Police: Zoo survivor told of standing on railing and yelling at tiger

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 17, 2008 | Jaxon Van Derbeken

[Mr. Brightside]

I would still not award the “victims” who were mauled a single cent.

The attack on the second brother was clearly the zoo's fault. Employees at the cafe did not believe their story, even though blood was dripping from the back of one of their heads, costing around 10 minutes before the police were called.

And then once the police arrived, security guards kept them outside the zoo for another 6 minutes while zoo employees unsuccessfully tried tranquilize the tiger.

Zoo employees did not follow their emergency plan. They had a responsibility to assist the brothers regardless of whether the two had "shouted and waived their hands" at the tiger or not. Their incompetence nearly cost another life.

[repinwi]

Employees at the cafe did not believe their story, even though blood was dripping from the back of one of their heads.

The cafe is owned and operated by a separate entity. Not affiliated with the zoo. Therefore they don't have to follow zoo procedures. Considering it was dark and two gangsta looking like people high on drugs and alcohol come bashing on my door while I'm counting out my cash drawer, I wouldn't let them in either.

I also want to point out that the DBros said they were attacked by a lion. There's quite a difference between a lion and a tiger. The keepers probably counted four lions and said, they're crazy, all the lions are counted for. Since they were probably taunting the lions too, they couldn't tell which was which. Alcohol and drugs tend to cloud one's judgment that's for sure.

We still don't know why, where or how anything really happened. All the facts haven't been revealed. Like I keep saying....stay tuned.

[Mr. Brightside]

Regardless of whom the cafe employees were employed by, the zoo still has HUGE liability for the way they handled the emergency.

And it was in fact zoo dispatch that discounted the brothers’ story in the 911 call:

“”Zoo dispatch now say there are 2 males who the zoo thinks they are 800 (crazy) and making something up // but one is in fact bleeding from the back of the head.”

(I don’t know if I would have let them in the cafe either. And I certainly would not advise my daughter or son to do it.)

[rwfromkansas]

Alright, with all that, I would have to award the survivors some damages......despite the police yesterday confirming they did taunt the tigers.

That is just ridiculous on the zoo’s part.

[Mr. Brightside]

>>>despite the police yesterday confirming they did taunt the tigers. <<<

Depends on how you define “taunting.” The cops say there is no evidence of taunting, in the criminal sense of the word.

_________________________________________

S.F. Zoo mauling investigation winding down (No evidence of taunting)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 1/19/08

Posted on 01/19/2008 2:13:59 PM EST

S.F. Zoo mauling investigation winding down

Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, January 19, 2008

The police investigation into the tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo will soon be reclassified as “inactive” after a search failed to turn up evidence that the victims taunted the animal or committed other crimes, authorities said Friday.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1956370/posts

[rwfromkansas]

What the police have been able to confirm certainly is not illegal.......waving and yelling only.

[GOP_1900AD]

That’s how I get my dog to look at the camera.