Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 3)

kgeaux said:
I'm really intrigued by this court filing. The substance seems to be: We, the city of San Francisco, are gonna get sued, and the people who are going to sue us may have evidence to help us mitigate our damages. #2. The city is not liable anyway. But just in case, we want to preserve evidence that might mitigate our damages. #3. Somebody tried to pick up the car!!! Before the police impounded it!!! OMG!!!! #4. The car will prove they had been drinking and smoking pot. And some stuff in the car, stuff which never entered the zoo, will prove they pelted the tiger.


What is so intriguing to me is that there is no language in the filing to suggest that anyone dangled themselves into the enclosure or gave the tiger 'a leg up' in any fashion, suggesting that at most these guys threw things at the tiger. And the city seems to believe that will be enough to mitigate its damages? Or that it will matter that the guys were drunk, smoking pot, or whatever?

I think what matters here is that the tiger got out of her enclosure. Unaided.
What I gathered from the filing is that there is evidence at least in the car- at minimum is an open container of Vodka, they may also have seen slingshots and are playing it close to the vest. The vodka is important for more than one reason- they can be charged with violating open container laws, then there's public drunkenness. They have a witness who saw them verbally taunting the lions.
Moreover, in a civil trial, they are supposed to get this evidence anyhow in the discovery phase, so they want to make sure the brothers D don't destroy it. There may also be pictures on the cell phones of them throwing things at the tiger and they may also want to see who and when 911 was called from their phone logs.
We don't know that the tiger escaped unaided, there was no security camera there.

I'm requoting myself from the old thread, since it got locked.
 
So the celebrity scumbags, I mean lawyers, come out of the woodwork once again.
 
The one who was killed was a boy, still considered a minor. The 19 year old is very young and the other is still college age. I say and hear people saying college "kids" a lot, but of course the survivors are legally grown men. I just read the other thread that a leopard tore a 4 inch hole in some cage. I wonder if those measurements are accurate or if they thought it could even tear a hole. I know the zoo/city is really wanting to smear the guys in order to have to pay out a lower settlemen if it goes before a jury, but the safety of the zoo and all zoos with their lies about safety is another issue. The shoe will be on the other foot when the dead boy's parents go to court.
 
Even if the victims are not paragons of virtue (and their reputations may be used against them in the courtroom), the Zoo's deficiencies and problems will also be in play. The plaintiffs' attorney will compare the certain negligence of the Zoo, and its reputation for "substandard safety protocols"; against the only rumored behavior of the young men, and their reputation as drinkers and pot smokers. Everyone knows lots of young men are not angelic- but most of us assume that zoos are safe for people.
Here's some information from a link on the previous thread:


http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_7952717
...new worries were ignited after a snow leopard poked a four-inch hole in a temporary cage.
(Additional indication that the Zoo is careless with animal and public safety...)

...The Dhaliwals have not been charged with any crime, and legally, police can only search their property if they suspect a felony has occurred. Taunting an animal is a misdemeanor.

...Some called for the resignation of zoo Director Manuel Mollinedo, who has been criticized, including in a recent lawsuit, for poor management and substandard safety protocols.

(This hurts the zoo's credibility- substandard safety protocols...)

...Zoo representatives also spent much of Friday deflecting fresh concerns over how a 100-pound snow leopard named Ghurka clawed a four-inch opening through a mesh enclosure, sticking a paw and part of its head outside the cage, about 3 p.m. Thursday, and scaring a zoo employee into locking herself in a room.

(At least the employee had a place to shelter- allegedly the injured men were not allowed into the Zoo restaurant when the tiger was loose...)


...Zoo officials did announce Jan. 4 that they discovered that the wall of the polar bear exhibit is, like the wall of the tiger grotto, not tall enough to meet national guidelines.

(This is just sad... surely there is intended to be a routine 'audit' of Zoo property and safety measures- would OSHA be involved? At least 3 of the wild animal enclosures are unsafe...)
 
What I gathered from the filing is that there is evidence at least in the car- at minimum is an open container of Vodka, they may also have seen slingshots and are playing it close to the vest. The vodka is important for more than one reason- they can be charged with violating open container laws, then there's public drunkenness. They have a witness who saw them verbally taunting the lions.
Moreover, in a civil trial, they are supposed to get this evidence anyhow in the discovery phase, so they want to make sure the brothers D don't destroy it. There may also be pictures on the cell phones of them throwing things at the tiger and they may also want to see who and when 911 was called from their phone logs.
We don't know that the tiger escaped unaided, there was no security camera there.

I'm requoting myself from the old thread, since it got locked.


The bottle of vodka is evidence pertaining to THIS case ONLY if the young men had alcohol in their blood. I'm certain they did, but without a blood screening, the bottle means nothing. So there is no need for the city to have access to that bottle......even if the guys were drunk, it won't mitigate the city's damages, since the zoo itself sells alcohol and thus should have safeguards in place to deal with drunken patrons. As far as for seeing something in the car pertaining to whatever objects the city is saying is in the tiger enclosure, nothing in the car was brought into the zoo. If, let's imagine, city officials can see with their own eyes that there are purple tennis balls in the back seat of the car, and purple tennis balls were found in the enclosure, then the city STILL doesn't need to have access to the balls in the car, because they have witnesses who can testify there were purple tennis balls both in the enclosure and in the car. The phones are not needed to prove when 911 was called, either, because 911 will have a log showing when and from what number calls were received. And any pictures on the phone will only mitigate damages IF the 'boys' are dangling themselves into the enclosure, something the police have already said there is no evidence to support.

None of the "evidence" in the car is going to be used to press charges. Law enforcement is DONE with this. The CITY wants access to the phones and car, and it aint to press charges against the brothers. They want to mitigate the liability----you know, the liability they claim they don't have.
 
The one who was killed was a boy, still considered a minor. The 19 year old is very young and the other is still college age. I say and hear people saying college "kids" a lot, but of course the survivors are legally grown men. I just read the other thread that a leopard tore a 4 inch hole in some cage. I wonder if those measurements are accurate or if they thought it could even tear a hole. I know the zoo/city is really wanting to smear the guys in order to have to pay out a lower settlemen if it goes before a jury, but the safety of the zoo and all zoos with their lies about safety is another issue. The shoe will be on the other foot when the dead boy's parents go to court.

Thank you for responding to the link about the leopard trying to get out!
This zoo has problems.
 
Thank you for responding to the link about the leopard trying to get out!
This zoo has problems.
The leopard was tearing a hole in the heavy wire screen in between its enclosure, and the keeper's area. There was never any danger of the leopard escaping.

Blood tests were taken, the younger brother was said to be drunk, and they were under the infuence of marijuana . I am hoping that LE puts a drug dog on the car. There was a reason the two boys, who came to pick up the car, the next day, wouldn't provide their names.
 
The leopard was tearing a hole in the heavy wire screen in between its enclosure, and the keeper's area. There was never any danger of the leopard escaping.

Blood tests were taken, the younger brother was said to be drunk, and they were under the infuence of marijuana . I am hoping that LE puts a drug dog on the car. There was a reason the two boys, who came to pick up the car, the next day, wouldn't provide their names.

Tks for the update Buzz...:blowkiss:
Been busy on another thread...
 
kgueaux, I think that the Zoo's (known) problems will make them reluctant to take this into court. I bet they will decide to settle- they can only look worse in court than they already do. No community institution, one which is probably blessed with endowments from generous benefactors, wants to have all their shortcomings discussed and critiqued in open court. The victims probably have nothing to lose, regardless of what the Zoo's attorneys might discover. The Zoo has everything to lose: I predict heads will roll and that donors will step back. This case will get deeper and sadder, and blaming the victims will backfire. MOO

If the snow leopard was in no danger of getting out, why did the frightened zoo employee lock herself into a room?
 
kgueaux, I think that the Zoo's (known) problems will make them reluctant to take this into court. I bet they will decide to settle- they can only look worse in court than they already do. No community institution, one which is probably blessed with endowments from generous benefactors, wants to have all their shortcomings discussed and critiqued in open court. The victims probably have nothing to lose, regardless of what the Zoo's attorneys might discover. The Zoo has everything to lose: I predict heads will roll and that donors will step back. This case will get deeper and sadder, and blaming the victims will backfire. MOO

If the snow leopard was in no danger of getting out, why did the frightened zoo employee lock herself into a room?

I agree 100% with this post. The Zoo would be absolutely crazy to let this case reach a courtroom, IMHO.
 
the walkie talkie conversations recorded between the zoo employees is an interesting listen.
 
Police get warrant for car and cell phones in tiger attack, indicating renewed investigation

(01-15) 19:30 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A San Francisco judge ruled late Tuesday that police have legal authority to examine the car and cell phones belonging to the survivors of the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo. The decision seems to have renewed the investigation into whether the two brothers - Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23 - taunted the animal before it escaped and killed their friend. The criminal investigation had been described last week as "inactive" by representatives of the City Attorney's Office.

The Dhaliwals' attorney could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening. Attorney Mark Geragos has repeatedly said the brothers did not taunt or tease the Siberian tiger, and has accused city officials of running a public smear campaign against his clients. The cell phones and car have been at the center of an ongoing evidentiary dispute between attorneys for the city, the zoo and the brothers. The city and zoo want access to the phones and car to see if they contain any evidence that helps to prove the animal was teased. Officials said such information might help defend against the civil lawsuits expected from the brothers or the family of their friend, Carlos Sousa Jr.

The city and zoo went to court last week to preserve the potential evidence, a legal battle that has not yet been decided and is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday in Santa Clara County. Although the cars and phones remain in police custody, police officials had said they didn't have legal authority to search the items. They indicated the investigation was all but over and that it was unlikely charges would be filed against the Dhaliwals.

Geragos argued that the phones and car should be returned to the brothers, unsearched. On Tuesday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer approved the police request to search the phones and car. It is unclear the exact legal basis for the search, but sources close to the investigation have told The Chronicle that it appeared the brothers made a pact of silence while riding together in the ambulance to the hospital. "Don't tell them what we did," Kulbir reportedly told Paul in the ambulance, paramedics told police. Sources also said Paul was drunk at the time of the attack, Kulbir had been drinking and both had used marijuana. Court documents indicate a bottle of liquor was spotted in the car. Authorities also have the report of a zoo visitor who said she saw the brothers were taunting the lions shortly before the tiger escaped.

http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2008/01/15/chronicle/archive/2008/01/15/MN19UFRL5.html?tsp=1
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
645
Total visitors
715

Forum statistics

Threads
589,921
Messages
17,927,686
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top