S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions

[kskiska]

Source: S.F. Chronicle

(01-02) 22:15 PST San Francisco -- Two victims of a lethal Christmas Day tiger attack were harassing the big cats at the San Francisco Zoo shortly before a 350-pound feline escaped its enclosure and mauled them, a woman told The Chronicle on Wednesday.

(snip)

Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos - and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger's bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.

"The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them," the San Francisco woman said. "They were trying to get that lion's attention. ... The lion was bristling, so I just said, 'Come on, let's get out of here' because my kids were disturbed by it."

She said Sousa - whom she later recognized from his photo in the newspaper - was not heckling. The Chronicle contacted Miller after learning that she and her family had seen the young men at the zoo Christmas Day.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/02/MN9TU8AGC.DTL&tsp=1

[atre]

1. Looks like all those "Darwin Award posters" owe the dead kid a serious apology

Looks like he was just a bystander to the other kids' dangerous and stupid behavior.

[hlthe2b]

4. Sousa a victim to his friends' stupidity, it seems...

The "what-ifs" abound...

[struggle4progress]

36. And (if the story is true) perhaps also a victim of the zoo's failure to set appropriate rules:

New signs, loudspeakers await zoo visitors, but several questions about attack remain unanswered
Kevin Fagan, Steve Rubenstein,Patricia Yollin, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, January 3, 2008

The San Francisco Zoo will reopen at 10 a.m. tomorrow, with new signs asking patrons to leave the animals alone and loudspeakers that will be used to tell visitors to leave promptly at closing time ... Even though the new signs ask people not to "tap on glass, throw anything into the exhibit, make excessive noise, tease or call out to them," zoo officials wouldn't say that's what happened immediately prior to the mauling ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/03/BA9TU88I8.DTL


<photo: >
San Francisco Zoo set to reopen
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-02-tiger-attacks_N.htm

[roguevalley]

64. it astonishes me that people need to be told. anyone who teases

animals can't complain when they attack. I live in a place where grizzlies and moose wander into our yards. I know better instinctively. these kids were assholes. They provoked what they got. ITs too bad it was so awful for them but what can you expect? I wish I had a nickel for every tourist I saw up here walk up to a wild animal around here to take pictures or look at them without a clue that they aren't tame and they could kill you. Amazing when it happens. Yellowstone buffalo are always stomping someone who can't get it that they are wild.

Manners alone dictate behavior when you go places. Anyone who can't obey the rules should stay home.

[struggle4progress]

80. I've doubts grizzlies and moose wander regularly into San Francisco Bay area yards

so some life-long city dwellers may not have the wildlife experiences that helped you develop your "instincts."

[roguevalley]

107. what does it take to make a person get it. Also, a lot of city dwellers

wander into wild animals' yards up here. I don't think you have to be born in a forest to know that animals with claws will kill you. as for my 'instincts', they come from living with wild animals right in my yard for thirty years. try it some time. you will learn the meaning of respect.

[struggle4progress]

108. Concur in part, dissent in part

Of course, you are right that many people are idiotic about animals.

I once pointed out to a fellow camper, who was smiling happily as his small toddler rapidly approached a relatively tame deer in a mountain campground, that the animal might inflict considerable damage with its hooves, a concept apparently novel to him, though he reacted appropriately the instant he understood what I had said. A ranger in the same park once told me he had recently stopped a mother smearing honey on her child's head, having the idea she could get a cute photo of a nearby bear licking the honey off. One can only hope such people go home quickly and stay there.

It is nevertheless a fact that many people's "experience" about wildlife may be limited to Disney cartoons and circus acts. If a zoo pretends to be an entertaining educational opportunity, the zoo has some responsibility to: (1) either operate safely or clearly warn patrons that they are risking their lives by visiting; (2) design exhibits that actually inform the public about the animals displayed; and (3) effectively enforce rules establishing appropriate behavioral norms for visitors

[RedSock]

116. HO LEE SHIT!

A ranger in the same park once told me he had recently stopped a mother smearing honey on her child's head, having the idea she could get a cute photo of a nearby bear licking the honey off.

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[Critters2]

118. Exactly. People really need to be told not to harass a 300 pound tiger? nt

[jberryhill]

128. Maybe not, but do they need to be told that a TIGER might get out of a zoo enclosure?

I never really thought that one of the attractions of zoos was the excitement aroused by the fact that a deadly wild animal might go on a romp through the public areas of the park.

[jberryhill]

132. Personally, I like to watch country visitors to Philly get hit by cars while jaywalking....

...but, hey, everybody gets their own kicks.

Seriously, in a place like LA, you can jaywalk, although virtually nobody does, and the drivers will actually try to AVOID hitting you.

In Philadelphia, people DO jaywalk, but the drivers understand that pedestrians are "fair game" and actually AIM for them.

Do not taunt Philly drivers.

I think its actually okay to follow jaywalkers onto the sidewalk if you miss them the first time.

[still_one]

15. It still doesn't detract from the fact that the containment should have been secure

I am not a fan of zoos, but the cat should have never been allowed to escape

[TankLV]

17. In spite of the fact that this enclosure was perfectly fine since it was built in the 40's

And this was the ONLY incident of it's kind EVER at this zoo...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant...

[jberryhill]

43. It only takes the ONLY incident of it's kind EVER...

...for the refinery in your neighborhood to blow up.

...for the nuclear plant in your county to melt down.

Keeping wild animals is an inherently dangerous activity, and that is why their keepers are held to a standard of strict liability.

Obviously, the enclosure was insufficient to (a) contain the tiger, AND (b) protect the tiger from teasing.

The "general public" who was invited to this zoo, includes crazy people, insane people, mean people, mentally and/or emotionally challenged people - all types. If you cannot protect your animals from your nutcase visitors, and vice versa, then you are not doing your job as a zookeeper.

A lot of things built in the 1940's have functioned without incident... so far... and are STILL unsafe.

[greiner3]

75. 'crazy people, insane people, mean people, mentally and/or emotionally challenged people'

Go ahead; just say 'republicans.'

[jberryhill]

83. I didn't want to offend the feeble-minded /nt

[CreekDog]

109. Best post in the thread!

Thank you for boiling this down so succinctly.

:applause:

[LisaL]

98. And when the Minnesota bridge collapsed, did you argue that

the bridge must have been perfectly safe because it hasn't collapsed in years and years?

[KittyWampus]

124. the zoo enclosure PASSED inspection.

[LisaL]

126. And so did the Minnesota bridge.

"ST. PAUL — Minnesota bridge inspectors found no structural flaws last year or the year before in the interstate bridge that collapsed into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291804,00.html
:eyes:

[jberryhill]

127. And so did every fire extinguisher on the Titanic...

....but the point here is that the enclosure was deficient in that it failed to enclose a tiger.

The goal - in so far as a tiger enclosure is concerned - is not to "pass inspection". In point of fact, the goal is to "enclose a tiger".

The dead 17 year old here, most likely obtained a passing grade in elementary school classes which taught, inter alia, that tigers are dangerous animals.

But the headline here is not "Hypothetical Enclosure May Not Pose Risk To Model Zoo Visitor" - the headline here deals with the astounding fact that a real TIGER, not a paper tiger, managed to get out of a zoo enclosure.

There may indeed be a zoo somewhere in which there are no animals, but a wonderfully designed set of structures that have their design awards and safety certificates on display, so that the public can come and marvel at these documents. However, it is probably more generally the case that it is those zoos which actually display live animals that tend to be more popular.

It's also not an exercise in literature or method acting where we might ponder the tiger's motivation here.

It remains a black-letter principle of tort law that "compliance with regulations" is NOT a defense when you are dealing with what is called a "strict liability" issue - the classic examples of which are "manufacturing explosives" or "keeping wild animals".

In ORDINARY negligence situations, compliance with relevant regulations can raise a rebuttable presumption that "due care" was exercised in the situation, but even this presumption can fall to evidence that the regulations themselves were inadequate to address the risk of the activity. Again, however, "keeping wild animals" is one of the handful of textbook situations where the natural and ordinary risk is indiscrimate death of those exposed to the activity, and the point of imposing the principle of strict liability is something along the lines of:

"Okay, pal, you want to put a tiger into a park in a city of a couple hundred thousand urbanites, and you want to open this park to any and all comers, be they as nutty as granola bars and possessing the standard intelligence of 50% 'below average'... that's fine with us, but if your tiger gets out, you are going to be the one responsible. Period."

I don't care if your name is Jane Goodall, Ellie May Clampett, or all of your brothers are named Ringling - if one of your critters gets out and bites me while I'm having a full schizo breakdown on the sidewalk outside of your house that excites them, it is your fault.

[aquart]

2. Every mother should tell her child this tale.

And WTF didn't dear Jennifer Miller TELL SOMEONE AT THE ZOO AN ANIMAL WAS BEING HARASSED???? Stupid woman could have saved lives.

[hlthe2b]

3. My thoughts, exactly....

I'm glad she is speaking up, now, though.

[acmavm]

6. Yeah, it's all HER fault.

[TriMetFan]

20. So now it is....

Mrs Millers fault that the Tiger jumped out of its cage, because some Young Men were teasing the Big Cat?????? You got to remember that these guys were not little boy's. The only one that you can say was a kid because he was under the age of 18, was the one that got killed.

[katty]

74. Not little boys - they're idiots

[springhill]

72. Oh for crying out loud!

Like she would have had any clue that the tiger could have escaped! And I am betting most all of us would have shook their heads at what the kids were doing, but reporting them probably would not have happened.

[struggle4progress]

82. The zoo should just put up signs "Visitors who tease the cats may be eaten"

[ileus]

99. LOL...They wanted to play with the tiger and she called them on it.

[DCKit]

5. "Birds of a feather"

This was earlier, at the lion cage, not the tiger cage. The three - if not four - young men were wandering around the zoo and torturing animals with intent. Tolerance for animal abuse is at an all-time low in this country.

These boys thought they could torment the animals safely because they were in enclosures. Sadly, they found out different, but I hope the two survivors are tried for manslaughter and abuse. A sentence at least as long as Michael Vick's would be the least a judge could do.

[chelsea0011]

7. The taunting story is a red herring. Stupid teen age behavior doesn't

warrent a zoo's failure to protect the public from wild animals. And zoos almost encourage bad behavior amoung the human species. They are caged and we gawk. Flame away.

[zonkers]

9. Likewise, the zoo also failed to protect the animal it was entrusted to care. They get a big F.

[Supersedeas]

37. red herring flame bait?

[Sequoia]

39. Right and how many times have animals been taunted?

Probably more often than what's being reported if at all. Right off the bat the media crowed how the tiger was taunted because Mr. Know It All Jack Hanna said so so it must be TRUE. Did Mrs. Miller identify it was these guys who were doing it? One has to wonder about all the hate directed towards these guys and if you read the comments on ABC or CNN pages it's quite jaw dropping to read the hatred being spewed out. Wonder if these guys had been blonde football players from Iowa if the rants would be the same?

[BuelahWitch]

48. And if they had been identified as young Republicans

the people on this board would have been "spewing" the same hatred. Quit throwing race into it. People who taunt and abuse animals are scum no matter what their heritage.

[Sequoia]

50. So far the tauting is speculaiton.

Read some of the comments on the news sites, many posters think these "illegal immigrants" should be deported. Has Miller actually identifed these young men as being the ones who were taunting the lions earlier? I hold the zoo responsible.

[BuelahWitch]

53. She identified Souza

She recognized him by his picture in the paper. Unless he was with other "friends" at the lion cage, it's the same punks.

[Sequoia]

57. Didn't she it wasn't him.

I'll wager those big cats get taunted every week by someone. Even yelling down to say hello might be considered taunting. The sad fact is, a young man has died and his parents will never see him again.

[LisaL]

97. As not the one who was teasing.

[panzerfaust]

112. Who was not *observed* taunting at the time ...

... though the friends he was with allegedly were.

Packs of boys - of young men - do things as a group that they would not necessarily do alone.

Something, and it looks as though it was tormenting, caused the tiger to come out of the pit that day.

Yes, the walls were lower than the current recommendation; but, yes, they have been high enough for many decades, and, in the absence of the tiger having been enraged by torment, they would have been high enough even now.

Cruelty is its own reward.

[LanternWaste]

46. Reasonable expectations lay not only with the zoo...

Reasonable expectations lay not only with the zoo, but with the patrons. If a patron acts outside the bounds of reasonable expectations, then I believe that partial responsibility for any consequences of that negative behavior lies with the patron, also.

Observing an animal is not "encouraging bad behavior" unless I'm simply missing something-- if so, what?

[tabasco]

84. Not if a strict liability standard applies to the zoo.

In that case, the zoo is ALWAYS solely liable when something goes wrong.

Legally, the zoo is probably liable for the death and the punks' wrongdoing will not detract from any damages awarded.

However, if it is shown that the punks abused the cat, they may be guilty of a crime. Maybe criminal mischief or something.

[ToeBot]

96. It's less work just to click the 'ignore' icon. nt

[fed-up]

8. "roaring" at the big cats is a common occurance at the SF Zoo-

I've seen it happen many times over the years, especially in the lion house, didn't know it was a misdemeanor!

Call it whatever you want, but there is no way the young men could have known that the enclosure did NOT meet regulations! I hold the zoo totally responsible for the death.


"San Francisco police Inspector Valerie Matthews said investigators had talked to Miller on Wednesday but haven't been able to substantiate yet her account of a fourth person with the victims at the zoo. Authorities have been unable to corroborate reports that the victims taunted the tigers, she said.
"I don't know if what they did was any more than what kindergartners do at the zoo every day," Matthews said.
She said taunting an animal at the zoo is a misdemeanor."

[boricua79]

14. The Golden Rule applies to animals

you wouldn't like people roaring at you, so don't do it to the lions. And just because they're caged doesn't mean we have a right to roar at them. That's abusive behavior...and cowardly.

I'm glad that tiger got out and taught those arrogant kids a lesson.

[joshcryer]

22. How do you know they wouldn't want people roaring at them?

I personally would be amused and find it cute. But then again, I'm not a predator out to kill.

[YOY]

41. Like hell it does.

Animals will roar, maul, and kill without reservation. Nature is a fickle mistress. It doesn't give two turds and a fart about the golden rule...

What kind of happy mother nature are you envisioning.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

67. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

I'm glad that tiger got out and taught those arrogant kids a lesson.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
What in the name of GOD would you know about the Golden Rule!

Believe me, I'm not saying what I would like to at you. And don't bother, You will not get me to "Golden Rule" you.

[CreekDog]

111. I nominated another post as "Best Post in the Thread"

I nominate this post as "Worst Post in the Thread" for the following statement:

"I'm glad that tiger got out and taught those arrogant kids a lesson"

Because getting out meant that a boy was killed, apparently one who did not taunt the tiger and secondly because fair punishment for being arrogant is being mauled by a tiger.

You peddle some twisted logic!


:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[yardwork]

68. Roaring at animals is not uncommon (unfortunately) but this sounds extreme.

The woman reported that "the lion was bristling." I've seen idiots tease animals at zoos but I've never seen an animal respond. Most of the poor animals seem to be used to being taunted by idiot humans and they just ignore it. For a lion to be "bristling," the behavior must have been extreme.

Whatever they did to the tiger, it made her so angry she came at them. It's a shame that she was able to get out. It's a shame that both a person and an extremely rare animal are dead.

I've thought from the beginning that the two survivors have acted like jerks, and their hiring Geragos - a total hack - does nothing to endear them to me. I suspect that when they recover from their injuries they will resume picking on other living creatures who are in cages or otherwise unable to defend themselves. Flame away.

[struggle4progress]

77. ... "I don't know if what they did was any more than what kindergartners do at the zoo every day,"

<police Inspector Valerie> Matthews told the Chronicle ...

S.F. Zoo to Reopen After Tiger Attack
By LISA LEFF
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnDuXiwv-9m74-kPrGUFDKn3BMNgD8TUG5I80

[yardwork]

91. I read that quote, but I don't agree. The police officer wasn't there.

A woman with her kids reported that it was different. She reported that a lion was bristling in response to the taunting. That's unusual.

[struggle4progress]

103. Of course, big cats attack even small children without much provocation -- and that's not unusual

Wild cat attacks girl at Zoo in Malaysia
2007-12-24 11:03:56
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- A 5-year-old girl required 10 stitches on her lips after she was attacked by a wild cat at Zoo Negara (National Zoo) here in Malaysia on Saturday, local media reported on Monday ... The parents of the girl claimed it was a puma while the zoo authorities said it was a leopard. Her mother blamed the zoo authorities for the incident. A puma clawed Haw as she stood with her back to the cage, she said ...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/24/content_7303035.htm

Mother, daughter injured at Omaha zoo
THE WORLD-HERALD
Originally published Monday, Oct. 9, 1972
A year-old female Sumatran tiger .. leaped out of a 10-foot-deep grotto and attacked a mother and daughter Sunday at the Henry Doorly Zoo ... Lisa Cordner, 5, .. and her mother, Mrs. John Cordner .. were recuperating Monday at the family's home ... A woman dropped a Polaroid camera picture into the grotto and was using a stick to retrieve it ... The two tigers then started vying with one another for the picture, and the female leaped out ...
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10218472

Perhaps neither the assumption that everybody is aware enough to stay at distance from the animals, nor the assumption that large predators will never become highly agitated, is an appropriate part of a zoo safety strategy

[EV_Ares]

102. You are 100% right and after she left who knows what the hell they

did to torment the tiger.

And agree on hiring Geragos who is a hack. They might do well to remember that he didn't even stand beside his client Scott Peterson for the verdict reading, took off for somewhere else, sent an assistant. He is gutless and only in it for the money and himself.

[yardwork]

105. Yes, and Geragos told a lot of outrageous lies leading up to the Peterson trial.

Geragos is a lousy lawyer who did Peterson no good at all. I doubt he'll help his current clients.

[panzerfaust]

113. Yep

[Tumbulu]

69. I have visited the SF zoo many times and never witnessed anyone taunting animals

Plus, at 4:45pm pm they go around getting everyone out. Really seriously, too, so that by 5 it is empty. This has been my experience.

I suspect that these guys were way out of line and also wonder if they intended harm to come of the victim (perhaps they dangled him into the moat?). Why did they lie to his dad and why have they still not spoken to him?

[yardwork]

93. And who is the fourth person that the woman by the lions reported seeing?

[CreekDog]

110. The Dhaliwal duo are scum, they have records

it's been witnessed that they taunted, apparently the kid who was killed, Sousa, was trying to defend the two knuckleheads from a mauling and got killed himself in the process. Further, there is evidence the two were intoxicated, witnesses and a vodka bottle and the Dhaliwal's already have rap sheets (prior to this incident). Add to that when Sousa's dad called them looking for his son, they lied and said he wasn't with them.

[jberryhill]

142. Oh, well THAT explains it...

The tiger knew that they had prior arrests and had been drinking, and then decided to go after them.

Got it.

Nobody ever got drunk or went to a zoo with a criminal record before.

[lonestarnot]

10. So assumption of the risk and damages for the death of the tiger?

[Vinca]

11. Once again, I'm throwing my support behind the tiger.

Someone needs to develop an idiotmeter to keep people like this out of public places.

[atreides1]

12. Ditto

But, something caused the tiger to make the jump, if not then why haven't there been other attacks prior to this one.


There is enough blame to go around, the enclosure wasn't within regulations something that someone should have caught a long time ago. And we still don't know what really happened because the 2 survivors have lawyered up and hired Mr. Geragos, who must be working pro-bono because the man ain't cheap.



But, something caused the tiger to make the jump, if not then why haven't there been other attacks prior to this one.

When someone does develop that idiotmeter, some here on DU might actually benefit from it!!!!

[still_one]

16. Interesting. What if that was someone YOU KNEW. Would you say they deserved it also?

Really nice

[TankLV]

19. If they're that STUPID and behaving POORLY - you bet!

Like my mom used to do whenever we complained that the teacher was scolding us - she'd say: GOOD - you DESERVED it! Let that be a lesson to you...

They deserve to be BANNED from ever entering a zoo again...

My sympathies lie ONLY with the tigers...

As soon as these thugs are better - they should have the book thrown at them and be charged with MURDER...

[still_one]

32. I sure would hate you to consel the families of those Americans killed in Iraq /nt

[TankLV]

137. What the fuck does that have to do with this topic?

If you're acting like an idiot, and come running to me to complain about someone else chastizing you for being an idiot, then I'd damn BETTER support the person chastizing you, too and do them one better!

idiots...

[Sequoia]

42. Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Mean mom, mean child, mean to everyone else who doesn't step along. There is only speculation that these young men taunted the tiger. No proof yet. Hey, a few years ago I was at a zoo where some blonde boys were taunting a big cat and everyone around thought it was cute and funny.."Why, they're just excitable boys" they all said.

[Tumbulu]

71. And why didn't you stop them?

I have visited zoos and have seen people trying to sneak food to the animals. I have told them why they should not do this and then I find a zookeeper and let them know what I saw and what the person looked like and what I saw them feed the animal.

I have never seen anyone taunt an animal at a zoo. But believe me I would find a zookeeper or stop them myself.

[Sequoia]

78. Actually I yelled at them.

Likewise when camping once our neighbors trapped a squirrel in their tent and when they came back from a hike I was one of the guys with a shovel carrying it out and them talking about it so I dropped by Ranger Rick and told him about it. Right away he jumped in his Jeep and roared off with lights flashing. Lucky for us we were leaving otherwise those campers might've carried me off on a shovel. (PS: Your mom isn't mean)

[Tumbulu]

81. Thanks

[jberryhill]

87. ...and THEN they bit him....

It's dangerous to taunt assholes.

[TankLV]

138. Yep - and I'm proud of her good example.

You behave inappropriatly and come running to me and expect me to say "poor widdle victum" when you were clearly wront?

Your a worse asshole than I thought - and I feel sorry for YOUR parents if that's the way THEY raised YOU...

[Vilis Veritas]

18. Cool...would you like the job of monitoring the idiotmeter?

I trust you. ;-)

I know it was just a reactionary statement on your part...however, the reality is that your statement is more frightening to me than some person taunting a lion...

Peace.

[still_one]

33. No compassion for someone's child or parent, unbelievable /nt

[kskiska]

13. Seems that once the crowds had gone

they moved on to the tiger and emboldened, they escalated the fun since no one was looking.

[The Stranger]

21. Where in the fuck were the zookeepers?

[slackmaster]

25. They can't be everywhere all the time

I live near the San Diego Zoo, and can experience quiet time alone with a big cat any day of the week.

Here's my buddy Orson.

[EFerrari]

27. If you read the article, the zoo admin weasels out of saying

how many people were working that day. My bet is, not enough because then the zoo would have to spring for holiday pay. Bet me.

[NashVegas]

29. Paid Employees, Or Docents?

Our zoo is always on the look-out for volunteers, and it's something I've considered now and then.

Many civic jobs don't pay squat for the people doing the work on the ground. The non-profit world tends to save its payroll for the deal-makers. Everyone else who wants to be in the field needs a trust fund.

[DeepModem Mom]

23. K&R

[Unca Jim]

24. Never Fails...

The "animals are more important than people" argument has arrived.

Were you ever 17 and hanging out with your friends when they did something stupid? Did you deserve to die? If that was your kid, how would you feel about a dangerous animal being left in a substandard enclosure?

I get that the tiger was acting naturally and put in a difficult situation, but that doesn't mean some kid deserves to die.

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Not more important, but equally important. Mankind is supposed to be more intelligent than other

species, but we 'confine' wild creatures for our enjoyment and then act horrified when one escapes and kills someone tormenting them. Did the tiger deserve to die? The zoo had been regularly inspected and the fence is below recommended height, but the enclosure was not substandard. As a parent, I taught my son to respect all forms of life.

[EFerrari]

28. I agree. I wouldn't want one of my sons to die for an act of stupidity.

And, there are always people who seem to want to blame the victim. If DHS hauled me away for posting at DU, there would be posts saying it was my own fault.

[mbperrin]

30. Some friends! 19 and 23 don't mix well with 17.

Especially when 19 and 23 lied to 17's dad about where he was when Christmas dinner was on the table. Some friends who won't even give your name to authorities after being mauled. Some friends who shut up and won't identify themselves, but who are worried about their car on the way to the hospital. Some friends who won't return calls to the 17 year old's family.

The only reason older guys (who have had at least one previous serious run-in with the law, apparently) run around with younger guys is because all the guys their own age are tired of their shit, and younger and dumber haven't had enough yet.

19 and 23 have plenty to be responsible for. They are not children, and Geragos is a notch above goin' to daddy for help when the awful people want you to help clean up the mess you made.

[TriMetFan]

31. You are so right.

Thats is what I was trying to say in post 20. 19 and 23 year olds are not little boy's. They are men.

[Nihil]

52. Well said!

Shame that some people can't see that 19 & 23 year-olds are NOT "kids"
and that they SHOULD be held accountable for their actions rather than
allowed to cower behind ambulance-chasers ...
:shrug:

[treestar]

70. The law is probably strict liability

The zoo is probably stuck with it. There isn't much of a defense - the taunting is rude and stupid but not enough to overcome strict liability. The zoo would know that, keeping wild animals as they do.

[yardwork]

106. This aspect of it concerns me a lot, too. As a mother, my heart aches for the 17 year old killed.

[still_one]

35. You have articulated it perfectly /nt

[LanternWaste]

47. Not necessarily. I think the argument in this particular case is that...

"he "animals are more important than people" argument has arrived."

Not necessarily. I think the argument in this particular case is that the "kids were more stupid than the animals". And in this case, it appears to be a valid argument.

I did a lot of stupid things when I was seventeen. Used to drag race a lot. Be pretty stupid to blame my Dodge Charger for killing me when it was my choice and my choice alone to go beyond reasonable expectations.


"I get that the Dodge Charger was acting naturally and put in a difficult situation, but that doesn't mean some kid deserves to die."

[EFerrari]

60. Blaming either the people or the tiger is beside the point.

The main culprit here is the f#cking zoo who was charged with protecting BOTH and did NEITHER.

I'm no defender of teenaged (or, any aged) anti social behavior. But, the bigger picture is that San Francisco privatized the zoo management and that now two mammals are dead because of that rotten decision.

[Xithras]

125. And what exactly is wrong with that argument?

The last time I checked, humans weren't an endangered species. This bullshit thinking that we're somehow important than they are has to stop.

There are less than a thousand Siberian Tigers left in the world (combined zoo and wild populations) and around 6.6 billion humans. By my math, one Siberian Tiger is equal to the lives of about six million humans. Six million. It disturbs me that you could just shrug that off.

[Skip Intro]

34. Tragic all the way around. Maybe we shouldn\'t enclose wild animals for our entertainment.

I\'m sorry anyone got hurt, but I don\'t blame tiger for being a tiger.

[jberryhill]

38. Bottom Line - Tigers Should Not Be Able To Get Out Of Zoo Enclosures

Without getting into whether zoos "should" exist or display tigers, or any other animals to the public, I am mystified by all of the attention over whether or not the boys were taunting the tigers.

The simple fact is this:

The Zoo was maintaining a deadly wild animal in an enclosure in the City of San Francisco.

The deadly wild animal got out of the enclosure and did what deadly wild animals do.

It is beyond question that tigers are dangerous animals, and humans can be incredibly stupid ones.

The Zoo, and only the Zoo, was entirely responsible for managing this interface between dangerous animals and stupid animals.

If that tiger could get out via (a) public access to a door of some kind, or (b) escape from the enclosure, then that tiger could have just as easily taken out a person who was mentally ill, or a baby in a stroller that made sounds the tiger didn't like.

If teasing the tiger was sufficient to motivate the tiger to escape from the enclosure, then it just doesn't matter - that enclosure was insufficiently designed to contain the tiger (not to mention to protect the tiger from teasing).

This is one of those situations at Law which is generally referred to as Res Ipsa Loquitur - "The thing speaks for itself". It is as clear a situation as they come - TIGERS SHOULD NOT ESCAPE THEIR ENCLOSURES AT ZOOS AND THE PUBLIC SHOULD NOT HAVE THE MEANS TO ENABLE OR INSPIRE THEM TO DO SO - period, end of story.

A tiger does not belong in a city. If you are the one who brings a tiger into a city and puts it on display, then it is entirely and completely your responsibility to protect the public, and the tiger, from adverse consequences - and that public includes the stupid, the immature, the mentally ill, the criminally deranged, and anyone else capable of wandering into your zoo under their own power.

[slackmaster]

55. That enclosure had been in use since 1940 without a cat escaping from it

The present operators of the zoo had a reasonable expectation that the enclosure was adequate, especially after a 2004 audit by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums gave them a clean bill of health.

[jberryhill]

56. It doesn't matter

In a strict liability situation - and this surely qualifies - adherence to regulations is not a defense.

We don't afford a "reasonable prudence" standard to the conduct of inherently dangerous activities - and keeping wild animals is the black-letter, hornbook law school example of this sort of thing.

You simply cannot say "the enclosure was adequate".

The enclosure was MOST CERTAINLY NOT ADEQUATE.

I am, in fact, CERTAIN the enclosure was not adequate.

Do you want to know how I can exercise this remarkable ability to determine the adequacy of this enclosure without ever having seen it, the zoo's audit records, or anything else?

I'll let you in on a the magic secret here - A TIGER GOT OUT OF IT.

That's one of the things to look for when determining the adequacy of a "tiger enclosure" - to wit, a failure to enclose a tiger.

[slackmaster]

58. The AZA is explicitly listed in the CA Fish and Game Code as official accreditor for the state

You can't keep a dangerous wild animal without a stack of permits from the state, and zoos are subject to accreditation by the very organization that gave SF a clean bill of health in 2004. I agree with you that the enclosure was not adequate, but there is no way any individual is going to be held liable since the zoo did everything by the book.

The escape was an unfortunate, unintentional accident. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there is not going to be any way to hang this on anyone in particular.

[AngryAmish]

61. The zoo will be held liable as a corporate entity

The fact that it passed the AZA inspection does not matter. It would be analogous to say the fact that a driver who caused an accident was speeding could not be guilty of negligence because the police did not ticket them.

[jberryhill]

63. Wild Animal Incidents Are Held to Strict Liability Principles Under Tort Law

This is Torts 101. "Wild animals" are always the textbook example of strict liability.

https://www.shsu.edu/~klett/CH%206%20NEW%20PRODUCT%20LIABILITY%20NEGLIGENCE.htm

Strict Liability: Liability regardless of fault. Strict liability is imposed on defendants whose activities are abnormally dangerous and/or involve dangerous animals and on defendants whose products are defective.


http://www.gmabrands.com/news/docs/Testimony.cfm?DocID=866

There is a third category of tort law that applies to conduct regardless of the blameworthiness or negligence of the actor. This is the category of strict liability, and it applies to certain conduct that is considered extremely dangerous or involves the keeping of something inherently dangerous. The classic examples from law school of such activities are blasting or the keeping of wild animals.

When one engages in an activity that falls into this category, it is at one's peril, and if any harm results or property damage occurs as a result of the activity, the person is liable in tort regardless of fault.


http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/1998/0598/Features/F220598.htm

Strict Liability. The third tort theory arose because the legal system found victims with significant damages or injuries, but they were unable to recover under an intentional tort or negligence theory. Strict liability is a liability "without fault" approach. Strict liability was initially reserved for situations deemed to be inherently dangerous or deemed to be an ultrahazardous activity. Examples were demolition by blasting, keeping wild animals, or putting on fireworks displays. For example, if a company is going to destroy a building by strategically placing dynamite in different locations and a person is harmed during the demolition, they can recover for their injuries even if the demolition company used reasonable care in planning the demolition. The same logic applies to those who insist on keeping wild animals as pets. If a pet cougar harms a victim, the victim can recover from the pet owner even if the pet owner was acting reasonably.


Compliance with regulations is not a defense.

Even under ordinary negligence principles, compliance with regulations can be offered as persuasive evidence, but whether the regulations themselves are adequate is open to decision.

I am a lawyer, but in the absence of some specific California law providing liability protection for zoos, I doubt you will find very many lawyers that would not immediately point to the principle of strict liability governing the keeping of dangerous animals.

Now, if the relevant insurer was happy with the enclosure, and set the premiums accordingly, that's fine. But there is going to be a payout here.

[slackmaster]

101. Thanks, that is very interesting information

Now, if the relevant insurer was happy with the enclosure, and set the premiums accordingly, that's fine. But there is going to be a payout here.

And if not, then who pays? I'm guessing the officers and directors of the zoo won't be paying.

[jberryhill]

123. The zoo has insurance

That's what insurance is for...

From every kid that gets sick from an ice cream cone...

to every person who slips and falls on a crack in the sidewalk...

You cannot run any facility open to the public without adequate insurance - not if you are going to be around longer than a week.

With as many visitors as there are at a zoo, they probably deal with dozens of claims a year.

Your average smallish supermarket gets a couple of claims per month.

And if they don't have insurance, then the zoo goes into receivership and the judgment is paid from the assets. But it is a certainty that the zoo has appropriate liability coverage.

[Selatius]

73. The wall the tiger climbed was roughly 12 feet high, but recommendations were it should be 20 feet.

The zoo records had the wall improperly listed at 20 feet as per regulation, but investigators went out and found it was 12 feet only. The zoo is liable here, either for document fraud or negligence for simply failing to go out and take proper assessments of the enclosure.

Because of this, I guarantee you that if this went to court, the zoo will lose.

[Guaranteed]

92. LOL great posts.

I think you've got it.

[EFerrari]

62. Post hoc. You know, someone could easily have enfuriated

that cat and me and my nieces could have reaped the reward because I take them there all the time.

The present administrators of the zoo care about their bottom line more than they do about the animals in their care. Those guys may have been assholes. We really don't know that for a fact. But, say they were.

The zoo is, finally, responsible for the animals AND the visitors. That's why their PR people are doing everything they can to seed the media.

[LisaL]

100. And there are the claims that are made about these men

that appear to be false.
Like the claim that the shoe was being found in the enclosure.
Police say it wasn't.
Then there was a claim about slingshots found.
Police deny that one as well.

[Guaranteed]

90. Res ipsa. Bingo.

Just the fact that it happened is clear negligence.

[YOY]

40. I was at the National Zoo last summer with my family...there was a guy teasing the Silverbacks

Redneck...full mullet and NASCAR regalia...no offense intended to anyone, but if you want to break the ignoramus steriotype...teach this guy to dress up in a suit and get a buzzcut.

The guy was heckling the peaceful looking Silverback gorilla by jumping around and making "Oooh! Oooh!" noises. REALLY LOUDLY. You could hear him from the other side of the primate house (on the outside). I think that more people were looking at this idiot make an "ape" of himself than the gorilla staring him down as it munched on shoots. He was doing this to entertain his 10 year old son. Not a good role model but I digress...

Would the park have thrown out this goon if someone complained...probably not. Was he an ass? Yes. Would he deserve losing his life if that Gorilla jumped the cage? No. Would his little boy deserve to be hurt by the creature? Absolutely not.

Funny how the tiger story brought back the memory.

[Sequoia]

44. Or that Sienfield episode where Kramer was teasing the chimp.

The Chimp won!

[Beaverhausen]

51. No, he wouldn't deserve losing his life, but why taunt dangerous animals

Everyone over the age of 5 should realize there are consequences to one's actions.

Taunt one of the world's most fierce killers (tigers) and you just might find yourself in trouble.

He didn't deserve to die, but neither did the tiger.

[MilesColtrane]

45. "Fearful Symmetry" n/t

[Vilis Veritas]

49. Tragic for both human and animal.

Can we feel compassion for both?

It was tragic. It was an accident. It had a cause and an effect. It deserves analysis and a solution to be found that makes the Zoo safer for both people and animals alike. It does not require anything more.

As for abolishing Zoos, sure, fine by me. Until that time...solve the problem and do it without legislation or idiotmeters.

Peace.

[Beaverhausen]

54. I agree. Neither one deserved to die

[NoodleyAppendage]

59. Object Lession: Sociopaths and Tigers do NOT mix well.

I have no sympathy for sociopaths, of which these teens appear to fit the description, who have to suffer the consequences of their actions. It is EXACTLY because of the sociopath's inability to empathize with other living beings and lack the foresight into the consequences of their behavior that we are faced with this mess.

J

[yardwork]

66. Well, that's the thing. When two violent species interact without supervision, there will be troubl

Humans and tigers are both violent, predatory species. It was most unwise of the zoo to allow people to taunt the animals in the zoo's care. I absolutely believe that somebody got that tiger so upset it leapt out of its enclosure and not only attacked, but chased two people the length of three football fields.

My house cats will become enraged if they are taunted. Cats do that. They should be protected from idiot people just as idiots (and the innocent bystanders near them) should be protected from zoo animals.

[flyingfysh]

65. Does this story deserve space on DU?

Is it any more important than missing young blonde stories? It's sad that it happened and the kids were stupid, but it really seems out of place here.

[1620rock]

79. WTF....then go read something else.

[panzerfaust]

114. It is important because

It says a lot about the values of our society.

We are all scared of tigers, we all like looking at them, we have all (those of us old enough for unsafe zoos) remember sticking our hands in the cages to pet them, we are all horrified by someone being killed by a big cat, but most of us are disgusted by the behavior that lead up to it.

The zoo failed both its animals and its patrons. Should there be zoos open to the public? I am close to thinking no.

It is unlikely that by the end of this century there will be any large non-domestic animals in the wild. They would survive only in zoos, animal parks. Perhaps we should just call it a day, and recognize that we are too savage and cruel a species to live in a world with tigers in it.

In the end, it is important simply because people, obviously, want to discuss it. I have never read a 'missing blond' thread here. If such threads exist, I simply did not read them.

[billybob537]

76. NA_NAAH YOUR MOTHER WAS A CHEETAH!

How does that chane the fact the wall was too short?

[pipoman]

85. Has the report that the 2 had slingshots on them been found false?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12312007/news/nationalnews/tiger_attack_victims_used_slingshot_on_t_469573.htm

December 31, 2007 --

SAN FRANCISCO - Two brothers who were injured when a tiger attacked them at the San Francisco Zoo had slingshots on them at the time, a source said.

An empty vodka bottle was also found in a car used by Amritpal Dhaliwal, 19, and his brother, Kulbir, 23, on the day of the mauling, which left 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. dead, according to the source.

The discoveries could be an indication that the brothers may have taunted the 350-pound Siberian tiger before it leapt from its grotto.

Is it just me, every time I see the word "grotto", I see Hugh Hefner in my mind's eye?

[LisaL]

119. Apparently nothing of the sort was found.

"Exactly how and why Tatiana escaped are still matters of speculation. Mannina said no slingshots, laser pointers, BB guns or other devices were found, despite at least one published report to the contrary."


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-zoo4jan04,1,140614.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

[pipoman]

120. Thank you, xxoo :D

[daleo]

86. Just looking at a caged tiger can be thought of a "teasing"

Dominant predators don't generally like eye contact, so any visitor to a zoo can be thought of as teasing these animals. Someone is working pretty hard to trash these victims, probably in the hopes that it will be seen as mitigating during the coming negligence trial.

[LisaL]

88. I would say. Suggesting that teasing is an excuse for tiger

getting out and killing a visitor?
What if there was a mother with a crying baby, and tiger didn't like the baby crying, got out and ate the baby?
Would people be saying that baby got what it deserved?
Seems pretty clear to me zoo has to maintain adequate enclosure so the tiger can not get out even if it's being teased or doesn't like something.
Otherwise all the zoo visitors are fair game.

[daleo]

94. You make an excellent point regarding the hypothetical crying baby

It is anthropomorphic to assume a tiger would be "teased" by the same things that we humans are. We are primates, and they are cats, so there is no good reason to assume they have the same reactions as we do. It is quite possible that actions that we consider provocative wouldn't bother a tiger, and actions we consider harmless would annoy it (e.g. your crying baby example).

For example, if you live in grizzly country, you are advised not to look one in the eye, should you encounter one in the woods. However an aggressive black bear is a different story - current advice is that one ought to stand his/her ground (not that I have had to put the advice to the test).

And sometimes animals will attack for no reason at all, as many a dog owner has learned.

[LisaL]

95. Crying baby, 3 year old toddler trowing a tantrum, five year olds

laughing out loud.
All of these things are possible at the zoo.
I don't see how teasing should be an excuse for the tiger to get out of the enclosure.
Oh the zoo should put the sign up, saying "Look at the animals at your own risk. If the animal doesn't like you, it will get out of the enclosure and you can get eaten."

[daleo]

130. By an interesting coincidence, a German Shepard lunged and snarled at me today

I was walking to work, down a public sidewalk along a moderately busy street. Another fellow was walking his dog, coming the other way. Just as we passed, the dog (probably still young, but big) began snarling and lunged. Fortunately it was being held on a short leash, and the young man held it back, so no damage was done. I could tell the owner was surprised, though, probably just as surprised as I was.

Had I done anything to provoke the dog? No. But dogs are unpredictable, wild animals even more so. The idea that an animal (especially a tiger) had to be provoked by someone who "broke the golden rule" before they will attack is sheer anthropomorphism.

I don't think that logic would get you very far in court either. "Mr. Tiger, please you tell the court, in your own words, just how the plaintiffs actions annoyed you."

Tigers have their own logic, and that's why zoos have to make sure they have proper enclosures.

[jberryhill]

133. Hmmm.... Dogs are excellent judges of character....

Sorry, but I'll need to see your cell phone pictures, the contents of your car, an alcohol breath test, and you'll need to take a few psych tests, before I let you off of that German Shepherd taunting rap.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any group or organization which has antagonized the interests of German Shepherds or any subspecies of Canis Lupus generally?

[daleo]

134. Well, I was wearing a new wool coat

The German Shepard may have objected to this year's fashion.

[jberryhill]

135. Wool? Perhaps he thought you were a sheep. /nt

[daleo]

139. I thought of that, regarding the wool coat

In all seriousness, I have noticed that dogs seem to respond differently to different clothes. For example, dogs don't seem to bark much if one is wearing a leather jacket. There could be something about the scent of different fabrics that sets off a dog's dominance instincts.

Dogs or tigers, we can't really know what goes on in their minds. It seems futile to impute human motives to animals (e.g. the tiger attacked because someone taunted them by "roaring").

[jberryhill]

131. Well, there was that guy in Germany...

That complained that Knut the polar bear shouldn't be hand-raised by humans, since it would spoil his bear nature.

Man, if Knut ever reads about that guy on the internet, he might just get out and hunt him down.

I once posted a snarky followup to a blog post about anteaters, and damn if one didn't show up and try to trip me on the stairs a few days later.

A man in Australia once had his entire foundation ruined because of a few off color jokes about wombats.

[Guaranteed]

89. I don't see how this makes a difference.

Zoo visitors shouldn't have to worry about accidentally setting an animal off and getting EATEN. I don't know what these guys were doing, but if they didn't actually help the tiger get out of the enclosure, they aren't at fault at all. They're not even "stupid." They thought they were safe, and they should have been.

Now, they might be jerks, and immature, and stupid in that sense. But they shouldn't have had to fear anything. No one should, at the zoo.

[Savannah_H]

104. Reckless Behavior by Zoo

That doesn't change the fact that the fence was too low and the zoo lied about that. Nor that the moat was not wide enough. I'm tired of people being reckless and not accepting blame nowadays. Maybe those boys were teasing the tiger, but that tiger should not have been able to jump over the moat and up over the fence period.

I'd expect the SF Zoo to accept blame for the incident. How could they sleep nights knowing that the Big Cats might be able to leap out!

[RamboLiberal]

115. City attorney demands preservation of potential evidence in tiger attack

The San Francisco City Attorney has asked that the two survivors of the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo preserve their cell phone records, cell phone photos and contents of the car they drove to the zoo on the day of the mauling.

In a letter to attorney Mark Geragos - who is representing brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23 - City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the San Jose men have refused police requests to inspect images and other data stored on their cell phones. That means the phones haven't been inspected as potential evidence, according to the letter.

Nevertheless, Herrera said the Dhaliwals should not destroy or alter any potential evidence in the event it is returned by police. He suggests a simultaneous inspection of the phone and car by representatives of his office and experts retained by the Dhaliwals.

Herrera added that the contents of the car should also be preserved because of potential evidence the brothers were drinking before going into the zoo. Police officials have said an empty vodka bottle was inside the car.

http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/01/04/chronicle/archive/2008/01/04/MNVKU9L9L.html

I'm surprised the cops didn't get a warrant to examine contents of cell phone - interesting that they are still in polic custody! These guys sure sound like they are hiding their wrong doing to me.

Herrara's letter to Geragos. http://cdn.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2008/01/05/geragos20080104.pdf

[LisaL]

117. Maybe the cops are unable to get a search warrant.

Don't they have to show some probability of some wrongdoing to get one?

[kskiska]

121. Interesting stuff in the comments following the article

This letter apparently has to do with the civil suit the zoo is expecting, not the criminal case, if there are grounds for one. Taunting the animals is a misdemeanor. The police already have the articles in their possession, but the city attorney is not privy to them for the civil case. The letter is a warning to the perps to preserve the evidence (if it's returned to them), or else. It seems the city attorney wants to examine the stuff in the presence of representatives of the perps. They'll fight it tooth and nail.

[jberryhill]

129. That's a standard pre-litigation lettter, btw

Boy... I can sure see how a jury is going to say, "Oh, they had an EMPTY VODKA BOTTLE IN THE CAR - no wonder a tiger was able to get out of a zoo enclosure. I mean, nobody in the history of the world ever thought a drunk might be at a public zoo."

These kids should have done something safe that day, like wander through someone's unlocked gate and drown in a backyard pool.

[kskiska]

122. San Jose Mercury article

Pair who survived tiger attack reportedly withholding photos from police
(Misleading headline? No proof offered that photos exist.)

(snip)

The zoo reopened Thursday for the first day since the mauling but was closed today because of the strong storm that battered the Bay Area.

Zoo employees had to clear several downed trees and other debris from the zoo grounds.

"Our zoo keepers went immediately into action, securing the animals, getting them into their night enclosures," said Lora LaMarca, spokeswoman for the zoo.

LaMarca said the rhinos and kangaroos refused to go inside and were allowed to remain out in the rain. "A rhino does what it wants to do," she said.

The zoo lost power at 8 a.m. and had not had it restored by late afternoon.

(snip)

The zoo's big cats remained inside the lion house, where there are two very large cages, she said. Zoo keepers were paying more attention to all of them but especially to Tony, the 15 1/2 year former companion of Tatiana, the Siberian tiger that was shot on Christmas Day.

"I'm sure he's fine," LaMarca said.

The zoo has not decided if it will seek another companion tiger for Tony.

more…
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7883971?source=most_viewed

[thatsrightimirish]

136. doesn't matter

I doubt that the tiger has never been roared at by visitors before. The fact still remains that the fence was not high enough, the tiger escaped, and killed people. As a visitor to that zoo, I think it is unacceptable and they are lucky that it happened on a day when there were not very many visitors. The SF Zoo blaming the victims for the own incompetence is irresponsible.

[MadMaddie]

140. Why is there no mention of a Security Team or Security Individuals?

If there are rowdy groups of kids or adults - where was the security to escort them off of the premises?

It is obvious that the enclosure was poorly planned, but it is also the zoo's responsibility to keep the animals safe as well as visitors.

[jberryhill]

141. Because the Zoo has a good PR team...

...although to what end, I can't imagine, since the mere fact that a tiger escaped an enclosure at a zoo is entirely determinative on the subject of the zoo's liability here.

[EFerrari]

143. Inadequate staffing -- Christmas Day.

When asked about staffing, the director weaseled out of answering.

[MadMaddie]

144. Yea...but as you and I know....still not an acceptable answer.

[EFerrari]

145. There's so many kinds of wrong going on here.

:(

[MadMaddie]

146. Indeed...