Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police: Victim drunk during tiger attack
Yahoo/AP ^ | Fri Jan 18 | AP

Posted on 01/18/2008 4:43:05 PM PST by indcons

One of the three victims of San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was intoxicated and admitted to yelling and waving at the animal while standing atop the railing of the big cat enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.

Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed, that the three yelled and waved at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into its pen to provoke the cat, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.

Sousa's father, Carlos Sousa Sr., said Dhaliwal told him the three stood on a 3-foot-tall metal railing a few feet from the edge of the tiger moat. "When they got down they heard a noise in the bushes, and the tiger was jumping out of the bushes on him (Paul Dhaliwal)," the documents said.

Police found a partial shoe print that matched Paul Dhaliwal's on top of the railing, Matthews said in the documents.

The papers said Paul Dhaliwal told Sousa that no one was dangling his legs over the enclosure. Authorities believe the tiger leaped or climbed out of the enclosure, which had a wall 4 feet shorter than the recommended minimum.

The affidavit also cites multiple reports of a group of young men taunting animals at the zoo, the Chronicle reported.

Mark Geragos, an attorney for the Dhaliwal brothers, did not immediately return a call late Thursday by The Associated Press for comment. He has repeatedly said they did not taunt the tiger.

Calls to Sousa and Michael Cardoza, an attorney for the Sousa family, also weren't returned.

Toxicology results for Dhaliwal showed that his blood alcohol level was 0.16 — twice the legal limit for driving, according to the affidavit. His 24-year-old brother, Kulbir, and Sousa also had alcohol in their blood but within the legal limit, Matthews wrote.

All three also had marijuana in their systems, Matthews said. Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot and each had "a couple shots of vodka" before leaving San Jose for the zoo on Christmas Day, the affidavit said.

Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo, as well as a partially filled bottle of vodka, according to court documents.

Investigators also recovered messages and images from the cell phones, but apparently nothing incriminating in connection with the tiger attack, the Chronicle reported.

Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said he had not seen the documents but believed the victims did taunt the animal, even though they claim they hadn't.

"Those brothers painted a completely different picture to the public and the press," Singer said. "Now it's starting to come out that what they said is not true."


TOPICS: Local News; Pets/Animals
KEYWORDS: alcohol; darwinawards; dhaliwalbrothers; holdmahbeer; maul; tiger; tigerattack
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last
To: null and void
No free will? Are you certain of that?

Do predatory animals have an understanding of moral concepts like good and evil, and the capacity to decide to behave in accordance with a system of morals or disregard them? If not, how could a tiger have free will?

21 posted on 01/18/2008 5:13:46 PM PST by Polonius (It's called logic, it'll help you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
This was the "Perfect Storm" of two theories....Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Murphy's Law. First, unless you are armed to the teeth, a man is BELOW a Siberian Tiger on the food scale and an unarmed man should be very humble and not tip the scales for ANY reason when there is even the most remote possibility that Law #2 may be expressed. These boys were taunting Law # 1 when Law #2 became a reality and one of the drunk and stoned boys was taught that he was below the food chain in nature by the tiger.

The boy and the tiger both did not deserve to die but it happens and all and the zoo are part to blame.

22 posted on 01/18/2008 5:14:24 PM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: null and void
No free will? Are you certain of that?

Put another way, they cannot control their instincts in a predictable way.

Or in Freudian terms, they have a weak ego and no super ego at all.
23 posted on 01/18/2008 5:14:49 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester

You can’t build or legislate against stupidity.


24 posted on 01/18/2008 5:15:32 PM PST by Westlander (Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Westlander

There goes the law suit!<p?What will a SF jury do about the height-of-the-fence issue?


25 posted on 01/18/2008 5:16:02 PM PST by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya
exactly... the zoo is still at fault for not meeting the minimum recommended requirment...

Yup, child car seats, seat belts, ABS brakes and airbags would have prevented this.

The next time I walk across the street, I'll turn on my GPS and accident avoidance system, and dial 911.

26 posted on 01/18/2008 5:17:22 PM PST by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

And don’t forget the labels! Label anything and everything to remind us not to do something stupid. Sure it will cost money, but it will save lives. < sarc >


27 posted on 01/18/2008 5:20:33 PM PST by repinwi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Polonius
Do predatory animals have an understanding of moral concepts like good and evil, and the capacity to decide to behave in accordance with a system of morals or disregard them?

No idea. What's 'moral' for a tiger may be far different than what's 'moral' for a human.

Suppose the tables were reversed? Would you really expect a human to target the specific tigers that were tormenting him, or would you expect them to go on a rampage and try to destroy every tiger in the jungle?

Hint: look how many sharks get slaughtered when one attacks a kid...

If not, how could a tiger have free will?

To my way of thinking, that the tiger showed restraint in only attacking the selfsame people who were tormenting it. That the tiger was capable of exercising restraint when fully enraged is an indication not only of free will, but of a fairly high order of ethical thinking.

OTOH, I could be wrong, full of bull, or just pulling your chain...

28 posted on 01/18/2008 5:23:29 PM PST by null and void (Conservatives are tired of being sucked up to every 4 years and stabbed in the back for the next 3.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: repinwi; bigfootbob
Tiger experts over and over again have said that it would take extraordinary provocation to get a tiger to leap out of it’s enclosure and attack a zoo patron. Extraordinary provocation, not a five year old making faces or yelling. Even if the wall was 4 feet shorter than the recommended height. There is no evidence a tiger has ever got out of that enclosure in 67 years.

Bingo! By the end of the month, there will be a wall like this:

Photobucket

And the zoo personnel will be equipped like this:

Photobucket

29 posted on 01/18/2008 5:23:29 PM PST by Cobra64 (www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Put another way, they cannot control their instincts in a predictable way.

Oh. You mean in the same way that people are unpredictable?

Or in Freudian terms, they have a weak ego and no super ego at all.

Could you prove to a space alien that you have a super ego? Or is that merely a construct that Freud created to try to splic the inexplicable?

30 posted on 01/18/2008 5:27:24 PM PST by null and void (Conservatives are tired of being sucked up to every 4 years and stabbed in the back for the next 3.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

LOL......but the more I think about it, that’s how our zoos are going to look because of the Dillys. Everything will change.


31 posted on 01/18/2008 5:27:51 PM PST by repinwi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: indcons
Maybe they were having a few of THESE, too, ehhhh??


32 posted on 01/18/2008 5:28:46 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo (Christian Discernment and The Lord Tell Me that President Huckabee Will Be A Disaster For Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester

From what some of the lawyers on various panels have said, the zoo’s responsibility will not be 100%. I forget the word they used, but essentially, the yoots will have to bear some of it, too. I have no doubt the zoo will be paying out some money, but not nearly as much as the yoots and Garagos were hoping.

And there might be more story changes as time goes on.


33 posted on 01/18/2008 5:31:19 PM PST by MizSterious (Deport all the illegals to sanctuary cities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Slump Tester
Uh, no. The Zoo (or any other large animal owner) is not responsible for individuals that tease, taunt or enrage the animals. If these 3 idiots had done the same to a domestic bull (bovine), cow with calf, donkey, mule, or llama, the end result would have been the same or worse.

My animals are secured in a manner considered normal and safe for the level of threat they pose to the community. If some drugged up drunk comes and pulls on my mule's tail, he WILL kick his teeth out, then stomp him into a greasy spot. EMTs would need 5 gal buckets to carry off the remains.

I think the legal term here is "contributory negligence." These scumbags are eat up with it.
34 posted on 01/18/2008 5:36:51 PM PST by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: indcons
police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," ...............Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.

I don't find that to be factual. They contributed arousing the tiger's predatory state. But they didn't contribute to the tiger's escape.

35 posted on 01/18/2008 5:40:07 PM PST by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wrench
If these 3 idiots had done the same to a domestic bull (bovine), cow with calf, donkey, mule, or llama, the end result would have been the same or worse.

Yeah? A neighbor chick came over to my house in an advanced state of inebriation, and tried to grab a newborn puppy from mommy dog.

She got bit.

I got sued, even though it wasn't my dog, and I wasn't even there when it happened.

Guess who won $75,000.00?

NO man's life, liberty, or property are safe as long as court is in session...

36 posted on 01/18/2008 5:43:47 PM PST by null and void (Conservatives are tired of being sucked up to every 4 years and stabbed in the back for the next 3.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lijahsbubbe
"I don't find that to be factual. They contributed arousing the tiger's predatory state. But they didn't contribute to the tiger's escape"
37 posted on 01/18/2008 5:45:44 PM PST by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Here's why you never want to tick off a big cat:

Never poke a big cat

38 posted on 01/18/2008 5:46:07 PM PST by BerryDingle (With friends like the media, who needs enemas ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lijahsbubbe
"I don't find that to be factual. They contributed arousing the tiger's predatory state. But they didn't contribute to the tiger's escape"
39 posted on 01/18/2008 5:46:54 PM PST by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Oh. You mean in the same way that people are unpredictable?

No. People can choose not to act on their instincts. Wild animals really can't.

Could you prove to a space alien that you have a super ego? Or is that merely a construct that Freud created to try to splic the inexplicable?

They would already know by looking at us versus all the other life forms on this planet. We are self-aware and civilization builders. We are not like an ant colony that repeats the same behaviour over and over like a programmed robot. The super ego is basically our capacity to be civilized, self aware, self critical and capable of understanding and manipulating the world around us. We can also change our own behaviour, go on diets, exercise, study.

You may consider some humans wild and unpredictable, but we humans can change our nature and wild animals cannot. If tigers could change their nature, some of them would be vegetarians. Wolves are another good example in that they enjoy killing for the sake of killing. And that never ever changes.
40 posted on 01/18/2008 5:50:23 PM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson