Posted on 01/05/2008 4:26:41 AM PST by repinwi
Soon after their 17-year-old friend was mauled to death by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo, the two brothers who survived the attack made a quick pact not to cooperate with the police as they rode in an ambulance to the hospital, sources told The Chronicle.
"Don't tell them what we did," paramedics heard 23-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, Paul, 19.
Sources also say that the younger brother was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough liquor to have a blood-alcohol level above the .08 limit for adult drivers. The older brother also had been drinking and using marijuana around the time a 350-pound Siberian tiger escaped and killed Carlos Sousa Jr., the sources said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Not that I can see. The USDA regs only covers transport in commerce for most animals.
Agreed
Nanny state includes much more. It includes the particular case here where a ditz stuck her hands in front of a tiger held in a barred cage. It's obvious to a reasonable person that reaching for a piece of meat in front of such a tiger would result in at least a swipe through the bars. It's similar to sticking one's hands in a snowblower, or reaching unto the engine compartment near the fan, or sticking one's hands in a punch press, ect...
"Ensuring that foods which are sold to the public do not have insects, urine, rodents, etc.
These are hazards that aren't readily visible. They're generally hidden. A friggin' tiger behind just bars immediately adjacent to that meat a person is thinking about grabbing is not a hidden danger, especially to someone that professes they can handle being around those particular animals. Reminds me of that expert nitwit that regularly played with the grizz in AK, 'till he got himself and his girl friend eaten for dinner one evening.
I didn’t have the time, nor inclination, to name ALL the examples for nanny state...apparently you didn’t either...as you’ve come right back to the zoo.
The zoo has a responsibility to protect the public from being harmed or killed, if it expects to obtain an exhibition license and the public to patronize its zoo, of course.
The public isn’t all as clever as you, spunkets. You’ve said as much yourself. ALL the public, however, must be protected from wild animals....not only people who are....just like you.
The topic was the tiger cage, which was probably the back room not open to the public without the "expert" there, or the public was behind a fence that kept them away. The employee professed to be at least competent, if not expert at what she was doing.
"ALL the examples for nanny state..."
The general description of the nanny state is that the state considers all of it's citizens as the equivalent of the least common denominator of idiot and criminal, and rules over them accordingly. Example's are only appropriate for illustrative purposes, not for definitive purpose.
Now you’re really making me LOL. The topic was the tiger cage, which is at........the zoo.
However, you are wrong. The cage is NOT removed from the zoo grounds. In fact, the feeding area is in a public place, not a hidden room. There were over 50 members of the public who had just watched the tiger being fed.
The discussion concerns, as far as the woman trainer, her arms being pulled into the cage, and the zoo which was fined for not having the proper safety requirements round about it.
And I suggest in the future when one cites “examples” to you, you take them as just that, “examples,” not as all inclusive of examples.
Obviously it's on zoo grounds. Wrong? I said it was either open to the public, only on the condition that an "expert" be present, or there's a fence separating the public from the bar area.
"The discussion concerns, as far as the woman trainer, her arms being pulled into the cage, and the zoo which was fined for not having the proper safety requirements round about it."
That's right. THe woman trainer, who professed competence and presumably expertise, stuck her hands in front of the tiger to grab meat, in clear view of the bars which would allow the tiger to swipe. She also failed to keep watch on the tiger's eyes and note what it was up to. If she desired to grab the meat, she should have used a stick to keep the tiger out of reach. A good trainer would have used the occasion and the stick to whack the tiger's paw as an example of who's boss. Ponder that.
Yes, wrong. The is what you said, is it not? Yes, it was. For you to suggest that "probably the back room not open to the public" could even be remotely possible means you haven't even read everything concerning this story. There was a trap door. The animal was fed in public. In fact, 15 seconds prior to the attack, a man with his little girl was standing near the woman.
I'm sorry you dislike the need for laws, most libertarians are against laws. I am not. Regulations and laws are not for the good, the smart, the decent, the honorable, and/or the robots who make no HUMAN mistakes or errors. They are put into place to protect the general population from those who enjoy committing evil deeds, the bad, the greedy, the innocent, and, of course, the less than clever spunket types who seem to think they are beyond ever making human error. Laws and regulations to protect others from lawbreakers or the grave consequences of human error are often necessary for a society to function. Even God has ordained laws, but again, they were made for the sinners, not for the perfect.
No. You don't get to distort what I said, because you can't grasp it.
"means you haven't even read everything concerning this story."
It's clear that you can't grasp what I said, and don't know and understand what the public feeding exhibit would have entailed.
"I'm sorry you dislike the need for laws,..."
Amazing! That was claimed in no way and is simply an irrelevant diversion.
"Regulations and laws are not for the good, the smart, the decent, the honorable, and/or the robots who make no HUMAN mistakes or errors."
I see, so myself and others can claim an exemption from all the nanny laws, regs and lawsuits right? BTW, I don't qualify and catagorize mistakes and errors as human. To do so would be a ridiculous claim as a purely trivial connection. Animals can also make mistakes and errors, but they are fundamentally no different, because they are made by animals.
What you said second: I said it was either open to the public, only on the condition that an "expert" be present, or there's a fence separating the public from the bar area.
I have in no way "distorted" what you said. I quoted you both times, as I am again quoting you now. Quoting you is not distorting you. Now, if you meant something other than what you TYPED, that is not my problem, nor my distortion.
In response to my statement, and I quote If a zoo wants to keep the public safe, it will ensure that fences are high enough, or strong enough, or enmeshed enough, to do just that....regardless of the people among whom the wild animals are placed, in front of, or near," you stated, and I quote: As I said, nanny state.
It is apparent, from your comments that you believe that forcing zoos to maintain premises which are safe for the public that is being equivalent to encouraging a nanny state. I do not, and I explained why.
Yes, I have a CLEAR grasp of where you're coming from, and I take issue with your pompous attitude concerning the kinds of laws that should be in place and the kinds of people who deserve any kind of respect (i.e., concern about their well-being) from you. Not every person has your IQ, intelligence, or ability to remain accident or error free 100% of the time. I'm sure many of your friends admire your unreachable abilities.
And I don't find it "trivial" to protect others from those who don't live up to your personal high ideals. I'm certain you are aware of the need for law enforcement and the crime statistics; are aware of injuries on the job, sometimes through employer negligence, other times through human error, are aware of Chinese toys being shipped into this country which have poisons on them for our children to eat, but because the Chinese are NOT regulated like American companies are, we have had children and babies eating toxic substances.....for those parents STUPID enough to buy Chinese products. I guess those children deserve to die, according to your standards, because their parents allowed their children to play with Chinese-made toys, when it is well-known that dog food, as well as toys, have had toxins in them.
The zoo is responsible for maintaining a safe environment for its personnel, as well as the public. If the employees or the public chooses to act in a manner that is criminal or negligent, that is another matter altogether, but does not take away from the zoo's responsibility to maintain a safe place to house wild animals, for both its employees and for the public.
If the zoo chooses to disregard what is necessary to maintain and/or abide by what is safe, then the public will decide to go elsewhere out of concern for their children being eaten or harmed by a tiger that gets out of an environment where the fence is four feet short of what is, by standards, the safe height, or if the government would even allow it to remain open.
Yes, I'm aware that employer negligence has resulted in injuries. That wasn't the case though with Ms Komejan. The negligence was of her own doing.
"Yes, I have a CLEAR grasp of where you're coming from"
No. Your claims regarding responsibility and liability are arbitrary. You fail to differential the public from those who profess competence and expertise, and who have duties and responsibilities both to themselves and the public under their care- specifically in the case of Ms Komejan and in the case of the bros and the zoo.
"I don't find it "trivial" to protect others"
The word "trivial" was used to describe the ridiculous connection of mistake and error with humans.
"The zoo is responsible for maintaining a safe environment for its personnel, as well as the public.
Within reason, yes. For all conceivable instances, no.
"I take issue with your pompous attitude concerning the kinds of laws that should be in place and the kinds of people who deserve any kind of respect (i.e., concern about their well-being) from you. Not every person has your IQ, intelligence, or ability to remain accident or error free 100% of the time."
You're being overly vague. MS Komejan professed competence and expertise at her job and later abandoned that claim temporarily, in all aspects to grab a wad of cash, after having proved she was never competent, or expert as claimed. They might as well have hired any 'tard from the local bar and spent the rest of the money on fool proofing the place. Fine, promote that path and destroy freedom altogether with other people's money.
"children being eaten or harmed by a tiger that gets out of an environment where the fence is four feet short of what is, by standards, the safe height,"
The pit depth was adequate to contain tigers for 67 years. THis tiger was ~8ft standing, so 12.5 ft was reasonable to contain the tiger under normal foreseeable circumstances. The most had been filled with water one time in the early '60s to contain a 13ft male tiger. The "recommendation is 16.5 ft. The difference in both cases is ~4ft. Ponder that.
In those 67 years, no one had mounted an assault on any of the pitted tigers to enrage them enough to emerge from the pit to mount a territorial defense. See that's why the tiger jumped out here. Under the normal circumstances and conditions at the zoo, it wouldn't go over that wall.
You like examples. Here's a relevant example in the human world. A driver's going down the expressway and approaches an overpass in Jan. THere's clymers on the overpass, 2 17y/o and a 23y/o, ready to toss snowballs at passing cars. THe first car windshield they hit belongs to a young guy that gets enraged, but keeps on driving. The second barrage hits the windshield of a person that can't handle the experience, swerves and causes a multi-car pileup that results in a death. Is it the state's fault for not installing fences high enough to prevent the snowball tossing, the driver's fault, or is it the punk's fault. I say it's the punk's fault. There are others that would blame it on the lack of fences, cameras and gaurds.
In htis case the perps committed what's reported to be a misdemeanor act of taunting, or mistreating the animals. That reckless act resulted in a death. The pit depth had done it's intended job for 67 years. None of the folks that ran, or any that had seen the exhibit in that time had seen the need for a deeper pit. THe only occasion to adjust the exhibit with regard to containment had been when they filled the moat with water to contain a 13 footer. The cause of this incident is not the pit depth, but the acts that motivated the tiger's exit.
The SFPD is conducting a criminal investigation here to look for evidence. They have probable cause to examine the phones, because it's reasonable to believe a felony has been committed. That felony is reckless homicide, or involuntary manslaughter as CA calls it. For that reason, they can look at the phones any time they want, and can examine the interior of the car any time they want. I've noticed they've been collecting evidence as they go along. They'll not announce the results and they'll continue to look. C penal code 192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds: (a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. (b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.
The penalty is 2, 3, or 4 yrs in jail.
The pit depth was adequate to contain tigers for 67 years.
I could care less what the history of the cage is. The tiger got o-u-t and should not have. That's the bottom line concerning the cage.
And the zoo was fined $18,000, after state investigations showed it did not maintain safe enough conditions in which to keep the tiger, leading to hazardous conditions for their employee and trainer, whose arm was well chewed by it. And that's the bottom line on that, your personal opinions notwithstanding.
Oh, and BTW, criminal matters concerning the boys behaviors are yet another and separate matter altogether, which I have no desire to discuss with you.
And the Zoo’s insurance company wouldn’t pay off either.
Employer’s insurance companies routinely will not pay out/cover acts of employer negligence.
Considering that it's a relevant fact that doesn't support your claim that the pit depth was the cause of the problem, that's understandable.
"And the zoo was fined $18,000, after state investigations showed it did not maintain safe enough conditions in which to keep the tiger, leading to hazardous conditions for their employee and trainer, whose arm was well chewed by it."
There goes competence, ability and responsibility, the foundational requirements for freedom, right out the window. Now replace the broken glass with bars, so it can never return to stand in the way of the new nanny.
"your personal opinions"
I haven't given any personal opinions.
"You're a joke spunkets."
LOL, of course!
Um, no. Considering the fact that the tiger got out of the cage...what's irrelevant is your posts concerning the cage's history. You see, your ridiculousness in posting about the cage's history is no different than using as a defense a killer's lack of previous murders to get off the murder for which he is guilty. You'd be laughed out of court for that defense, as much as I am laughing at you now.
The tiger got out and should not have IF it were truly in a cage that could contain it. Had the cage been able to contain the tiger, the boys would likely be alive and all would be prosecuted for their criminal trespass and/or other misdeeds.
You have done nothing but post your personal opinions concerning what you think is "nanny state", the history of the cages as an excusable defense (contrary to state findings), and the lovely names you have called the woman. Or, were there all in the court cases and you are merely quoting from court documents, not actually stating your personal opinions?
But of course I laugh at you; you're a joke.
Logic ain't one of your strong points chief. The 67 year history of the pit's holding ability is relevant to whether it was adequate, or not under ordinary circumstances, and whether management's prior judgements had any rartional basis.
"The tiger got out and should not have IF it were truly in a cage that could contain it."
The pit was mearly adequate. The cause for the tiger's exit was the perp's behavioir.
The fact that, as a matter of fact, the tiger got out of the cage logically escapes you because it doesn’t comport with your wish to excuse and exonerate the zoo.
As a matter of law, the zoo was found by the state to have been negligent in its duty and was thereafter fined $18,000, also as a matter of law.
Your personal opinions, notwithstanding.
Give up while you’re behind.
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.