Skip to comments.San Francisco police reviewing tiger victims' cell phones, car
Posted on 01/16/2008 12:35:55 PM PST by repinwi
San Francisco police today began their review of the cell phones and car belonging to the survivors of a Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo, officials said.
< snip >
A San Francisco Superior Court judge granted a search warrant allowing police to examine the cell phones and car on Tuesday.
For police and city officials to get the warrant, they needed to show probable cause of felony wrongdoing, a city official said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
AFTER they’ve already said there would be no charges?
What kind of person evades Christmas with the family and instead gets drunk and goes to the zoo?
"...Santa Clara County prosecutor Stuart Scott told Superior Court Judge Michele McKay McCoy on Tuesday that he will file a charge of battery on a police officer against 19-year-old Paul Dhaliwal.
Dhaliwal and his older brother, Kulbir, 23, already face two misdemeanor counts of public drunkenness and resisting arrest. The incident happened On Sept. 7, after police stopped them for questioning as they walked down a street near their home. Police were responding to reports of a fight and thought they looked suspicious...
They remind ne of a bulgular who falls through a skylight and wants to sue the building owner. Treat them like Columbo ... (lame AI reference from yesterdays show).
YOu gotta be a pretty big jerk to make me root for the tiger, but these guys look like they fit the bill.
Thanks, I’d not seen that.
One: Were they actually drunk? Two: Did they really have slingshots with them? Three: If they had been drinking what was their blood alcohol level? Four: Do you really think that someone deserves to be chewed and killed by a tiger for merely teasing it somewhat? Five: Where were the officials that are supposed to stop this type of teasing(if such really occured)? Six: Why are you not calling the zoo officials assclowns for having a fence 4 feet lower than reccomended for containing tigers?
To answer your question about who evades Christmas to go get drunk at the zoo, I really don't know. What I do know is that evading Christmas and getting drunk at the zoo isn't a death penalty offense.
They need to preserve evidence for the inevitable civil suit against the zoo, part of which is owned by the city.
If the guys were making a video for YouTube or something like “Jackass,” that needs to be known, as an aggravating factor.
. . . personal accountability . . .
Six: Why are you not calling the zoo officials assclowns for having a fence 4 feet lower than reccomended for containing tigers?
Well, the height of the wall was never an issue until these punks came along.
Anti-animal hate crime. The tiger is not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, and the police overreacted and shot a member of an underprivileged minority who should not be held accountable for reacting when provoked.
Sad to say but there are a whole bunch of morons who really believe that.
If indeed they were taunting the tiger, of course I don’t think they deserved to get killed for it. HOWEVER, they were endangering every other human at the zoo, which is incredibly irresponsible.
Then again, they had every reason to believe the tiger couldn’t get out.
Why? Man put a wild animal in a cage. The tiger sure would prefer to be at home in the wild. How would you like to be put in a cage? The perps that taunted the tiger should be in jail.
I back Tygger.
Uhhh, judging by their names, non-Christians who don't celebrate Christmas?
I'll bet the tiger thought so.
There are consequences for their actions even if they didn't like them. Reality smacked them upside the head and now they don't like it. Too bad.
If the cell phones have evidence that this was some sort of gang initiation or something, the other two guys should be charged with manslaughter, of homicide and shouldn't get a penny from the lawsuit they were so quick to file.
Apparently, the tiger thought so.
News that police were granted a search warrant implies a reinvigorated criminal investigation.
of homicide=or homicide
“Four: Do you really think that someone deserves to be chewed and killed by a tiger for merely teasing it somewhat?”
Ever hear of the saying “You mess with the bull, you get the horn”?
“Five: Where were the officials that are supposed to stop this type of teasing(if such really occured)?”
What the the zoo officials supposed to do, have people stationed at every exhibit telling them “dont tap on the glass”? IF these idiots wanted to see how much they could pizz off a tiger, they got their wish.
WOW!!!!! That’s probably what’s on their cell phones! How did you get a hold of the pics so fast? LOL
Unless these people actually let the tiger out, this is 100% the zoo’s responsibility, 0% anyone else’s. We can thank lawyers for our modern views on responsibility (the criminal is the victim, the victim is the criminal, etc).
Yes. Not much of that anymore.
Reminds me of the dopey broad who spilled hot coffee in her crotch and blamed McDonalds. Moron...
The tiger “Tatiana” was born in captivity. Has no knowledge what it’s like to be out in the wild or to hunt. Their mother teaches them that. BORN IN CAPTIVITY.
Yippee. Let's all go jump into a shark tank at Sea World.
If these sterling contributors to American society knowingly did anything to disturb that display animal, they are best Darwined from our society.
As for the politically correct SF city and zoo idiots, they are grossly negligent and deserve prison.
The Tiger was improperly managed and trained and is better off dead, still, she won two battles, while losing the campaign.
Stupidity is a capital crime, not always enforced.
“Zoo officials have implied that the young men taunted the tiger. “
Pretty weak. A human can taunt a tiger simply by making eye contact. Same with bears and other predatorial animals.
I couldn't agree more.
You obviously never met my daughter-in-law's family.
No it indicates the city is looking for a bolt hole to reduce the amount of the pay out, nothing more. Their search warrant will not stand up if front of the appeals court.
“If these sterling contributors to American society knowingly did anything to disturb that display animal, they are best Darwined from our society.”
At the very least they are guilty of violating the rule about not feeding the animals.
Well, the height of the wall was never an issue until these punks came along...................The state of a drunken driver is never an issue either unless he is caught or kills someone .
We don’t know what level of taunt there is. It could be there were things thrown at the tiger. That would be considered taunt. Why people think taunt is like teasing I will never know.
Well hopefully they won’t dog around and will look at the phones before it can get to an appeal.
Even taunting, the cat shouldn’t have been able to get out. They need to know if these guys were in the den and if the cat used them or a rope or something to climb over.
It's bad enough these animals have to be in cages...Some of them were rescue animals, which is good, but taunting them in anyway is beyond stupidity, and only a twisted moron or very young child would try something like that.
I root fo the (Tiger) in a matter of self preservation. Those three thugs picked on the wrong canine and were on the wrong turf.
Too, bad the Tiger did not eliminate all three. This trio with the exception minus one ,will probably be permanent residents of a correctional facility in the near future.
In homage to the Tiger, he or she did what was natural, defend itself against jackals in human form.
Drunk or doing something stupid, I would hope that I (and you) would have tried to help someone from being killed.
“BORN IN CAPTIVITY.”
Yeah, and without instincts as a result? Gimme a break.
And as far as the argument goes regarding that ‘just because they were taunting the cat doesn’t mean they deserved to die’, well, just because someone drives 90 mph shouldn’t mean they have ‘earned a death sentence’, but few would argue that the 90 mph driver doesn’t bear the bulk of the blame when they slam it into the center divider.
I’m curious about the civil suit anyway. In California, the suit is customarily brought where the DEFENDANT resides, not the plaintiff. My guess is there will be a venue transfer motion back to San Francisco.
In any event, the Santa Clara judge has no authority to strike down a search warrant issued in a San Francisco criminal case. Plus, in a civil suit, the defendants can simply seek the contents of the cell phones through discovery and seen sanctions if the plaintiffs destroy the evidence.
“Yeah, and without instincts as a result? Gimme a break.”
The word instinct means a behavior that is built in, and doesnt have to be learned. No one has to teach a fish how to swim, or teCH a tiger to kill you when you pizz it off.
I do believe there would have been blood on the wall if that had happened. ROFLOL
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.