Posted on 01/18/2008 3:56:46 AM PST by nikos1121
SAN FRANCISCO — One of the three victims of San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.
Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed, that the three yelled and waved at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into its pen to provoke the cat, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.
"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.
Additional reporting and video from KTVU FOX San Francisco
Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., said Dhaliwal told him the three stood on a 3-foot-tall metal railing a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat. "When they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes on him (Paul Dhaliwal)," the documents said.
Police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing, Matthews said in the documents.
The affidavit also cites multiple reports of a group of young men taunting animals at the zoo, the Chronicle reported.
Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, did not immediately return a call late Thursday by The Associated Press for comment. He has repeatedly said they did not taunt the tiger.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It will be. Perhaps they can mitigate the settlement somewhat by showing contributory negligence on the behalf of the victim(s).
If his mouth was open...that was likely.
You are assuming that he knew the truth when he spoke. My guess is that his clients lied to him and he simply repeated the lie believing it to be true (or at least not knowing it to be false). Now if he continues to disseminate what he now knows to be false, then you can call him a liar.
You are assuming that he knew the truth when he spoke. My guess is that his clients lied to him and he simply repeated the lie believing it to be true (or at least not knowing it to be false). Now if he continues to disseminate what he now knows to be false, then you can call him a liar.
Agree on all points.
I would bet there is a local or state ordinance about taunting any animal. In Michigan there are laws to protect wild birds and such. This is apart from hunting. You can not molest a bird setting on a nest. Molesting in this case would be to throw stones etc.
These three young men taunted an animal, and now someone is dead. I would have thought the zoo would have filed a charge against the remaining men.
Geragos, their attorney, lied?
GEDOUDDAHERE!!!!
These 3 little bastards ought to be heavily fined, get some jail time, and after that have to clean animal cages for a couple of years on weekends.
The issue here is forseeability- should the zoo have forseen that idiots might come by and taunt the animals. Sadly the answer to that is clearly yes.
If you owned a sporting goods store, would you set up a hammock display? Or should you know that some fool will break their neck trying to climb on? If that happens and you are sued, then if the answer is found by a jury to be yes, then you are liable for damages.
This happened in SF. Security personnel were having their latte and quiche; you do not expect them to be doing their job under the hot sun (or fog) do you.
No disrespect (well, maybe some) but this is a pretty f*cked up attitude. Taunting is OK? How about poking with a stick, if that is what comes from this, or throwing rocks if that? Is that taunting also? How about using a pellet gun? Ok there also? Where is the line drawn and who draws it?
Taunting and torturing animals (same thing) is the activity of truly sick mind. If you condone this or in any way excuse it you need help.
They admitted yelling and waiving their hands. That’s what kids do everyday at the zoo.
If they can arrest them for drunk and disorderly, then do it. But the zoo is still responsible for keeping their animals in.
It probably depends on how you define "taunting." Is yelling and waiving your hands "taunting" the animals?
The police have repeatedly stated that there was no evidence that brothers taunted the tiger.
The wall was too low, even IF the brothers yelled an waived their arms from outside the enclosure.
What evidence is there that the victims did any of those things? (The slingshot story was not true btw.) The brothers yelled and waived their hands from outside the tiger's enclosure, the same thing that small children (or immature grown ups) do every day in zoos across America.
I would award them one penny. I would also recommend an immediate vasectomy for the plaintiff to prevent him from reproducing. We already have enough Democrats.
Does anyone have a picture of this guy? I want to know if he fits the advice of the dean of Faber College. "Drunk, fat and stupid is no way to go through life, son."
I think the boys had a reasonable expectation that the tiger could not escape from a zoo enclosure. This “magnificent animal” had attacked a zoo official in the past — the zoo was cited for safety violations. The zoo knew the wall was too short, and yet it comtinued to put it’s patrons at risk.
The human ladder “dangling leg” theory was discredited within days.
The police have said the victims did not aid the tiger’s escape.
Was he the one who told us that there were slingshots? Did he try to tell us the wall was much higher than it was?
So the zoo’s PR war against these kids was a success then?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.