Tiger kills man at San Francisco Zoo (Part 3)

[Buzz Mills]

Teen hurt in tiger attack to face battery charge in San Jose incident

One of the brothers injured in the San Francisco tiger attack will face an additional misdemeanor charge stemming from a September incident in San Jose. Santa Clara County prosecutor Stuart Scott told Judge Michele McKay McCoy this afternoon that he will file a charge of battery on a police officer against 19-year-old Paul Dhaliwal.

Dhailwal and his older brother, Kulbir, are both facing two misdemeanor counts of public drunkenness and resisting arrest on Sept. 7 after police stopped them for questioning as they walked down a street near their home. Police were responding to reports of a fight and thought they looked suspicious.

The brothers fled, but Kulbir stopped and officers took him into custody. Paul continued to run from officers and was tackled. As officers cuffed and put him into a police cruiser, he kicked and pushed them, according to court documents. The complaint also alleges that Paul kicked the partition in the car all the way to the jail. A hearing on the case was continued until Feb. 13.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_7978766

 

[Buzz Mills]

The brothers are charged in 2 unrelated incidents
Allegations include battery on officer, public intoxication

One of the two brothers who survived a Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo was charged Tuesday with misdemeanor battery on a police officer stemming from a drunken scuffle with San Jose police in September. Paul Dhaliwal, 19, was not in Santa Clara County Superior Court when the charge was added to misdemeanor counts of public intoxication and resisting arrest he already faced.

His brother, Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, is also charged with public intoxication and resisting arrest in the Sept. 7 incident, which happened when police intervened after seeing the brothers chase two men near their San Jose home, according to court documents.

Paul Dhaliwal is accused of hitting an officer in the chest with his forearm as the officer tried to restrain him, leading to the battery charge, prosecutor Stuart Scott said. Dhaliwal stopped resisting arrest only when an officer held a stun gun to his neck, according to a police report.

Kulbir Dhaliwal cursed at officers while kicking the security partition in a squad car, forcing police to pull him out and put him in leg restraints, the police report says. It is unclear from the court documents why the Dhaliwal brothers were allegedly chasing the two men, whom police did not locate. The brothers are scheduled to return to court Feb. 13. Scott called their alleged behavior "needlessly belligerent." Both brothers have pleaded not guilty. Paul Dhaliwal's attorney, Cory Fuller, declined to comment about the case.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/16/MN51UFVP4.DTL

 

[Pharlap]

Feb 13 to be continued, wonder what happened then?
I couldn't imagine the judge not giving permission for the police not to search the car or cell phones.
Bet they are glade for hiring :laugh:Geragos.
So far he hasn't done to much but collect his fee.
Boy, what's on the phones...

 

[FlowerChild]

This is the 1st thing that has happened that makes me feel like finally Tatiana (also a victim) has been awarded some value and respect. I want to know the WHOLE STORY - regardless of who it makes look bad - including the Zoo. We cannot expect to prevent these sorts of incidents and tragedies (for people and animals) unless we know exactly what happened - and the FACTS.

These young men have to take some responsibility for THEIR ACTIONS if they were not behaving in a law abiding, civil, proper, sober manner. They were indeed victims BUT they may not have been 100% "innocent" victims and I feel the public deserves to know that TRUTH. Tatiana and Carlos have already paid the ultimate price - for THEM the consequences of their actions were DEADLY -and they have no voice anymore. The courts and investigators must be their voices now. Carlos and Tatiana cannot tell us what happened and why they died that day, but if the contents of the car and the phones can shed some light they deserve for that light to shine on EVERYONE involved. And if the two brothers were involved in causing, instigating or intensifying the attack in any inappropriate way that should be known and they should face some consequences (even if those consequences are only something symbolic, like doing some public service).

My Opinion

 

[southcitymom]

This is the 1st thing that has happened that makes me feel like finally Tatiana (also a victim) has been awarded some value and respect. .....

Yes, she was a victim. I thought I read people had set up an impromptu memorial for Tatiana at the zoo. I think that indicates value and respect from the public.

I did not read whether or not anyone did the same for the human victims and thought it was interesting that the tiger got more sympathy than the humans in the regard. Still - perhaps something was done for trhe human victims at the zoo and I just didn't hear about it.

I haven't heard anyone try to blame the tiger in all of this or feel anything but bad for her.

 

[kgeaux]

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.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that the tiger was able to escape her enclosure; as far as for the car, what has the fact that the guys refused to identify themselves have to do with the tiger escaping? The zoo is blowing smoke, Buzz. Ask yourself why.

The leopard being able to tear through the screen IS important, because it shows the zoo may have a pattern of underestimating their animals. Whether the screen led to the public or not, the zoo used a screening method that was unable to contain the leopard. Had the keeper not been right there, the leopard may well have gotten through the screen----thankfully, it would not have gotten through to freedom, but it would have escaped the area the zoo had confined it to.

 

[kgeaux]

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?

The leopard was definitely a threat to the employee. She wasn't a threat to the public, at least not this time!

I agree that the zoo should be reluctant to bring this to court. They would be well advised to offer generous settlements--------after listening to the 911 call from the older brother where he is BEGGING for towels to staunch the bleeding from his brother is chilling. The zoo acted strangely from the get-go, and I am wondering why. Why would employees state that bleeding patrons must be crazy, instead of believing them that they'd been mauled? Why would you deny towels to a bleeding patron? There are so many questions about the zoo's immediate reaction.

 

[Morag]

So now we know that the brother who had not yet been attacked was left outside- protecting and helping his brother--for 20+ minutes, all the while begging for help. "Zoo officials behaved heroically"- no, they didn't. They knew the guys were outside the restaurant begging for help, and yet they finally said, Oh, there's the tiger attacking the victim.

And regardless of those who say, Oh, they deserved what happened to them...at that time the Zoo had no way of knowing if they were choirboys or thugs.

The Zoo-- with its poor management of exhibits--ignored the injured patrons until one of them was dead and the other two were gravely injured. Why are people so determined to exonerate the Zoo at the expense of these three boys? (And yes, they are boys. My house is always full of my son's friends- boys ranging from 17-25. The law may call them men, but almost any parent would refer to them as boys.) Why is there such an attempt to ignore their humanity in this case? They have been through the traumatic experience of a lifetime...

Carlos and Tatiana would still be alive if the Zoo had been properly operated. And even if the boys opened the cage, the Zoo is still at fault for poor safety procedures. Only if the (drunken pot smoking- how shocking!) victims actually entered the enclosure can the Zoo be even somewhat exonerated, and there's no evidence of that.

 

[Pharlap]

So now we know that the brother who had not yet been attacked was left outside- protecting and helping his brother--for 20+ minutes, all the while begging for help. "Zoo officials behaved heroically"- no, they didn't. They knew the guys were outside the restaurant begging for help, and yet they finally said, Oh, there's the tiger attacking the victim.

And regardless of those who say, Oh, they deserved what happened to them...at that time the Zoo had no way of knowing if they were choirboys or thugs.

The Zoo-- with its poor management of exhibits--ignored the injured patrons until one of them was dead and the other two were gravely injured. Why are people so determined to exonerate the Zoo at the expense of these three boys? (And yes, they are boys. My house is always full of my son's friends- boys ranging from 17-25. The law may call them men, but almost any parent would refer to them as boys.) Why is there such an attempt to ignore their humanity in this case? They have been through the traumatic experience of a lifetime...

Carlos and Tatiana would still be alive if the Zoo had been properly operated. And even if the boys opened the cage, the Zoo is still at fault for poor safety procedures. Only if the (drunken pot smoking- how shocking!) victims actually entered the enclosure can the Zoo be even somewhat exonerated, and there's no evidence of that.

Possibly if they weren't drunk and high on drugs, this would never of happened.
Yes, the Zoo is liable, they never should of let them in, in that condition.
The tiger shouldn't of died either. A no win situation..
Turning lemons into lemonade. All zoo's are looking into there own zoo's exhibits and customers.
Still is beyond me they sell wine at that zoo.

 

[jilly]

Still is beyond me they sell wine at that zoo.

Me too! Totally shocked when I read that! Is this at all zoos or just SF?

 

[Pharlap]

Me too! Totally shocked when I read that! Is this at all zoos or just SF?

Chicago's 2 zoos don't...not a chance in h*ll.....

 

[jilly]

Meanwhile, police obtained a search warrant Tuesday to examine the cell phones and car belonging to the Dhaliwal brothers for its ongoing criminal investigation, said spokeman Sgt. Neville Gittens. The items have been the focus of both police and city officials, who believe they could contain evidence that the victims provoked the tiger in the moments leading to the attack.

Bottom of page:

http://cbs5.com/local/911.tiger.attack.2.630255.html

 

[jilly]

Santa Clara County prosecutor Stuart Scott told Superior Court Judge Michele McKay McCoy on Tuesday that he will file a charge of battery on a police officer against 19-year-old Paul Dhaliwal.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7984896?source=most_viewed

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Socrates Manoukian said today in an hour-long court hearing that he wouldn't rule on whether the city and zoo could have access to the items until Friday.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7987913?nclick_check=1

 

[kgeaux]

Santa Clara County prosecutor Stuart Scott told Superior Court Judge Michele McKay McCoy on Tuesday that he will file a charge of battery on a police officer against 19-year-old Paul Dhaliwal.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7984896?source=most_viewed

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Socrates Manoukian said today in an hour-long court hearing that he wouldn't rule on whether the city and zoo could have access to the items until Friday.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7987913?nclick_check=1

Well, isn't that second link a doozy. The police have begun to comb through the contents of the phones, while the judge will not decide until Friday if it's ok for them to do so. ? Did I get that right?

 

[southcitymom]

Well, isn't that second link a doozy. The police have begun to comb through the contents of the phones, while the judge will not decide until Friday if it's ok for them to do so. ? Did I get that right?

No - the Judge granted the search warrant and said the police could get the stuff and look. The Judge will make a ruling Friday as to whether the zoo and city attorneys also have a right to cell phone contents, etc...

 

[kgeaux]

Possibly if they weren't drunk and high on drugs, this would never of happened.
Yes, the Zoo is liable, they never should of let them in, in that condition.
The tiger shouldn't of died either. A no win situation..
Turning lemons into lemonade. All zoo's are looking into there own zoo's exhibits and customers.
Still is beyond me they sell wine at that zoo.

So its ok for the zoo officials to ignore the cries and pleas of anyone they suspect might be drunk or on drugs? Come on, that doesn't make much sense! This guy is heard begging for towels to staunch the flow of blood from his brother's wounds, and the zoo officials--who the brother identifies as the manager--couldn't be bothered to even help out with that small request.

As far as for not letting them in when they'd been drinking, (Buzz says he's seen the reports of results of the blood work on the younger brother, but I have not, so I'm taking Buzz's word on this) the zoo can't well forbid to allow drinkers into the zoo if they sell alcohol. You can enter that zoo straight and leave with a blood alcohol level that would forbid you to drive!

 

[southcitymom]

So its ok for the zoo officials to ignore the cries and pleas of anyone they suspect might be drunk or on drugs? Come on, that doesn't make much sense! This guy is heard begging for towels to staunch the flow of blood from his brother's wounds, and the zoo officials--who the brother identifies as the manager--couldn't be bothered to even help out with that small request.

As far as for not letting them in when they'd been drinking, (Buzz says he's seen the reports of results of the blood work on the younger brother, but I have not, so I'm taking Buzz's word on this) the zoo can't well forbid to allow drinkers into the zoo if they sell alcohol. You can enter that zoo straight and leave with a blood alcohol level that would forbid you to drive!

You can bet your last dollar that Plaintiffs counsel will point that out at trial!!

 

[Floh]

So now we know that the brother who had not yet been attacked was left outside- protecting and helping his brother--for 20+ minutes, all the while begging for help. "Zoo officials behaved heroically"- no, they didn't. They knew the guys were outside the restaurant begging for help, and yet they finally said, Oh, there's the tiger attacking the victim.

And regardless of those who say, Oh, they deserved what happened to them...at that time the Zoo had no way of knowing if they were choirboys or thugs.

The Zoo-- with its poor management of exhibits--ignored the injured patrons until one of them was dead and the other two were gravely injured. Why are people so determined to exonerate the Zoo at the expense of these three boys? (And yes, they are boys. My house is always full of my son's friends- boys ranging from 17-25. The law may call them men, but almost any parent would refer to them as boys.) Why is there such an attempt to ignore their humanity in this case? They have been through the traumatic experience of a lifetime...

Carlos and Tatiana would still be alive if the Zoo had been properly operated. And even if the boys opened the cage, the Zoo is still at fault for poor safety procedures. Only if the (drunken pot smoking- how shocking!) victims actually entered the enclosure can the Zoo be even somewhat exonerated, and there's no evidence of that.

Emotive. as a parent, i have to imagine all young people under the age of 25 are therefore children to you?

do you rage against children under the age of 18/25 being tried as adults when this occurs?

as an addendum, it is my impression young people are regarded as children until a much later age (called 'boys' girls') in America than in Europe. this may only be my perception, of course.

i have to make a cavet here by saying i find it wrong that children under the age of 18 are allowed to be tried as adults.

as an addendum, it would seem to me young people are regarded as children (boys/girls) until a much later age than they are in Europe. although this may only be my perception.

 

[Morag]

Possibly if they weren't drunk and high on drugs, this would never of happened. (snip)
.

Pharlap, you have hit the nail on the head. Just think of how many of the tragedies we discuss would never have occurred without alcohol and drug use.

Drinking, left bar with virtual strangers: Natalie Holloway, Imette St Guillen, Stepha Henry.

Drinking heavily, fell/jumped/pushed off cruise ship deck: George Smith.

Alcohol in car, accident on snowy road: Maura Murray.

Drinking wine with friends, left babies alone: McCanns.

Insane lifestyles, centered around drink and drugs: Britney, Lindsay, Anna Nicole.

Our young people are well-educated about stranger danger, excessive drinking, drinking while driving, taking drugs, neglecting children...but they do it, sometimes to their own fatal peril, or to that of their kids. People imbibe, sometimes to excess, regardless of how carefully they've been taught.

But if these guys were drunk and/or high, there is still no possiblity that anyone ever warned them that wild animals from the zoo could harm them. I've chaperoned zoo field trips, and though we warned the children to be polite and quiet ) ), we did not tell them that there was a possibility that the animals could escape and harm them. We have all been ignorantly blissful that the/a zoo would endanger us by improperly caging its animals.

And even if the brothers were drunk, they did manage to hie themselves to a place of presumed shelter and comfort- the restaurant. Yet the non-drinking staff of the restaurant offered them neither shelter or comfort.

If the tiger couldn't get out, then there was nothing they could do- pine-cones, sticks, rocks, slingshots, roars- that could have made the tiger get out. But the tiger could get out, regardless of what they did or didn't do.

 

[Morag]

Emotive. as a parent, i have to imagine all young people under the age of 25 are therefore children to you?

do you rage against children under the age of 18/25 being tried as adults when this occurs?

as an addendum, it is my impression young people are regarded as children until a much later age (called 'boys' girls') in America than in Europe. this may only be my perception, of course.

i have to make a cavet here by saying i find it wrong that children under the age of 18 are allowed to be tried as adults.

as an addendum, it would seem to me young people are regarded as children (boys/girls) until a much later age than they are in Europe. although this may only be my perception.

Floh, none of these 'boys' are married, most live at home or in a dorm at their parents' expense, they work at minimum wage jobs, and the ones under 21 can't buy a drink. Socially, they are definitely not men! Yet most are well-educated or getting to be, poised, worldly, competent and street-wise. Right now, there are a bunch of males in our library, playing video games, drinking Red Bull, breaking wind, laughing and insulting each other...No one would ever look into that room and say, There are 10 men in your library, Morag.

And I have worked for changes in the laws that permit those under 18 to be tried as adults. It sickens me to see the ill-treatment that juveniles are subjected to when they run afoul of the law, particularly when the juveniles have never been properly cared for by their parents.

I think that young people in America do grow up more slowly than some in other countries. In many ways, adult life in the US is harder than it is in the EU. Health care is not guaranteed, university is very expensive and must be financed privately, and the work days and work years are longer for American workers. I never got more than 3 weeks vacation when I was working, and that was only after 20 years.

So we do tend to allow our kids to have a longer period to be care-free and marginally irresponsible. You're only young once, and we are happy to see our son enjoying his youth and his youthfulness. He was mature enough at 18 to lead a party of his friends on a 2 month Eurail adventure last summer, and he handles his considerable freedom in a responsible way. But would anyone (except a cop) consider him to be a man? No.