Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 12:50 am
You last visited January 22, 2017, 11:19 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Goodbye Tatiana

Published:

Last Edited: January 22, 2008, 2:45 am

I know a human being was killed.  He was a teenager and somebody's son.  But boy do I agree with this columnist and radio show host.  Bravo!

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59779

As soon as I heard the news that a bengal tiger escaped its enclosure at the San Francisco zoo and attacked 3 men, I knew something was very suspicious.  Then I heard Jack Hanna (we've all seen him on Leno and Letterman) say such a leap would be "virtually impossible."  He said the tiger would have to be provoked to accomplish such an "unbelievable feat."  

I don't expect police officers to drive around with animal tranquilizing guns, but it's too bad that one of them didn't try to use a taser.  I guess the shock of seeing the 2 young men mauled caused them to react quickly, which was to stop the tiger from harming anyone else.  I'm still curious why someone wasn't at the zoo to handle this type of emergency.  Maybe that's because usually drunken morons don't hang around the zoo. 

Tatiana was already a victim of imprisonment.  She had never committed a crime, but was caged and displayed in a world so different from her own.  Her instincts taught her to survive by fighting back when threatened.  Animal experts say the latest autopsy reports, which indicate she injured her paws and tore up her claws to escape the enclosure, prove her fight or flight instinct went into high gear while 3 intoxicated, stoned idiots threw debris and taunted her.  They lied to the police, but blood and urine tests don't lie.  They had open bottles of vodka in the car and marijuana.  It was probably just a game to them.  After all, it was dark, the zoo was closing and they felt like stirring up some trouble. 

My prayers and sympathy go out to the parents, but the men were 24, 19 and 17.  They weren't children and should have known better.  19 year old Paul Dhaliwal was on probation from an earlier drunk driving incident. His blood alcohol level the night of the attack was twice the legal level, 0.16. Now he wants a lot of money from the San Francisco Zoo for endangerment because that's what his high profile attorney says he deserves.  What is happening in our country?  You do something foolish and then expect to be rewarded with millions for the consequences of your crime?  I remember a very upsetting story where a family dog bit a paperboy who had broken into their house when they were away.  The dog was put down for being loyal and protecting his property.  The boy's family later sued the dog owner.

I know many people feel badly and think that the trauma of being mauled by a wild beast is punishment enough.  Maybe it is.  But if they get off scot-free with a hug, the next time they're out partying and raising hell, they might drive head-on into a family.  On New Year's Eve an entire family of 5, including a 6 month old baby, was wiped out by one man who was driving drunk.  He survived. 

For these men, the victim was an animal, so no sympathy goes out to her.  Who will be their next victim? 

 

Entry #116

Comments

1.
spy153Comment by spy153 - January 22, 2008, 8:50 am
me too, justx. I feel if you're stupid enough to taunt something that could just sit on you and kill you with it's weight alone, you ought to see the mauling a coming! And you sure don't deserve any compensation for it !

2.
emilygComment by emilyg - January 22, 2008, 1:15 pm
Me, too.
3.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 22, 2008, 1:31 pm
I've always hated zoos. It's just not right to keep animals caged up like that. My old roommate's wife kept a fighting fish in a bowl. I also don't like fish kept in tanks in people's houses. They have feelings too and probably want the heck out of the place.
4.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 22, 2008, 1:35 pm
Nobody deserve to be mauled by a tiger, whether they were drunk or not. Even a drunk visitor taunting dangerous animals should be protected from the wild animals in a zoo. There should have been no way a dangerous animal had a way to break threw a cage even with help from a drunken visitor. They were (the zoo) should have tested the worst case scenario for safety. I'm sure they get some form of taunting to dangerous animals everyday.

My sympathy goes out to the young man and his family. I'm sure many of us have done some crazy s**t while lit up and looked back at it and thought wow I could have gotten hurt or killed or hurt others.

The tiger was a dangerous animal who would attacked and killed me without being provoked and should have not been exposed to humans without proper safety.

What if a special needs person had taunted the animal or a child on the same level of those guys. What if it had been two 12 year old boys having fun. Would you say the same thing?   The animal was not suppose to be able to get out.

And where was Zoo security, having Christmas dinner? Other people could have gotten hurt or killed. It seems it would take a while for a tiger to work up to the level to break through a cage. Where was security on the dangerous animals cameras.   

It's clearly the zoo's fault. The man's past DUI and his state of drunkenness had nothing to do with whether he deserved it or not. The animal was not suppose to be able to get out of there.
5.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 22, 2008, 3:02 pm
Tenaj wrote: Nobody deserve to be mauled by a tiger, whether they were drunk or not.

True. No human being should experience that. Agree that past crimes should not have any influence of this matter.

However, in answer to your other comment, the zoo did protect people from danger and a special needs person would not have been hanging around the zoo by himself after dark after everyone had left. Most special needs people are very kind to animals. BTW, it wasn't Christmas, it was Christmas Eve, in the cold after dark. They were not animal lovers and went to the zoo for a specific reason. They got in and then stayed after they zoo began to close. They then entered an area that was not designated for visitors. The police found a footprint on the railing matching one of the victims. They lied to the police at first but then, after there was more evidence against them, including the drugs & alcohol, they started to admit they were yelling at it and waving their hands. There is inconclusive evidence that they also threw debris at the tiger. How in the heck can the public be protected from that? THEY engangered the public. The only answer would be never to cage wild animals. (and I agree with that!) To answer your question about where everyone was, it's obvious that they picked a time when nobody was around. I don't want to go off on a tangent, but once in a store, I picked up the phone and announced "Attn shoppers, we are now closed....blah, blah." That was after the 5:45 announcement saying we were about to close. We closed at 6 and exhausted, I walked around to make sure nobody was still there 10 minutes later. I called out in every department, but nobody responded. The alarm was set, the lights were dimmed and I heard a sound. I found 2 imbeciles in the mattress section. I guess if they had tripped over something in the dark, they would have sued the company and said they didn't hear me (which was impossible) Now, maybe someone will say "what if that person was deaf?" or "what if the couple didn't understand English?" There are always excuses for defending irresponsible people who break rules. In this case, there were no wild animals in the store.

By the way, I hate circuses that use animal acts. But did you know that elephants and tigers have turned on their trainers? Remember the magic act of Sigfried & Roy? In both cases (a circus, magic act) the public could have been engangered. Yet people take their kids to a circus all the time. This tiger was not going to harm anyone. It was threatened by 3 men who were not only drunk & stoned, but throwing things at it. Some evidence isn't conclusive, but they matched footprints and fingerprints on the wall or railing around the enclosure. There were signs saying to keep out and they ignored them. If there's a building that says "keep out" and someone gets hurt because he and his friends want to get drunk/stoned or fool around, why should the construction company be charged? If someone goes to a restaurant and runs into the kitchen and gets burned, is it the restaurant's fault? There are no guardrails keeping people from the hot flames and ovens. However, we all know that you don't walk into places that aren't designated for patrons. Still, I bet if this happened, the family would sue the restaurant.

Just in case I was misunderstood, these men were caught with drugs & alcohol in their vehicle that they DROVE to the zoo. Their blood alcohol level was over the limit (one was twice the legal limit) at the time they were tested at the hospital. This level drops dramatically every hour. So who knows how drunk they were when they drove there and when they taunted the cat? Another report I read said there was marijuana in their blood too and drugs were found in the car that they DROVE to the zoo. Had this unfortunate accident not happened, maybe an innocent driver would be the victim. I might sound mean to you, but that's what went through my head. They were driving a car drinking, drugging, but in this society we sort of accept that as a petty offense until someone gets killed.

One victim was on probation, which means he violated his probation. The police found in the car one of those vials people buy to fool the urine tests, which someone on probation might obviously use to pass his test.   

Yes, I agree with you that this does not mean they deserved to be killed or mauled by a wild animal. However, if they did the same thing to me and I shot them, in Florida I would not be charged. I would walk away of course, but if I were in my own car or "enclosure" that I call home, and 3 intoxicated men taunted me, once they approached my house and started to climb over the fence or bang on th windows, the law says I can shoot him. That doesn't mean anyone else would be in danger, does it? Only the person who was unlawfully on my property. (no, I don't even own a gun. but sometimes I think about it)

You wrote: "Even a drunk visitor taunting dangerous animals should be protected from the wild animals in a zoo. There should have been no way a dangerous animal had a way to break threw a cage even with help from a drunken visitor."

I agree. That's not what happened. Maybe the wall should have been higher, but they violated the rules. Adults should know what "keep out" and "do not enter" mean. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "dangerous" and other warnings in my life. If they had taken a street that said it was under construction and gotten hurt, would the city be responsible? They got a horrible punishment of course, but they were not innocent by a long shot.
6.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 22, 2008, 3:34 pm
Sorry, Tenaj. I type about 100wpm so I just type as I think. Didn't mean to go on so long just to get the last word (even if it is my blog. lol)
You have a right to your opinion which I always welcome here. However, I don't think this sad incident would have happened had they not provoked the animal. Also, I definitely believe they were a danger to society. So many families have been destroyed and all 3 of them were under the influence, which means that there was no designated driver. The tiger could have killed an innocent bystander too, but something they did caused this animal to tear its claws and go through pain to do it.
7.
Coin TossComment by Coin Toss - January 22, 2008, 6:07 pm
I'm with spy153 on this one.
8.
ThinkComment by Think - January 22, 2008, 10:21 pm
The Zoo should be closed forever and the Zoo keepers and Zoo inspectors should be charged with negligent homicide for Tatiana and charged with something else for the death of the drunk. All the Animals, if possible, should be released back where they came from.

It is just too bad we cant feed the keepers and inspectors to the kitties.
9.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 23, 2008, 5:12 pm
I agree with you in part, Think. Unfortunately, once an animal is in captivity, it loses a lot of its natural instincts. Obviously, this cat had some fight left in her, but it doesn't mean she'd be equally competitive in the wild against beasts who are used to running & hunting for several miles a day. Also, the wild seems to be disappearing. I don't know what the law is in CA, but the boy who was killed was a minor in some states, so the man who was 24 might be responsible for him. I also just realized that, being under 21, the 24 year old violated Federal law, didn't he? You can't buy alcohol for a minor. They were probably all pals, but it's a thought. One reason I posted this blog was that the 2 survivors lied so much to the police because of money. Then the evidence showed that they had been harassing the tiger and were climbing on the wall or fence.
10.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 23, 2008, 6:57 pm
I care more about people than animals. I'm an advocate for people. I love animals and some of them I eat and some of them will eat me.   Saving abused animals is not an advocate of mine. I have my own community and family to worry about first. People. I hate any type of abuse to animals or humans but humans are first for me. I had a dog for 12 years and she was a member of the family and was treated as such.

But I don't love animals if they are killers. And if they are killers in a zoo cage, they should not be able to break the cage from excessive taunting from zoo visitors. Regardless of how they did it - whether the visitors were drunk, threw sticks at it, in an area where they were not suppose to be, climbed the wall, whether they were liars, have DUI's on probation or whatever. I still love people better than a killer animal. Zoo security was suppose to be on those young men and protect others from the harm they were to cause for themselves and others.

When I go to a zoo I want to feel that it is nothing that no one can do from outside the cage to make a dangerous animal get so mad that they would break out and kill me. The bottom line is that the killer tiger was not properly caged.
11.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 23, 2008, 9:02 pm
Yes, Tenaj. In fact, I've had this discussion before with people. I am very opposed to animal testing and laboratories and can't even imagine how much pain & suffering monkeys go through, but I know if I had a child and she would die unless an animal was killed, I would of course save her life. Still, I believe these men were negligent and should not be paid a lot of money because they provoked an attack. Was the zoo at fault? I don't have enough details. Maybe, but they never had an incident in the past AFAIK. Again, it would be necessary to stop all circuses and shows using animals (which I am 100% in favor of) to make sure a wild animal doesn't attack.   Actually, there have been attacks at circuses. Animals don't like to be whipped and put in tiny cages. It's so cruel. People think they enjoy performing and they do it out of fear, not love. Dogs doing tricks are different. (some dogs don't like to do tricks either)

In Oakland someone jumped over a fence and tried to pet a tiger. I guess it wasn't secure enough. However, I grew up going to the zoo all the time. It was called Franklin Park Zoo. I never would have thought about sticking my hand inside the cage of a wild animal even when I was 10 years old. I guess now we need to protect people from their own foolishness.
12.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 23, 2008, 10:35 pm
Was the zoo at fault? Yes the zoo was at fault and they know there are stupid people and it's their job to protect other people from what stupid people will do to hurt others and themselves. As strange as it may seem - it's true. If it can be done - a stupid person will do it. We called it "idiot proofing"

Wild killer animals are suppose to be secure where nobody can provoke it to break out of a cage. There should be security were visitors can not jump over a fence to pet a tiger or stick their hand inside the cage of a wild animal, go into a restricted area or provoke a tiger long enough without being noticed to make it break out a cage and kill somebody.

You don't need any more details. That tiger was not suppose to be able to get out of that cage and those men were not suppose to be able to get in a restricted area. What is it you don't understand about that. I say again - the tiger was not properly secure in the cage and Zoo security were not on the job. What is it you don't understand about that?
13.
jarasanComment by jarasan - January 23, 2008, 10:59 pm
Jerks. Shame they didn't run into Jeffrey Dahlmer first. There are more vicious predatory animals walking around the streets here and everywhere on this planet, than in zoos, they are called humans. These humans are worse than any tiger, lion, bear etc.. Just like the animals that get early release and go out and rape and murder someone. How do you idiot proof that? How did they get out of their cage? Stupid is as stupid does, I saw those F#@^ng jerks, they looked like guilty ass gang bangers, these people are stupid and like violence. Shame the tiger didn't get the other two.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.