San Francisco - While some of you bitched and moaned about the hassles brought on by the holidays and all of the aggravating things it brings…travel, shopping, and of course, family. At least you didn’t get mauled to death by a tiger on Christmas.
While everyone has heard of this by now, I had not posted anything about it as it had not been deemed any type of crime. But things are a changin’ and I figured I would go ahead and get this up so it can be followed on the site. For those of you who only read this site and live under a rock, a tiger at the San Francisco zoo escaped its enclosure on Christmas and killed 17-year-old, Carlos Sousa Jr., and also mauled two brothers who survived their injuries.
The question is how in the hell did this tiger, named Tatiana, get out of its habitat. It has been reported that everyone is pretty confident that the tiger did not leave through any type of unlocked door, as it was not the only tiger in the enclosure. This leaves the only other option. The tiger crossed a 15-foot wide moat and scaled a 20-foot high fence. While this feat is not impossible, zoo officials are hinting at the possibility of the tiger having been provoked to do so. Carlos was found dead directly at the cage, while the two brothers were found at an open-air cafe about 1/8th of a mile away. Blood trails lead to the cafe as well, showing that one of the two men were at the cage at the time of the attack.
This is looking more and more like this animal was provoked by the three individuals, and that that two got their asses handed to them while the other paid for with his life. If investigators find that the men provoked the animal, and Carlos died because of it, can, or should, the two survivors be charged with his death?
11:57 am on December 27th, 2007
Of course, right after I get that posted, CNN has this little tid-bit of information:
A shoe and blood were found between the fence and the moat, the Chronicle reported, and a footprint has been found on a metal fence at the zoo. The investigation is looking into the possibility that the tiger escaped by latching on to a leg or other body part, the paper reported.
“Somebody created a situation that really agitated [the tiger] and and gave her some method to break her out,” zoo director Manuel Mollinedo told the Chronicle. “A couple of feet dangling over the edge could possibly have done it.”
12:15 pm on December 27th, 2007
Not enough excitement or death I guess – prevoking a tiger — SMART!
12:22 pm on December 27th, 2007
So these boys could of been fucking around with the tiger and pissed it off, tiger does his natural thing, and now a boy and tiger are dead. (if this is the case….poor fucking tiger)
12:51 pm on December 27th, 2007
“If investigators find that the men provoked the animal, and Carlos died because of it, can, or should, the two survivors be charged with his death?”
No way. There’s no intent, there. I would argue that there’s not even evidence of something like reckless endangerment. If you fire a gun into the air, it’s a reasonable assumption that someone could get hurt. If you remove the guards from a piece of machinery, it’s reasonable to believe someone could get hurt. Even if there’s no intent in those situations, someone could be found legally liable because a reasonable person would know better. This doesn’t apply to the mauling incident, in my opinion. One would have to prove that this tiger escaping was a reasonable conclusion. I’m sorry, but I don’t consider zoo enclosures to be *mostly* secure…They are built to prevent this very thing. In fact, unless it gets proven that the tiger was somehow helped out by being able to latch on to a leg or whatever, the families of these boys probably have a heafty civil claim against the zoo.
12:58 pm on December 27th, 2007
Wow, I knew something was weird about this. I can’t believe that even provoking a tiger could make it so mad that it would be able to complete that huge leap. It just seems impossible. But if it latched onto a leg or something, that makes more sense (i guess). We have two witnesses who are still alive, and they know what happened. If they get grilled hard enough, I bet they’ll break. I doubt that they are hardened criminals or anything, the cops should get something out of them sooner or later
1:00 pm on December 27th, 2007
My condolences to the family who lost a son, but I have to admit my heart is with Tatiana the Tiger on this one. She was probably provoked and following her natural animal instinct. Sadly she was born in capivity and died in capitivity. These wild animals have no business being locked up for our amusement…I hate zoos!
1:02 pm on December 27th, 2007
Another dumb a** becomes a candidate for The Darwin Awards.
1:04 pm on December 27th, 2007
I don’t know the laws regarding tigers or zoos, but in regards to dogs, if you are mauled to death or bitten by an animal that you intentionally provoked, you (or your family) will have no legal case at all.
If this tiger did not use any assistance to get over the wall, the family may have a case against the zoo, but if it is proven that they provoked the tiger, that would be a shame. But I think they will show these three guys were being stupid and the fact that there is a shoe and blood on the other side of the wall, the tiger used a body part to climb on.
But with the intent thing you brought up, Athena. If I rob a store with no weapon, and my accomplice gets his head blown off by the clerk, in some states I could be charged with is death. Is this not a similair scenario? Had the tiger used one of the men to climb out of the cage, then went and ate a nearby baby, would that baby’s family not have a case against the boy that dangled himself in the cage?
1:04 pm on December 27th, 2007
1:21 pm on December 27th, 2007
Hahaha, I found this on NIWRAD’s Darwin Award link. It had me cracking up:
“John, a Los Angeles real estate attorney, was skimming leaves from his pool when he noticed a palm frond caught in the power lines. His education had equipped him with sufficient acumen to become a successful litigator. Yet he was not shrewd enough to avoid becoming a toasty critter, when he reached up with the long metal pole and poked at the palm frond.
John was, for once, the path of least resistance.
Perhaps as an homage to his litigation skills, his family sued both the utility company and the pool supply store, for failure to disclose the danger of poking a metal rod into the power lines. “
1:28 pm on December 27th, 2007
Similar, but not the same. You see, when someone gets injured during the commission of a crime, they are responsible for their own injuries. Felony murder is used when a perpetrator unintentionally kills an innocent during the commission of a crime, but to my knowledge (which, admittedly, is not absolute), the perpetrator who survived would not be held liable for his accomplice’s death.
Potentially, but highly unlikely, in my opinion. I find a claim against the zoo to be much more likely, as the zoo failed to prevent the tiger’s escape, even in the event that another patron assisted the escape. While the boy’s actions were irresponsible, it’d be hard to make a case for criminal negligence, in my opinion. The tiger escaping would have to be a reasonable conclusion. If it WERE a reasonable conclusion, those boys wouldn’t have been doing that. I mean, how often do we hear of animals escaping their enclosures? Even Jack Hanna said the tiger leaping the moat and climbing the fence was “near impossible”.
Furthermore, this article suggests that the boy who died may have been equally responsible for provoking the tiger. It wouldn’t make sense to hold the survivors accountible for an action the victim himself was guilty of, which eventually led to his death.
1:38 pm on December 27th, 2007
It’s called the Provocative Act. A felon may be held responsible for the death of another at the hands of a third party, if the basis for the charge is not felony-murder, but instead is founded on what is sometimes termed the “provocative act” doctrine, which is simply a form of reckless homicide, e.g., a felon recklessly provokes a victim to shoot in self-defense, killing an innocent bystander.
But I just cannot see a lawsuit being filed against the zoo. They had more than reasonable safe gaurds in place. Had it not been for the recklessness and stupidity of the men, the tiger would not have escaped. It’s no different than had I went to the zoo and sawed through the gates and then sued the zoo because I got mauled by the tiger that got of the hole I created and they didn’t use bars that could not be sawed through.
1:53 pm on December 27th, 2007
I would have to see this being used to hold a defendant liable for the death of an accomplice rather than an innocent bystander, as this quote illustrates. I am under the impression that this particular doctrine is only applicable when an innocent is killed.
As for a suit against the zoo, it happened on their property. Often times, that’s all it takes for a successful suit, whether proper safeguards were established or not. Patrons provoking animals is a circumstance they should reasonably foresee and protect against. If the kid was inside the enclosure, the zoo should not be held liable. But if the kid wasn’t, I think they’ve got a claim.
1:55 pm on December 27th, 2007
Oh, and still…The Provokative Act only applies to felons. Provoking a zoo animal is reckless, certainly…maybe even a misdemeanor…but it’s definitely no felony act.
1:58 pm on December 27th, 2007
Ummm my opinion is this….if these dumb fucks provoked this tiger, then the zoo would be without blame. I am assuming, of course, that the zoo had all the proper safety measures in place.
) then this tiger would still be alive.
As far as the other two boys being charged….I would think they should be charged for animal harassment/abuse. If they would not of broken zoo rules and acted like fools (poet and I know it
Charging the other two boys for murder, I’m not down with, although it would seem they hold some of the blame due to their negligent behavior.
2:00 pm on December 27th, 2007
Yeah, I wasn’t implying they could use that in this case, I was just responding to your earlier statement.
2:06 pm on December 27th, 2007
Morbid – gotcha.
Hippie – Animal abuse? They may have acted irresponsibly, but they didn’t abuse this tiger. It appears the tiger abused them.
Again, I think it boils down to whether or not they can prove that one or more of these boys were in the enclosure. It is not reasonable to assume an animal can escape a zoo enclosure, even if you are actin’ a fool right outside of it.
2:20 pm on December 27th, 2007
Athena…if they taunted this animal and then the animal reacts and is murdered, then damn it seems a bit abusive to me. How do we know exactly what they were doing to this tiger to get it so pissed off?
I guess I was thinking this way…Let’s just say…..if I had a dog penned up and some asshole comes over poking sticks at it, or throwing shit at it, or attempting to make the animal become irate by screaming at it….whatever, and then my dog reacts to the abuse with anger and bites the fuck out of the asshole….my dog gets shot by the cops, then dammit I’d be pissed and I believe this asshole should be charged with animal abuse. My dog, being an innocent victim.
Hard to look at a tiger as an innocent victim, but again if those boys would have followed zoo rules this poor tiger would still be alive semi-enjoying life in a caged enclosure.
btw I hate zoos. I do understand the “need”, but I am a pussy, I cry when I go to the zoo with the kids.
2:29 pm on December 27th, 2007
Well, it depends on what those boys were doing. If they actually hit it with stuff, that qualifies as abuse, certainly. But simply taunting it? Eh…
As for zoos…Many aren’t so bad at all. They’re leading much easier lives than they would on the outside in expensive enclosures engineered to mimic their natural surroundings. Perhaps it’s not ideal, but then again, my dog might rather be running free somewhere, too.
6:27 pm on December 27th, 2007
Front page Yahoo! News –
SAN FRANCISCO – The director of the zoo where a teenager was killed by an escaped tiger acknowledged Thursday that the wall around the animal’s pen was just 12 1/2 feet high — well below the height recommended by the main accrediting agency for the nation’s zoos.
According to the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, the minimum recommended height for tiger exhibit walls is 16.4 feet.
The wiffs of a civil suit cooking up against the zoo are getting stronger as we speak.
6:44 pm on December 27th, 2007
More from that same article –
But at an afternoon news conference, Police Chief Heather Fong said police had no information that anyone had put a leg over the railing, and she said no shoe was found in the animal’s enclosure. She did not address whether the victims had teased the tiger.
Mollinedo said the wall was 12 feet, 5 inches high, and was built in 1940 as part of a Depression-era government work program. Other zoos have higher walls around their tiger exhibits.
The Philadelphia Zoo said it has 16-foot walls topped with a 3-foot overhang. At the Virginia Zoo in Norfolk, Va., the walls are 15 to 20 feet high with a 5-foot overhang and an electrified wire. At the Reid Park Zoo in Tucson, Ariz., the wire fence is about 17 feet.
6:44 pm on December 27th, 2007
Weird. Do you have to use separate tags for each paragraph? Hmph. I guess so.
7:20 pm on December 27th, 2007
Just my opinion….if the families of those boys sue the zoo for damages, the zoo should be able to sue them for the loss of the tiger. It sure looks like their stupidity cost the life of that beautiful animal! (I hate zoos, too)
7:29 pm on December 27th, 2007
Taunting an animal isn’t against the law. It’s not criminally negligent. Hell, it may not even be specifically stated as against the rules.
On the other hand, the zoo had a fence that was well under the recommended height. Even zoo officials didn’t know the height, initially! Zoo officials’ excuse is, “Well, the accrediting agency never told us our fence was too low…”
If I were a civil lawyer, I’d file suit against the zoo AND the accrediting agency.
It is the zoo’s responsibility to protect their patrons…Even those who are taunting morons. Unless the kids physically assisted the animal’s escape, they hold NO RESPONSIBILITY for what happened.
…and I hope you snively animal lovers complaining about zoos don’t own any pets. I’d be floored by the hypocrisy.
7:31 pm on December 27th, 2007
It is being reported that the wall has been in place since 1940 and passed inspection most recently three years ago by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
7:37 pm on December 27th, 2007
I was searching around and found this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG3CNB93Q1.DTL
This was not the first time Tatiana went after man-food. She attacked her keeper almost exactly one year ago. She might have been, as the people of India, that have to deal with wild tigers say, a man-eater. They say that once the tiger tastes human blood it becomes the meal of choice.
This pic: (http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/48/486/486978/tatiana858_1166886760.jpg) shows that she might have been in a fairly bad mood….
7:40 pm on December 27th, 2007
LOL Yes, Athena, I have pets. Four cats and a hamster. Difference is that my animals are domesticated – and very spoiled. No tiny cage for my hamster, either. He has the full run of a multi-level 155-gallon aquarium.
7:41 pm on December 27th, 2007
Indeed.
According to the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, the walls around a tiger exhibit should be at least 16.4 feet high. But Mollinedo said the nearly 70-year-old wall at the zoo’s big-cat enclosure was 12 feet, 5 inches, with a moat 33 feet across.
He said safety inspectors had examined the 1940 wall and never raised any red flags about its size.
“When the AZA came out and inspected our zoo three years ago, they never noted that as a deficiency,” he said. said. “Obviously now that something’s happened, we’re going to be revisiting the actual height.”
That’s why I said, if I were a civil attorney, I’d file a suit against BOTH organisations. It sounds like the AZA’s inspectors weren’t doing their jobs and, as for the zoo, ignorance is no excuse.
7:46 pm on December 27th, 2007
You think that’s a significant difference? Modern American zoos have ultra expensive, state-of-the-art, well-maintained (and realistic) environments for their animals, not to mention top-notch health care.
The fact that your animals’ spirits have been broken (i.e. domestication) does not make their captivity in your household more or less just. An animal in captivity is an animal in captivity is an animal in captivity. If quality of care is the determining factor, you really have little reason to feel badly for those in the zoo.
7:53 pm on December 27th, 2007
Now Athena, I too have two cats and a dog. These are domesticated animals. My cats roam my two story farm house. My dog gets the house and the 2-3 acres of running space. I do feel that’s a little different, than a huge tiger, elephant, bear etc taken out of their natural habitats and brought into captivity. I would not have caught a wild cat or dog and decided to pen them up.
8:04 pm on December 27th, 2007
OOOoo I wanted to comment on this. I’ve been to a few zoos. St. Louis Mo, Kansas City Mo, Pittsburgh Pa, Racine Wi… to name a few. Quite a few enclosures are still concrete. Bears, especially make me sad. Their environments are nothing like what they experienced in the wild.
Zoos are important for research, for breeding etc… but I will still always cry when I see the damn bears. There are some environments that cannot be duplicated.
8:13 pm on December 27th, 2007
Hmph. Well, I suppose the zoos I frequent are simply superior.
We’ve got two in the Seattle area, and I marvel at the expense these establishments have gone to to recreate habitat, especially the bears:
http://www.zoo.org/bearcam/cam.html
9:23 pm on December 27th, 2007
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/taunt
taunt 1 (tônt)
tr.v. taunt·ed, taunt·ing, taunts
1. To reproach in a mocking, insulting, or contemptuous manner. See Synonyms at ridicule.
2. To drive or incite (a person) by taunting.
n.
A scornful remark or tirade; a jeer.
“Taunting” may not be the most accurate word when speaking of animals because it seems primarily to have to involve words. But definition #2 is accurate, driving or inciting the tiger by teasing gestures, sticks, thrown rocks, or whatever. It is illegal to abuse animals in this way.
It will be interesting to see what the surviving attack victims have to say. I read somewhere that there was a blood trail from the fence to the 2nd and 3rd victims, which suggested that they had been at the fence when the attack took place. But who knows if it is true?
9:38 pm on December 27th, 2007
HOLY CRAP in regards to that article Athena!!!! What the hell???? The walls were WAY below standard height, and they saw no issue with that? and now the cop is saying there WAS no shoe found??? This story is doing a complete 180 here. It’s starting to look to me like these boys may not have been at fault.
10:14 pm on December 27th, 2007
They have also stated that the boys have not been exactly forthcoming with what happened. Here are a few facts about the enclosure as well as a picture of the moat.
11:17 pm on December 27th, 2007
this tiger was only 4 years old and an endangered animal. I am sorry, but if those kids were provoking the animal what did they expect to happen? On the other hand, how long would it take for the kid to climb to the top of the fence and dangle his leg into the enclosure? Was there no zoo employees in the area at the time, are there no CCTV’s, who was responsible for that area of the zoo?
Also for the legal case issues……a long time ago my grandfather went into a store and left his dog in the car with the window rolled down. When he came back to the car the dog was holding a man’s hand in his mouth INSIDE the car. The man had obviously put his hand in the car and the dog was protecting the car. But the dog still got in trouble for “biting” the man and had to be quarantined for two weeks as punishment. Also, there was that case of a robber that fell through the roof of the house he was robbing and won a civil suit against the homeowner. The reasonable assumption being the roof should have been safe to walk on. I always thought that was an urban legend but in a recent legal course i took the case was actually brought up.
7:13 pm on December 28th, 2007
For those of you so quick to jump to the defense of the zoo and the animal –
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071228/ap_on_re_us/tiger_escapes
SAN FRANCISCO – The deadly tiger escape at the San Francisco Zoo could prove to be a costly blow to an institution that has come under fire repeatedly in just the past few years over the deaths of two elephants and the mauling of a zookeeper.
The zoo could face heavy fines from regulators. It could be stripped of its exhibitor license. Its accreditation could be at risk. It could be hit with a huge lawsuit by the victims or their families. It could even face criminal charges, depending on what the investigation finds.
~ snip ~
Legal experts said lawsuits are also likely. Already, the zoo is facing a lawsuit by zookeeper Lori Komejan, who was attacked last year when she fed the same tiger involved in the deadly escape. The animal mauled her arm.
In October, Komejan sued the city of San Francisco, seeking compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress. She accused the city, which owns the zoo property, of “housing the tigers with reckless disregard for the safety of animal handlers and members of the general public.”
………….
This zoo may be shut down as a result of this attack. Apparently, the tragedy continues.
7:27 pm on December 28th, 2007
“A tiger in the picture automatically makes it Fine Art”.
–Hobbes
12:02 am on December 29th, 2007
http://www.ktvu.com/news/14940180/detail.html
Worth reading if the link works — hope so. I don’t have a lot of luck with that sort of stuff.
Says the 16.5 foot height specification for the wall was just a guideline, which explains why the moat passed inspection three years ago. It’s been in place since the 1940s and this can’t have been the first tiger that thought about jumping out, just the first one that had enough reason to succeed.
Tatiana’s other attack, the one on the guard in 2006 or 2005, was at Christmastime, so maybe she just doesn’t like the holidays. To be serious, I wonder if there are heavier numbers of visitors at that time, which might be disturbing to the animals. In another article, however, someone said Tatiana was “mellow” and well integrated into the exhibit, and didn’t spend her time in the moat at all. So back to the idea that something unusual happened to get her angry enough to attack.
According to the article, “Authorities say Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, initially refused to give their own names or identify Carlos Sousa Jr. as the other attack victim. They also would not give an account of what had happened at the zoo to police.”
Too bad it doesn’t say who “authorities” are.
I am very curious to see what the police investigation decides — and why the victims are silent about events — shock, perhaps?
12:15 am on December 29th, 2007
It really isn’t a stretch for my imagination to see these three guys doing something Jackass stupid. The place was closed, there wasn’t anyone around aside from them. They just did something stupid.
Reminds me of when we would fuck with these two German Shepards in a yard we used to cross through to get to 7-11. We would taunt them, because they were chained to their doghouses. Even thought they were securely fastened, it was still a little scary, but we were dumb kids getting a shitty thrill. Until one day we all shit our pants. The bigger of the two dogs? Well, his chain snapped. While he wasn’t a friggin’ tiger, I could just imagine that the same thing that went through those boys minds was the exact same thing that went through ours. It was something like “OH SHIT!”
12:27 am on December 29th, 2007
I’ve seen what kind of damage my housecat can do to my skin when he’s just playing rough. I can’t imagine the harm a tiger could inflict.
12:23 pm on December 29th, 2007
Definitely. I think these guys fucked around with the this tiger and caused the upset. In all these years, not one tiger ever tried to jump the damn wall. There is foul play here, for sure.
3:04 pm on December 31st, 2007
Ok, NOW Im changing my mind again. These kids are definitely hiding something. I’d like to see them put up to a lie detector test.
3:10 pm on December 31st, 2007
I have a strong feeling here that these idiots were up to something.
3:14 pm on December 31st, 2007
Check this paragraph out from the article Athena linked. I guess it is possible that the two might be charged for Sousa’s death after all….
3:26 pm on December 31st, 2007
Does anyone know if these kids were under the influence of alcohol the day this incident occurred? Could explain some shit if they were all drunk. Drunken Tiger Taunters…..Hee Hee Nice title there, whatcha think Morbid?
5:29 pm on December 31st, 2007
I think it’s a load of crap, unless they physically assisted the tiger’s escape.
7:17 pm on December 31st, 2007
I read that the survivors refused to give their names or to identify the dead kid at the zoo when they were rescued. That’s very strange. I am curious to see what happens with this one.
7:29 pm on December 31st, 2007
I also read that Carlos Sousa’s dad was wondering were his son was on Christmas so he called one of the brothers. At the time of the call the kids were either at the zoo or on the way to the zoo. Which ever brother answered told Mr. Sousa that he did not know where Carlos but Carlos must have been with them at that time.
7:32 pm on December 31st, 2007
First time posting here…coming out of the shadows. Don’t know if anyone else noticed but there may be an explanation for thier dumb-ass behavior (not excusing it though). Carlos Sousa’s myspace listed his mood 12/25/07 as “high”. Not surprised. Poor tiger.
Think you got something worth saying? Type it out. If you don't wanna look lame, get rid of that default avatar and go get you a gravatar! Tell 'em Morbid sent ya'. Lastly, as far as we are concerned, posting a comment means that you have read our Disclaimer.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search Dreamin’ Demon
Login
The Dreamin Demon Wants You
Check ‘Em Out!
Recent Comments
Recent Media Reviews
Twitter
Your Ad Here
Facebook Crap
Drink The Kool-Aid
Archives
Kickass Sites
Copyright © 2009 · Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License · DreaminDemon Blood Red theme by Lee Malta.
Get a Blog · WordPress · Log in