Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 2)

[kgeaux]

From the latest article Buzz linked (Thanks, Buzz!)

Why convene the court of public opinion so early? To start, first impressions matter. The tiger attack has received wall-to-wall coverage on television and in newspapers. If the city can plant doubts about the brothers' innocence early enough, it can be difficult for them to recover.
Yes, it might be unfair that details of the brothers' criminal records have been splashed before the public: A misdemeanor case of public intoxication and resisting a police officer is pending against both. Those peccadilloes may have little to do with what happened on Christmas Day.
And yes, it might be unfair that the media runs with lightly sourced stories saying that one brother told the other in the ambulance not to talk about what they did.
Yet this isn't about fairness any more. It's not even precisely about truth. It's about money. By hiring a legal gladiator like Geragos and refusing to talk publicly, the Dhaliwals have already climbed in the bunker for a fight. (It's fair to point out that the brothers also could worry about a misdemeanor prosecution for taunting an animal, although cops have maintained they have no hard evidence of that). Meanwhile, Singer, the zoo's fixer, has done his job well, planting doubts about the brothers' behavior, making sure everyone knows they haven't voluntarily turned over their cell phone records or videos of the scene outside Tatiana's enclosure (City Attorney Dennis Herrera obtained an emergency court order Tuesday to examine the cell phones).
"The three requirements for a plaintiff's case that are most important are the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the plaintiff," McManis says.
Even the Sousas have hired an attorney, James Geagan. In all likelihood, the family will receive a check from the city, too.

It is all about money, and it has been all about money from the instant the zoo realized their tiger was eating visitors. There is a concerted effort to blacken these young men, to cast blame on them, to make the public believe "they got what they deserved." I UNDERSTAND what the zoo is doing, and why. But it's wrong. And when they stoop to lies (Our wall is high enough! Our tiger couldn't possibly get out without assistance! Our tiger must have been severely provoked to attack! There's a shoe in the moat!) to prove their point, I've found it's wise to step back, disconnect my emotions from the situation, and analyze who, what, when and where. It looks very different without emotion. For me, my emotion would say "They threw things at the tiger and upset her, causing her to escape." Divorce that emotion, and my logic asks "How come that tiger was able to escape? What if a kindergartener threw pinecones?"

 

[Floh]

We keep saying "boys" but the picture I saw, the survivors are not "boys", they are MEN.

Thank you. i have mentioned this once or twice. it's appalling they should be thought of as boys, IMO.

 

[feddup]

I saw Mark Geragos (sp) on TV. of course its all about the money. No matter how much the tiger was taunted and I DO believe it was....or are we to assume Tiger went beserk while MEN are standing there innocently admiring it lol
Im just mad that the Zoo didnt have proper people there to capture the Tiger and get her back into her enclosure. i truly feel for wild animals, look, shes dead. They mustve known that certain people coming into that Zoo would tease the animals.
If theyre so "innocent" why wont they total;y cooperate with LE? hmmm

 

[Buzz Mills]

Thank you. i have mentioned this once or twice. it's appalling they should be thought of as boys, IMO.

To carry it one step further, they should be thought of as thugs, because that is what they are. Ask a local, and you will get that same answer. People who live here know them only too well.

 

[Buzz Mills]

Injured teenager describes tiger attack to dead friend's mother

The morning of Carlos Sousa Jr.'s funeral mass, his mother telephoned Carlos's best friend, Paul Dhaliwal, and implored him to call her. She wanted to know what really happened at the San Francisco Zoo when her son was killed by the Siberian tiger and Paul and his older brother were mauled.
For the first time since the Christmas Day attack, the 19-year-old called her back, crying.

"How did it happen?" Marilza Sousa asked, her Portuguese accent thick. It was quick, the 19-year-old said. "Did you stick anything through the fence or taunt the tiger?" Marilza Sousa asked him. "No," he told her. "We never tried to taunt the animal. We were talking, laughing, walking, nothing else."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7925599?source=most_viewed

 

[feddup]

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?

No, its more like they need to protect the animals from the human animals that come in and they didnt. The Tiger is dead. She shouldve been protected from people taunting her.
Its too bad the zoo didnt have a video cam on the tiger enclosure, then what REALLY happened would be known.

 

[southcitymom]

I'm not defending them! I am trying to determine WHAT they did. But I am also of the mind that no matter what they did, the zoo failed to contain its animal.....IOW, NOTHING they did, short of entering the enclosure or opening the door, absolves the zoo of any responsibility. I am aware that an empty vodka bottle was found, and I believe the actions Jennifer Miller describes would support the fact that they had recently consumed the vodka. BUT toxicology reports aren't available yet, so none of us are sure: we just suspect. Even if they WERE drunk, does it matter? Can tigers maul drunk people, and it's ok? Of course not! ( I know you agree with me!) It matters not one whit to me whether they were up to good or no good. The bottom line is and will continue to be, and not just for me, but I suspect for liability purposes also, the zoo failed to contain their animal. And when zoo visitors reported they were injured and being mauled, zoo employees called 911 and reported bloody crazy mental patients on the grounds......

Again, I'm not defending them. But much has been said that was WRONG. No shoe was found in the enclosure. And contrary to what you post about a slingshot being found, they were NOT found with a slingshot! The police deny that very thing. I'm not going to judge these guys on the basis of out and out lies. I'll judge them on what I know is true: so far, that boils down to they were acting like drunk young men and roaring at the lions. They sound like absolutely low-life human beings, and when I read some of the comments left to Carlos at his funeral, I wonder if they were all gang members. BUT the "worthiness" of these guys has little to do with what happened, IMO. I don't believe you can "get what you ask for" if the zoo has taken reasonable and recommended steps to contain their animals. When the reports are finalized about items (whatever they turn out to be) in the moat, and whether the shoe print on the ledge belongs to one of the brothers or to Carlos, then I will add that into my decision making process. But I'm not going to assume that anything coming out of the zoo is truth, because alot of it has been proven to be FALSE.

Thank you for pointing out the slide show. I, of course, have seen it, since I commented on it. The brother who is hugging Carlos's dad is NOT one of the brothers who was at the zoo......the caption explains that. So it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks his facial expression looks like. He looks red and scrunched up to me, much like my adult sons look when they are crying and are horribly embarrassed to cry. But like I said, he wasn't at the zoo, and it doesn't matter WHAT his face looks like: he had nothing to do with the incident.

The slide show also shows a picture or two in which the large slash areas on the brothers' heads are visable, for those of you who thought they weren't injured. The older brother seems to be lucky he wasn't scalped.

I don't have much time to be on WS these days, so I will just continue to follow you around and say Amen, sister!!!

 

[kgeaux]

I saw Mark Geragos (sp) on TV. of course its all about the money. No matter how much the tiger was taunted and I DO believe it was....or are we to assume Tiger went beserk while MEN are standing there innocently admiring it lol
Im just mad that the Zoo didnt have proper people there to capture the Tiger and get her back into her enclosure. i truly feel for wild animals, look, shes dead. They mustve known that certain people coming into that Zoo would tease the animals.
If theyre so "innocent" why wont they total;y cooperate with LE? hmmm

Here's my only problem with whether or not it is necessary that Tatiana was being taunted, thus prompting her escape. We don't know yet that the brothers and Carlos were at the tiger enclosure when Tatiana escaped. She may have scaled the wall and THEN they walked up. (I'm not saying I believe that is what happened, but it COULD have.) Once the reports on the shoe print are back, if it belongs to one of the three or four young men, we'll know a little more. At this point we suspect the guys were taunting her, we KNOW the wall was too short, short enough for a Siberian tiger to scale without assistance.

I'm upset the zoo could not capture Tatiana, too. I believe they tried, but were unsuccessful. She apparently was out for quite awhile, and surely there were multiple chances and hopefully multiple attempts.....but when she's chewing on somebody's head, the time to shoot has come.

To carry it one step further, they should be thought of as thugs, because that is what they are. Ask a local, and you will get that same answer. People who live here know them only too well.

Probably true. But I'm not sure that has any meaning to whether or not the zoo holds ultimate responsibility. I mean, surely it's not ok for tigers to attack thugs at the zoo, or to attack drunks at the zoo. Tigers should not be able to attack visitors.

 

[JDB]

kgeaux Read the article buzz posted the entire thing. The tiger attacked them in front of its enclosure is the way i read it.And of course they will deny taunting the tiger.Yes I feel sorry for Carlos an agree the ZOO is liable also. My big thing if all they were doing is talking and laughing why not let the police look at the cell phones?

 

[Pharlap]

kgeaux Read the article buzz posted the entire thing. The tiger attacked them in front of its enclosure is the way i read it.And of course they will deny taunting the tiger.Yes I feel sorry for Carlos an agree the ZOO is liable also. My big thing if all they were doing is talking and laughing why not let the police look at the cell phones?

Why can't LE get a warrant to look at the cell.
I have a gut feeling, there would be a very different story about them.

 

[JDB]

Why can't LE get a warrant to look at the cell.
I have a gut feeling, there would be a very different story about them.

That is what the hearing is about 1/11.Since there was no crime so to speak a warrant can not be asked for.

 

[Seeker]

I am only going to post this once.

Tatiana was in that enclosure for YEARS (literally). She never tried to get out before. She was apparently content to stay there until something aggitated her so badly she felt the need to get out of it. YEARS and no, the zoo is not at fault. Just rememember that. She was in there for YEARS and content to stay in there for YEARS until whatever happened, happened.

It's not like she decided, "Hey! It's Christmas, maybe I'll go out and get me some human meat for a change to treat myself."

The brothers refusal to talk even to give their names indicates to me that they were guilty of causing her enough aggitation to get out of the enclosure.

 

[philamena]

A snip of Seeker's post.

I am only going to post this once.

Tatiana was in that enclosure for YEARS (literally). She never tried to get out before. She was apparently content to stay there until something aggitated her so badly she felt the need to get out of it. YEARS and no, the zoo is not at fault. Just rememember that. She was in there for YEARS and content to stay in there for YEARS until whatever happened, happened.

Seeker,
You always speak with wisdom.

 

[southcitymom]

I am only going to post this once.

Tatiana was in that enclosure for YEARS (literally). She never tried to get out before. She was apparently content to stay there until something aggitated her so badly she felt the need to get out of it. YEARS and no, the zoo is not at fault. Just rememember that. She was in there for YEARS and content to stay in there for YEARS until whatever happened, happened.

It's not like she decided, "Hey! It's Christmas, maybe I'll go out and get me some human meat for a change to treat myself."

The brothers refusal to talk even to give their names indicates to me that they were guilty of causing her enough aggitation to get out of the enclosure.

While I truly get your point, I think it's a point that humanizes wild animals which are - by their very nature - unpredictable. An unpredictable wild animal can do the same thing every day for years straight and then do something very different one day for no discernable reason.

If we want to humanize Tatiana, perhaps the years and years she stayed in that enclosure, she was not content, but rather slowly getting readier and readier to escape...perhaps she had tried before and not made it...but then one day - Christmas 2007 - she did.

The reality is that none of us know what Tatiana was thinking and we never will.

It was the zoo's responsibilty to make sure she never could escape - even if she wanted to.

 

[Pandora]

Oops! Dog runs into tiger enclosure--survives!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22582231/?GT1=10755

Yup, it's somewhat OT, but it's interesting coming on the heels of Tatiana's escape and subsequent demise.

 

[LinasK]

There's an empty vodka bottle in the car: so what? Unless there is alcohol in their blood, it matters not. And if there IS alcohol in the blood, then the bottle isn't needed. See what I mean?

An open container of alcohol not in the trunk is still against the law in California.

 

[Seeker]

While I truly get your point, I think it's a point that humanizes wild animals which are - by their very nature - unpredictable. An unpredictable wild animal can do the same thing every day for years straight and then do something very different one day for no discernable reason.

If we want to humanize Tatiana, perhaps the years and years she stayed in that enclosure, she was not content, but rather slowly getting readier and readier to escape...perhaps she had tried before and not made it...but then one day - Christmas 2007 - she did.

The reality is that none of us know what Tatiana was thinking and we never will.

It was the zoo's responsibilty to make sure she never could escape - even if she wanted to.

Tatiana was not born in the wild...she was about 4 years old.
She was one of an endangered species...

And,
While I understand your point as well I want to say this. I've worked with "wild" animals for literally over 25 years and they are much, much more predictable than any human being I've ever met. Humans are worse than any wild animal is as far as being unpredictable.

For those that aren't aware of it Siberian tigers won't climb unless they feel they have to.

It's humans that decimate entire species, it's humans who are destroying the Earth, it's humans that kill each other for bizarre reasons (which other humans try to make excuses for or understand). Wild animals kill to survive or to protect themselves, their young and their territory.

Humanize a wild animal? I wouldn't embarrass them by doing so.

 

[southcitymom]

Tatiana was not born in the wild....

I understand. But she is still a wild animal, which is what I called her. And while wild animals may be more predictable than humans, they are still unpredictable. I understand that you have a long history working with them, so I must believe that you know this to be true.

Wild animals kill to survive or to protect themselves, their young and their territory.

I agree. She was obviously protecting her territory and there's no piece of me that begrudges her that action. I just believe that it was the Zoo's responsibility to make certain her territory could never possibly extend to parts of the establishment where paying customers ambled.

 

[LinasK]

I, too, believe Mrs. Souza is naive. But, at risk of speaking ill of the dead, Carlos and the brothers may have been cut from the same bolt of cloth. I know Carlos doesn't have the record they do, but he was attracted to them and chose them as friends for a reason. His mother likens Paul to a brother! So perhaps she has been naive for a long while, long before the zoo incident.

Since we know the Dhaliwal brothers lied to the father, what makes you think they are telling the truth to the mother??? I think they are lying to her too when they say they didn't taunt the tiger, they probably were laughing at the tiger at minimum, we have a witness to them roaring at the lions!

 

[PaperDoll]

I'm sure some animals can be unpredictable just look at what happened to Siegfeld and Roy. Their very own white tiger attacked one of them, can't remember which one though, sorry.