Tiger gets revenge!

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:49 pm

It looks like those three guys that were mauled (one killed) by the tiger at the San Francisco Zoo may have been drunk and using sling shots to torment the tigers in the exhibit. http://www.nypost.com/seven/12312007/ne ... 469573.htm

Although the enclosure was not up to national zoo standards for a safe wall height, it was still 12.5 feet high and that tiger must have been one PISSED OFF kitty to make the leap. One reason just might be that maybe she was being SHOT at by three brainless drunken idiots. Wouldn't you be ticked off if you were in the tiger's place?

Not only that, the tiger managed to zero in, chase down and injure two and kill one of her three tormentors. Fortunately for the other zoo visitors, no one else was hurt. Unfortunately, the police had to shoot and kill the tiger. What a shame.

Originally, I felt sympathy for the three guys, but now I'm not so sure anymore. If the evidence comes out that they were taunting the tiger with sling shots, I've come to the conclusion that they may gotten what they deserved, as cold as that sounds.

Where do your sympathies lie? With the tiger or the three men.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:54 pm

If what the reports say is true, then all of my sympathy goes to the Tiger.

Bee

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:12 pm

I saw the story this morning.

On one hand, it was clearly wrong of the men to taunt the tiger (if in fact that's what they did; at this point it's allegation).

On the other, zoo-goers should have a reasonable expectation that the tiger can't get out, so the barriers clearly weren't adequate. (Heck, my housecat can jump nearly eight feet.)

So, my sympathies lie with both the victim and the tiger (probably more with the tiger). But I'd say the fault lies with both the victim and the zoo.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:25 pm

IF they did taunt the tiger, I have no sympathies for it defending itself. Sadly, the tiger is no longer alive because of these morons.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 5:48 pm

Poor tiger. ★■◆● humans.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:09 pm

This story reminded me of an old movie, 1950's vintage, I once saw but can't remember the name.

There was a lion in a small circus cage and a teenage male was poking it with a stick. Finally the lion had had enough. He reached out through the bars very quickly and snagged the guy with his claws (he wasn't quite far enough away). He was rescued only after the lion was shot. I felt sorry for the lion.

To the present. What impresses me about the tiger is that she targeted ONLY the three men initially, like she KNEW who the tormentors were by sight or smell, no was else was sought out or hurt at first. She had plenty of time to roam around and attack others. Of course, once she was cornered by the police, she went into fight or flight mode and had to be shot to prevent another attack.

Apparently, 12.5 feet was considered at one time (16 or 18 feet now) to be sufficient to keep a big cat from leaping out of an enclosure. They thought that a big, lazy, out of shape cat couldn't jump up that far. I guess not when it's been taunted and is PISSED OFF!

Want to bet that zoos will install security cams in the future?

Behemoth · Post by **Behemoth** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:36 pm

Eat the cat.

mistercool2 · Post by **mistercool2** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:51 pm

To me, any loss of life is sad, no matter who is responsible.
Unfortunately, dead or alive, we'll never know the tiger's side of the story.

d3jake · Post by **d3jake** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:07 pm

Its a shame that the tiger had to die, and that the guy had to die, if I had a choice I woulda had that guy hospitalized with his buddies for a long time, that way he'd have to live with the rest of his life remembering what getting drunk and going to a zoo can get you.
And as cold as this may sound, if you didn't believe in Darwinism before, the dumb ones die, and this is what happened.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:12 pm

Shoot the other 2 pricks, and call it even.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:19 pm

Spidey wrote:Shoot the other 2 pricks, and call it even.

+1

FormerlySV · Post by **FormerlySV** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:51 pm

I love tigers. Such impressive animals. My favorite exhibits at the Phoenix Zoo were the tigers. One of the species was severely endangered. No surprise that it was the most impressive of the exhibits which was endangered.

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:38 pm

Tigers should not be in cages in the first place.

grizz · Post by **grizz** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:56 pm

We have a tiger in our local zoo, and someone told me once that he really didn't like people wearing baseball caps.
So I wore a baseball cap next time I went.
That tiger went ballistic, scared me out of several years growth, that cap came came off fast, and I never wore one there again.
The fence probably wasn't any higher than the one in this article, and it occured to me at the time that the cat could probably clear it if it got ticked enough.
Tigers are really cool animals, but really powerful.

grizz · Post by **grizz** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:58 pm

FormerlySV wrote:I love tigers. Such impressive animals. My favorite exhibits at the Phoenix Zoo were the tigers. One of the species was severely endangered. No surprise that it was the most impressive of the exhibits which was endangered.

I used to go to the Phoenix zoo a lot when I lived there. Prescott now. You still there?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:33 pm

I agree that the tiger, once on the loose and pissed off had to be killed. I have no sympathy for the three jerks that she killed and mauled. (That is of course given that the report of drunken taunting is accurate)

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 pm

Siberian Tigers are SO CUTE!

FormerlySV · Post by **FormerlySV** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:02 am

I used to go to the Phoenix zoo a lot when I lived there. Prescott now. You still there?

Unfortunately not. I don't live in Phoenix. I was on vacation a couple months back and went there. Not quite the San Diego zoo, but a wonderful zoo none the less.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:58 pm

They got what was coming to them.

The gene pool could use some chlorine.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:21 pm

\"The gene pool is stagnant, and I am the minister of chlorine!\" - I don't remember...

WillyP · Post by **WillyP** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:29 pm

Darwin Awards...

But then again there is more info.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:15 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:I agree that the tiger, once on the loose and pissed off had to be killed. I have no sympathy for the three jerks that she killed and mauled. (That is of course given that the report of drunken taunting is accurate)

This is why they have tranq guns. Hell, even the zoo here in Memphis has one nearby in the event of an animal getting out. (although that is extremely unlikely given that there is a huge trench between the electrified fence and them.)

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:03 pm

Although it is true you could trank the tiger I'm sure that no keeper would want to be anywhere near a tiger that had found out how easy people are to kill. She would likely have been put down anyway.

grizz · Post by **grizz** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:17 pm

A few years back they had a guy in South Africa who robbed a guard at the zoo, took off running to get away and hopped a fence....... right into the tiger enclosure.
He was dead before he hit the ground.

Sirius · Post by **Sirius** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:04 pm

Um... from memory the cops shot the tiger when it started attacking one of the wounded guys again. They weren't really in a place they could do anything else. I doubt they had time to get tranquillisers or anything like that.

It is a bit of a waste, yeah... but what can you do. The police had no knowledge that it was retaliation and not just a bloodthirsty tiger on a rampage at that point anyway. Regardless, I suspect they would have had the tiger put down if they recovered it alive anyway... usually happens with animals that kill/maim people. Dangerous dogs are usually the culprits, though.

FormerlySV · Post by **FormerlySV** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:46 am

Disgustingly insoluble moral questions are lurking in the woods. Release the tigers.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:16 am

Heh. Sounds like an entry in my diary.

Yes, on average I die 17 times a day.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:33 pm

Check this out. Apparently a lot of people feel sorry for the tiger, enough to create a memorial to her. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl ... ors-1.html

The two surviving victims and their families (especially the family of the one that was killed) are thinking of bringing a lawsuit against the San Francisco Zoo. I wonder whether they would get a jury sympathetic to the tiger or to the humans, even though the zoo is at fault for the low height of the wall in the tiger enclosure.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:15 pm

tigers are cool, there's this NewZealand show our family watches called Lion Man, it's just a guy who breeds lions as a business. He gets on with his lions and tigers so well, it's really cute and interesting to see how he and others handle the animals, even play with them. (they takes them for walks etc). this guy
It's not a zoo afaik, which makes it especially interesting.

grizz wrote:He was dead before he hit the ground.

come on, you know that's bull ★■◆●

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:23 pm

Unfortunately the nature of the law is such that even if you act like an idiot you are supposed to be protected from preventable danger. The zoo will get sued by some junk yard dog of an ambulance chasing lawyer on commission and they will have to pay. Sadder than what happened to the tiger really.

Spaceboy · Post by **Spaceboy** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:12 am

The three guys were absolute dipshits, however I think a human life > a tiger's life.

They were asking for it though.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:39 am

I say sue the 2 injured guys for the value of the tiger.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:02 pm

The guys were stupid to do what they did to the tiger. I have some sympathy for them, but not as much as I'd have for somebody who got mauled at random.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:32 pm

If you play with fire, don't cry when you get burned.

mistercool2 · Post by **mistercool2** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:32 am

U.S. News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and “The truth shall set you free.”

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:51 pm

THE ARTICLE mistercool2 QUOTED wrote:All three also had marijuana in their systems

A pet peave of mine.
Just something i'd like to point out: Marijuana urine test methods generally test for THC metabolites, which are innert compounds that stay in your system for UP TO A MONTH after Marijuana use. They do not test for "Marijuana in your system".

When you hear on the news about someone who had Marijuana in their system - it means they had smoked Marijuana UPTO A MONTH BEFOREHAND. It does NOT mean they are intoxicated at the time of testing.
With some workplaces doing random drug testing, many people loose their jobs because they pulled a bong weeks ago. Unfortunately most ppl who hear about it on the news do not realise there is no way of testing for active THC in the blood - unlike alcohol, there is no way of testing if you are currently innebriated with Marijuana - only if you were innebriated at least once sometime in the last month.

Although i hear newer Saliva tests have better short-term results, they are still shockingly inaccurate. But you won't hear much about it because there is big bucks in selling them to law encorcement etc (shh! shh!).

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:15 am

Uhm, in this case it's pretty obvious:

THE ARTICLE mistercool2 QUOTED wrote:Kulbir Dhaliwal told police that the three had smoked pot[..]

Police found a small amount of marijuana in Kulbir Dhaliwal's 2002 BMW, which the victims rode to the zoo,[..]

Here's some background to your claims BTW.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 2:54 am

godamn i fergot to add that disclaimer

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:24 am

Tiger 3/ humans 1
I wonder who in fact is the loser here.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:52 pm

The tiger's vindicated, but she lost in the end.

Tiger gets revenge!

Tiger gets revenge!

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: