Posted on 01/17/2008 7:08:12 PM PST by yorkie
ROFL. Good point.
That is what the punk's attorney is going to present as an argument.
And that is how he is going to pay off his new Mercedes.
Right or wrong, the general objective of visiting a zoo is not to be eaten/attacked.
The zoo did put the public at risk. They might counter sue or appeal, but it's quite possible, with a tiger that has already attacked a human being, that any random innocent could have been a victim.
_________________________________________________
Brothers injured by tiger will not face charges, investigator
CNN ^ | 1/7/08
San Francisco Police Inspector Valerie Matthews said the investigation had found no evidence that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal taunted a 300-pound tiger that apparently scaled a 12½ foot wall surrounding its enclosure.... Matthews also said the Dhaliwals were cooperative with investigators.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1949987/posts
Or at least to industry recommendations.
Where did you get that information? Are you making that up too?
>>>the non-cooperation by the Dhaliwals is true.<<<
Brothers injured by tiger will not face charges, investigator
CNN ^ | 1/7/08
San Francisco Police Inspector Valerie Matthews said the investigation had found no evidence that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal taunted a 300-pound tiger that apparently scaled a 12½ foot wall surrounding its enclosure.... Matthews also said the Dhaliwals were cooperative with investigators.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1949987/posts
_______________________________________________________
Sheesh. Do you just make it up as you go?
Sure they did. Stupidity has consequences.
Probably. But that was 1970.
As far as I knew, there was only a 6-foot chain link fence around the enclosure. It doesn’t have a railing on it, so the only other “railing” I knew about was the ledge at the top of the moat.
Now I’m seeing that there is a 3-foot-tall metal railing much closer to the moat than the first diagram I saw several weeks ago indicated, so I had a mistaken view of the area.
When they said they stood on the railing, I didn’t know there was a 3-foot metal one close to the moat. Now I do.
“Neither the zoo nor any other organization, nor any police or teacher or parent or any other entity on this planet can protect us from our own actions. That is the ultimate ‘law’. “
You have a distorted view of the real world.
I am amazed at the things some people have posted on these threads. It’s an embarrassment.
Good grief! What is your problem? I haven’t made up anything. You’ve seen my posts on this topic ever since it happened.
All we heard for days was that the brothers wouldn’t talk to police or to the Sousas. It was the headline nearly every day! We wondered endlessly at what they must be hiding.
Then they got Geragos, so it was most understandable as to why they would remain silent. I consider “not talking” to cops or the dead friend’s parents as being “uncooperative.”
Stop attacking me; I’m just here to discuss the incident like everyone else is. Don’t know why you’re being so antagonistic and argumentative about this.
Mr.BS: "Where did you get that information? Are you making that up too?"
The blood smeared sign had been about 18 inches in from the middle of the railing around the tiger exhibit, in an area where the public is prohibited to go.
Source?
You claimed my statement about the victims cooperation was untrue.
But the police state that they were cooperative, regardless of all the sensational headlines stating the opposite.
It will be interesting to see whose blood is on that sign. (The article btw does not say it was “smeared.”)
Of course it is a possibility that it was a splatter or spurt from when the first victim’s throat was slashed just feet away.
Given the amount of mis-information, public smearing, and cya statements from the zoo and police, I expect they have little evidence of any crime by the men beyond acting stupid at a zoo. After the Duke case, I really have to question why we know the results of the search, and if what we know is really true.
I don’t think the men are saints, but all this information about the drugs, booze and bad behavior is just to redirection attention from the fact that every person that has been to that zoo was in danger of a fatal tiger attack due to improper design of the enclosure. All it took was for the tiger to decide to escape. It happened at this time because young men were taunting it, it also might have happened if a nice tasty duck had landed on the top of the wall. It would have never happened if the exhibit had been properly designed.
No, it was not untrue. The circumstances evidently changed, but not in public.
I’m sure once they found out no charges would be filed they “became more cooperative.” Circumstances changed. Nevertheless, they had been uncooperative and there are still parts of the story we will never know.
I didn’t make this up and you know it.
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.