My $0.02: SF Zoo Tiger Mauling (UPDATED 1/18/2008)

1/18/08 Edit: So apparently the boys were intoxicated, high, and taunted the tiger.

"As a result of this investigation, (police believe) that the tiger may have been taunted/agitated by its eventual victims," according to Inspector Valerie Matthews, who prepared the affidavit. Police believe that "this factor contributed to the tiger escaping from its enclosure and attacking its victims," she said.

They lied about taunting the tiger, which was totally stupid on their part, but it is not like they asked to get mauled. If there were signs stating "Warning: Tiger will maul you if taunted" then I would have to agree that they asked to get maul. Would you tell a rape victim that they were asking for it because they were dressed provocatively? The main issue is that the enclosure was 4.5 feet lower than what it was stated by the zoo. I am sure more updates will follow. [Source: CNN.com]
________________________
Original Post:

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that visitors of the SF Zoo saw the victims of tiger mauling "taunting" the tiger.

Jennifer Miller, who was at the zoo with her husband and two children that ill-fated Christmas afternoon, said she saw four young men at the big-cat grottos - and three of them were teasing the lions a short time before the tiger's bloody rampage that killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.

"The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them," the San Francisco woman said. "They were trying to get that lion's attention. ... The lion was bristling, so I just said, 'Come on, let's get out of here' because my kids were disturbed by it."

She said Sousa - whom she later recognized from his photo in the newspaper - was not heckling. The Chronicle contacted Miller after learning that she and her family had seen the young men at the zoo Christmas Day.

It seems to me that everyone is trying to blame the victims of the tiger mauling, because they must have done something to provoke the tiger. There was a report that the victims had slingshots, which was later reported to be false. And it has been reported that a empty bottle of vodka was found in the car of victims. Was the handler in at fault in 2006 when the tiger ate their arm?

Even if they were intoxicated is still doesn't explain: 1)how the tiger manage to the escape? 2)why the tiger grotto was 4.5 feet lower than the recommended standard? 3)who was the alleged fourth person?

I think people are assuming the guilt of the two of the survivors, brothers Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal, because they retained defense attorney Mark Geragos (who last big client was Scott Peterson) and they are not speaking out to the media. Why should they? I think they were smart to do this because most people already assume that they were at fault.

Okay, let me play devil's advocate for the sake of argument. What if the tiger was taunted, should the zoo should be held responsible because their tiger grotto didn't meet standards? Appartently taunting a zoo animal (in California?) is a misdemeanor, so can the zoo not be sued because the tiger was justified in the attack? I am not trying to make light of the situation, but is this a possible defense the zoo could use.

Mark Geragos has made a statement stating the survivors of the mauling tried to get help for 30 minutes to aid Carlos Sousa Jr., who did not survive the attack. Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal claim that the attack began around 4:30pm and help was finally contacted at 5:07pm according to the police logs.

To me, every side of the story has a hint of subterfuge. It will be months until the majority of the facts are confirmed and real story will emerge.

What do you think?

Related Stories:

S.F. Zoo visitor saw 2 victims of tiger attack teasing lions [SF Chronicle]
TALL ORDER FOR DEADLY BARRIER [NY Post]