IT MAY NOT OPEN
The San Francisco Zoo is scheduled to reopen Thursday, but Acting Mayor Sean Elsbend said that may not be the case. Elsbend, filling in for Mayor Gavin Newsom who is helping Democrats campaign in Iowa, said the city planned to ensure that there is accountability for the tiger maulings that claimed the life of Carlos Sousa Jr., 19, of San Jose on Christmas Day.
San Francisco Zoo officials announced during the weekend that professionals from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums would be reviewing the zoo’s big cat exhibits, which are closed indefinitely, but according to the association, the San Francisco Zoo is an accredited AZA member in good standing.
MEANTIME
The two brothers who could shed the most light on how the attacks occurred have yet to speak out since leaving the hospital. Carlos Sousa Jr.’s funeral is scheduled for Jan. 8 in San Jose, his friends have also posted a MySpace tribute to him online.
ALSO, brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, who suffered severe bite and claw wounds, were released from the hospital Saturday, leaving through a side door amid a crush of reporters. The brothers offered no comment and were seen arriving later that day at the family’s San Jose home. No one answered the door at the home or the phone and no other witnesses have emerged aside from the brothers themselves who seem likely to be able to shed light on the exact sequence of events, but have been difficult with police investigators.
We are learning bits and pieces a couple of times a day, which is allowing us to get a growing puzzle together, but still not entirely clear picture.
It’s like when you dump the puzzle out of the box and the pieces all seem to be there, but your niece or nephew grabbed a couple and wont tell you where they hid them. In any case, here are a few pieces of information that have come out in the last 12 hours or so that adds to our already intense and long discussion about the San Francisco Tiger Attack. I have also included one more picture from Roman. Consider this:
1. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has the primary responsibility to regulate zoos and has only 100 inspectors to regulate more than 200 zoo’s and animal parks. These men and woman are also in charge of regulating thousands of roadside attractions, circuses and other private animal exhibitors.
2. The AZA offers zoos and aquariums accreditation through a days-long review every five years by a committee of three or four volunteer curators, keepers and veterinarians from member organizations. In California, state law also governs the keeping of wild animals. However, the state exempts from its oversight zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a non-profit organization based in Maryland
3. The tiger enclosure was built in 1940 and the AZA says it was likely grandfathered in.
4. The two San Jose brothers mauled by a tiger on Christmas were released on Saturday. Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, were escorted from a little-used side door on the north side of San Francisco General Hospital and whisked away in a sedan without comment.
5. Insiders say there are no zoo keepers on duty after the zoo closes at 5 p.m., despite recommendations for around-the-clock keepers from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the organization that accredits zoos. The night keepers were eliminated about 10 years ago to save money, so only one or two security guards now patrol the entire 100-acre facility at night. Also a public address system that could have warned zoo visitors about the tiger escape and urged them to take shelter or evacuate the grounds was dismantled about 15 years ago, after zoo neighbors complained about the noisy announcements from the loudspeakers.
6. Zoo administrators say the facility will reopen to the public Thursday, although the large cats will not be on exhibit in the outdoor enclosures.
7. At a Saturday vigil night outside the house of his grandmother in San Jose, Carlos Sousa Jr. was mourned and remembered by a crowd of 80 or so people, who carried candles and sometimes wept.
8. At the Oakland Zoo, attendance was up nearly 200 percent over the same tim last year. Numerous people interviewed had intended to visit the San Francisco Zoo on Wednesday but went to Oakland after learning of the tragedy and others say they wanted to see tigers.
Tags: San Francisco Zoo, tiger attack, Zoo
Share This
Another new update:
http://housley.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/03/400/#comment-8850
New witness check it out:
Jennifer Miller. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/03/MN9TU8AGC.DTL
You use a sling shot on any animal for the purpose of drunken fun ,speaking for myself , I have N/P with what ever happens to the feeble brained idiot doing the attack.
The tiger killed not because the tiger is racist or a man hater..the tiger killed because it’s a tiger and was being attacked .
It’s tit for tat says the putty tat..dats dat .
If one is a little drunken fool with a number less for IQ than ones member size AND one is shooting at large tigers from behind a fence while drunk with a sling shot , the tiger has the right to dish out some street justice baby .. the tiger was being a tiger , the human was being butt juice.
No attack , no retaliation . bidda bing bidda boom .
From the desk of Kitty Cat’s legal rep .
The only fact we do know, is a child and a tiger died. We may never know the WHY.
I call truce Mark.
From the beginning, I’ve not really stood for either side in this case, because of the above fact, and now that Geragos is apart of it, its all smoke and mirrors anyway, in my opinion.
Mark
I do think that the boys bear some of the responsibility but as you have said before the Tiger should not have been ABLE to get out if he had not been able to get out then no one would have any permenant damage including the Tiger, I don’t think the Zoo took their responsibilty seriously since they knew what the AZA reccomendations were and chose to ignore them they are reccomendations for a reason, I think the director knew full well that if the Tigers wanted out they could get out and he lied about the height of the wall in the press conference ( to cover up in my opinion ) It bothers me that a Zoo would be so cavalier with the safety of people and their kids, not just because of this particular incident or because of a life being lost but the whole idea that it could happen to anyone at anytime.
Just because it never happened before does not mean that it could never happen, since it did and it does not mean that it could never happen again, without the new improvements I think that if could happen again.
So really it is not this one incident that bothers me as much as the idea that it could happen again without improvements to ALL Zoo’s.
I think this is a wakeup call to all Zoo’s and even individual owners of dangerous animals to be more responsible in cageing their animals and yes the visitors need to be more responsible as well.
And Patty, I’ve never said Sousa deserves to die, I merely said he deserves to take responsiblity for his actions and not place that responsiblity on the zoo. Everyone recently is advocating that the zoo should bear the brunt, I’m merely saying that you can’t ignore Sousa’s part in it. And I refuse to let the end of it be that life was lost. Life WAS lost, but that shouldn’t determine that Sousa bears no responsiblity just because he paid the ultimate price.
As much as I notice this on the posts, it’s not that I don’t feel sorry for the Sousa’s, or for Patty’s loss, it’s more that I refuse to allow emotion to blind all considerations. If you act on emotion, you make mistakes. The emotion of losing a child has no bearing on if the zoo should be liable, yet it is used to cloud the issue. Emotion has been used in this way for centuries. Just because we all feel bad about the loss of a child doesn’t negate the fact that personal responsiblity needs to be taken.
-Mark
Is riding a motorcycle the same thing as taunting a wild animal? You don’t have to answer that, it’s rhetorical.
Thanks John. You didn’t do anything to deserve that comment.
I’m sorry for your loss.
Thank you John. I wish I could say it wasn’t, but sadly, it is.
Patty
If the story of your daughter is true I am very sorry for you loss. you have my sincere condolences.
Thanks for the support girls I appreciate it.
John44
Thank you Adam for the info.
John44 is definitely not an idiot and has said nothing idiotic.
We don’t know what if anything Carlos Sousa did so it’s premature to assail his character.
If I were on a jury and heard they taunted the animal I would want the zoo to pay their medical expenses because of the zoo’s apathy, but I wouldn’t want to see them get money for psychological stress or pain and suffering. If they can’t prove they taunted the tiger, then I’d vote for a substantial payout because, frankly, the zoo was lax. I don’t want to go to the zoo knowing the fences could be jumped by the most ferocious animals. Their mismanagement is allegedly on the record.
I’m going to the next thread.
Excuse this Adam, but i have to…
So Mark, are you saying because our daughter got on a motorcycle she deserved to die because she was stupid enough to get on it in the first place? Or are you saying that we deserved to loose our daughter because we didnt stop her from riding the bike?
Those are retorical…i dont need your answer!
There is sort of a unspoken thing around here, we tend to agree to disagree and we normally don’t lash out with personal attacks at each other. Calling John44 and idiot was pretty much out of line in my world. But then it’s not my world, it’s Adam’s, I am a GUEST here and try to act like it.
Mark
I don’t know if you know it but there is another update from Adam here. http://housley.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/02/30-days/#comment-8666
I did not see any post’s from you on the newest update so I did not know if you were aware of it, if the link does not work then go to the top and click on Housely in the house and it should take you there.
Hey mark the tazer idea is a good one, I like it, I would try it myself but I am not sure if a national park has the same Legal burden as a Zoo.
I repeat wish me luck the human being NOT the poor animal I am going to tazer cause it was your idea after all.
Just kidding Mark…… don’t go ballistic on me.
I think I would rather tazer one of the Zoo animals because I am more certain of the legal burden as it applies to them, once again thanks for the idea and wish me luck.
By the way if I get in trouble I will have to blame the whole thing on you cause it was your idea. sorry
Perhaps if the morality of the situation were to be examined in depth more often, the sorry direction of things in this country could be avoided.
The Sousa’s didn’t loose their son needlessly, they lost their son to poor upbringing and irresponsibility. If he had just been standing there and got jumped by the tiger then I’d be against the zoo, but he didn’t and he wasn’t. Therefore, he wasn’t needlessly killed, he was killed because he was doing something that warranted it.
In light of all the talk here about “the law” I think I’m going to go to Yellowstone National Park and tazer the gigantic buffalo. When I’m trampled I’ll claim that it’s the Park’s responsiblity to protect me and that I bear no responsiblity for my actions.
I could finally pay off my law school loans.
-Mark
Mark
My point was NEVER about right or wrong, because everybody has a different idea of what is right and wrong my point was always about the LEGALITY of the situation, which is black and white, it was NEVER even about the AZA reccomendation you are right it is only a reccomendation that they could follow or not follow, personally I would have exceeded the reccomendation but thats just me.
The fact is even if the Zoo had followed the AZA reccomendation they would still be LEGALLY liable because the LAW does not say that if you follow or exceed the AZA reccomendation then you are off the hook, it says that you must keep the dangerous animal contained at ALL times under ALL circumstances, the law leaves it up to the owner to figure out how to do that.
so the fact that the Zoo did not follow AZA reccomendations really means nothing LEGALLY it only shows that the Zoo cared enough to atleast try to keep the Tigers contained which ethically means something to us visitors but Legally means nothing either.
That was my whole point the Legality of the situation nothing more, I don’t say that I always agree with the law as many times I don’t BUT in this particular case I do agree with the Law, the Zoo should be held at fault and atleast the Sousa’s deserve compensation for needlessly losing their son, I am not too concerned about the other boys since they are still alive.
By the way I am not an idiot I’m just not hung up on the morality of the situation like you are, since a human being died I am more hung up on the Legality of the negligence of the Zoo’s security.
I think the Zoo is at fault.
And the boys deserve to be paid alot of money.
I think the Zoo is at fault.
And the boys deserve to be paid alot of money.
John44,
Frankly, you’re an idiot. You’re being confused. That the height of 16 or whatever it is is a recommendation, not a guideline or requirement.
Second, you completely overlooked my analogy and I would respond you by saying that it’s illegal for a bouncer to beat someone senseless, but people still wouldn’t blame the bouncer.
Third, NOBODY knows how an animal will react when attacked. I’ve seen a grown man LIFT UP A HELICOPTER when it was pinning a person under it so that the person can crawl out. Biologically it’s called “adrenalin”and it gives animals (which we are) increased strength and speed to deal with a fight or flight situation. I have a feeling that even IF the walls were up to the RECOMMENDED NOT REQUIRED height that the tiger still would have jumped it. Four additional feet would mean nothing to an animal that is under attack and would still mean these three idiots would have gotten what they deserve and everyone would be going “OH MY GOD..ONLY 17 FEET, THAT’S ABSURD [insert random cliche reason why personal responsiblity shouldn't matter]“.
In the end, legally you might be correct and probably are correct, it’s called “strict liability”. But just because the legal system says so, doesn’t means it’s right. This is a system where some idiot can put a Winabego on cruise control and then go into the back of it to make popcorn; then, when the Winabego crashes because he wasn’t driving it, the man can claim that Winabego should have clearly posted that cruise control does not mean the Winabego will drive itself and the court awards him 2 million in damages and a new Winabego - this doesn’t mean that it’s right or justice. My kind is what truly destroys justice and personal responsiblity, no lawyer worth his salt should even go near this case, all it will bring is injustice if the boys and Sousa’s family wins.
Oh, and I don’t fully agree with your assertion that human life always trumps animal life. Heh, this case is a perfect example of where I would say that animal life trumps human life.
-Mark
“Bob
Nobody is saying the Tiger has any fault, the Tiger did not break any laws, and yes the Tiger should be able to defend itself from INSIDE THE ENCLOSURE. not outside…..”
I’m just saying ..if one was to stand on the street , and shoot into another’s home with a weapon , I for one, would not let where one stood stop me from you know …throwing a grenade or sum’n.
In fact if there was someone standing with their little buddies , laughing and having a drink while they shot at me inside my home , I would be inclined to want to make it difficult for ALL of them to breathe.
Bernard Getz 2008
Comment by John44
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am
“It is immoral to cheat on your spouse BUT it is not illegal,”
In Georgia it IS illegal to cheat on your spouse…and in my books tauting/picking at ANY animal who is contained in ANY enclosure is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL! Put yourself into their boots FOR ONCE…some strange being throwing things at you and you can’t do a thing about it…get pissed off enough to attack??? You bet.
According to what I have read on this site and on other sites, and see on television reports…these guys were NOT outside the enclosure, but rather breached the fencing put up to keep humans OUT. The blood was found leading FROM the moat, past the chain link fencing to the point where they found the 23 year old. The cat attached the 23-yr old first…the other two “boys” distracted her and she attacked the 17-yr old killing him. THEN followed the blood trail of her antagonist…resuming the attack.
Question: If this cat was hungry…why didn’t she stop with the kill and feed? That is the way it is done in the wild…this cat was pissed off royally.
My 2 cents.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/30/MNNQU63KP.DTL
I’m posting this article because I think the fact that the zoo has a history of mismanagement plays into any lawsuit. Someone mentioned that it is important if this never happened before, but they have had problems unfortunately.
It is a shame about the tiger, but a boy is dead and the zoo messed up. If the brothers taunted the tiger, did they play an indirect part in the death of the friend?
Once again…people are getting away with lack of responsibility and suing…and will probably win. Those young men were in the wrong from the very beginning. Who in their right mind would taunt any animal…especially one capable of killing (the tiger did what was natural in any circumstance). The reckless actions of those young men are now being ignored by their families and the blame being placed on everyone else…except for them. I watched the father of the dead boy say…on live tv…that his son “could have done anything he wanted…throw rocks..tease or whatever…the tiger should have never gotton out”…obviously he sees that his son had no responsibility in the horrible incident that occurred…but he will certainly sue the zoo. What a joke..no wonder our children of today see that they need to have no responsibility for their actions.
If the young men taunted the animal, it would greatly reduce any judgment I would think, but the zoo isn’t up to snuff. I think the next time I go to the zoo I’ll bring my elephant gun with me.
I like animals as much as the next person BUT given the choice of the life of a human being or the life of the animal, I would choose to protect the human being at the animals expense, Whether in captivity or the wild, human beings come first with me and most other people thankfully.
and NO I am not a trophy hunter, I do eat the animals I hunt much like Tigers, I am also a carnavor.
I will have to say that I do hunt Deer to EAT and for the experience as MANY people in Oklahoma and in the south do and I am certainly glad they cannot hunt me back.
Bob
Nobody is saying the Tiger has any fault, the Tiger did not break any laws, and yes the Tiger should be able to defend itself from INSIDE THE ENCLOSURE. not outside.
The LAW states that the Owner of any dangerous animal is REQUIRED to keep that animal contained under “ALL”circumstances including being shot with a slingshot.
It is a felony if your dangerous animal gets loose and kills someone, at most if the boys did shoot the animal with a slingshot it would be a misdemeanor and a small fine.
The burden of keeping dangerous animals contained is on the owner according to the LAW.
Face it folks LEGALLY the Zoo is at fault regardless of the moral or ethical emplications of whatever the boys did.
Whether or not the boys did something or not ‘LEGALLY’ will be of NO help for the Zoo.
The boys and the Sousa’s will be rich because of this incident you can count on that and the Zoo will have some serious legal trouble.
The boys on the other hand will not be charged with anything regardless of taunting or slingshots or sticks or whatever, you can count on that as well.
Sorry but that is just the way things are LEGALLY.
What does the law say about attacking with a sling shot ?
I think there is a reference to self defense , all animals have a right to self defense .
If you are an under the influence brain dead idiot with a sling shot , shooting a tiger …you die.
I understand the booze could of eaten away that part of their brain that lets them reason , tell the judge.
Just because the entire family(s) look like packs of drug using obese losers with fat little drunk boys using sling shots on tigers, does not mean they should be rewarded with a large payout.
However, I would still be willing to shoot the parents and the survivors with sling shotted lead pellets , only after I’ve consumed a bottle or two of vodka mind you .
(The tiger channeling me , his legal rep , from the grave ..claims the punk tasted like a “spicy refried beans , with a vodka chaser” )
They have 100 inspectors, and that’s not enough? Are you nuts? 100 x 300+ days a year? That’s more than enough manpower and manhours to conduct proper inspections. Whether they DO that or not is another issue.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but it’s not all at the feet of the zoo officials. These boys were partially responsible, too, for their own behavior in picking a fight with this tiger. Now they have a fancy schmancy lawyer talking for them? That tells me they KNOW they did something they shouldn’t have. They are trying to say that an injured person was refused help at the cafe? Please. And where are the other witnesses to corroborate their story? The zoo wasn’t empty, from reports…the tiger supposedly ran past other guests to go after these guys…
It’s all a little fishy if you ask me.
No Eye I didn’t miss that point I get it, BUT even if it is proven that they climbed the fence and used slinshots which I don’t think it will be but even if it is proven the LAW still says that the animal must stay contained no matter what, morally what they did was wrong but it is NOT illegal, whereas it is illegal for an animal to escape for ANY reason, remember their is a huge difference between what is illegal and what is immoral.
It is immoral to cheat on your spouse BUT it is not illegal, I think that IF the boys taunted the Tiger it is immoral but NOT illegal and that is what will make all the difference in the case.
I think that the Insurance company will pay off the victims and their families so the Zoo will be off the hook for that money but the Zoo will be financially on the hook for ALL legal fee’s, fines and improvements, therefor this incident will cost the Zoo some serious bucks and the victims and their families will be rich.
Morally is it right for all that to happen ? Maybe, Maybe not but Legally I think that is what will happen.
In every case that I have heard of where an animal got out for whatever reason the above is what happened.
You may not like it Eye or agree with it but the LAW is the LAW.
To John 44
The point YOU are missing John is that these kids may have climbed the fence. This is an off limits area, and most importantly the tiger now goes in to “protect my home” mode, motivates her to defend herself any way she can against those brats. Too bad a magnificent animal like that had to die, while those criminal idiots are still walking the planet and will waste lots of taxpayer money for *their* thugishness.
Granted that the tiger should not be able to climb up, the wall is already proven to be inadequate (though no previous escapes occured), but if it’s proven that these stupid kids climbed the fence and used slingshots, it should count against them.
I talked to a lawyer friend of mine and he told me that the law requires dangerous animals to be completly contained at all times regardless of who the owner of the dangerous animal is ( an individual or a Zoo etc. ) the law does not specify how the animal is to be contained only that it cannot escape for ANY reason.
When a dangerous animal does escape for ANY reason then the owner is ALWAYS liable and at fault.
I suspect that this law is what geragos will be using to sue the Zoo, it is the law regardless of how anyone feels about it. The law is the law and we all have to live by it.
This same law is also what may cause criminal charges to be brought against the Zoo by the prosecuter as it is a crime when someone’s dangerous animal is able to escape and kill someone whether it be a pit bull dog or a Tiger, it is not a crime to taunt even though it is not nice.
Mark
same thing.
YOU are the one missing the point, the point is that the Tiger got out, it is irrelavant why he got out and I personally don’t care why he got out, the Tigers cannot EVER get out for ANY reason that is the point.
If the Zoo cannot design and afford to build escape proof enclosure’s for their dangerous animals then they cannot have and display dangerous animals PERIOD.
Their are Zoo’s who can and do build escape proof enclosure’s, most of them are newer, those Zoo’s are the one’s that deserve to have dangerous animals, so everyone will simply have to drive to the Zoo’s who are smart enough and have enough money to house their animals safely, as for substandard Zoo’s like the SF Zoo they can still keep the non dangerous animals like birds and frogs etc.
Melissa it was the oakland Zoo that had 13 foot walls not the San Diego Zoo, my bet is that the San Diego Zoo has much higher and safer walls.
The bottom line is that if you can’t house the dangerous animals with the good Zoo’s then you cannot house dangerous animals PERIOD.
what about our prisons should the extremely dangerous prisoners that really want out to kill you be able to get out and kill you or should they are be forced to stay in regardless of why they want out.
The Zoo is mostly at fault since the attack happened outside of the enclosure, if the Tiger had not been able to get out for any reason then non of this would have happed and the next day the Tiger would have forgotten all about the taunting if in fact there was any taunting as several posters have pointed out that has not been proven.
Animals get taunted everyday in Zoo’s but most of them are unable to do anything about it which has to be the case.
One poster talked about a polar bear wanting to kill her and she did nothing but wave to him, luckily he was unable to escape and kill her and her children.
As the Putty tats legal rep ,
, my client would just like to say
” BURRRRRRRRRRPPPPPP”
NY POST’s facts on the case , the little drunk weirdo teens had sling shots , picked a fight and lost . Viva la putty tat, my vote is for the putty tat .Die human skum D I E !!!
HNY
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12312007/news/nationalnews/tiger_attack_victims_used_slingshot_on_t_469573.htm
again, everyone is missing the point. the point isn’t that the tiger got out, it’s why did the tiger get out **in this case**. Again, millions of people never had a problem before these three, AND no, sticking thumbs in the ears and gong nah nah nah nah nah isn’t taunting, and I’m sure thousands have done that before. The point you so willing miss is that these three did not act like normal visitors, they did something DIFFERENT than the millions before them.
This difference is the heart of all the arguments. If all they did was flip the tiger off and the tiger went “ape beep ballistic” then yes, the zoo bears responsiblity. But they didn’t, they did far more. Again, how do I know? Because MILLIONS of people before them were perfectly safe when they visited the tigers. It’s very simple…here’s an analogy:
If I walk into a club and slap the bouncer upside the head and he beats me senseless, how many people here would say that I brought it on myself (I think everyone would). How many of you would buy the argument that the bouncer wasn’t a licensed bouncer and that makes my behavior ok? More importantly, how many of you would willingly ignore the thousands of people who walked past that bouncer that night without incident?
See, it’s not so easy to ignore your idiocy when it’s put in simple terms like that above. The kids shouldn’t get a dime, the zoo should sue them for lost property - the tiger.
-Mark
The enclosures WERE safe for the public - just not for these three. Millions of zoo visitors, and thousands of rowdy teens, screaming kids and antics that might annoy or aggravate a wild animal with predator instincts…but only these men make one angry enough to make the effort to leap her moat and scale the wall and hunt them down with a deliberate directness that makes it obvious she wasn’t just out for a random mauling.
So what is the story on the slingshots?
If they did use slingshots on the poor tiger, they had better hope they get a jury full of mommystops, because that is the exact type who could be capable of rewarding such cruel, reckless and just plain stupid behavior.
Also - much is being made of the 16ft requirement/recommended. Did I read that San Diego’s are only a foot taller than San Francisco’s(in some areas)? Isn’t San Diego considered a first class facility - or in other words, is the 16 an above and beyond requirement that isn’t viewed as necessary unless building a new enclosure? Wondering if a lot of remodeling will be going on at zoos all over after this….all to avoid something that will never occur unless a certain type of individual - one in a million - happens to buy a ticket.
Comment by mommystop
January 1st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
*********
I think most people agree with you.
The degree of responsibility might be affected by the boys’ behavior, but the zoo is in trouble.
We don’t know what, if anything, the boys did yet.
I can’t believe some of the comments on this site. What credible evidence does ANYONE have that these boys taunted anything? It sounds like thye’ve been tried and convicted already in the court of public opinion. I hear more sympathy from you guys for the tiger than I do for the BOY he killed. Humans are still more important than any animal, whether they taunted the tiger or not. The Zoos are the problem, not the animals, and not the teenage boys who even if they DID taunt were just doing what teenage boys do. That being said, it sounds like “he got what he deseved” and that’s not the case at all. If I take my 12 year old to the Zoo and he puts his thumbs in his ears and says Nah-Nah-Nah, I don’t expect him to be EATEN for that offense and I don’t expect the press to turn on him either. It sounds like these boys are doing what’s smart and staying quiet. I would too because it seems that people already have thier mind made up about their behavior. It was a shame the tiger was killed, but I am thankful that it didn’t kill someone else. The bulk of the blame lies with a Zoo who didn’t ensure thier enclosures were safe for the public. It could have just as easily been a three year old on the top of some Dad’s Shoulders that the Tiger suddenly thought was “food” and decided to climb over the wall for. The bottom line is it DID climb over the wall.
If this case wasn’t all over tv Geragos would not have touched it. He’s just your typical media ho out to have his name and face on tv.
Do you know if those two guys had slingshots???
Thank you for your response Adam. I am not finding fault with SFPD. They always do the best job possible and go above and beyond 24X7. Wow, Mark Geragos to defend the two brothers. If he continues in his defense tactics along the lines he did in his defense of Scot Peterson there will not be anything to worry about. His clients will be found 100% guilty; get the precise punishment they deserve and receive not one penny of compensation.
I hear ya
Most likely the victims won’t be the ones to cause the Zoo the most trouble as I think the insurance company will take care of that part, it will be the City and other authorities that will be the biggest concern for the Zoo.
Comment by Jen S
January 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
*****
H Jen
Thank you
This is a nice, peaceful,interesting place to blog.
I guess we now know why the boys have maintained silence from the get-go-I don’t know who called whom, but I bet Geragos took the case immediately.
Comment by John44
January 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
********
I know, ouch - I don’t want the zoo crucified, especially if the young men are partly to blame.
Adam
Most likely the Zoo will settle though and there won’t actually be a trial. 
Me too I would love to watch that trial on TV, it might be better than the Michael Jackson trial.
Let’s hope it is public, maybe you will get to cover it for us.
Maureen-
Thanks for the Geragos info.
I wonder who went knocking on whose door??
P.S. Nice to see you back.
Maureen
Geragos is representing the victims ouch !!!
now I almost do feel sorry for the Zoo, he will crucify them.
Well I guess the Zoo asked for it by not following AZA reccomendations, most likely the SF Zoo will not only follow AZA reccomendations but go above and beyond them.
most likely atleast one of the boys taunted the Tiger but not necessarily all of the boys and the Zoo is liable for not following the AZA reccomendations and the Tiger being able to get out for any reason, therefor the Zoo will be sued for Millions, being sued will motivate this Zoo and all the other Zoo’s to put safety first and not cut corners.
I feel sorry for the Sousa’s and even the Tiger but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Zoo or the director who will most likely lose his job.
If the attack had happened inside the enclosure then I would feel differently about it and the Zoo would be off the hook but it happened outside the enclosure therefor the Zoo is liable and deserved to be sued.
As I said before our Zoo in Tulsa has 17 foot walls on our moat and several other barriers to keep the cats in, if our Zoo and many other’s can make the enclosure’s safe and follow AZA reccomendations then so can the SF Zoo.
They are not special. They will be under a microscope now though.
Mark it doesn’t trump the fact that the tiger should not have been allowed to escape to put the lives of everyone in the zoo into danger. The zoo should have had a higher wall so it couldn’t escape and security in place so visitors would not have to opportunity to aggravate a tiger to the point where the tiger even wants to escape and attack.
This is an article about mismanagemet at the SF zoo–
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12262007/news/nationalnews/maneater_kills_visitor_at_sf_zoo_907059.htm
Did everyone see that Geragos is representing the mauled brothers? Maybe someone posted this - can’t read all the posts-
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1
A story about mismanagement at the zoo-
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080101/NEWS03/801010324
Did everyone see that Geragos is representing the mauled brothers? Maybe someone posted this - can’t read all the posts-
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4072527&page=1
OK … now Headline News (they changed the channel here at work, sorry) is now parroting the NY Post report. Again, where are they getting their info?
All of you are missing the point. So what if the tiger’s muscles atrophy after time in captivity. So what if the wall was a mere 4 feet lower than it should have been. So what if the zoo **must have** an escape proof enclosure (if you could even build such thing). The ONE SINGLE FACT that trumps all of this is the fact that NEVER in the history of that zoo has a similar thing happened. Even viewing everything thing on side of the scum teenagers - the wall being to short and the zoo being allegedly negligent- nothing has happened in the history of the zoo.
This simple fact ALONE trumps all arguments about whether the zoo has responsiblity or not. The three “victims” did something to anger this cat above and beyond anything that the millions of people over the 70+ year history of the zoo didn’t. A zoo can’t be held liable when it has a sterling record before this incident (it’s called not have notice, constructive or otherwise). The only people who have any responsiblity here are the three teenagers.
One post asked how we could be so cold blooded. I retort that by not being so cold blooded we excuse inexcusable behavior and by doing so we, as a society implicitly accept that behavior. Once the inexcusable accepted, then that’s just one more thing not covered by personal responsiblity, one more thing that is “someone else’s fault” and one more thing to sue over to make millions.
Enough is enough, the kids deserve to take personal responsiblity for the actions they did that millions of others didn’t. And the parents of the teen who was killed are so blinded by the possible millions they can sue over that they’re playing it up to the media. I haven’t seen a performance so perfect since Bill Clinton convinced the country that oral sex isn’t cheating.
This entire situation is pathetic, the zoo should sue the idiots and claim the teens were contributorily negligent.
And, if the malls where I live are any indication, they are far more dangerous than zoos are.
-Mark
The fact that Souza was 17 (and not 19 like I thought) changes my opinion, but not by much, and only as it relates to him, not the other two.
Gads, some people need a reality check. The culprits were not a 5 year old but rather 17, 19 and 23. They are, and were, adults. Granted irresponsible and idiotic adults, but definitely adults and not children! All life is precious and it is sad when a loved one passes away regardless of how it happened. Any parent, spouse, sibling, or friend is saddened when we lose one we love. We ALL tend to revere the departed regardless of their faults and transgressions. I am 60 yeas old and have visited the San Francisco Zoo most of my life. As a child I had many birthday parties there, complete with pink popcorn and photos taken in the Lion House and in front of the big cat grottos. I chanted kitty, kitty and jumped up and down with delight as most children will. The big cats since 1940 have never climbed out and attacked. These twits taunted, and evidently tormented with sling-shots, pine cones and sticks this magnificent animal and did it to the point she was made angry and scared. Her adrenalin kicked in along with primal animal instinct and she managed to get out and eliminate to the best of her ability the predators threatening her. (She should not have been able to escape regardless of the situation and no one has said otherwise.) WE all have the fright/flight syndrome when adrenalin kicks in …this is how people lift cars and other heroic feats not normally possible. Yes, the zoo should be as safe as is humanly possible and there is some negligence on the part of the zoo and its management for not constantly reevaluating possible scenarios and the capabilities of the Siberian Tiger. This is not being denied or disputed and the problems will no doubt be rectified in the immediate future. What cannot be rectified is the loss of Carlos Souza (be he good, bad or otherwise, he is dead) and evidently the lack of intelligence, responsibility and proper up-bringing on the part of the two brothers who do not have the decency to own up to their wrong doing and hold a public press conference and answer truthfully all questions the police, zoo officials and Carlos’ parents have. These two should not receive any money period. It is their fault both Carlos and the Tiger are dead. The only innocent in this whole ugly incident is the Tiger. She was being the wild animal she was.
no problem
Comment by Russell
January 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
********
Thank you. I’ll check it out - it’s good you mentioned or I’d be checking for who knows how long.
Maureen,
I think the amazing video is the one of the firefighters …
Patty - good joke.
The NY Post isn’t always reliable - I’m waiting for Adam’s report. I think the shoe was found not the boy’s foot - we’ll see. If he lost his foot, that sure is punishment.
Adam promised us an amazing video - I keep checking back for it.
Forgive me Adam, but since the talk of Gov’t trickle came up the other day……this is perfect!
A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in California when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him.
The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?”
Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, Why not?”
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer,connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.
The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany.
Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.
Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page repo rt on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, “You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.”
“That’s right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,” says Bud.
He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then the Bud says to the young man, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?”
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, “Okay, why not?”
“You’re a Congressman for the U.S. Government”, says Bud.
“Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but how did you guess that?”
“No guessing required.” answered the cowboy. “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew,to a question I never asked. You tried to show me how much smarter th an me you are; and you don’t know a thing about cows…this is a
herd of sheep. . . .
Now give me back my dog!
What more can ya say??? he he he
3 guys that old at a zoo on Christmas! That’s strange in itself. They should have been with their
families. Tiger seemed to be taunted in some way.
BoB, how is it the NY Post could come up with something like that? I doubt they have someone in San Fran covering this story like Fox News does.
As Adam said, this is a puzzle missing several pieces. Unfortunately, all those pieces are in the hands of the SFPD and the survivors of the attack. Right now, those individuals are not showing any of the pieces to us, so we are left to create our own crude, ill-fitting pieces to complete this puzzle.
What these young men did is not acceptable, nor should it be tolerated. They felt the need to tease and somehow assisted in letting the tiger out of its enclosure. The tiger only did what is knew what to do, and she died doing that. These young men are STUPID, and one paid for his STUPIDITY with his life! LESSON here is zoos are designed to give us an INSIGHT to animals we do get an opportunity to see. We MUST have respect for these animals as they are WILD and kill other animals to survive everyday in the wild!!! We cannot design a world that is free of danger, and risk. THESE young men committed a VERY STUPID act and paid for it!!!! I feel most sorry for the animal that was killed needlessly.
The two survivors of the tiger attack aren’t talking about what happened yet because they were doing something horribly wrong when it happened. Now they’re trying to turn the situation around so they can profit from their bad behavior. Since they haven’t come up with a good enough lie to get a big settlement from the zoo yet, we have to read between the lines to figure out what happened. Since the older brother was attacked first, and since his foot was inside the enclosure when he was attacked, it’s likely he kicked the tiger. Carlos Sousa and the younger brother tried to help him, but when the tiger turned on Carlos, the two brothers ran off leaving Carlos to be killed. After killing Carlos, the tiger went after the remaining culprits because it was mad. If you tease an animal and kick it in the face, it WILL continue to chase you until it catches you. The zoo will be thoroughly investigated now, and deficiencies will be found. However, the same deficiencies that are found today