Tiger escapes cage at S.F. zoo

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: novasatori
yeah, facts straight, right...
because the tiger just all of a sudden decided to escape and attack three people, when it had plenty of time when no one was around day after day, year after year...

This was a very aggressive animal. He had seriously attacked zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. It wouldn't of taken much to set it off such as staring directly at it which it would consider as a threat or dangling your feat or hands off the fence railing.

Non-domesticated (and some that ARE domesticated) animals should always be considered potentially aggressive. I wouldn't even dangle a foot or limb over a fence near a pit bull, I certainly wouldn't do it near a tiger. If the wall wasn't high enough then that was a mistake by the zoo, but that doesn't necessarily excuse the actions of the victims. If the boys were dangling limbs in the pen and/or taunting the animal, then they are idiots who were messing with fire and got burned.

You do not know the actions of the victims. Also I've seen little kids dangle parts of themselves near the lion and tiger exhibits many a time from the many occasions I've visited the SF zoo. If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Muse
You can believe what you want. The zoo officials and the police, etc. are playing this pretty close to the vest. I find it hard to believe that the tiger would attack these guys under the circumstances without considerable provocation. The facts, the whole story such as it will be known is not likely to emerge soon.

That's your opinion though and it's not based on facts. This tiger has had a history of aggressive behavior and officials have stated it would not of taken much to set it off. So really in the end it's your opinion against the facts laid out about the tiger's past behavior toward zoo staff and the fact that there were no witnesses, along with a shorter then stated wall and zoo exhibit dimensions.

 

[BoomerD]

It sounds like the surviving suspects/victims are trying to hide the truth about what REALLY happened:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...07/12/28/MN7RU5I8P.DTL
"We have no comment at this time," said the boys' 25-year-old brother Sunny Dhaliwal, adding that his family wanted to speak to the boys and hospital staff before talking publicly about the incident.

A man accompanying family members outside the house later told a reporter that the family would have nothing to say until after consulting with a lawyer.

The Dhaliwal brothers have been hostile to police in the current death investigation and were "extremely belligerent" in an earlier encounter with police this year, authorities say.

After the zoo attack, authorities said, the brothers had refused to give their own names, identify the victim or initially give authorities an account of what occurred. "

If they had done nothing wrong, why refuse to give their names or ID their friend?
It doesn't exactly sound like they were "pillars of their community" either:
"Both Kulbir and Paul Dhaliwal were charged Oct. 9 with misdemeanor public intoxication and resisting a police officer after they were arrested a short distance from their home while apparently chasing two men, according to court documents.

Kulbir Dhaliwal allegedly cursed officers and kicked the security partition between the back and front seats in a police car after being handcuffed in the Sept. 7 incident, the police report said.

The brothers pleaded not guilty to the charges and are scheduled to appear in court Jan. 15, records show.

"The reports indicate they were extremely belligerent with police," said Steuart Scott, the deputy district attorney assigned the case."

NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: novasatori
yeah, facts straight, right...
because the tiger just all of a sudden decided to escape and attack three people, when it had plenty of time when no one was around day after day, year after year...

It's no less strange then the beloved family pet pitbull going after a family member or another family pet.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
It sounds like the surviving suspects/victims are trying to hide the truth about what REALLY happened:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...07/12/28/MN7RU5I8P.DTL
"We have no comment at this time," said the boys' 25-year-old brother Sunny Dhaliwal, adding that his family wanted to speak to the boys and hospital staff before talking publicly about the incident.

A man accompanying family members outside the house later told a reporter that the family would have nothing to say until after consulting with a lawyer.

The Dhaliwal brothers have been hostile to police in the current death investigation and were "extremely belligerent" in an earlier encounter with police this year, authorities say.

After the zoo attack, authorities said, the brothers had refused to give their own names, identify the victim or initially give authorities an account of what occurred. "

If they had done nothing wrong, why refuse to give their names or ID their friend?
It doesn't exactly sound like they were "pillars of their community" either:
"Both Kulbir and Paul Dhaliwal were charged Oct. 9 with misdemeanor public intoxication and resisting a police officer after they were arrested a short distance from their home while apparently chasing two men, according to court documents.

Kulbir Dhaliwal allegedly cursed officers and kicked the security partition between the back and front seats in a police car after being handcuffed in the Sept. 7 incident, the police report said.

The brothers pleaded not guilty to the charges and are scheduled to appear in court Jan. 15, records show.

"The reports indicate they were extremely belligerent with police," said Steuart Scott, the deputy district attorney assigned the case."

NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.

That doesn't mean anything. Other then a dislike for the police it seems as in their previous run in with the cops. Seems they are behaving as they did in the past in their encounter with the cops.

Also the family members do not have to respond to the press and neither should they until they know the full story. That is hardly a sign of trying to hide something. Again until the police come out with a full version of what happened anything said is just circumstantial or hearsay.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: novasatori
yeah, facts straight, right...
because the tiger just all of a sudden decided to escape and attack three people, when it had plenty of time when no one was around day after day, year after year...

This was a very aggressive animal. He had seriously attacked zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. It wouldn't of taken much to set it off such as staring directly at it which it would consider as a threat or dangling your feat or hands off the fence railing.

Non-domesticated (and some that ARE domesticated) animals should always be considered potentially aggressive. I wouldn't even dangle a foot or limb over a fence near a pit bull, I certainly wouldn't do it near a tiger. If the wall wasn't high enough then that was a mistake by the zoo, but that doesn't necessarily excuse the actions of the victims. If the boys were dangling limbs in the pen and/or taunting the animal, then they are idiots who were messing with fire and got burned.

You do not know the actions of the victims. Also I've seen little kids dangle parts of themselves near the lion and tiger exhibits many a time from the many occasions I've visited the SF zoo. If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

Is the pen wall the only line of defense? I've never been to the SF Zoo, but in most cases there is a fence or wall and then an outer guard rail of some sort as well. I've seen people lean and point over the rail, but I've never seen anyone go to the other side of the rail and stick something of theirs close enough for an animal to grab.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: novasatori
yeah, facts straight, right...
because the tiger just all of a sudden decided to escape and attack three people, when it had plenty of time when no one was around day after day, year after year...

This was a very aggressive animal. He had seriously attacked zoo keeper a year before as it was being feed. It wouldn't of taken much to set it off such as staring directly at it which it would consider as a threat or dangling your feat or hands off the fence railing.

Non-domesticated (and some that ARE domesticated) animals should always be considered potentially aggressive. I wouldn't even dangle a foot or limb over a fence near a pit bull, I certainly wouldn't do it near a tiger. If the wall wasn't high enough then that was a mistake by the zoo, but that doesn't necessarily excuse the actions of the victims. If the boys were dangling limbs in the pen and/or taunting the animal, then they are idiots who were messing with fire and got burned.

You do not know the actions of the victims. Also I've seen little kids dangle parts of themselves near the lion and tiger exhibits many a time from the many occasions I've visited the SF zoo. If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

Is the pen wall the only line of defense? I've never been to the SF Zoo, but in most cases there is a fence or wall and then an outer guard rail of some sort as well. I've seen people lean and point over the rail, but I've never seen anyone actually stick something of theirs close enough for an animal to grab.

While not a good shot this will give you an idea. There is a moat down below and where the picture is taken it is at the top of the wall at it's height. At the top there is a small ledge with the small bushes and shrubs running it's length along with a 4ft - 4.5ft fence on the outside of the shrubs/bushes. So when they say leaning over the fence they are talking about the fence I described that blocks off the shrubs/bushes and the eventual ledge that leads down off the wall into the exhibit itself.

http://www.zoolex.org/thesis/Sanfran.jpg

Also the tiger did not grabbed anyone while climbing up the wall. There is no evidence that it grabbed a person. There is evidence of concrete in it's claws though from when it scaled the wall. The shoe as stated before was never found inside the tiger exhibit. The shoe was found outside of the exhibit.

 

[ericlp]

I think the cops should have shot the remaining two (alive scumbags) and let the tiger eat them....

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I think the cops should have shot the remaining two (alive scumbags) and let the tiger eat them....

I think that is a bit extreme, but I definitely think its their own fault.

I think the proof is in the fact they wont comment on what happened. You better believe, if a tiger randomly escaped and mauled me, I'd be talking about it, especially after the announcement of the fence being below "suggested" height. That way I could get some $$ from the zoo like that zoo keeper that got mauled.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I think the cops should have shot the remaining two (alive scumbags) and let the tiger eat them....

That is about as fair as saying that stupid people who jump to conclusions without knowing the full details or all the facts should be shot as well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I think the cops should have shot the remaining two (alive scumbags) and let the tiger eat them....

:roll:

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

We had a sayin', growin' up in Texas: Mess with the bull, get the horns.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Drift3r
If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

We had a sayin', growin' up in Texas: Mess with the bull, get the horns.

I could care less about the saying truthfully. Give me the facts and details and then we can make a judgment call. As it stands unless those kids jumped into the exhibit there is no cause to cheer about what happened and the fact that the zoo had woefully low wall to block exit of a dangerous animal is not playing well in their favor. A 12ft wall is not that much of a challenge for a determine person let alone a wild tiger who has kicked into predator mode.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Drift3r
If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

We had a sayin', growin' up in Texas: Mess with the bull, get the horns.

I could care less about the saying truthfully. Give me the facts and details and then we can make a judgment call. As it stands unless those kids jumped into the exhibit there is no cause to cheer about what happened and the fact that the zoo had woefully low wall to block exit of a dangerous animal is not playing well in their favor. A 12ft wall is not that much of a challenge for a determine person let alone a wild tiger who has kicked into predator mode.

You're sure awful defensive of these guys...do you know one or more of them? Are you related to one or more of them in some way? WHY are you so defensive on their behalf?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Drift3r
If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

We had a sayin', growin' up in Texas: Mess with the bull, get the horns.

I could care less about the saying truthfully. Give me the facts and details and then we can make a judgment call. As it stands unless those kids jumped into the exhibit there is no cause to cheer about what happened and the fact that the zoo had woefully low wall to block exit of a dangerous animal is not playing well in their favor. A 12ft wall is not that much of a challenge for a determine person let alone a wild tiger who has kicked into predator mode.

You're sure awful defensive of these guys...do you know one or more of them? Are you related to one or more of them in some way? WHY are you so defensive on their behalf?

Why should he need to be "defensive" in this? The tiger got out of its enclosure. That should NEVER happen. We're lucky that only one of these guys was all that was killed.

Your attitude begs the question, why are you defending the zoo, in light of the circumstances?

 

[BoomerD]

I'm not defending the zoo in the slightest. If you read my earlier post, I said:

NONE of this however explains how the "tyger" got out of his cage...regardless of the alleged taunting, there should have been NO way the animal should have been able to exact its revenge on the taunter. Now if the person had fallen in, then he'd have been fair game...and dinner.

My point about him being defensive is that in EVERY SINGLE post, he tries to deflect any of the blame from the suspects...I mean victims. If they are not guilty of anything, WHY are they clamming up to the cops? As was mentioned earlier, if I was attacked by a tiger at the zoo (and survived) I'd want to know what happened and give the investigating officers any help they requested...unless somehow I was the cause of the attack, THEN, I'd only be talking to my lawyer...

 

[Vic]

The point is that the zoo is obviously negligent regardless of what the victims/suspects did. THE TIGER GOT OUT. Because of that, they don't need to give information, they should receive it.


As for clamming up... who cares? I would to. I don't talk to cops. Nor does anyone else with any intelligence.

 

[BoomerD]

So, if you were just minding your own business at the zoo and a tiger attacked you from out of nowhere, you'd clam up and wouldn't say anything?? Sweet...maybe, JUST MAYBE, you could prevent something like this from happening again...but that's the next guy's problem eh?

Edei...and YES, I agree the zoo should be held negligent. There is NO WAY the tiger should have been able to get out of its cage. I've said that already. I suspect these guys (from the description provided by the cops and neighbors) were just punks who stopped to fuck with the tiger at closing time, and somehow, (not completely established yet) the tiger got out of the cage and pwned them. Is the zoo still liable? You betcha...But if the rumors of them taunting the tiger prove to be true...then I side with the tiger.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Vic
Whether they were taunting the tiger or not, it shouldn't have been able to escape from its enclosure. Just imagine if the zoo had been more crowded.

Then both parties (zoo and these people) are at fault - and we'll call it even.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
So, if you were just minding your own business at the zoo and a tiger attacked you from out of nowhere, you'd clam up and wouldn't say anything?? Sweet...maybe, JUST MAYBE, you could prevent something like this from happening again...but that's the next guy's problem eh?

Edei...and YES, I agree the zoo should be held negligent. There is NO WAY the tiger should have been able to get out of its cage. I've said that already. I suspect these guys (from the description provided by the cops and neighbors) were just punks who stopped to fuck with the tiger at closing time, and somehow, (not completely established yet) the tiger got out of the cage and pwned them. Is the zoo still liable? You betcha...But if the rumors of them taunting the tiger prove to be true...then I side with the tiger.

Of course I would. That's the law's problem, not the "next guy's". Don't be an ass. You just got your attacked at the fsckin zoo by a tiger that escaped its cage. Does it really matter that you were talkin shit to tiger over the wall and the moat prior to? WTF.

And BTW, has anyone else noticed the AZA's quick media campaign here? I mean, WTF? They got their primary insurer, GEICO, to rush an animated commercial for them already. In less than 48 hours! And look at you, the usual useful idiots pretending you hate corporatism.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Vic
Whether they were taunting the tiger or not, it shouldn't have been able to escape from its enclosure. Just imagine if the zoo had been more crowded.

Then both parties (zoo and these people) are at fault - and we'll call it even.

No, we don't. Because more were potentially exposed to negligence than just those who might have been culpable.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Vic

As for clamming up... who cares? I would to. I don't talk to cops. Nor does anyone else with any intelligence.

Originally posted by: Vic

Of course I would. That's the law's problem, not the "next guy's". Don't be an ass. You just got your attacked at the fsckin zoo by a tiger that escaped its cage. Does it really matter that you were talkin shit to tiger over the wall and the moat prior to? WTF.
[/q

So which is it? You'd clam up or you'd try to provide information to the authorities? Make up your mind.

As for my dislike for corporations, that's because they seem to own our government. The episode in the zoo has nothing to do with that...and no, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the zoo and their insurers did their best to try to spin this in their favor, they ARE about to be sued for millions of $$$, and they'll want to try to garner as much sympathy from potential jurors as possible. (yet another reason I dislike lawyers)...neither side will want the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" to come out in this...both sides will try to spin things so far out of reality that no one will have any real idea wtf actually happened or who's at fault.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Drift3r
If those little kids would suffered the same fate as these guys would their deaths of been okay in your mind?

We had a sayin', growin' up in Texas: Mess with the bull, get the horns.

I could care less about the saying truthfully. Give me the facts and details and then we can make a judgment call. As it stands unless those kids jumped into the exhibit there is no cause to cheer about what happened and the fact that the zoo had woefully low wall to block exit of a dangerous animal is not playing well in their favor. A 12ft wall is not that much of a challenge for a determine person let alone a wild tiger who has kicked into predator mode.

You're sure awful defensive of these guys...do you know one or more of them? Are you related to one or more of them in some way? WHY are you so defensive on their behalf?

Sorry but I love and cherish the truth over rumor mongering by people without a clue. I really dislike it when people run their mouths out of ignorance and/or hearsay.

This is especially true when folks are jumping up and down and cheering the death of a person without knowing the full facts of the case. Then again maybe I am not as psychopathic as the rest of the angry herd here who seems delight in the death of another human being. Again unless all 3 marched into the exhibit trying to moon this animal there is no cause to be elated over the death of one young man. So sorry if I am not running around giving people high fives because someone died.

 

[tvarad]

A couple of years ago, I kept tapping the lower wall of the fully enclosed Gorilla room at the Pittsburgh Zoo with my leg (the top was glass for observing). There was this full grown silverback watching his females as well as us through the corner of his eyes about 25 feet away. All of a sudden, he raised himself to full height, started hammering his chest with his hands and rushed straight at us , stopped abruptly at the observing wall and walked away. Apparently I was imitating his behavior and he wanted to show me who was boss. The rest of the spectators and I must have set a world record for a backward jump that day.

I narrate this because it's hard to imagine a wild animal's incredible strength, speed and dextirity until you experience it close up. I can very well believe the idiots, like me that day, were taunting the animal which took it personally and showed off it's jumping and climbing talents. Don't fsck with wild animals.

 

[ericlp]

Once again... I'm for the tiger... Screw the victims. If I had a zoo, I'd make every fool sign a weaver if anything should go wrong. Hey, These are 600 lbs predators I'm sure we look really tasty to them.....

So, yes I am for the tiger he is just doing his job. He is a wild animal that was on the hunt... Now these idiots want to sue for millions because they took a risk by going to the zoo.... Booo Hoooo! Ya know what this is gonna do? Raise the cost of admission??? You bet it will! I swear this country is just one sue happy Cluster F*ck... Isn't it amazing that this tiger has been in the zoo for many many years with no problems... Until NOW.... You know the idiots were screwing around with the animals and I bet they won't be fucking with any more tigers again....