CW
Former Member
Continue here please.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Floh, thank you for posting the link to thread 2.
Lion
Last thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58034&page=19
ETA: please can the term 'boys' regarding the men participating be refrained from? thanks.
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.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.
Yep, gotta agree with you there.Well if they maybe would act like Men instead of boys..
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 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.
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.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.
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?