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 ...
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.
Respectfully,
NSNR
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
Losers....
Watch out for your dog/cat/fish/bird as they all have “instincts.” Like many zoo experts have said, most animals born in captivity don’t want to get out or like changes to their environment.
Hell, yes!
The votes are in, we're all waiting for your concession speech.
Good Kitty, Good Kitty....
Why not save the scoffing until we know what happened?
What names are you talking about?
Quite true, Hacklehead.
I’m thinking there will be enough blame to go around on all sides when the dust settles. You know, I used to go to that tiger enclosure often when my son was a toddler because his favorite thing to do was go to the S.F. Zoo. I have to say, I never once thought the tigers could jump from the “island” over the fence, but I’m not Jack Hanna.
Still, I find it very, very surprising that the zoo would not have cameras placed in or near an enclosure where an admittedly dangerous animal was out in the “open.” I am also surprised that since the zoo was officially “closed” that the animals had not been or were not in the process of being brought in, especially considering how dark it is that time of year.
One thing I find puzzling is that I have yet to hear the brothers describe how it is the tiger approached them. Have they stated that she leaped out of her enclosure or that she approached them from the behind the enclosure, where the access doors are. Has this ever been made plain?
“What kind of person evades Christmas with the family and instead gets drunk and goes to the zoo?’
Those people could be [professing] “Christians” even with their particular surname. Maybe their family observes Christmas at another time. Russians celebrate it in January. Maybe the family was gathering later in the day. Probably thousands of people around the country are drunk on Christmas day, even some who will tell you that they are Christians.
The zoo is open on December 25th, which is . . . just December 25th. That it was Christmas is irrelevant, unless it means, in this case, that there was a smaller security staff on duty.
Tigers are tigers. They were built to hunt prey, even on December 25th! The tiger was just doing what it was built to do, what walls and fences were built to prevent, and that for which rules were made for zoo visitors.
I think it’s just a little silly to talk about whether these people “DESERVED” what they got from the tiger. If someone didn’t notice the “DON’T WALK” signal and so was run over by an 18 wheeler and killed, we don’t say that that person “deserved” that. We say that that is what happens when a large vehicle going 50 mph hits a 180 pound human being, regardless of the moral intent of the smashee.
If those young men taunted a Siberian Tiger, and that tiger was able to scale the wall and get to them, it matters not what anyone thinks they deserve, they are subject to wrath of a wild animal. It’s really just a 2+2=4 situation. It doesn’t matter how you “feel” about number 2
LOL
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.