Originally Posted By jonvn We better start acting more like the jerks people expect in WE then. Can't have our rep be sullied.
Originally Posted By threeundertwo This reminds me of a chapter in "A Walk in the Woods" by Bill Bryson where he talks about bear attacks. Great book. Attendance was way up when the zoo reopened. Now it's closed again due to the storms.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/05/MNVKU9L9L.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/05/MNVKU9L9L.DTL</a> >>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.<< Uh huh. Couple of choir boys.
Originally Posted By pecos bill While I do think the zoo is responsible here, despite what appears to be absolutely moronic behaviour by these clowns, it galls me to no end thinking of the probable payoff waiting for them. Only in America can you be rewarded for such actions.
Originally Posted By gadzuux If it ever comes to light that they were agitating the tiger, a competent defense would be that they did so secure in the knowledge that the tiger could never get to them. If they were standing face to face with an unrestrained tiger, their actions would have been completely different.
Originally Posted By barboy "23-year-old Kulbir Dhaliwal and his brother, Paul, 19" I hope this doesn't turn into a Kalpoe Bro. part 2.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>a competent defense would be that they did so secure in the knowledge that the tiger could never get to them<< Probably. But regardless, t would be a major blow to the amount of damages they would receive. There's a big difference between a sympathetic victim and someone doing something jerky. If whatever they were doing seemed cruel to the animals (chucking things at it, for instance) I can see this behavior as circumventing the normal security precautions the zoo had in place. If I go to the zoo, I expect the animals to remain in their enclosures. But I don't go around testing the limits by taunting animals, going out of my way to stress and enrage them. I think the saddest part of this whole thing is that in all likelihood, having a few security guards as a visible presence might have been enough to deter people from taunting the animals. Signs aren't going to that.
Originally Posted By jonvn "But I don't go around testing the limits by taunting animals" Because you're a decent human being. I'm not sure these guys are. Both the City Attorney and the DA are dealing with this. The City Attorney handles civil matters with the city, and the DA criminal for the county. SF is both a city and a county in one. It's a bit odd. If you read the comments section on SFGate, these guys are utterly despised already.
Originally Posted By barboy " having a few security guards as a visible presence might have been enough to deter people from taunting the animals." Ya. But places like the zoo **shouldn't** have to employ more security which ultimately hurts those who know how to behave by setting higher gate prices. This is why I favor the doctrine of "contributory negligence" rather than "comparative". If you want to be a jackass(without hurting others of course) go ahead.... by all means and if you find yourself with a lasting limp or with broken bones don't go looking for others to pay for your stupidity even if they were found to be negligent on some level.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But places like the zoo **shouldn't** have to employ more security which ultimately hurts those who know how to behave by setting higher gate prices.<< I hear you on that. Sad that behavior people wouldn't of dreamed of not long ago happens so often now. You shouldn't need any sort of restraints on a ride like Heimlich's Chew Chew Train, and the bumper cars in Flick's should be able to travel faster than 1 MPH, but whattaya gonna do?
Originally Posted By jonvn They don't need to hire a lot of security, they can have docents help with it. Apparently the zoo has hired a spokesman and he's like spinning stuff. Is helping to spread stories about how these guys are evil, and had slingshots, whatever. The zoo is being totally sleazy in their response to this.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Is helping to spread stories<< You have evidence that the zoo is spreading those stories?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn "You have evidence that the zoo is spreading those stories?" Here is an article on their PR guy: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/07/MNCTU9G2L.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/07/MNCTU9G2L.DTL</a> Here is the beginning of it: Then, last Monday, a story circulated in the national and international media that served to take some heat off the zoo and intensify speculation on the role the victims might have played in provoking the tiger. The story, reported by the New York Post and based on an unidentified source, stated that brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, who were at the zoo with the now-deceased Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, were in possession of slingshots at the time of the attack. What's more, an empty vodka bottle was found in the car the Dhaliwal brothers used to get to the zoo that day, the Post reported. A source for that story is widely considered to be Sam Singer, a San Francisco public relations and crisis communications consultant belatedly brought on board by the Zoological Society, the nonprofit group that operates the zoo under contract with the city.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"He is spreading stories to anyone who will write them," said attorney Mark Geragos, who represents the Dhaliwal brothers and said he plans to file a lawsuit against Singer on the brothers' behalf for intentional infliction of emotional distress.<< Pardon me if I take what Mr. Geragos says with a grain of salt.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Well, "widely considered" is a pretty vague, difficult to prove/disprove phrase. And to support this contention, they quoted only Geragos. The Chronicle also reported Saturday that the brothers made a "pact" in the ambulance to not "tell them what we did." Eventually, years and millions of dollars from now, it will all be sorted out.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Frankly, if it's true that the wall on that enclosure wasn't tall enough to keep the tiger from getting out, then the zoo should be held responsible. No matter what those kids did, the simple fact remains that the animal should not have been able to get out. Yeah, it sucks that jerks like these will probably benefit financially from all this, but better that than allowing zoos to operate in a way that puts the general public in danger.
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/01/07/tiger.attack/index.html" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US /01/07/tiger.attack/index.html</a> No charges against the victims, no proof they did anything negligent. Interestingly, the zoo-guy reiterated "something prompted that tiger to escape", which I think is a load of bunk. They are still responsible for having an inadequate enclosure, but want everyone to keep thinking it was somehow "someone elses' fault".
Originally Posted By threeundertwo >>the simple fact remains that the animal should not have been able to get out. >> What if it was indeed impossible for the tiger to get out *unassisted*? It's been reported that the tiger has been provoked before and has been unable to escape. If these guys were doing something dumb like sitting on the edge of the moat dangling their legs, they gave the tiger an opportunity it wouldn't have had otherwise. To me it's the same as if they opened the cage door, and they bear responsibility for the outcome.
