Tiger attack: Victim's brother doesn't believe he would taunt beast

[Hell Hath No Fury]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Tiger attack: Victim's brother doesn't believe he would taunt beast
John Coté, Jaxon Van Derbeken,Leslie Fulbright, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, December 28, 2007

When Carlos Sousa Jr. didn't show up for Christmas dinner, his father called several of his son's friends - including the two brothers injured in the tiger attack that killed the teen.

Either Amritpal "Paul" Dhaliwal, 19, or his 23-year-old brother Kulbir Dhaliwal answered the phone and told Sousa Sr. that his son wasn't with them. In reality, the three young men were either on their way to or had already arrived at the San Francisco Zoo, where they would later be mauled by a 350-pound Siberian tiger.

...snip

"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.

...snip


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/28/MN7RU5I8P.DTL&tsp=1

---

From the brothers actions, it is becoming clear that something -- most likely of their own doing -- happened that they do not want to take responsibility for.

[TwilightGardener]

1. They did something they shouldn't have--I figured something was up

when authorities were still speculating about what happened two days after the event. These two guys were apparently conscious, and could have given an immediate account of what happened.

[struggle4progress]

117. Zoo officials initially thought a San Jose man was "making something up"

when he told them a tiger was on the loose and had bitten him, according to a transcript of police dispatches released Friday afternoon ...

Police dispatches reveal details of chaos after tiger attack
DISPATCHES RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT ZOO PREPAREDNESS
By Kim Vo and Mike Swift
Mercury News
Article Launched: 12/29/2007 01:42:21 AM PST
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7836397?nclick_check=1

[struggle4progress]

118. Tiger man 'tried to save friend'

... It looks like Carlos Sousa, 17, distracted the escaped tiger Tatiana as it was clawing his friend Kulbir Dhaliwal in an American zoo. The 136kg Siberian tiger then attacked and killed Mr Sousa, allowing Mr Dhaliwal and his brother to get away. Police are still investigating just how the tiger escaped from her enclosure as the zoo closed for the evening. The San Francisco Zoo has admitted that the wall around Tatiana's enclosure was too low ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7160000/newsid_7164100/7164122.stm


Tiger attack boy died helping mate
... "He didn't run. He tried to help his friend, and it was him who ended up getting it the worst," the teen's father, Carlos Sousa Sr, said yesterday after meeting with police. The heroic portrait of the boy during the dramatic Christmas Day attack emerged as officials revealed the tiger's escape from its enclosure might have been aided by walls being below the height recommended by the accrediting agency for the nation's zoos. San Francisco Zoo director Manuel A. Mollinedo acknowledged the wall around the animal's pen was 3.8m high, after previously saying it was 5.5m. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the walls around the exhibit should be at least 5m ... http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22985246-663,00.html

[silverojo]

2. It's clear they have something to hide

Any innocent person would fully cooperate with the police in an incident like this.

[BushOut06]

3. Seems like I've heard that line before

"If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind if we search your car, will you?"

Do you believe that innocent people should always cooperate with police?

[TwilightGardener]

4. Sorry, I don't think this is a "police are oppressive Nazis" type of incident.

One man is dead, a beautiful tiger is dead, and for the public's safety, there needs to be cooperation in this matter.

[EFerrari]

5. There is potentially a fortune in damages here. They have been

lawyered.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Oh, I'm sure. Too bad there aren't other witnesses to what happened--

I don't know how honest or credible these guys are going to be on the stand, and for zoos across America, the true story is potentially important information.

[EFerrari]

7. The San Francisco Zoo has a bad rep already. And, I'm sure

they will try to smear these kids. No matter what they did, short of climbing into the enclosure, that tiger wasn't secured. God, it could have been me and my nieces. I take them there all the time.

[JeanGrey]

19. I think they DID climb in or partly. Look at this stupid woman

and how close she got to the Polar Bear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvooqbW9dz4

Also, if they weren't in there at some point or some body part how did the shoe end up in the enclosure?

[EFerrari]

22. It could have been thrown there. But, you are right.

People can be really stupid around animals. They don't have the sense to leash their dogs. They don't have the sense to be around 300 lb tigers.

/oops

[JeanGrey]

29. Yes. And once again we learn the lesson over. Also it is not

wise to piss off a wild animal because they might get mad, and while young kids might think it's punk and tough it might end up costing you big time.

[atre]

49. The shoe was not in the enclosure!!!!!!

It really is amazing how the zoo's dishonest P.R. campaign has been so effective!

[maxsolomon]

103. the shoe was between the enclosure & the fence.

pine cones & sticks were in the moat.

[BushOut06]

8. It's being treated as a crime scene

It wouldn't be the first time that police took circumstantial evidence, and tried to build a case around it - whether the person was innocent or not.

[TwilightGardener]

12. Because they have to preserve and gather evidence--they can't decide

there was no wrongdoing on a whim. For all they know, it could have been a keeper responsible for the tiger's escape.

[BushOut06]

13. Yes, but you should always be very careful when talking to police

Anything you say or do can be used against you. Even if you're innocent, you might say something that doesn't quite jive, or perhaps you might remember something differently than how it actually happened. It's not uncommon for people to have memories that aren't quite accurate. All it would take is for a few mistakes or slip-ups, and then you're in real trouble.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Tell the truth as you remember it--what the hell is so complicated about that?

Being uncooperative or non-forthcoming looks much worse than being inconsistent--I'm sure the police realize these guys are injured and traumatized, and possibly on pain meds. Sorry, in my world, the police aren't "out to get me".

[EFerrari]

27. Well, that's why by law, the police have to read you your Miranda rights

when they arrest you, isn't it? Because just "telling the truth as you remember it" hasn't stopped people from having their rights trampled.

[TwilightGardener]

33. I know everyone wants to make a big issue out of anything related

to police work on DU (look at the endless "Taser" threads), but I just don't see any kind of police malfeasance here. I see a few young guys who may have done something stupid, and don't want to admit it--if they were forthcoming and honest, they could really, really help the zoo and the public.

[EFerrari]

38. Do you really think that after nearly being tiger dinner

these kids's first priority should be HELPING THE PUBLIC?

Do you have kids? Those guys are likely still in shock right now.

[TwilightGardener]

40. These aren't "kids"--they're over 18. Please. They're not clamming up

out of "shock". And when something terrible happens to me, I want to talk about it, and so do most people--watch any account of a disaster, and the "walking wounded" are usually pretty able and willing to tell what happened. I'm not buying it.

[EFerrari]

44. The level of empathy at DU is pretty underwhelming sometimes.

[atre]

46. Turn the 17 year old hispanic kid into a 6 year old blonde-haired, white girl

and you probably see a different level of compassion for the victim of the tiger attack. Sad, but true. Even for the enlightened among us, we are still victim to our own cultural biases.

[EFerrari]

55. No kidding. The last time I had a near brush with death via a 300 lb

mammal, the last people I wanted to see were police.

[EFerrari]

63. It's true: I just talked to my grocer and yesterday a customer

treated him to a long rant about "macho Mexicans" taunting the tiger.

[BuelahWitch]

120. A 17 year old has much better ability to judge danger than a 6 year old

Had it been a 17 year old blonde white girl it would bave been equally as stupid for her to taunt a tiger. Your strawman arguments and bleatings of "racist" don't qualify here.

[TwilightGardener]

54. My empathy dissipated somewhat when they wouldn't even identify their dead friend.

[EFerrari]

57. Really. How COULD those two kids not want to identify their dead friend?

What the FUCK is the matter with them?

They MUST be hiding SOMETHING!

[TwilightGardener]

58. I'm sorry, but that's baffling to me. All they had to do was say his name.

[EFerrari]

66. Have you ever been in such grave danger that you went into shock?

I have. It took me days to recover and I'm generally good in emergencies. Even if I had complied, no one should have taken anything I said or did seriously because of the state I was in.

Your brain shuts down to protect you.

[TwilightGardener]

71. Is there any evidence that they were IN such a state? Sounds like

they were lucid enough to clam up in front of the police, to me.

[EFerrari]

74. You are kidding, right?

They thought they were going to die. What more evidence do you need?

So, has your life ever been in mortal danger? It sure doesn't like it. I hope if that ever happens to you, you are surrounded by people who understand what you're going through.

[TwilightGardener]

79. To say that they were too traumatized to even give police basic

identity information--without any evidence other than they were injured--is essentially making up a story to support them. That's what you're doing--you're speculating and creating a fantasy scenario. You've obviously decided that no matter what, these are just poor innocent "kids" and nothing the police say will dissuade you--no way could they have POSSIBLY acted wrong in any aspect of this event. Well, that's your decision. Some people will always automatically dismiss police versions of events, out of deep suspicion. I don't think that's a healthy mindset, but, whatever.

[EFerrari]

82. I think that denying the physical consequences of shock

is ridiculous. It's not taking all the information you have into account. Let's see you get mauled by a tiger, lol, and then perform to the really silly standard you are holding up for these kids.

And they are kids. At their age, they haven't even stopped growing yet.

And, you still haven't answered my question, have you?

[TwilightGardener]

87. I was married at 22 and had my first child when I was 24. "Kids"--at 23? Give me a break.

Have I ever been in mortal danger? If you count a car accident, yes. I wasn't injured, but it was a near miss. Had no problem talking to anybody about it immediately afterward. How many people are stunned "mute" by bad events? Maybe little kids, but--adults? You watch too many soap operas.

[EFerrari]

89. I've never watched a soap in my life, thanks!

Another silly "conclusion".

Breaking news: some peoople ARE still kids at twenty three. Just because I had both my own kids by then doesn't mean -- wait for it --

OTHER PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT THAN ME! :wow:

[TwilightGardener]

91. Sorry, 23-year-olds are NOT kids, unless they're developmentally-delayed.

Not by any stretch, in any court of law, would a 23-year-old be considered a child.

[EFerrari]

94. That's just silly.

Tell you what. I hope they fry for this.

Does that make you feel better?

[TwilightGardener]

95. Huh? Why do you have to go over the edge of reason--did your valid arguments

run dry? Here's what I want--I want a factual account of what happened, so that the public, the zoos, law enforcement, and potentially the civil or criminal court can truly understand what happened here. I don't care if they are exonerated or held liable--makes absolutely no difference to me. I'm not rooting for any side, just wondering why they have not been forthcoming.

[EFerrari]

96. Your question has been answered ad nauseum.

I'm going to spare DU yet another reiteration.

Nothing will satisfy you because you want to blame the victims. I'm just saving you time and energy.

[TwilightGardener]

97. LOL! It's more like, you've decided they should be exonerated, but whatever--

no sense beating this dead horse.

[EFerrari]

99. Exonerated from what? They didn't build the enclosure.

Geezus. Do you fully understand that if that tiger attacked them, she could also have attacked me and my kids?

Or, would these three kids also be responsible for that?

Do you fully understand that it's the zoo's responsibility to keep that cat AND all visitors' SAFE?

No -- let's focus on misbehavior on the part of these three kids that no one can prove.

Well done.

[Thor_MN]

124. I watched a grown woman with her children in the car reduced to sobbing tears

When my vehicle skidded on ice at a stop sign and tapped their rear bumper. The amount of force involved was less that what you routinely receive at an amusement park. I was probably at less than 1 mph when that damn skid (took forever to stop) ended. Her husband, who was driving, got out, we looked at both vehicles and decided that there was no damage at all.

I've been on the other end of the same collision when a car of college aged students skidded into me. (Yes, it snows here in Minnesota...) They were quite concerned and worried, but after a quick look at the bumpers, I told them no big deal. No harm, no foul.

Back to the adult woman, she was a mess, sobbing in the front seat, her children were calm, looking at her and I'm guessing wondering what the heck was wrong with Mom? I tried to tell her I was sorry, but I honestly do not believe she was even capable of knowing that I was talking to her.

Point is, some people do not handle even the smallest amounts of stress well. Neither of you can know what happened at the zoo, but to say that only in soap operas do adults get traumatized by being mauled by a 200+ lb tiger - that is absolutely ridiculous.

[kskiska]

100. DELETE

[Xenotime]

104. THey didn't read the miranda rights to the tiger, did they?

[BushOut06]

62. Sure...and nothing ever gets twisted around, does it?

Let's say the kids are being questioned about what they were doing, and they say one thing. Then the next day, they're being questioned again, and they say something else. It could be an innocent mistake on their part, but the police could see that as an inconsistency, and start treating them as a suspect.

But then again, I'm sure nothing like that ever happens, does it? :sarcasm:

[mbperrin]

65. So why did they lie to the elder Sousa about their son

being with them? One said he wasn't, when he clearly was. This is pre-attack, and the victim's own father asking, so no fear of police and no trauma yet. So where's the innocent mistake there?

But there just are not crummy people in the world up to no good all the time, are there?

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

68. By the same logic, 9 out of 10 teenagers are crummy people.

Or maybe, just the non white, non blonde ones.

:sarcasm:

[TwilightGardener]

73. Please. No evidence that this is a racial issue.

[EFerrari]

76. You're kidding again, right? Had it been three blond girls

they would be hailed as heroes right about now.

[TwilightGardener]

81. Is there any evidence of police mishandling this investigation out of racial

motivations? See, I like things like "evidence", and "fact"--not theories and conclusion-jumping.

[EFerrari]

85. You are jumping to a conclusion. I never said the police were

mishandling it because of race.

I have many cop friends here in the city. Most of them don't think that way.

But, there are plenty of people in our hate saturated culture that do. As in my #63 above. Some dumbass woman told my friend that she could just "see" these "macho Mexicans" taunting that cat.

That the kids weren't Mexican didn't bother her a bit. They were brown. That was good enough for her.

So, spare me your lecture on jumping to conclusions, because that's what YOU just did.

[TwilightGardener]

88. The police investigation IS what we're talking about here--

not public reaction--so, no, I'm not the one bringing race into this.

[EFerrari]

90. There go the goal posts.

lol

[TwilightGardener]

92. What?

[mbperrin]

83. OK, 19 is barely a teen and 23 is a full emancipated adult.

19 can smoke, join the armed forces, get married, sign legal and binding contracts, and so on. 23 is free as a breeze. So why did these young adults lie to the dad of the 17 year old they're running around with? He's the only minor in the group, and he died.

Nice strawman on the 9 out of 10 lying, though. I teach high schoolers, have now for going on two decades, and 9 out of 10 will be painfully truthful with you. Oh, this is an urban high school with my classes at 87% Hispanic heritage and more than 65% qualifying for free and reduced lunch. I live in the neighborhood.

Now. Who lies? Oh, crummy people like my little brother, in and out of jail 11 times in the last 30 years, arrested more than 200 times in the same period, thief, crook, con man, heroin addict. If he tells you that you have five fingers on a hand, better check.

Older types generally want younger types to run around with them because everyone else their age is on to them.

[EFerrari]

86. Strawman, my remote. Your students never fib about their homework

or their study habits or about their attendance.

Sure. And, I'm the Queen of England. Btw, 9 of 10 kids aren't your brother.

[mbperrin]

110. Don't teach, do you?

It's a rare kid who lies about homework or attendance. They don't have to. They're busy. Usually they didn't have time to do it or come to class when they do miss. Most work, many until midnight, and I see them there, at restaurants and Walgreens and Albertsons and other places as well. I live in the neighborhood, remember? They sign in for attendance, and so that's just there. I sign court-ordered attendance chits for a couple dozen a year, fill out probation reports for a half dozen or so every year, take another dozen or so to the Communities in Schools liaison to get clothing, household items, and food when they are kicked out of the house and verified by CPS, but 18 or over and no case against the parents.

I told you they were painfully honest, didn't I? They share details and paper of their lives with a total stranger and trust that I will do the right thing.

Thanks for getting the point - 9 out of 10 are NOT my brother, and these guys smell like the 1 in 10 that ARE - won't identify themselves, hang out with kids younger and dumber than themselves because they've used up everyone their own age, lie to parents, lie to cops, lie lots of times for no reason at all other than habit. Gut instinct on this? Some type of mini-wannabe gang type initiation for the 17 year old. Then, like so many dumbasses like my brother, and like I suspect these two brothers of being, it went wrong, and it can't be THEIR fault, GOTTA be somebody ELSE's fault!!!

Don't have to accept it at all, just my own thoughts, which surely I have as much right as anyone else on this board to express, don't I? Or is this the single-thought only board?

[BushOut06]

101. It's about principle - can you not see that?

The underlying issue here was "if you're innocent,then you have no reason not to cooperate with police". My reaction was that line of reasoning was total BS. Using that logic, then you should ALWAYS allow police to search your car when you're pulled over - after all, you have nothing to hide, do you? Only "crummy people" who have stuff to hide from the police wouldn't cooperate, would they?

[mbperrin]

111. The post was about why they lied to the FATHER of the

minor they were with about his whereabouts. Nothing to do with police at all. Course if your principles are that it's OK for adults to hang out with minor kids and lie to their parents about their whereabouts, then yeah, it's a matter of principle.

Again, these guys are revealing something about their character when they lie to the parent of the minor they're with. And it's not a good something.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. This is my town's zoo that is being dragged through the mud...

and a tiger I have watched grow up that is dead.

This is not some political statement about unreasonable police inquiries/actions these brothers are trying to make with their silence. A friend of theirs is dead. They themselves have been nearly mauled to death. A Siberian tiger has been shot dead. I find it unbelievable they would not want to be 100% forthcoming with reasonable inquiries by police and zoo authorities as to what happened.

[Demobrat]

11. Maybe when the shock and fear wears off.

They've lived through a horrendous experience. They trusted the zoo to keep them safe and now they're lying in hospital beds being blamed for what happened. I'm not sure I'd be all that co-operative at this point either.

[atre]

41. Your town's zoo wouldn't look so bad if they hadn't lied about so many small details

nm

[LisaL]

123. Let's just say, the zoo has been having some issues,

according to this article.
"A koala is kidnapped. Sheep are molested by a human intruder. An elephant does a headstand on a technician, breaking her pelvis. A tiger ravages its keeper's arm. A year later, on Christmas Day, the same feline escapes, kills and gets killed.

This is what life can be like at the San Francisco Zoo, a 78-year-old institution saddled with a history of mismanagement and scores of injuries to animals, employees and visitors alike - yet still beloved by generations of Bay Area residents.

It's almost as if the place is cursed."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/29/MNNQU63KP.DTL

[LisaL]

122. Apparently keepers in your town zoo

had an inkling about the tiger enclosure.
"The keeper, who spent decades at the zoo and asked not to be publicly identified, said he got the word about Siberian tigers - and the apparently inadequate 12 1/2-foot-high moat wall that protects the public from them - in a most dramatic fashion, not long after he began working at the zoo.

"I was putting a sign up in front of the tiger exhibit, with my butt hanging over the edge," said the former keeper. "The cat was pacing back and forth at the bottom of the grotto."

The keeper said one of his more seasoned colleagues happened by, grabbed him by the belt loop and jerked him back, away from the edge.

"He shared the secret that people knew - the cat could jump up and take me down," the keeper said."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/29/MN00U6PR7.DTL

[MilesColtrane]

15. If the police had just saved my life because, out of the blue, a tiger jumped...

...out of it's enclosure and started attacking me, then the least I would do is tell them my name and shake their hand.

[JeanGrey]

31. I doubt ANY of us at this point believe that the "tiger jumped out"

out of the "blue" and attacked for no reason.

[atre]

47. define no reason.... the tiger's hunger at typical feeding time sounds like reason enough for me

If what you're asking is whether I believe there was taunting, based on the current evidence, I can honestly say I believe that there was no taunting.

The tiger was hungry (closing time is when they are fed), and the simple odor of some food the kids had just eaten would be enough to attract the tiger's attention .

[JeanGrey]

48. Sorry but I think that is nonsense. I do believe there was taunting

involved and possibly they got into the enclosure or close.

[atre]

50. Why?

Why is hungry tiger any less a possibility than taunted tiger? At least there is circumstantial evidence for hunger (he jumped out almost exactly at feeding time).

[EFerrari]

77. Why is any tiger, no matter their mood, wandering around

killing people in San Francisco -- and, getting killed?

I LOVE that zoo. It's my zoo. When they opened the primate area in the 80s, I went there every day for a week because as an amateur anthropoligist, I couldn't get enough monkey.

I've taken just about every single one of my younger cousins there in their strollers, and my kids and my nevvies.

But, the zoo fucked up bigtime and smearing those kids doesn't obviate that except for people really really low on common sense.

[acmavm]

109. These ARE NOT KIDS. Time to get real here. And why do you always

scream racism at everything?

These poor babies have the smarts to lawyer up. Their shock seems pretty selective to me. You don't think they're talking to their attorneys?

[MilesColtrane]

59. Exactly the point I was driving at in reply to BushOut06's query:

"Do you believe that innocent people should always cooperate with police?"

[EFerrari]

78. There are a number of people on death row that agree with both of you. n/t

[BuelahWitch]

121. Yes, a point everyone has forgotten

:thumbsup:

[Marrah_G]

24. In a case like this why wouldn't you?

[ElboRuum]

53. That depends quite a bit with what the police are asking you to cooperate with...

If they're investigating this incident and you have information, yes, by all means cooperate. However, what is likely is that the two are not innocent, maybe not criminal, but possibly negligent in some way that precipitated this. Investigating this hesitance to cooperate, while not particularly damning in and of itself, should give the police some reasonable suspicion.

[LisaL]

108. Considering the brothers had some problems with police prior

to this, they might not have been particularly inclined to talk to the police, if they didn't trust the police. Also, maybe after tiger mauling, they haven't felt much like talking.
Tiger mauling is a traumatic event.

[Demobrat]

9. I live in SF. Today the news is that

the wall around the tiger's habitat was low, well below regulation. At first they were saying that the tiger could not possibly have jumped out. Now they're saying it's well within the realm of possibility. Just a tragedy all around. Even if the kids were taunting the animal, as kids will do, they should have been safe.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. The wall was lower than...

recommended by a national big cat group. The American Zoological group that gives zoo accreditation had no problems with the enclosure during their last check, which was two years ago (IIFC).

Those enclosures have held many lions and tigers -- including a very large male Siberian tiger -- for many, mnay years with zero problems.

This incidence was an abhoration prompted by circumstances that we have yet to find out.

I am confident the zoo will now take additional steps to safeguard the idiots in the public who are stupid enough to fuck with a large predator.

[ladjf]

61. If a human can jump over 8 feet high, it would seem likely that

a young 300 lb tiger could clear 12.5 ft.

I saw a film of a bull jumping over an 8 ft. wall.

"Javier Sotomayor clearing the indoor world record of 7ft 11 1/2in.(2.43m)His outdoor record is 8ft 1/2in.(2.45)"

Regardless of what other circumstances there were, the was was definitely too low for safety.

[EFerrari]

70. There's also the learning curve.

Cats learn to navigate their environment.

[depakid]

125. "additional steps to safeguard the idiots in the public."

Therein lies the rub.

It's eminently foreseeable that some people (teenagers in particular) will act like idiots. Apparently, it's also quite foreseeable that a determined tiger could scale a dry moat and wall that size.

Not sure if I have my facts right on this one (correct me if I'm wrong) but as I recall from a previous article- the wall should have been 20 feet, according to the accreditation standards. If that's true- then there's "monkey business" going on (perhaps like what I saw with LA County Building & Safety back in the 80's).

Any zoo or animal park has a duty to protect both the public AND its animals from risks like this- and my hope is that some good will come out of this tragedy, so that there won't be repeat performances in SF or elsewhere.

[EFerrari]

30. The first statement from the zoo was that the enclosure exceeded

the requirements.

[JeanGrey]

16. There is much speculation that the three taunted the Tiger,

as sticks and stones were found in the tiger's enclosure that shouldn't have been there. Also the shoe of the one killed was INSIDE the enclosure - could they have "dangled" down to the enclosure while taunting the Tiger and he got a good grip, enabling climbing out and death? Then he hunted down the other two.

This whole thing smells, IMHO. The actions of not cooperating with police also make it stink more.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. There was no shoe...

found in the "moat" area or the enclosure, but tere was a footprint along the waist-high metal fence that separates the public from a swath of vegetation leading to the edge of the "moat". There was also blood found on the tiger exhibit sign that sits behind the metal fence.

[JeanGrey]

25. Then they have changed their story again from Wednesday

because a shoe was reported. I have read they are going to attempt to match the shoe print on the railing with the shoes. It is beginning to sound more and more like these kids need a Darwin award.

[atre]

39. I don't know how you come to that conclusion

It's beginning to me to sound more and more like the zoo's very aggressive and very dishonest public relations campaign is very effectively suckering in a lot of DUers.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. Wasn't there also a footprint on the railing of the enclosure?

I thought I heard that last night on the news, but I could be mistaken.

[JeanGrey]

26. Yes and blood on the sign inside the enclosure?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. The sign...

in question is just behind the waist-high metal fence that separates visitors from a swath of vegetation that leads to the "moat's" edge.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. Yes, there was a footprint...

on the metal railing separating the public from an area leading to the "moat" edge. The shoes of all three victims are in police custody and a forensics test is going on right now.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. No shoe in the enclosure; pine cones, not stones.

That bit of info about the shoe was incorrect. Pine cones and sticks may have been there long before the attack. There was a shoe print that will be compared to the three's footwear. (see sfgate link for Superintendent Fong's comments on shoe.)

Even if they did something to provoke the attack, the fact remains that the zoo has substantial liability risk because the wall was only two thirds the height recommended. Also, not reported on the national feed AFAIK is that a retired zoo worker claims that a tiger breached the moat and wall in the late 1960s but hadn't gone beyond the final short barrier fence before handlers coaxed him back into the enclosure. (see video at http://www.kron.com )

So the stench you're smelling isn't coming just from the two brothers in the incident.

[atre]

45. As for the pinecones and sticks, that looks like crap as well... check out this photo

The previous report said pinecones and sticks "couldn't have been in the grotto naturally," take a look at the actual grotto and reach your own conclusions:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/28/tigers_escape_from_enclosure_puzzles_specialists/

I see several sticks inside the grotto, I see several trees (providing sources for the sticks) around the grotto, and I even see two evergreen trees (potential sources for the pinecones) around the grotto. To say they weren't there naturally really seems like a stretch, unless the information comes from an advanced horticulturalist and not some unnamed zoo official who has already been disproven on one other major point (the location of the shoe - inside the grotto vs. 300 yards from the grotto near the cafe).

[Gormy Cuss]

60. Absent from that observation is any sense of how frequently the area is cleared by zoo staff

and as you pointed out, whether the pine cones could have found their way into the moat area by some other means (like squirrels, for example, or wind.)

I've been to this zoo several times in recent years but can't remember how clear the moat area is kept. Someone who goes there more regularly would probably know the answer to that question. I also reserve judgment not just on the issue of the whether the three's actions influenced the attack but on whether the bad information in early reports was all willful lies on the part of the zoo officials. It's too early to say about either.

[EFerrari]

64. I see that one of my friends started reporting this story in the last day

or so. The info out the Chronicle will improve because he's a professional, not a hack.

[atre]

37. Please read the latest stories

Several of the facts you cite were falsehoods perpetrated by unnamed zoo officials more interested in covering their own arses than protecting the public: it is dubious as to whether there were sticks and pinecones located in the grotto, it is unequivocally false that a shoe was found inside the grotto, and the "dangling" theory has been completely and unequivocally disproven as well.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/28/tigers_escape_from_enclosure_puzzles_specialists/

I think it's interesting that so many are willing to leap to judgment against the three kids, assuming they taunted the tiger. I think this bias is based in part on submerged anti-Hispanic prejudices, anti-youth prejudices, or pro-animal prejudices, but I think it ignores several glaring details: (1) while the surviving kids may be mum, we know for a FACT that people at the zoo have been lying about the details, such as the height of the grotto, and the location of certain types of evidence; In fact the zoo head was quoted as offering the dangling theory, and then DENIED offering it the very next day. (2) this incident occurred right at closing time, when the animals are fed, when they are most restless, and at a time when they are pavlovianly conditioned to feed; and (3) a Siberian tiger very likely could have jumped a 12.5 foot wall.

While I would not be terribly surprised to later learn that the kids were taunting the animal, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to that effect right now. It's important to reserve judgment until the facts are revealed.

[bigworld]

51. anti-Hispanic? Anti-youth?

Well, seeing that the dead man was Portuguese, the brothers were Indian (I'm assuming from the last name), and the oldest brother was 23... I don't think you can say anyone could be anti-Hispanic or anti-youth on this. Anti-dumbass, yes.

[atre]

56. Anti-dumbass, with no evidence of dumbassedness

Clearly there's some prejudice at play here, because there isn't any evidence for what so many here seem to believe. Everything people have argued as a basis for believing there was some taunting has been proven false:

(1) wall was too tall. false.
(2) shoe found in grotto. false.
(3) sticks and pinecones found inside grotto couldn't have been there naturally. false.
(4) no tiger had ever tried to jump the grotto. false

The kid is actually a mix of Brazilian and Portuguese, which would qualify him for Hispanic on the United States Census... but I'm not sure why that really matters, though. If you don't think that people who saw his picture and read the news stories believed him to be Hispanic, you're fooling yourself.

[EFerrari]

72. See my #63 above.

Americans. Dumbassed, gullible people.

[EFerrari]

69. They're brown, so the dumbass public is reading them as Latinos.

That's how far we've sunk.

[sandnsea]

17. Young men at the zoo on Christmas???

What am I missing?

I hope other zoos check their exhibits to avoid future tragedies. I think it's just one of those unfortunate things, all the way around. Unless they were planning on stealing the tiger or some weird thing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. The SF Zoo...

has a very big "party" for the animals on Xmas day -- it is a long standing tradition. All of the animals are given special treats or toys -- some of them wrapped up as "presents" for them to open. I have been in the past and it is a very exciting day for the animals and for those watching.

[sandnsea]

32. Thank you

I could not figure out why any young men would just up and decide to go to the zoo on Christmas Day. Now I get it.

[TwilightGardener]

42. LOL! Come on. I'm really sure these guys were all excited about

what is essentially a little-kid event. It's like no one on DU knows young men and the way they think.

[sandnsea]

43. No no, not what I mean

I was thinking they had probably been as children, there was something else going on at the zoo that drew them there. Whether it was some sort of let's go watch the tiger rip up its toy, or whatever, I don't know. But there was something specific that drew them to the zoo. Because otherwise, I would have to think they were going there for a drug deal or something because it's just not normal for young men to choose the zoo on Christmas Day. At least not any of the young men I've ever known.

[TwilightGardener]

52. Oh, OK--I get you. I know, I immediately thought it was a little weird

for a small group of young men to be hanging out at the zoo on Christmas, too. My boys are 12 and 13, and my husband and I have to DRAG them to the zoo with us now--they're too "cool" for little-kid stuff. (But I'm not! :) )

[Demobrat]

67. Xmas day was beautiful this year.

Sunny, clear and warm. Tee-shirt weather. I don't see anything unusual in going to what is essentially a park on a beautiful day off.

[sandnsea]

80. If they didn't celebrate the holiday maybe

But since the parents were looking for him to be home for Christmas dinner, it is odd that they had chosen to leave their family celebration and go to the zoo, of all places. Most families spend the day together. And even if young men decide to get together with their friends for a while, they usually wouldn't choose the zoo on Christmas day.

[EFerrari]

84. One of them was bouncing between two parents' homes.

And, the zoo is a hangout for young people. It's pretty, on the busline and has cafes to sit at. I hung out there with my cousins when I was a teen.

[EFerrari]

93. Me, either. I spent a lot of time at the zoo waiting for my Aunt Connie

to get dinner together on holiday when she lived at 46th and Ortega.

It's a great place for kids of all ages. And, it was a beautiful day.

[EFerrari]

34. I think this is a really bad idea. Animals are stressed out enough

already during the holidays because people are. It's just asking for trouble.

[Blue Diadem]

75. Sounds like the kid that died was a nice kid, trying to save his friend.

The two brothers by their own behavior after this horrific incident, show something just isn't adding up in this story.

Why would anyone not identify a friend who had died? Why would they lie that the kid wasn't with them when they spoke to his Dad before the incident? Why haven't they spoken to the father now and at least told him what happened?

[BrklynLiberal]

102. The story implies that the one who got killed was trying to help his friend...who may have been the

one who actually provoked the tiger to start the incident that ended so tragically.

As one of the article's commentors said: the tiger was doing what was part of her nature.
It would seem that two young punks were injured after teasing her, and the one good guy ended up dead.

[LisaL]

107. If one of the brothers had a cell phone (presumably the

17 year olds father would have called the cell phone), why didn't he call 911 himself?
Instead, a cafe worker appears to have called 911. Apparently that cafe worker didn't believe the claim that the animal attacked the men.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22984641-5006003,00.html
Also, did the men try to get inside the cafe?
The tiger must have been able to attack them again after they talked to the cafe worker, because when the police arrived, the tiger was on the scene attacking one of the brothers.

[RamboLiberal]

112. Little tough to call on your cell when a pissed off tiger

is after you. BTW, one brother did call on his cell. SF Chronicle has log of calls today.

The first 911 call was made from a zoo phone at 5:07 p.m., the fire logs show.

Police now say the call came from a cafe worker, who related what he heard from an "agitated" Amritpal "Paul" Dhaliwal, 19, as he stood screaming outside the closed and locked Terrace Cafe on the zoo's eastern edge. The worker at that point could not even tell the dispatcher whether serious bleeding was involved.

From that account, fire dispatchers obtained a vague description of the incident, saying a lone man "was bitten by an exotic animal," and had suffered a laceration. The caller said he was not with the victim, who was reported as conscious and breathing, according to the fire dispatch logs.

Police were sent at 5:07 p.m., but law enforcement authorities familiar with the incident say the vague nature of that first call meant that the incident was not given immediate priority. One of the first reports on the police log casts doubt on the incident, suggesting that zoo authorities considered the information unreliable.

-----

At 5:21, dispatchers fielded a cell phone call from Amritpal Dhaliwal and then a land line call in which dispatchers instructed him how to control his brother's bleeding. The line went dead at 5:23 p.m.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/29/MNDVU65TO.DTL&tsp=1

[LisaL]

114. Well, even if the tiger was after him, it appears quite a bit of time

passed since the 911 call, before police arrived and shot the tiger. It appears the tiger followed the trail of blood rather than running after the brothers directly. It also looks to me like the tiger attacked the brothers again after the brothers asked for help from cafe worker. The cafe was closed, so did the brothers ask to get inside? I am wondering as to the zoo's response after the tiger escaped.

[RamboLiberal]

115. Yeah I'm wondering if the cafe worker kept the cafe locked

I would imagine it was closed, but did he keep one or both brothers locked out when they might have been inside and safe? In his defense maybe he never thought of an animal being loose and just thought he had some crazy person outside who could harm him. At least he did call 911.

[LisaL]

116. Apparently zoo security initially wouldn't allow police inside.

This article says the zoo workers tried to tranquilize the tiger. Well, I guess that didn't work.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7836397?nclick_check=1

[RamboLiberal]

119. And what's with the family of the survivors not talking to the

dead kid's family?

From article you posted:

Carlos' family has tried unsuccessfully to contact the Dhaliwal family, said James Geagan, a Sonoma attorney recently hired by Carlos Sousa Sr.

"If it's me, the first call I'm going to make is to the family. I lost my son, and they know my son saved their kids' life," said the victim's mother, Marilza Souza, referring to her son's apparent attempt to distract the tiger when it attacked Kulbir Dhaliwal. The tiger then turned on Carlos. "We hurt for my son. He looked at them like a brother and it looks like for them it's not the same feeling."

Sousa hopes to bury Carlos the week after New Year's in San Jose. The San Francisco coroner has not yet released his body.

Marilza Sousa has not spoken to zoo officials. She is angry the zoo has not called to offer condolences and is not satisfied with the explanations she has received about her son's death.

"Have a little bit of respect for us, say hello, say something," she said of zoo officials. "I guess my son for them is less than the cat that got killed. For them it looks like my son is nothing' a big cat is more than my son. They killed the cat, how 'bout my son? A cat is a cat. That is my son right there."

[mbperrin]

126. The brothers were worried about their car, not Carlos.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/12/29/2007-12-29_tiger_tragedy_brothers_dont_talk_pact.html

From inside the article:
"The brothers, who aren't saying much to investigators, could be released from San Francisco General Hospital today.

Even as they were being taken from the zoo with badly bleeding wounds "one brother told the other not to talk to anyone," said a law enforcement source. "They didn't want any pictures taken then or now."

The source said neither brother showed much concern for Carlos. "They were more concerned with their car in the parking lot and that it would be okay," the source said.

Hospital spokesman Anson Moon said they were in stable condition and could be released today after a final checkup."

Why are these older men hanging out with a 17 year old on Christmas Day at the zoo while lying to his family about his whereabouts?

[LisaL]

127. Well, to me that doesn't look like the most rational thing in the world to do.

You've just been seriously injured by a tiger, but you worry about your car? The tiger first attacked one of the brothers, then killed their 17 year old friend, then apparently followed a trail of blood and attacked them again.
I think pretty much everybody would agree that's a traumatic event.
Basically, they've just been mauled by a tiger, and maybe they deserve a benefit of a doubt as to what their frame of mind was.
The hospital doctor who was giving updates on their condition was saying they were shaken up emotionally.

[BrklynLiberal]

98. Sadly, my very first thought when I heard about this attack on the news, was that the tiger had been

provoked into this horrible action.
It just did not seem to make sense, even after I heard that last year this tiger had attacked a zookeeper while she was feeding him. For it to jump the moat and the wall to go after someone.....just did not seem like something that an unprovoked animal would do.

[dysfunctional press]

105. i would have thought that they would have surveillance cameras for the animal enclosures...

in this day and age, it would seem like a no-brainer to have cameras spread around the zoo, or on the outdoor enclosures of some of the more popular and/or valuable exhibits.

[daleo]

106. The tiger enclosure was obviously unsafe

The fact that tiger(s) escaped shows that.

Whether these young men were "taunting" the animals is a red herring. If the enclosure was properly designed the animals simply couldn't get out.

I think the zoo is looking at a big lawsuit.

Here's a bit from wiki regarding tiger's leaping abilities:

In the wild, tigers can leap as high as 5 m (16 ft) and as far as 9–10 m (30–33 ft), making them one of the highest-jumping mammals (just slightly behind cougars in jumping ability).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Hunting_and_diet

[RamboLiberal]

113. SF Chronicle: Big-cat experts say a determined tiger could get over 12 1/2-foot wall

Big-cat experts say a fully grown tiger could very likely climb the 12 1/2-foot moat wall at the San Francisco Zoo, especially if there were little or no water in the moat.

"That height would be scalable," said Ronald Tilson, director of conservation at the Minnesota Zoo, who since 1987 has been overseeing the tiger species survival plan of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

"A tiger cannot leap over something like that, but what it can do is stand up and with a little hop or jump, more than likely get its paws on the ledge," Tilson said. "That would not be much of a trick. And they are so powerful that they can scoot themselves up."

-----

"I'm 6 feet tall, and when we have a tiger stand up, they tower over me," said Scott Lope, director of operations at Big Cat Rescue, a sanctuary with more than 100 felines in Tampa, Fla. "They're easily able to stretch to 8 feet, and with a reach and an easy 4- or 5-foot jump, they've already spanned that distance.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/29/MN88U65U7.DTL