what they deserved. An endanger tiger also got killed because of these jerks stupidity and cruelty! Now the zoo is no longer a safe place, they have ruined it for everyone, and Souza died unneedlessly, believing these idiots were his friends.

We do NOT know that the tiger escaped because of provocation, Linas! We do know her back claws showed she had tried this escape before.......maybe this time she made it?

 

[Nova]

Perfectly summarized, kgeaux. Perfectly.

 

[kgeaux]

Perfectly summarized, kgeaux. Perfectly.

Thank you, Nova. It's so clear to me. I can't understand that everybody doesn't see it.

 

[hockeymom]

I don't believe anyone deserves to be killed or maimed,but I don't believe the two brothers should be compensated if indeed they were antaginizing the tiger. If they came to the zoo with sling shots,their intensions were to taunt animals,what else would they have them for?

 

[Details]

I think it's pretty extremely likely they were taunting the tiger (and - tiger's don't speak English - when I speak of 'taunting' the tiger, I don't mean making stupid knock-knock jokes, or making noises - that's hitting it with a BB gun (my first guess) or other missles) - this tiger has been there for quite some time, and the first time it decides to jump the wall and attack someone, it's some kids with a bad history who won't talk to police? That seems far, far, far too great of a coincidence, that on that day, just at random, the tiger jumps out, and just at random happens to attack, out of all the people there, these 3 guys.

As to, justified - I can understand saying that. You go mess with an animal that can kill you, and you've chosen your fate. Now, doing so at a zoo is a cowards choice, attacking an animal because they're helpless to retaliate. It's a disgusting act, it's something that often is the first step to bigger crimes. Assuming the slingshot is true - and I think so - these guys went to the zoo because there were animals in cages that they could torment, they could enjoy hurting, without any risk of the animal being able to strike back. That's pretty sick.

I don't know about the third guy - I suspect he was a patsy, a fool going along with some buddies - but the two brothers, their actions before, during, and after show a character that is rotten to the core. Anyone with any decency would have at least told the father where his son was, or called to say sorry, to answer his questions, or done some small thing, anything, to try to lighten his grief.

 

[kgeaux]

I don't believe anyone deserves to be killed or maimed,but I don't believe the two brothers should be compensated if indeed they were antaginizing the tiger. If they came to the zoo with sling shots,their intensions were to taunt animals,what else would they have them for?

I agree with you, to a degree. I hate the thought that some low life would antagonize a trapped animal. If they came with slingshots, if the reports of pinecones and sticks in the moat are true, and I admit right up front that I have my doubts as to the truthfulness of zoo reports, then yes, the young men may have 'asked for it.' BUT the responsibility of the zoo is to ensure that NO ANIMAL CAN ESCAPE its enclosure..... so I guess, even if they WERE antagonizing Tatiana, there was a reasonable expectation that the tiger could not get out of her enclosure.

It's almost a toss up to me. 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. And except that the zoo director lied about the height of the enclosure, which makes me think he well knew the enclosure was sub-par.

Toss up.

I think I need more time!!

 

[kgeaux]

I think it's pretty extremely likely they were taunting the tiger (and - tiger's don't speak English - when I speak of 'taunting' the tiger, I don't mean making stupid knock-knock jokes, or making noises - that's hitting it with a BB gun (my first guess) or other missles) - this tiger has been there for quite some time, and the first time it decides to jump the wall and attack someone, it's some kids with a bad history who won't talk to police? That seems far, far, far too great of a coincidence, that on that day, just at random, the tiger jumps out, and just at random happens to attack, out of all the people there, these 3 guys.

As to, justified - I can understand saying that. You go mess with an animal that can kill you, and you've chosen your fate. Now, doing so at a zoo is a cowards choice, attacking an animal because they're helpless to retaliate. It's a disgusting act, it's something that often is the first step to bigger crimes. Assuming the slingshot is true - and I think so - these guys went to the zoo because there were animals in cages that they could torment, they could enjoy hurting, without any risk of the animal being able to strike back. That's pretty sick.

I don't know about the third guy - I suspect he was a patsy, a fool going along with some buddies - but the two brothers, their actions before, during, and after show a character that is rotten to the core. Anyone with any decency would have at least told the father where his son was, or called to say sorry, to answer his questions, or done some small thing, anything, to try to lighten his grief.

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

 

[dark_shadows]

Here is a link about the slingshots that were found on the brothers.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01012008/news/nationalnews/tiger_brothers_had_slingshots_480170.htmSlingshots found[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]

Respectfully,
dark_shadows

 

[Columbo]

As soon as I heard that they had Geragos as a lawyer, I figured their lawsuit was doomed to failure! We shall see.
I hate to say this, but they don't deserve a cent. They should have to pay for causing the death of the tiger and the Costa boy. The zoo could sue them.

 

[LionRun]

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

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

 

[Buzz Mills]

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

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

 

[Buzz Mills]

I wonder if they skinned Tatiana, looking for bruises. Maybe they still have her body in cold storage.