Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #201
To me, not giving their names, was an attempt at hiding their guilt re; the situation.

Why? How can their names make anyone assume guilt of causing a tiger attack? The brother's aren't stupid. They knew their names would come out eventually - especially in a lawsuit. I think they were just stonewalling completely.
 
  • #202
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.

I'm just not following this line of reasoning, JBean - that not giving the name meant "more" than what we already know (they have prior arrests and complaints and a bad rep with LE)! Please help me understand!!:confused: :)

Are you talking about them perhaps being illegal as Jeana had suggested? I though it had been determined that they were not.
 
  • #203
I'm just not following this line of reasoning, JBean - that not giving the name meant "more" than what we already know (they have prior arrests and complaints and a bad rep with LE)! Please help me understand!!:confused: :)

Are you talking about them perhaps being illegal as Jeana had suggested? I though it had been determined that they were not.
I am suggesting that refusing to give one's name is an indicator of consciousness of guilt. Guilt of what, I have no idea. there is no advantage or disadvantage to your legal rights if you refuse to give your name. It is within your rights to not give information but you are only making things worse when you refuse to give your name.
 
  • #204
Why? How can their names make anyone assume guilt of causing a tiger attack? The brother's aren't stupid. They knew their names would come out eventually - especially in a lawsuit. I think they were just stonewalling completely.
There are plenty of reasons to refuse to give LE information regarding what happened that do not imply guilt imo.
But refusing to give your name is something else entirely.
 
  • #205
I am suggesting that refusing to give one's name is an indicator of consciousness of guilt. Guilt of what, I have no idea. there is no advantage or disadvantage to your legal rights if you refuse to give your name. It is within your rights to not give information but you are only making things worse when you refuse to give your name.
Exactly JBeanya. If I was a juror in this civil case, and heard testimony that they wouldn't provide their names; It's Strike One against the plaintiffs.
 
  • #206
Exactly JBeanya.
I mean let's face it. They were involved in a serious event, their friend was dead and they were both injured. Refusal to give names? Something is rotten in Denmark.
I find this to be the only thing that really makes me think they were up to no good. Everything else is speculaitve, but this is fact.
 
  • #207
I am suggesting that refusing to give one's name is an indicator of consciousness of guilt. Guilt of what, I have no idea. there is no advantage or disadvantage to your legal rights if you refuse to give your name. It is within your rights to not give information but you are only making things worse when you refuse to give your name.

Okay - I understand what you are saying - it honestly doesn't strike me that way, but you may well be right!

What - no Tiger Watch out there along with Britney Watch and Storm Watch?!! You live in a very exciting state!!!
 
  • #208
Exactly JBeanya. If I was a juror in this civil case, and heard testimony that they wouldn't provide their names; It's Strike One against the plaintiffs.

For me, it wouldn't be. I would just assume they decided not to tell the police jack!

Now - it surely seems like there would be other strikes against them. They are not ideal Plaintiffs, but I'll be shocked if the case ever reaches a jury!!!
 
  • #209
I worked as a zookeeper for almost ten years and anyone who thinks it is not dangerous to be a visitor at a zoo is just not taking in the whole picture.

Even with safe guards there are aspects like human error, equipment or material flaws, breeding season, age, length of time in captivity, etc that can lead to tragedy. Tigers are nocturnal so dusk dark would be an active and potentially very dangerous time. Tigresses are especially ferocious when pushed to extremities (page 272 in the excerpt from the book Thirteen Years Among the Wild Beast of India).

#PPA272,M1[/URL]"]http://books.google.com/books?id=dyfs54y-LqgC&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=killer+tigers+india&source=web&ots=dROn7ZCUez&sig=XlDU3Fajym62nAEUBn2IlEuqxoE#PPA272,M1[/URL]

I am so sad about this because modern zoos have noble aspirations [captive breeding for release to the wild, endangered species egg and sperm banks, habitat preservation, rehabilitation of injured wildlife]but the zoo going public makes demands through buying tickets and memberships and they want no barriers in the way of their viewing.

Quoting myself :rolleyes: but I want to bump up this link because I do not want to make statements about tiger behavior without a source to back it up.

Tigers do indeed stalk for other reasons than just eating, especially tigress. This is but one source about tiger behavior. It will not let me cut and paste but I will quote some:

“Tigress are as a rule more viscous, sly and enterprising as also more ferocious when pushed to extremities.”

“ Though the belief that some tigers confine themselves entirely to human flesh is undoubtedly erroneous, a man is so much more easily overcome than any other animal that man-eaters frequently seize cow herders in preference to the cattle they are in charge of.”

“Tigers frequently astonish those most conversant with their ordinary habits by some erratic conduct, and is unsafe to condemn as untrue almost anything that might be related to their doings…. merely because it is unusual or unprecedented.”

This book was written by a tiger slayer for the Mysore Government [and has a colonial tone]. There are several passages that are just chilling knowing what we do about the SF attack.

I kept a jaguar that enjoyed regular visitors. I have no doubt the jaguar recognized these visitors as hers. They could call and carry on and she would rub, gurgle and roll around. When the visitors would start running back and forth she would leap around her enclosure in pursuit just like a domestic cat. One day I got the Communiqué from AZA and a jaguar had killed her keeper. It had bizarrely slipped through an narrow opening and killed her keeper instantly as she worked in the lock down area. I quit playing chasing games with her that day and instead had her focus on chasing toys. Didn’t want her to get out and think I wanted to be chased!

To understand the difficult position zoos are in one only has to read this thread. A tiger is a top predator- they show no mercy to any other animal humans included- that is their nature. A healthy, happy tiger is viscous and audacious. Tatiana was not only healthy but in the prime of her life mated with a suitable male fed regularly a well balanced diet with regular medical care. She was more on the top of her game than any wild tiger – so why are we surprised she was unpredictable [her nature], ferocious [her nature]?

The question we need to ask is what do we need to do to educate the public to still contribute to zoos [so they can save endangered and threatened wildlife] and visit even if we do have to put barriers between the public and animals. [They look “sad” caged even though the habitat inside is natural]. Why do we have to resort to entertainment measures to get an animal to “be active” so visitors will be pleased. Big cats lay around all day in the shade- get over it visitors! On the reverse a zoo that regularly fed [dead] goats to cats was slammed when visitors caught sight of the carcass being consumed. Not Disney enough to see a cat with it’s face buried in the gut of a goat – a much more naturalistic way of feeding then showing visitors the hand feeding a chunk of horsemeat.

I learned at an AZA conference in a session on cats that it is habit loss and predation by humans that is endangering cats. They breed freely and there is sufficient gene pool for most species but there is not many places to return them to the wild. So zoos work to preserve their habitat and educate the locals. But much as the wolf here in US it is those who don’t live where the predator roams that most want it returned to the wild. If many species were not in zoos and part of the Species Survival Plan there would be no hope.

:twocents:
 
  • #210
Okay - I understand what you are saying - it honestly doesn't strike me that way, but you may well be right!

What - no Tiger Watch out there along with Britney Watch and Storm Watch?!! You live in a very exciting state!!!
No tiger watch.:D

What possible reason would there be to not give your name in an incident where you were the victim?
 
  • #211
No tiger watch.:D

What possible reason would there be to not give your name in an incident where you were the victim?

For me - no reason at all. But for me, there would also be no reason at all to not tell everything I knew.

I bundle the two choices together - and don't see the not giving a name as any bigger or different deal than not giving other information. For all I knew - they thought - "Man - we're always in trouble with LE because we're up to no good - we're not saying sh#t until we talk to a lawyer."

I am stubborn enough that I believe given the right set of circumstances, if I decided I wasn't telling LE a single solitary thing about an event, I really wouldn't tell them a single solitary thing.
 
  • #212
For me - no reason at all. But for me, there would also be no reason at all to not tell everything I knew.

I bundle the two choices together - and don't see the not giving a name as any bigger or different deal than not giving other information. For all I knew - they thought - "Man - we're always in trouble with LE because we're up to no good - we're not saying sh#t until we talk to a lawyer."

I am stubborn enough that I believe given the right set of circumstances, if I decided I wasn't telling LE a single solitary thing about an event, I really wouldn't tell them a single solitary thing.
It is a different deal. One doesn't give an account of events because they want to consult with an attorney first, because anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. I can understand that and does not imply guilt.
but one does not need to consult an attorney regarding one's name and one's name has no bearing on future court preceedings.
People do not give their names because they do not want it known who they are for some reason.
 
  • #213
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.

Thanks, southcitymom! I appreciate your input.
 
  • #214
It is astonishing to me that they had the wherewithal to even be able to withhold their names considering the nature of the situation.
 
  • #215
Did they tell Sousa's father they hadn't seen him before the attack or after? Please tell me it was before all of this happened.
 
  • #216
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.
I think the only case the zoo may have to pay out on will be for Souza. The brothers may get some money from the zoo, but they will also have to prove damages. So far they do not seem to have extensive damages. They are not disfigured, they have all their limbs with no permanent damage to them, they do not need plastic surgery. Heck, they walked out of the hospital in less than a week without a limp, scratch or bandage visible. If I was on a jury I could see them getting their medical paid for, maybe loss of wages but not much more. On top of that, I would look at their responsibility for the accident and deduct their percentage of comparative negligence from the total damages. So if they got $50,000 and were 50% negligent they would end up with $25,000. Probably barely enough to pay their attorney and experts.
 
  • #217
Initially the brothers wouldn't even provide police with the name of their dead friend. Along with not providing their own names, that speaks volumes.
 
  • #218
Hockeymom,

Did this expert talk about why the tiger attacked and pulled the arm off a person who was feeding it? Was the tiger really really mad that it was being fed? ;)
The last report I heard on this incident, the zoo worker did not lose her arm. She was severely injured in the arm because it was bit as she was feeding the tiger. Somehow I can't blame the tiger for going for the raw meat and not knowing the difference between it and the arm. She has had several surgeries, but has not lost the arm so it's a bit dramatic and misleading to say the arm was "torn off".
 
  • #219
Did they tell Sousa's father they hadn't seen him before the attack or after? Please tell me it was before all of this happened.
It was Christmas Day, when Sousa didn't show up for Christmas dinner, the father called the brothers. This was, of course, before his death. The brothers still haven't been willing to speak to Sousa's father, or that was the word as of two days ago..
 
  • #220
My current cat is the most loving, people-oriented cat I've ever had. Almost like a dog. He quite literally does not know how to use his claws as weapons.

Yet he was playing with my partner last week and "accidentally" left Mr. Nova with a bloody arm. No malice, no anger, and Mr. Nova was not taunting the cat.

I can only imagine what a tiger might do, just being a tiger.
Mine does that as well. He's a 10# kitten (8 months) old and he has some sharp teeth. He's very good about not using them usually, but occasionally he gets to playing too rough and it almost always ends up with a few scratches. Par for the course when you have cats :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
2,926
Total visitors
3,060

Forum statistics

Threads
632,199
Messages
18,623,467
Members
243,056
Latest member
Urfavplutonian
Back
Top