Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 3)

New Posts

chicoliving said:
One of the San Jose brothers injured in the San Francisco Zoo tiger attack in 2007 has been arrested again.

~snip~

The driver was arrested for Driving Under the Influence, and Dhaliwal, a passenger, was arrested for felony possession of three grams of cocaine and being under the influence of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor.

http://cbs13.com/local/local.template.2.1102104.html
Click to expand...
He has been in, and out of jail, 3-4 times since the zoo incident. They aren't exactly model citizens.
 
Buzzm1 said:
He has been in, and out of jail, 3-4 times since the zoo incident. They aren't exactly model citizens.
Click to expand...
And I'll always believe he and his brother did something that day to provoke Tatiana. :furious: MOO
 
Two brothers famous for surviving a tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo in 2007 were arrested after police found an open vodka bottle in their car during a traffic stop.

Kulbir Dhaliwal, 25, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and resisting arrest, San Mateo County Assistant District Attorney Morley Pitt told KTVU.

His brother, 21-year-old Amritpal Dhaliwal, was booked at the San Mateo County jail on a parole violation, according to KTVU. He was expected to appear in court on charges of false identification for allegedly giving the officer who pulled him over a fake name.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,537720,00.html?test=latestnews
 
chicoliving said:
Two brothers famous for surviving a tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo in 2007 were arrested after police found an open vodka bottle in their car during a traffic stop.

Kulbir Dhaliwal, 25, was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and resisting arrest, San Mateo County Assistant District Attorney Morley Pitt told KTVU.

His brother, 21-year-old Amritpal Dhaliwal, was booked at the San Mateo County jail on a parole violation, according to KTVU. He was expected to appear in court on charges of false identification for allegedly giving the officer who pulled him over a fake name.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,537720,00.html?test=latestnews
Click to expand...
After reading this article I still had to click the link to confirm it was yesterday this happened ~ yet another arrest???? Good grief! There was just another DUI last week! :furious: MOO
 
Of course they did. Worthless dirtbags.
Click to expand...
It just makes me even more mad that she didn't get her "day in court" before being shot that night. :furious: MOO
 
No offense, but what about that low hanging plant that could be climbed and the too low enclosure. Seeing a friend killed by a wild animal is not very condusive to getting and staying straight and sober. The dead boy was so young and seemed to have a good family.
 
Okay...really trying not to be funny here, but when I saw the title of this thread I said to myself ...."Tiger Woods KILLED SOMEONE?" and then I realized....no.... A TIGER killed someone. Some days my brain just doesn't work properly!
 
Gypsy Road said:
Okay...really trying not to be funny here, but when I saw the title of this thread I said to myself ...."Tiger Woods KILLED SOMEONE?" and then I realized....no.... A TIGER killed someone. Some days my brain just doesn't work properly!
Click to expand...

Hey, honest mistake. Tiger (Woods) has been in the news a lot lately.
 
mister happy said:
As Ron White would say.. "stuck on stupid"
Click to expand...

The zoo employees might be the ones stuck on stupid. The article says that an enclosure gate was left open and the man and his son walked in----they may not have known they were entering the tiger enclosure.
 
Documents suggest that fatal 2007 San Francisco tiger attack was likely provoked
February 12, 2011 | 2:49 pm

"The Associated Press is reporting that a tiger that mauled a young man at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day 2007 was likely provoked. That conclusion was one of a number of details contained in numerous documents the news agency sought to have released to the public."

The article has the full AP report.

"“It appears the tiger was able to jump from the bottom of the dry moat to the top of the wall, and gain enough purchase over the top to pull herself out over the moat wall,” wrote Laurie Gage, a tiger expert who investigated the scene for the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees the nation's zoos.

“With my knowledge of tiger behavior I cannot imagine a tiger trying to jump out of its enclosure unless it was provoked,” Gage wrote in the Dec. 27, 2007, draft of her report."

Apparently some Gman removed the statement from the the final report for reasons that I don't understand.

Personally, I always felt it was obvious that the perps provoked the attack. And, this doesn't really change anything, but gives a tiny bit of satisfaction, I suppose.
 
i.b.nora said:
Documents suggest that fatal 2007 San Francisco tiger attack was likely provoked
February 12, 2011 | 2:49 pm

"The Associated Press is reporting that a tiger that mauled a young man at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day 2007 was likely provoked. That conclusion was one of a number of details contained in numerous documents the news agency sought to have released to the public."

The article has the full AP report.

"“It appears the tiger was able to jump from the bottom of the dry moat to the top of the wall, and gain enough purchase over the top to pull herself out over the moat wall,” wrote Laurie Gage, a tiger expert who investigated the scene for the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, which oversees the nation's zoos.

“With my knowledge of tiger behavior I cannot imagine a tiger trying to jump out of its enclosure unless it was provoked,” Gage wrote in the Dec. 27, 2007, draft of her report."

Apparently some Gman removed the statement from the the final report for reasons that I don't understand.

Personally, I always felt it was obvious that the perps provoked the attack. And, this doesn't really change anything, but gives a tiny bit of satisfaction, I suppose.
Click to expand...

It has always been noted that the guys were teasing the tiger, hasn't it? The real issue is that the tiger was able to jump out of her enclosure and attack and kill. She should not have been able to get out of the enclosure, no matter if provoked or not!
 
kgeaux said:
It has always been noted that the guys were teasing the tiger, hasn't it? The real issue is that the tiger was able to jump out of her enclosure and attack and kill. She should not have been able to get out of the enclosure, no matter if provoked or not!
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it sucks that the tiger had to die unnecessarily for these guys to prove to the zoo that the enclosure was insufficient, which is NOT what they were trying to do. They were just out to harass Tatiana because they were drunk! The brothers D have been arrested many times since they received their settlement!:snooty:
 
LinasK said:
Yeah, but it sucks that the tiger had to die unnecessarily for these guys to prove to the zoo that the enclosure was insufficient, which is NOT what they were trying to do. They were just out to harass Tatiana because they were drunk! The brothers D have been arrested many times since they received their settlement!:snooty:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the brothers are good people. All kinds of people, even idiots and drunk no-goods go to the zoo, however! Zoos are open to the general public, so they should have protocol to follow when the visitors are taunting animals or just being disruptive in general. This zoo had such protocol, I'm sure! (Short of feeding disruptive visitors to the tigers, that is.)

It is interesting to note that Tatiana had marks on her back paws that indicated that the escape was NOT the first attempt to get out; she had tried before. On those previous attempts, we don't know if she was provoked by drunks, babies crying, the weather or just a desire to get out.....if she had succeeded on a previous attempt, we might have had a dead child or family, instead of a drunk young man.

The zoo knew ahead of time that the enclosure was not up to standards. They KNEW the enclosure wall was not high enough; no proof was needed! Even being knowledgeable about the proper standards, they did nothing to fix the situation until Tatiana escaped and killed someone. IMO, it is because of the inadequate enclosure that Tatiana is dead. It is sheer LUCK on the part of the zoo that the victims were unlikable people, because if Tatiana could get out to kill one human, she could have gotten out to kill ANYONE.

editing to add: It does suck that the tiger had to die for just being a tiger. The zoo should have done a better job of protecting both Tatiana AND their visitors.
 
kgeaux said:
I'm not saying the brothers are good people. All kinds of people, even idiots and drunk no-goods go to the zoo, however! Zoos are open to the general public, so they should have protocol to follow when the visitors are taunting animals or just being disruptive in general. This zoo had such protocol, I'm sure! (Short of feeding disruptive visitors to the tigers, that is.)

It is interesting to note that Tatiana had marks on her back paws that indicated that the escape was NOT the first attempt to get out; she had tried before. On those previous attempts, we don't know if she was provoked by drunks, babies crying, the weather or just a desire to get out.....if she had succeeded on a previous attempt, we might have had a dead child or family, instead of a drunk young man.

The zoo knew ahead of time that the enclosure was not up to standards. They KNEW the enclosure wall was not high enough; no proof was needed! Even being knowledgeable about the proper standards, they did nothing to fix the situation until Tatiana escaped and killed someone. IMO, it is because of the inadequate enclosure that Tatiana is dead. It is sheer LUCK on the part of the zoo that the victims were unlikable people, because if Tatiana could get out to kill one human, she could have gotten out to kill ANYONE.

editing to add: It does suck that the tiger had to die for just being a tiger. The zoo should have done a better job of protecting both Tatiana AND their visitors.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. All kind of people go to the zoo. People with little kids go to the zoo. A little kid can be pretty annoying, scream and cry.
Does that mean a tiger gets to eat the kid? Of course not.
The enclosure was not up to the standard. The zoo should have known this and fixed it a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 60 more.
Total: 4,023 (members: 61, guests: 3,962)

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
3,962
Total visitors
4,023
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,490
Messages
17,969,769
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top