TIGER BROTHERS HAD SLINGSHOTS

New York Post ^

[barryg]

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.

[spunkets]

"To all freepers who do not believe the zoo is at fault: If the tiger had mauled and killed an innocent family, you all would be singing a different tune."

The tigers had all been content and fine in that pit for 67 years. It took motivation for that tiger to jump out, and the punks with slingshots provided the motivation. Had it been my kid, I wouldn't blame anyone else, but my own kid.

I'd expect the zoo to dig a deeper pit, and nothing else. When you taunt and torment animals in a cage, or on a chain and they break loose and bite you, it's 100% your own damn fault.

[Sue Perkick]

I do believe that if the evidence indicates that they were using slingshots that it is indeed a criminal offense & they should be prosecuted accordingly. After seeing what happened in Durham in ‘06, I’m hesitant to make too many assumptions without facts. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think these boys were angels by any means but I want to see what the evidence shows. I still have a problem that this was even able to happen. If the animals can get out because they were taunted it still shows they can get out & public safety is at serious risk. Clearly this zoo had no emergency plan in place which makes it even worse.

[spunkets]

"Don't make stuff up, they were in the car."

Read the story. The slingshots were found on in their pockets.

[Sue Perkick]

And like you said they overlooked it because she was a money maker. It’s bad enough as it is. It could have been a whole lot worse. It’s amazing more people were not injured or killed.

[Route66]

For all we know, the cat had made an earlier attempt and had hurt herself and the boys had nothing to do with her ultimate escape.

There are facts to deal with.

The young men were there. They had hard alcohol with them. They had sling shots. The 2 survivors would not cooperate with police. The tiger attacked and pursued the 3 men involved. He followed them to the cafe when he could have run off anywhere else after escaping the grotto.

This is nature doing what nature does. Each was old enough to know what he was doing and each must bear some responsibility for his own actions. Had they been physically torturing a dog in a neighbor's yard, a secured yard that has always contained the animal before, and had the dog escaped the yard and attacked and killed one of them, would you say that this was strictly the fault of the dog owner? I most certainly would not.

[spunkets]

"I keep seeing people talk about provocation. But I haven’t seen any evidence that it occurred.

No evidence of provocation? What do you suppose the slingshots were for? Do you read the part about them taunting humans in Oct while drunk, then fihgting with police when they were arrested for it?

The And even if it were true, the boys would only be guilty of being idiots."

Taunting and tormenting caged animals is not a sign of idiocy. It's a sign of depraved viciousness and a lack of concern for life.

[Sue Perkick]

The fact is we don’t know the facts.

[Mr. Brightside]

a lack of concern for life.

That is what I fault the zoo for. They have known since the 60s that this enclosure was in danger of having tigers escape.

They knew that the manual method of feeding tigers was inadequate. But they waited until the zoo keepers got her arm mauled before they installed a safer feeding system.

These walls were too low. People had complained for 40 years, and they wait until someone gets killed to finally do something about it. Sounds like a Southern California bureaucracy to me.

[spunkets]

"The fact is we don’t know the facts."

Enough facts have been presented for me to make a judgment.

[SunkenCiv]

A tiger on the loose in SF, seems like a good time to call for more protection for escaped endangered species. ;’) As a sidebar, it’s difficult not to laugh when one finds out there’s a neighborhood in SF called “The Tenderloin”. ;’)

[Mr. Brightside]

a dog in a neighbor's yard, a secured yard

The neighbor's dog kills your daughter. And the redneck owner says, "That chain is plenty strong as long as kids don't get him mad."

And you walk away and drop the whole thing?

I don't think so.

[Caramelgal]

This is not hard to understand. If your chain is not strong enough to hold your rottweiller, you are to blame. If the prison's walls are not high enough to contain an enraged prisoner, then the prison is to blame. If the zoo's tiger enclosure does not keep the tiger inside, then the zoo is to blame.

Interesting point of view but what if an intruder breaks into my home and my Rottie seriously wounds or kills them; am I responsible for not doing enough to keep the intruder from breaking into my home in the first place?

If a prison takes all reasonable precautions and safeguards to contain a violent offender but said offender still finds some way of escaping anyway, then you are saying that it’s the prison’s fault alone and that the escapee is not responsible for his actions?

If I were a juror, given the facts known at this time, I would have to consider:

1) There was a shoe found in the moat “inside” the enclosure indicating that at least one of the three had gone past the visitor’s barrier and placed a leg inside the enclosure.

2) The surviving two were uncooperative with the police.

3) They were found to have had sling shots in their possession – not exactly standard gear for a nice leisurely trip to the zoo and demonstrates a premeditation on their part.

4) If the enclosure was so inadequate and the tiger, so extremely aggressive, then why wasn’t the tiger jumping out on a regular basis?

5) Did the zoo pass previous safety inspections? Where they compliant?

6) Did the zoo have signs and warnings posted saying not to taunt the animals or enter past a certain point and not to place body parts inside the enclosure?

7) Did the zoo’s ticket stub have a “limited liability statement” printed on it? A lot of public venues like theme parks and sports stadiums have them in order to protect themselves from lawsuits by people knowingly engaging in stupid and dangerous behaviors.

In civil law there is a legal precept called “contributory negligence”. It basically says that the party being sued is in some part negligent but that the complainant’s actions were so out of the norm and equally negligent, thus ending in a legal draw.

So far I’m leaning toward “contributory negligence”. The three “youts” were old enough to know better and most likely did not follow the posted rules and intentionally provoked a dangerous animal to attack them.

How much do any of you want to make a bet that one of the three guys was filming the event on a cell phone camera with hopes of being the next “Jackass” or YouTube video star.

If so, they got their wish, they got their 15 minutes of fame. And one of them died for it.

[spunkets]

"These walls were too low. People had complained for 40 years, and they wait until someone gets killed to finally do something about it. Sounds like a Southern California bureaucracy to me."

No animal left the pit for 67 years. That's substantial evidence that the pit was adequate. Had the zoo keepers ever been concerned enough to present and document that any tiger could come close enough to escape, their presentation would have been evaluated on it's merit and corrections ade accordingly. They had never done that.

"They knew that the manual method of feeding tigers was inadequate. But they waited until the zoo keepers got her arm mauled before they installed a safer feeding system."

The method of feeding was fine, just toss the stuff in the cage. The mind of the zoo keeper was inadequate. They should know to never stick their hand, or arm in a cage, where the animal can grab it. That goes for any animal. They not should stick their hands, or arms near an animal eating when they're not caged also. Folks shouldn't stick their hands, or arms in snow blowers, lawn mowers, wood chippers, combines, and machinery in general.

[Yaelle]

Glad this was found. Hope the families do not get a PENNY. I hope John Edwards drops out of the race to serve as the zoo’s attorney and channels the dead tigress.

[Yaelle]

You beat me to it but I put him on the other side of the case, channeling the dead tiger.

[Yaelle]

I nominate yours for Post of the Day.

[spunkets]

The boys motivated the tiger’s jumping feat with slingshots.

[Route66]

Where did you get any of that from my post?

I'm not talking about redneck owners or little girls. My example used the same circumstances. Three drunk guys torturing a dog with sling shots from across a fence which has always contained a dog before. If you'd place all the responsibility on the owner, you don't believe in the concept of personal responsibility at all.

As I said. The zoo gets 50% of the blame because the tiger could get out (even though it never had before) and because it's a public facility that should do what it can to protect its visitors. The men get 50% of the blame because their attack on the animal drove it out by deliberately hurting and enraging it.

[Mr. Brightside]

If a prison takes all reasonable precautions and safeguards to contain a violent offender

The zoo DID NOT take all reasonably precautions to contain the animal.

The zoos walls were 4 feet below recommendations.

The zoo was warned in the 60's that a tiger was endanger of escaping so they filled the moat with water to make it harder for it to escape. When that tiger died. They drained the moat.

Ten years ago, a woman and her 3 year old son had a close call with a tiger nearly jumping out of this same enclosure. The zoo did nothing.

There was a shoe found in the moat “inside” the enclosure

Police have recanted. All of the victims shoes were accounted for. There was NO shoe in the moat.

Did the zoo have signs and warnings posted saying not to taunt the animals

Does a "Do Not Lean On The Glass" sign substitute for safety glass at the alligator farm? "This glass is plenty strong as long as people don't tap on it."

Did the zoo’s ticket stub have a “limited liability statement” printed on it?

Limited liability statements do not absolve negligence on the part of people entrusted to protect the public. If your family was on a plane that crashed after it ran out of gas, how much comfort would you take from their disclaimer, "There are risks in flying. All people assume full responsibility for their own safety."

Did the zoo have signs and warnings

I am sure that installing a "Do Not Taunt The Tiger" signs was definitely cheaper than upgrading the enclosure to current safety recommendations. But you can see how effective it was.

In civil law there is a legal precept called “contributory negligence”.

The two main culprits are the zoo and the accrediting organization. As far as I am concerned, they can share equally in 80 percent of the multimillion dollar figment.

[WatchOutForSnakes]

Young boys? I think they were 19 and 23. Those aren’t young boys. Anyway, it appears the tiger showed a lot more intelligence then the “young boys”. She hunted down the three that were trying to hurt her, killed one of them and injured the other two. Nobody else. That’s pretty darn smart for an animal. To bad these guys didn’t have the same kind of intelligence.