Posted on 01/05/2008 12:36:55 PM PST by Kid Shelleen
Two San Jose brothers mauled by a tiger at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day have refused to allow police to examine their cell phones for possible text messages or photos believed to be taken the day of a tiger's escape. In a letter sent Friday to the brothers' attorney, celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera asked that Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal preserve "this potentially critical evidence."
"The digital content of your clients' cell phones, which we understand are currently in the possession of the police, may help reconstruct what happened at the tiger exhibit and cafe," Herrera wrote.
Geragos did not return a phone call from MediaNews
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
If that’s true then it seems proper to charge them as you said.
Is it true that they did not have the sling shots? I really can’t imagine them having a liquor bottle with them either if they were running from a tiger. I’m waiting for the whole truth to come out.
(1) Against the Zoo director if 'reasonable care and standards' weren't met?
(2) Against the lads themselves?
(3) The snack bar employees who denied them shelter?
If there are any witness statements showing these lads were 'taunting' the beast, then there would be the 'probable cause' needed for a warrant to be issued.
The mere fact the lads haven't offered an explanation to the investigators is building block to help reach the level of suspicion needed to have 'probable cause'.
The bottom line is there is a young man who died as a result of ...?
The People of the State, thru their elected DA have an interest to know how this death came about.
(I offer this gingerly as I know there a whole bunch of attorneys on this panel, but that's the way I see it)
If the boys contributed to the situation, it would be akin to a vehicular manslaughter charge, would it not? Their actions directly resulted in the death of another -- whether voluntary or involuntary.
For me, it would have to be, "Senator Clinton Wins!"
If they sue the Zoo, the Zoo can ask for them in discovery. If they don't produce the pictures for the defense, the defense can say they show anything they want to, and the jury will be instructed to take it as fact.
In Civil litigation there is no such thing as the fifth amendment. If they refuse to answer any question, the jury also takes it as fact whatever the defendant claims.
If they erase or destroy the pictures, it is the same as refusing discovery. They will be in a world of hurt.
the SF police shot the wrong animal...the tiger should have lived and the police should have fed these scummers to her!!!!
mark geragos (scumbag lawyer to michael jackson) is going to sue on behalf of the other 2 scumbags....
too bad ~ he too, did not meet the escaped tiger!!!!
Thanx for the update.
Wasn't the zoo built in the '40's? And no animal has ever got out of its cage until now?
I don't think "intimidate" is exactly the word you're grasping for but hey--English is hard. Anyway, back before the psychos took over the tort business there used to be a concept called "contributory negligence." Reality is a little more complex than the comic book version created by the John Edwards's of the world.
I’m waiting for a final, consistent account from the police, or somebody halfway trustworthy. The last I heard was that the vodka bottle was in the car, not on the brothers. I don’t know if the slingshots were also in the car, or never existed at all. Certainly the brothers were bad characters with criminal records. I’m sure they were up to no good, but little is known about possible taunting of the tiger at this time, except that witnesses saw them “roaring” at the beast.
So, how did the animal get out?
The outfit that inspects zoo’s certified the SF Zoo recently. There have been no escapes since opening in the 40’s that I recall. The SF Zoo management would have no reason to believe the tiger cage was unsafe. I just don’t understand how you can say it’s a fact that there was negligence. I’m not denying the tiger escaped, but why now, after all these years?
...and felicide.
Last I heard, the slingshots were in the car. This may have been revised though.
Cops have said there were never any slingshots at all, anywhere, not on the brothers or the dead boy, not in the car, not even anywhere in the zoo.
(I find it hard to believe they have searched every inch of ground where the guys might have thrown a slingshot away while on the run, or during that missing 20-30 minutes when no one knows where the victims were and the tiger was loose, but if the cops say “no slingshots,” I gotta go with that.)
Either someone let the tiger out or it escaped the cage. In the first scenario that would be cause for murder in the second scenario it would be negligence.
True, kinder garden editor!
Anyway the silly story has been posted already.
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.