January 10, 2008
Dhaliwal: "We didn't do nothing" to Tatiana the TigerNews
Of course you didn’t. And witnesses will confirm that you were politely observing the animals at the San Francisco Zoo while thoughtfully considering their majesty— but more on that later. Finally, the parents of mauling victim Carlos Sousa received the phone call they pleaded for:
One of two young men who survived the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo that killed their 17-year-old friend told the teen’s mother that they had not taunted the big cat, the mother said today.
“He said, ‘We didn’t do nothing. We were just normal kids at the zoo,’ ” Marilza Sousa said after talking with her son’s friend Paul Dhaliwal, 19, of San Jose.
“That’s what happened, just dancing, talking, laughing like normal kids,” said Sousa, whose son Carlos Sousa Jr. was killed by the Siberian tiger. “I believe him.”
…The brothers have so far refused to speak publicly about the incident. Sousa said Paul Dhaliwal had told her he has remained silent because he is still tormented by the incident, not because his attorney has told him not to talk. [sfgate]
Both brothers attended Sousa’s funeral, which is what their friend’s grieving parents hoped for.
But there’s still more to this story and it contradicts the recounting of events provided by the Dhaliwal brothers. A witness came forward, to describe what the boys were doing that day at the zoo:
Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos - and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger’s bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.
“The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them,” the San Francisco woman said. “They were trying to get that lion’s attention. … The lion was bristling, so I just said, ‘Come on, let’s get out of here’ because my kids were disturbed by it.”
…Her family was looking at the lions when the young men stopped beside them at the big-cat grottos - five outdoor exhibits attached to the Lion House. The young men started roaring at the lions and acting “boisterous” to get their attention, said Miller, who added that she watched the four for five minutes or so a little after 4 p.m. “It was why we left,” she said. “Their behavior was disturbing. They kept doing it.”
Sousa refrained from such tactics, Miller said. “He wasn’t roaring. He wasn’t taunting them,” she recalled. “He kept looking at me apologetically like, ‘I’m sorry, I know we are being stupid.’ “ [sfgate]
Experts on big cats continue to agree with what Jack Hanna said; I quoted Hanna in my last post as being skeptical about the boys’ innocence.
“First and foremost, people need to be educated. We need to respect them accordingly,” said Jonathan Kraft, who runs Keepers of the Wild in Arizona, which has more than 20 tigers. In the San Francisco escape, “I would bet my reputation that the animal was taunted.” [CBS5]
More sketchiness (and the reason why many continue to doubt the brothers Dhaliwal):
Sources told The Chronicle that paramedics taking the Dhaliwal brothers to the zoo by ambulance had overheard Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, “Don’t tell them what we did.”
The sources also said Paul Dhaliwal was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough liquor to have a blood-alcohol level above the 0.08 legal limit for driving. The older brother also had been drinking and using marijuana around the time the tiger escaped, the sources said.
Police say they spotted an empty vodka bottle inside the car the group took to the zoo that day, but investigators cannot legally search the vehicle without the Dhaliwals’ permission.
A person who picked up the phone today at the Dhaliwals’ home hung up without answering questions. [SFGate]
The Dhaliwals’ have retained the services of Mark Geragos, the man who represented luminaries like Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder, and murderers like Scott Peterson. Geragos is obviously fighting tooth-and-claw to get the car back, unsearched. As of yesterday, he’s losing:
In anticipation of a lawsuit over the fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo, the City Attorney’s Office obtained a temporary court order Tuesday to secure the cell phone records and car of the two brothers mauled in the attack.
While zoo officials have stopped short of accusing Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal of taunting Tatiana the tiger, they have repeatedly said something must have provoked it to jump from its enclosure. Police have confirmed that an empty bottle of vodka could be seen on the front seat of the car, and city attorney investigators have expressed interest in images captured on the brothers’ cell phones. [Examiner]
I’d love to know what their cameraphones may have captured, wouldn’t you? Isn’t that the point of all this Jackass-inspired-stupidity? To document it recklessly and later upload it to Facebook?
The order comes on the day the brothers were scheduled to pick up their property from police, said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who referred to the emergency hearing as a “race against the clock.” The brothers’ lawyer, Mark Geragos, refused to comment Monday on whether the brothers would give the permission needed to give police access to their property. He also rejected claims that the two have been uncooperative.
Referring to correspondence between Geragos and himself, Herrera accused Geragos of “just stalling until his clients could get to the Police Department to claim their cell phones and car. [Examiner]
As for the New York Post’s screeching headline about the “slingshot theory”:
In the ongoing chaos that is the aftermath of the fatal tiger mauling at the San Francisco Zoo, the plot has thickened, or thinned I guess, depending. ABC7’s intrepid rabblerouser Dan Noyes has seemingly debunked the mighty New York Post report, based on an unnamed source, that brothers Amritpal Dhaliwal and Kulbir Dhaliwal were taunting 350-pound Tatiana the Siberian tiger using slingshots prior to her escape and fatal mauling of their companion, 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.
“Today, we received official word from the San Francisco Police Department. Sgt. Steve Manina told us he checked with inspectors working the case and “there were no slingshots on the kids, in the zoo or ambulances that night.” No slingshots.” [SFWeekly]
Developing…we’ll try and keep you posted.
anna on January 10, 2008 08:30 PM in Animals, News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
These guys are just a bunch of hooligans. And since when do twenty-somethings make a day out of hanging out at the zoo..that too on Christmas day?
These guys and their sleazy lawyers should (ideally) lose the case. But, I know they will get a settlement-- and I hope it is just enough to cover their medical expenses.
All right. Who's the wise guy that's been taunting Mark Geragos?
Every time I go to the zoo I see children "roaring" at lion's or tiger's and what happens if a tiger ate a 5 year old kid? Would we be ripping apart the parents for letting a kid make "roaring" noises at a tiger or would we be waving our fist's at the zoo for having such a weak barrier? I have a feeling it would be the latter. I know that these guys are not kids, but how does that keep the zoo the completely innocent party?
Shallow Thinker,
Your thinking is not so shallow, especially when I agree with it.
I'm quoting myself from the Jan. 02 thread.
The Sousa family could also pursue a suit against the zoo and the Dhaliwals. My opinion, is that the zoo probably doesn't get let off the hook even if the Dhaliwals may have precipitated the event. What if this had been a 14 year old with a sling shot? You still blame the kid? Does that answer change if it's a 9 yr old? A zoo has to take into account that its housing wild animals and take reasonable precautions. Here the zoo by all accounts did not. Further, a zoo is aware that it attracts a certain clientele: children, families and young adults. The zoo has to take this into account when its deciding what is foreseeable in terms of its precautions. One question for a reasonable person on a jury is it foreseeable that young men in their late teens would provoke a wild animal to anger to cause it to escape it's pen? What precautions should a zoo take from allowing a lion to escape and to prevent its patrons, some who are very young, from provoking the animals?
Leave it to Rupert Murdoch's NY Post to make allegations without support. Why have accuracy when it gets in the way of a good headline and ad space.
I know you didnt draw any conclusions, but if anyone should imply that these guys bear some fault is like saying a woman who wore skimpy clothes must bear some fault for getting molested.
Prasad, that's a pretty big leap. Much has already been said about who is to blame, but can you honestly compare three drunk teenagers taunting a wild animal to a woman being attacked by another human being? One is instinct, the other malice.
The zoo has walls and enclosures for a reason. These are wild animals. They hunt their food and kill it. A more appropriate comparison would be whether we would blame George Foreman if someone decided to stick their head into one of his grills.
Anna, thanks for the update. I'm quite interested in the story and have been trying to keep up with it.
I think it's okay to beat up on the Dhaliwal brothers for not having the common decency to show up at their friend's funeral and service, or at least give their family a call to sympathize and commiserate. But come on, the story here is that a Siberian tiger escaped from its enclosure to kill a person and maul others. From the San Francisco Zoo, supposedly one of the best in the country! Even if the brothers physically assisted the tiger to escape, whether they were drunk or high, or 'provoked her' so she developed super-feline strength - I still think it's the zoo's fault. The tiger enclosure should enclose the tiger
no matter what, for reasonable contingencies, and since this is San Francisco, some degree of earthquake proof-ness is also something I'd want to see.As it was, the enclosure was below code height, there are questions about how long the 'first responders' took to get there, there are questions about whether the 911 operator and others believed or understood the brothers, there are questions about whether the cafe operator was deliberately obtuse, there are questions about the zoo's contingency plan - why did it involve police at all - after all, an animal escaping is a contingency that zoos should be prepared to deal with themselves, since there is always a chance of mishap even if the enclosure is according to code.
But one of the things nobody has questioned - is the idea of zoos themselves. I mean, Siberian tigers live in Siberia. In the wild. Why should they, or any other tigers, or any other non-local animals, or really any wild animals at all - be procured for zoos, and then 'incarcerated' for life?
I think the time has come for innovation in 'virtual zoos' - huge chunks of sites like flickr and youtube devoted to wildlife pics and videos - except more and better and perhaps, in real-time, remotely filmed, etc.
Chachaji, this story is prompting many to debate the need for zoos and what purpose they serve.
I realize I didn't make this clear in my post and I apologize for that, but I do hold the zoo responsible for being so inept, they didn't even know the actual height of the wall Tatiana clawed her way up. I think these two get the majority of my ire because I have a very visceral reaction to animals being taunted, provoked or abused. I don't support circuses and I'm trying to sort out my feelings about zoos, though they tend to be negative. Animals are dazed, bored and stressed...their existence is sad enough, they don't deserve assholes getting their kicks off of hurting or annoying them.
Just to be absolutely clear, because there is already unbelievable stupidity on this thread-- I do blame the zoo. But I really feel strongly about these brothers, because thanks to their antics, "the good kid" was killed. I read that at the funeral, Carlos' head was resting directly above his chest; his mother said, "he has no neck".
The zoo sucks, the Dhaliwal brothers suck too, in a different way.
Taunt or not, its the safety provided by the zoo that clearly failed.
zoo is not a taunt free zone, especially when their main clientele is kids and young children.
What happened with Sousa family is sad,and as usual where things can go wrong, a brown man happens to be there.
Again, I feel that all this blame game is not needed at all. Its clearly a shortcoming in the Zoo safety.
Zoos should consider looking at their potential audiences and design accordingly.
Things aside, Anna, do I become the first mutineer to comment using my iPhone? :-)
burning bright,
What's so sleazy about Geragos? He's doing what he can to protect his client's interest. They've already been accused of using slingshots when there's no proof there isn't. The teens past criminal history, which is minor (public drunkedness), is already out there for the whole world coloring everyone's opinion. Why allow the zoo or authorities to get the cell phone records and car and allow more rumor and innuendo to arise from what may or may not be found? BTW, in a civil suit all the information regarding the cellphone and the contents of the car is discoverable. That means it has to be exchanged between all parties. My guess is Geragos is simply controlling the spread of information or dis-information, until the proper time for discovery occurs. Surely, you can't be suggesting an attorney of Geragos's skill is trying to hide evidence. Sorry to tell you this but most attorneys worth their salt value their licenses and their ethical obligations.
And I hope the Sousa family and the Dhaliwals (especially if all they did was taunting) get a HUGE settlement. Negligence suits serve a purpose, they insure institutions use best practices to protect society where harm is possible. To be fair, there are ambulance chasers and clients who seek to exploit the system and there is an abundance of waste and frivolous litigation.
However, if there weren't lawyers who took these type of cases, manufacturing companies that dump cancer causing chemicals into the environment wouldn't be taken to task, product manufacturers who decide profit is more important than safety wouldn't be taken to task, officers of companies such as Enron wouldn't be taken to task for defrauding shareholders and yes, zoo's who don't value the safety of their patrons enough to update precautions initially instituted in 1940 wouldn't be taken to task. (Don't get me started on how tough criminal practice attorneys have it on both sides of the aisle.)
If the Dhaliwals did do something more than roar at the tiger, such as harm the animal, it is reprehensible and it will be reflected in the fact that it will negatively affect any attempt they make at monetary recovery. But before you cast these two young men as mere hooligans derserving of a mauling ask yourself what the zoo could have done to prevent this from happening. And go easy on lawyers, lawyers need love too.
1 · burning-bright said
A. Not everybody celebrates Christmas. If it's open on Christmas Day, then obviously people are going to go.
B. Carlos Sousa Jr. was 17 and Paul Dhaliwal is 19. But there's nothing wrong with hanging out at the zoo, even if you're a twenty-something.
Hi, I'm a lurker, formerly known as amoreoriginalname. Anyway, I'm surprised people are only now starting to debate the need for and purpose of zoos. I mean, I'm sure incidents like this have happened numerous times in the past, what with Roy of Siegfried & Roy fame being mauled by one a few years ago. It seems that no matter how many times it happens, people are always shocked when a tiger or any other natural predator actually does what it should and attacks someone. Darwin award for our species, anyone?
Oh, I love lawyers. I come from a family of them. I almost became one and after that, I was thisclose to marrying one. :) I love your comments, too, and am glad you are here, btw!
I see your point, Geragos is doing his job and doing it well, as he is expected to. But, I still want to hiss at those brothers. Getting drunk, high and then reminding each other not to say a word about what happened is ridiculously sketchy-- and thanks to all that and some terrible zoo infrastructure, the only kid the witness says was behaving in a civil fashion, the kid who selflessly rushed to distract a Siberian Tiger from mauling his friend-- that kid is gone.
.
amoreoriginalname- (good to see you again!) my original post was called, "Tiger escapes SF Zoo, does what Tigers do".
There's nothing wrong with 'taunting' a caged lion or tiger if all you're doing is roaring at it or whatever...people do that in zoos all the time. It's only wrong if you cross the line and let's say use a slingshot, or throw things at it, physically cause it pain in some way, etc. Or if you extend a limb into its enclosure or devise some other way to help it escape (which were the early allegations). If all these guys did was merely stand in the area allotted to the public, and roar at the tiger, or do things which zoo-goers do everyday in full sight of everyone, then I don't care how drunk they were or how much pot they smoked, they didn't do anything wrong in my book.
OMG If a woman who wore skimpy clothes must bear some fault for getting molested, ostensibly by a man, does it mean that all men are wild Siberian tigers??!!
Really, Amitabh-ji? I admit, I haven't gone to many zoos, because they make me feel uncomfortable, but I have been to the Audubon, the SF Zoo and most recently the National Zoo up the street (what up, butter stick!) and I have never seen people act like jack-asses. I've seen them poke at cages/tap on the glass and call out, "hey! here kitty!" etc, and at that point, I think to myself, "if you keep reaching in to that cage, you're playing with fire", but I haven't seen taunting, in my three meager visits. I think even the behavior I described above is obnoxious. Animals have it bad enough in cages, now they need to jump to attention because you want them to?
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Yes, the zoo sucks for being negligent. Yes, on a higher level, zoos and circuses suck, period. BUT, why are we becoming so tolerant of stupid shit? That reminds me, when I worked at Barnes and Noble's in the childrens' section in college, parents would ditch their kids with us, as if we were a day care. Heaven forfend anything happen to their precious little Madison, whom they are responsible for, and yet, are irresponsibly abandoning at Pooh Corner. I see egregious behavior like this every day and it's annoying and depressing. If you want to be an asshole, then prepare for the ramifications of your behavior.
15 · AnakM said
If they are, they can get shot, and then everyone will blame the zoo, as we are faultless.
who are the animals here? taunting animals is bestial. it isn't about animal rights, it is the window into the soul that it gives you in regards to other humans (or, more crudely, it shows you if someone really deserves that appellation or not).
A N N A,
I wish I had found this site sooner. Luckily, I came across one of your posts and I was hooked. Now ya'll are stuck with me. Secretly, a lot of attorneys want to hiss at their clients. I want to smack the Dhaliwals upside the head with a big chappal and then once again across the face for being so stupid and for being so sketchy. (I know that's not very cultured or modern but it seems apt). Fact is they remind me of some stupid cousins I have. I could easily see those dummies (I say with love) doing the same thing and I hate to bring in race but I wonder if the whole world would rush to indict these kids if they were blond haired blue-eyed babes. I don't know the answer to that. And since I don't know the answer, I reflexively want to make sure these teens get a fair shot. If they get a fair shot and a fair process, I'm really not concerned with the outcome.
Like you, I feel horribly for Sousa and his family. No parent should have to bury their child, especially in this manner. It's always the good kid. Why can't the schmuck ever get it. I also understand the ire of those who moan the loss of this tiger. It's just doing what is in its nature.
As for nearly marrying a lawyer, a very smart lawyer would have closed that deal. ;)
See, ANNA, I was really angry at these guys when the story first broke and it looked like they did something above and beyond what zoo-goers do...it really looked suspicious that they were there on Christmas Day, after closing time, and it was easy to assume they did something illegal...or at least that broke the zoo's rules, or something they only did because no one was watching. And then there were rumors of slingshots and alcohol.
But what it looks like now, is that they just did what people do all the time. Legally. What people often do in zoos in plain sight of everyone. Stand there and roar or otherwise try to get the animals' attention. In that case I don't blame them.
The argument against zoos in general, I feel, is a different topic...and I agree that if one brother told the other not to talk, then there may still be more here than meets the eye.
razib, you, a Gene Expressionist and atheist, will posit a substantively realizable difference between people and animals, and use 'soul' in your arguments? I thought you'd say 'people are animals too, except for this gene and that gene', and 'there's no such thing as soul' :)
Huh? And feeding tigers with their natural food of live bait is cruel? I hate to go all Peter Singer on you, but animals are sentient too.
JJ in a situation like this, can't the police make the Dhaliwals talk? Someone (their friend) did get killed, doesn't the state have a right to know all the details? It's a different thing whether it gets in the public domain now or later or never, but how can police not know all the details yet?
I just want to be clear, while I think the zoo bears a good deal of responsibility, the teens shouldn't have roared at the tiger. They're 17 and 19 not 10. WTF. How soft those teens must have been for them to find their toughness by yelling at a caged animal. That's why I would hit them with a chappal. I just think the zoo should expect reasonably stupid behavior and take reasonable precaution against it.
Yeah dude, they would. Remember that American kid in Singapore many years back, who was sentenced to caning because he spray-painted some cars as a prank? Half the American public supported that caning! And he was white.
OK, but why should the Dhaliwals suffer for what people do everyday? How are they worse than thousands of others who have visited that zoo and 'taunted' the tigers? UNLESS THEY BROKE ONE OF THE ZOO'S RULES. Isn't it merely their bad luck? Why are they the targets of everyone's ire? If it gets proven that they did something out of the ordinary, I'll stop defending them. And it's very possible they did.
I don't see the crime there. But I think I've made my opinion clear, won't beat that dead horse anymore.
What does everyone think (if anything) about the fact that they were inebriated/had drugs in their system?
Amitabh,
The caning was also reduced due to intervention by the American government who was responding to the hue and cry of the other half of the population. (I maybe overstating that last part.) In any event, I hope you are right and that my cynicism is misplaced.
Chachaji,
The criminal attorneys would be better able to answer this question. My understanding is that the Dhaliwals are under no obligation to speak to the police. Plus, I don't see that the teens broke any laws such that it would give the police any leverage to obtain information from the teens. It's not just the teens here that are withholding information. The zoo hasn't exactly been accurate in their initial comments about the height of the wall or the precautions they took. Things they should have known instantly. As you mentioned, there was a great lapse of time between initial responders entering the zoo and the first reports of the attack, if it weren't for the police radio transcripts, I doubt if that information would have been made available by the zoo.
The fact that "everybody does it" doesn't make it acceptable in the least. I am not saying that they deserve anything that happened to them independent of the provocation. However, by the same token, to claim that it is perfectly fine and a-ok for them to have done whatever they did (even assuming it was just taunting and mocking) boggles my mind.
(Tangentially, I think the legislation of various types of human interaction with animals is completely inconsistent and callous, but this is probably a reflection of people's selective outrage and illogical feelings on these issues).
That's a respectable position, and one adopted in part by the common law in terms of what's know as "negligence per se" (so, too, the common law might find the teens somewhat responsible (and thus the zoo less responsible), in terms of "contributory negligence" if they were drunk/high). But finding "negligence per se" whenever someone is in violation of a statute (or, rule) can be a bit harsh in at least some circumstances (e.g., I think I can handle my car fine at 56 mph in a 55mph zone when driving conditions are good, as opposed to driving 54mph when it's foggy), as the common law also recognizes (i.e., by making statute-violation just a presumption of negligence in some jurisdictions, rather than "per se negligence"). So, the breaking of the "zoo rule" should probably be significantly related to the attack for it to be relevant, IMHO.
Isn't it illegal to taunt animals at the zoo?
JJ, thanks for clarifying - though it seems to me that the state would have an interest in determining the full circumstances surrounding an unnatural death - that of Carlos Sousa, even if it is known that he was killed by the tiger.
Anna, public drunkenness and/or other intoxication/inebriation, is an issue in general, of course, since it can endanger others. But whether it was really germane here remains to be determined.
BTW, having mentioned youtube videos, there are some really interesting (and scary) ones on tiger attacks, including this one at a 'fundraising dinner'. Much to learn here about how tigers behave in the wild, and when on leash...
Fair question, and I'm not sure. What I do know is that, at common law, ownership of dangerous (and "unusual") animals (e.g., tigers) entails "strict liability" for the owners, which implies that even if the animals were taunted, the zoo would be liable for the damage they caused (although even that could have exceptions, b/c strict liability isn't always absolute). Hoo-boy, this is kind of interesting, but also reminds me why I only practiced law for a few years! Hard to nail anything down with all the overlapping principles/exceptions!
33 · chachaji said
Now I really wish I had gone to law school. :) If someone is drunk and they are reckless with fire, and a friend is accidentally killed because of it, does it matter then that they were under the influence, and thus extra negligent/risky? Or does it end up helping, i.e. can these brothers plead that they weren't in their right minds when they dangled a leg over the ledge (total conjecture on my part: one of the brothers is limping)?
Also, appropos of nothing, I feel like saying the words "depraved indifference".
And malicious wounding. Except in the latter, I'm being a petty bastard because I think they deserved a wounding from a malicious kitty. I know, I know...may I never serve on a jury. ;)
Rob, you practiced law? Yum.
If negligence is at issue (which it might not be b/c of this strict liability rule about owning tigers), then, yes, the drunken-ness would matter--if it's the victim's drunken-ness (it's not a factor if it's the perpetrator's drunken-ness, as might be the case w/ your fire example). Basically, the court would determine how much each party was responsible (this is assuming the most common form of contributory negligence is at issue). So, if the victim is harmed 100, and was found 30% responsible (due to, e.g., drunken-ness), while the zoo was found 70% responsible then the zoo would have to pay the victim 70.
That's my free answer--a full answer/analysis, taking account of current Cali common law, statutory law, and zoo regulations is available for $810/hour, and would take me at least 10 hours to come up with! Plus applicable Lexis charges, photocopying, and taxi fare.
Rob,
For what it's worth, I think your nailing it. I would maybe clarify that their intoxication would only be relevant if it was shown that the teens committed an act because of their intoxication. Otherwise, there's no reason for it to even be an issue. I doubt there was a zoo rule in place against patrons being intoxicated. If there was, what did zoo personnel do to insure that patrons don't enter that way. Besides, if there is a zoo rule, the rule in itself, isn't evidence of any negligence or wrongdoing on their part. There has to be some nexus between the breach of that rule to any act by the Dhaliwals.
I do want to go back to something Amitabh raised and that's the level of ire. I am certainly angry with the teens and think some corporal punishment would be useful but I don't see why these teens are getting tarred and feathered in the press nor do I understand why people think any of their actions deserved a mauling. If anything the zoo should be tarred right along with them. But yet, that doesn't seem to happen and I'm curious as to why?
Yeah, but I only lasted a few years. Now I just do some legal work for my own crappy excuse for a "business," to hold costs down. How the mighty have fallen. ;-)
This is a simple case; the zoo without question is at fault. If these people had entered the tiger’s exhibit then it would have been a different story. The zoo has an unquestionable responsibility to protect visitors. It does not matter one bit whether on not the spectators were taunting the animal. Personally I find it reprehensible that peope would taunt poor caged animals, they should be fined and escprted out of the zoo. They don't deserve to be mauled and killed.
As to the media coverage you have heard of "flying while brown" now you have "visiting the zoo while brown".
38 · Jangali Janwar said
Because we still want to think it's safe to take children to the zoo/not feel awful for putting them in harms way? Better to blame two delinquents and a rogue tiger than contemplate that? I'm totally pulling this out of my callipygian rondure, btw.
But it would be safe if the enclosure is built right.
i'm wondering about the witness - if she found this behaviour so disturbing, why did she - or anybody else who also saw it - not alert the authorities?
callipygian rondure
Yeah, I'm never finding you online for a scrabble game. I'd have better chances taunting a tiger.
Rob,
Pretty decent analysis for a guy out of the law. If you ever get bored with the business world, you'd do just fine.
Yes, that's the essence of the "strict liability for escape of dangerous animals" view of the common law (although the notion of "fault" drops out if you want to get all pedantic)! "The life of the law is common sense," (at least some of the time).!!
(Thanks for the kind words and added analysis in #38, Jangali Janwar.)
Well yes, we know that now...but how many of us considered that issue before we took our three-year old nephew to see the meerkats? :) We assume the enclosures are built right. We want to believe that the animals are happy and we're safe and that bad things only happen to bad people.
That's why I still think it's possible there's more to this story...most zoo animals are too jaded and bored with the monkeys on the other side (us) to so much as blink when people 'roar' at them; they're very used to that kind of thing. And they know from experience that they're not going to get us anyway (except that, in this case, Tatiana DID get them). So what did these brothers do that was so provocative?
True.
Right-on, and that's why the traditional common-law rule is that the zoo is responsible for the harm, regardless of how jerky or drunk the kids were in terms of taunting the cat (as long as they didn't climb into the cage/moat). If you want to own the big cats, build a secure enclosure!
This SF Chronicle story sheds some light on some of the problems at SF Zoo. There have been problems brewing at this zoo for a long time. Just happened to be this tiger.
That doesn't excuse the behavior of people who tease animals, but I think that these are two separate issues.
chachaji, even if the brothers broke a law, they can;t be forced to say anything that would incriminate themselves - basically, pleading the fifth. which could explain why many details are not coming out (or at least, not from them).
You're right, zoos are not 100% capable of that. There is always room for human or structural error. But I have been to zoos many times in my life, and never did I entertain the notion that the tigers could escape. But I guess that goes back to what ANNA said - "We assume the enclosures are built right. We want to believe that the animals are happy and we're safe and that bad things only happen to bad people."
As far as I recall, the common law views dogs as less dangerous (or, at least less unusual), so dog-owners aren't responsible for the first time their dog bites someone--this is the origin of the term "you get one free bite"! But tigers, you need to enclose securely or else you're liable, simpliciter, if they bite someone.
All right, I'll confess that I love the law, just didn't find big-firm practice that congenial!
Woot common law!
amitabh, i do agree that there was prob. something more to the taunting - i am curious as to the full extent of the provocation....
rob - as to dogs - i wasn't going to the legal liability - bit just an idea that even dogs, who don't fall in the dangerous/unusual category - are still animals, and to deny their potential dangerousness (even though that probability is lower) is irresponsible
tell me about it...Great article Uma. The last line by a former employee scorches the zoo:
"Animals being taunted was always an issue," an ex-employee said. "But you should be able to walk down there slathered in raw meat and not have them get out."
Some other quotes regarding the mismanagement of the facility:
Employees characterize the current regime as arrogant, autocratic and dismissive of those with experience and institutional knowledge. Keepers, who know the animals and their habitats inside and out, say they have little input and are not listened to by Mollinedo and Bob Jenkins, the zoo's director of animal care and conservation. Workers of every variety fear they're being spied upon and will not speak publicly, afraid of reprisals. Even before the Christmas rampage, information was tightly controlled.
One ex-employee said worn-down zoo workers would sometimes say: "It won't change until somebody dies."
On Dec. 22 of last year, 300-pound Tatiana severely injured keeper Lori Komejan inside the Lion House, "degloving" her arm, as the state's workplace safety report put it. That agency, Cal/OSHA blamed the zoo, citing defects that the zoo knew about but hadn't fixed, and imposed an $18,000 penalty.
Although tiger experts agree that there was no reason to euthanize Tatiana, Mollinedo described the 4-year-old tiger - a day after her death - as having been "at the top of her game." A former management person at the zoo said, "Here you've got a young cat that's testing her environment - very agile, very strong. A cautious zoo manager would call other zoos and say, 'How big is your moat?' ... This is like having Hannibal Lecter. There's a reason they put that mask on him."
The article Uma cited goes on to talk about how a number of animals have died due to neglect. I think the enviornmentalists who were so enraged at the Dhaliwals when the story first broke, should start directing their anger at the zoo.
Yes, if you want to minimize your physical risks, you should maximize your precautions. But, legally, you don't have to do the latter. So, e.g., if my neighbor starts an explosive factory, maybe I should build a blast-proof wall along my property line to protect me. But even if I don't do so, the neighbor is still liable to me for damages if his factory blows up and harms me on my property. So, here, there's nothing inconsistent with saying that (1) zoo is legally liable for failure to enclose Tatiania the Tiger and (2) the kids didn't act prudentially. Their moral culpability, whatever it may be, doesn't track 1:1 legal liability, which is with the zoo. The rule of liability for the zoo is adopted for some sort of utilitarian reason, I'm surmising (i.e., message to zoos--enclose tigers securely!) rather than a more fine-grained moral analysis of how guilty the mauled kids are.
55 · ak said
I think a LOT more people will have this mindset, now.
That sense of responsibility and awareness (and many other things!) = why I heart you. :)
But it's so much easier to not think of that, isn't it? Until it's too late, that is. Yay, mindless parenting/existing.
rob, i'm not arguing the legal points - but when you're dead, and the zoo is not, arguing legal liability and culpability is a bit pointless. i don't think carlos sousa's parents ae comforted by the fact that it was not his friends but the zoo that was legally liable.
True that (your last sentence), but if we can sock it to the zoo, future zoo-goers should be safer, b/c zoos will take better care to enclose dangerous animals, no? So, without being unduly argumentative (I hope), I'd argue that given that what's happened has happened, socking the zoo with liability is the point! But I am a bit of a utilitarian calculator, I suppose (not that I don't sympathize with the victims, of course!).
57 · Jangali Janwar said
I sense there is more to these reactions. I'm fairly sure that a lot of the outrage was being expressed by people who do NOT carry reusable shopping bags or curate a compost pile. I think in some ways, we're becoming more compassionate towards animals because humans are disappointing us; in comparison, animals love us fully, sans conditions, plus they're loyal and sweet.
Yes, I understand that tigers aren't the same as house pets, but that doesn't mean we keep that in mind when we see them. If anything, some of us are remembering how we thought it would be so awesome to have one to play with, a la Princess Jasmine in Aladdin.
At one point, when my father was reeeeally pissed off and bitter at me (I refused to apply to law school), I overheard/then saw him in the garage, talking to my two, uber-adorable German Shepherd puppies (alsayshun pattis, if you eat thenga).
"Why did I suffer and sacrifice, to have her throw her future away?"
wag wag wag
"What is the point in having children, if they will disappoint you?
wag wag wag
"When I walk in the door, she gives me a dirty look. At least you wag your tails and are happy to see me."
wag wag wag
"My damned dogs are better than my stupid children!"
arf!
.
Animals are innocent and pure and good. How many things do we still feel that way about? I think that's where a lot of the outrage is coming from. But I'm totally invoking the callipygian rondure clause, so you can't yell at me.
Yes (re: innocent and pure, at least--not so sure about "good," as opposed to "neutral" on a good-bad axis), but note that blaming the zoo doesn't entail blaming the tiger! As I see it, the (innocent!) tiger should have been securely enclosed (by the zoo). Even if the victims were unusual in their degree of taunting, etc., it should have been foreseeable to the zoo that the tiger needed to be prevented from attacking zoo-goers, regardless of how unusually they acted (as long as they didn't enter the cage). I suppose one could maintain that extreme taunting = entering cage, but I think a simple rule of "cage/moat/enclosure should keep tiger away from zoo-goers" is defensible. If you want to have (humans and tigers) as neighbors, you gotta build walls! :-)
Anna,
You make a very compelling point regarding the innocence imbued to animals. BTW, if you had become a lawyer, who would have put up this thread and used the words callipygian rondure.
10 · Jangali Janwar said
Can a tigress fit the definition of an attractive nuisance?
11 · Faiza said
But raising that objection allows for the possibility of so many tasteless puns!
Well, I just don't get THAT...why in the world should you be afraid if you go to a zoo. And if you go to a zoo and an animal gets out, what is your vigilance going to do? Whether you had any contribution to its escape or not, once it's out you're in as much potential trouble as anyone else there. If you realistically think something might happen at a zoo, don't go (rather than going but being wary and afraid).
Don't be to hard on these Dhaliwal kids. They were just Jatts being Jatts. So give these poor kids a break.
Since my mom maiden name is Dhaliwal and all of her family is from that part of California, I wonder if there any chance that we could be distance relatives.
69 · Clueless said
Sousa is dead; it's too late to build offense now.
Amen to Anna #8 and # 32. She is always the voice of reason.
The amount of ignorance people have towards animals is astonishing. I've seen folks trying to pet prairie dogs, which look cute but are still wild. I actually wish more people would realise that e.g. tigers are not like Princess Jasmine's pet Rajah from Aladdin. Btw, the tiger population across the globe has halved in the last 10 years, off the top of my head. Don't hate on zoos - they're the last chance for most endangered species. I don't like cages either, but I wish folks would realise that before expressing so-called outrage over the enclosures.
Its forseeable to almost anyone that kids will taunt the animals. The Zoo is responsible for not taking into account 'taunting' when setting up the safety precautions at the Zoo.
these seem like the kind of idiot indian guys that go to my school.
Anna,
when I was young, a fellow who used to live in Yogaville would occasionally bring his animal train back and one of the anecdotes I remember him telling was that lion cubs were very pliable, friendly and cooperative (which allowed him to let them roam in a hall full of 300-500 people who were picking up and petting them, I remember the great combination of fear/delight from the experien but grew up to be fairly intractable adults, as opposed to tiger cubs which started out all hissing and claws but ended up as very mellow and cooperative adults.
just an anecdote but the, "awww, we can keep it at home" sentiment" isn't always without some substance (although both cats will quickly call any kind heart's bluff when they start eating the weekly familial meat purchase in a day.)
"I know you didnt draw any conclusions, but if anyone should imply that these guys bear some fault is like saying a woman who wore skimpy clothes must bear some fault for getting molested."
...and your point is...that human males have the mentality of tigers and other animals and are therefore unable to control themselves. If so, it makes one rethink the whole concept of curfews.
Gosh, I cannot believe this outrage!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2008/01/09/BAM6UBGRT.DTL&o=7
I really feel the stories are losing focus here, moving the 'bad guys' from the zoo officials who didn't provide enough protection to the visitors like they were legally supposed to, to a bunch of visitors - no matter how inebriated/uncultured they were. Now, I think visitors at American zoos differ from visitors at zoos in many other places. I have seen countless times in Indian zoos where visitors try to get the animal's attention, either by whistling, or calling, or waving, or trying to feed it, or whatever.
Part of the allure for many visitors to the 'wild animal' displays is the feeling of seeing an animal that could potentially kill you right in front of you, about being *this* close to death, and being merely separated by glass (in the case of snakes ) or enclosures like for this tiger. It's part of the 'thrill' for a good portion of the visitors - to face death, or to look at a real deadly creature in the eye... or to even confront it - while at same time being sure that you are completely secure. Now, the very concept of zoos and the treatment of these animals can be left for a different discussion altogether - but the fact remains that the zoo is well aware of its visitors and should know that there are people who are in it for the thrill.
Talking about the Dhaliwals' taunting at this point as a 'but they started it' reason, is like attributing the blame of the death to them ... making them feel like murderers - and this is absolutely unfair to them, as they were supposed to be comfortably protected from the animal that was being displayed for their entertainment.
Personally, I despise Zoos and Circuses - but the Dhaliwals are being unfairly pinned with the cause of their friend's death... and I feel this is blatantly unfair and can ruin the rest of their lives ( An incident which, if not to end so tragically, would have merely been a case of 'Look at those people, they are disrespectful to animals'. )
rob, can we run a "street law" column called "ask rob" in the comments sections? I don't know if I could afford your $810/hour, though :)
ANNA, I think the idea that animals are good and love us unconditionally is not entirely fair. Animals are animals, not dopey humans, and I think there is a responsibility (on the part of humans) not to anthropomorphize them or project our needs onto them. When I was a little kid my parents were VERY clear about not taunting animals (e.g., no poking on the glass barrier in snake/prairie dog cages, no making noises/gestures at monkeys or tigers, no terrorizing dogs/cats in the neighborhood). They were pretty adamant about respecting other lives as just that -- sentient lives -- and about understanding that even domesticated animals can have feral traits, and that an animal's patience with a tormentor is not an excuse to continue to torment it.
That said, I think the zoo has still messed up big time. I'm sure it's in their interest to push the blame back onto those boys instead of addressing the real safety issues (for visitors, handlers/zookeepers, and animals) that face the SF Zoo.
72 · Meena said
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the reason the tiger population has declined isn't due to the Pembroke Welsh Corgi-- but probably thanks to humans. It's great that people can learn at zoos and see these creatures first-hand, but I don't think we should be taking some pedestal of "look, we're doing this for your own good." If I were to take a closer look at zoos and their history/ reason for existence, which would I find more of:
1) education, scholarly interest, research
2) human guilt for wiping out animals, some attempt of "Hey, look we're compassionate! We're doing you a favor! Let me make it up to you!"
I am not a tiger, but if I were, I would much rather be taking my chances out in the wild and living my own life instead of being cooped up in some form of enclosure where the daily highlight is some combination of dinner and people watching. Oh, and sometimes it's a really nice day out.
Every time I go to the zoo I see children "roaring" at lion's or tiger's and what happens if a tiger ate a 5 year old kid? Would we be ripping apart the parents for letting a kid make "roaring" noises at a tiger or would we be waving our fist's at the zoo for having such a weak barrier? I have a feeling it would be the latter. I know that these guys are not kids, but how does that keep the zoo the completely innocent party?
You really nailed it ShallowThinker, although I would hope a 5-year-old's parents would be on hand to rein them in. Taunting animals is never okay, but whether the person doing it is 5 or 55, they have the right to expect the dangerous killing predatory animal to stay in its frakkin' enclosure. What about the people who accidentally make eye contact or smile at some of the monkeys?
Incidentally, does anyone remember this story, about the 9-year-old girl in Minneapolis who climbed into the meerkat exhibit and got bitten? Her parents refused to get her the rabies shots, therefore all 5 meerkats were put to death. I seem to remember a lot of fury being directed at the girl's parents and not as much for the zoo.
79 · Camille said
Are dopey humans the only creatures who are good at unconditional loving? :)
In an ideal world your parents’ beautiful strategy of treating animals as sentient creatures who are not fuzzy versions of us, yet deserve the same amount of respect would be just that—ideal. But, I’ve met perhaps a handful of people over the course of my entire life who were taught that way or believed such an enlightened concept. The vast majority of people I know do baby their dogs and cats, give them human names and treat them as family members.
Just to clarify--I didn’t type that comment randomly or on behalf of myself, I was responding to a comment upthread, regarding all the outrage (and how it was hardly just environmentalists who were feeling it) when I said what I did about animals being so loving. The question "Why is all the anger being directed at the Dhaliwals instead of the crappy SF Zoo?" is being posed on many sites and I thought I had a possible answer.
After covering this story twice, I have now read several thousand readers’ comments on many newspapers which display such pain and outrage, and that’s what informed my view. Stories like, “my cat was the light of my life and my companion through two graduate degrees, I haven’t been the same since I lost her” or “my ex-husband could have the house, I just wanted our dog…since he was the only source of unconditional love I had” are being told constantly, to a chorus of “I agree completely!”s. My entire point was, it’s not conservationists or environmentalists who are calling for these boys’ heads, it’s regular people who probably sit in a cubicle across from you, who have had a cherished relationship with the family pet, who can’t bear the thought of an animal being taunted or hurt because their love for Fido or Katamari is so overwhelming, they are protective of not just their own kitten, but of her much-larger, much-wilder relative, Tatiana.
Anna - "Of course you didn’t."
A couple of weeks back you were willing to believe that a corrupt to the bone politician had changed her stripes, solely based on how "articulate she was". So why not at least believe the Dhaliwal boys until proof to the contrary comes forth?
Unless you have first hand knowledge that the teens are lying?
And here I always thought that the Christian way required forgiveness.
sebastian:
This isn't about guilt - a lot of people are genuinely concerned about endangered animal species and are making a real effort trying to save their existence. Besides, ecosystems would collapse if the creatures on the top of the food chains were removed. It's hard to oversee the consequences. Remember that the people who work at the zoo are not the same as those who are responsible for the decimation of the animal's natural habitat. Don't lump us humans all on the same boat. Should we shut all zoos and by that token let dozens of species go extinct because we think that the tiger would rather be out in the equatorial rainforest? Remember, don't anthropomorphise.
Weird to hear about the 9 year old climbing into the meerkat exhibit. How in the world did the parents allow this? What sort of parent would encourage this behavior? (Thanks for the heads up on this, to Mary,post 81).
You also make a good point about zoo animals in general. Even making eye contact or showing teeth (like smiling/grinning) may come across to some animals as a threat. For this reason, zoos must take safety precautions seriously and most all of them do, I guess. Of course, it is still safer to go to a zoo than it is driving after midnight on New Years.
Yes, my skepticism is based on an eye-witness account of two people who have had issues with their behavior/the law in the past, having fun emotionally abusing animals. How horrible a bitch am I?
If you're going to attempt to impeach me, have the decency to link to whatever you are referring to. Sketchy is as sketchy does. Why don't you ask all the other people--who think one brother's admonition to the other, "don't tell them what we did" is suspect-- that question, too?
Cheap shot, but I expect nothing less from your IP address. By the way, bringing my faith in to this reflects poorly on you, not me.
Cat's got their tongue.
84 · Meena said
Especially if there's a tiger on the boat.
What if they were taunting the animal? Do you think the tigers feelings will get hurt? The tiger inspite of all its majesty is a dumb animal. It does not understand english and it does not care one bit if you make faces at it.
It would be a different thing if they threw things at the animal but there is no proof of it.
If they were taunting the animal then I think that's relevant because they provoked it. For the second time, personal responsibility needs to make a comeback. And it's not about a tiger's feelings getting hurt, it's about respecting a sentient being and not abusing it just because you can. How do you know that it doesn't care? It' so disturbing, how many people think that mistreating animals is no big deal; it speaks volumes about those who callously put forth such a selfish position.
Why is that different from baring teeth or taunting? One of my friends from India told me two days ago that you're not supposed to smile at monkeys, because they consider it a provocation. We can't have it both ways, if emotional/mental abuse of "lower creatures" is no big deal, then neither is those animals' "dumb" reactions.
88 · tk said
Do animals understand English? Well, not right off the bat. My dad struggled with the idea that our dog wasn't born understanding Malayalam, and was always surprised when Peaches just didn't obey.
No, animals do not necessarily understand our human verbal language, but noise is noise, teeth are teeth, and there are certain signs, elements, and triggers that generate responses or feelings within different animals, hardwired into their instinct. If you run around making noise, flashing your chompers, and make eye contact with an animal, don't be too surprised if it considers it a sign of aggression.