The Ire of the Tiger
Jacob Sullum | January 7, 2008, 5:06pm
In my column last week, I cited the recent fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo as an example of blame shifting, because it seemed likely that one or more of the men who were mauled did something to provoke the tiger. Since then new details have reinforced that impression:
1) A witness told the San Francisco Chronicle she saw the two men who survived, Kulbir and Paul Dhaliwal, taunting the lions at the big-cat house where the tiger escaped. Notably, she said Carlos Sousa Jr., the 17-year-old who reportedly died after distracting the tiger from the Dhaliwal brothers, thereby saving their lives, did not participate in the taunting and seemed embarrassed by his friends' behavior.
2) The police saw an empty vodka bottle in the front seat of the car the Dhaliwals took to the zoo.
3) Paramedics told the Chronicle they overheard Sources told the Chronicle that paramedics overheard Kulbir Dhaliwal instruct his younger brother, "Don't tell them what we did."
The Dhaliwal brothers, who have retained a lawyer and almost certainly plan to sue the zoo, still have not given a complete account of the attack, even to police. Since it failed to build a wall high enough to keep an agitated tiger from escaping, the zoo is not blameless. But whoever agitated the tiger enough to provoke such an unprecedented attack should not receive a windfall as a result.
[via Overlawyered]
Dave W. | January 8, 2008, 6:15am | #
Man, this is even stupider than Mr. Sullum's corporatist entries usually are:
1. Drinking and roaring (if that is all that occurred) should not be enough to defeat zoo liability, or to characterize compensation as a "windfall" here. It is also understandable that the brothers would want to remain silent about this until they consulted counsel.
2. The zoo would not believe the brothers that a tiger attack had happened. The brothers claim that it took one half hour of trying to convince two zoo employees (or contractors) that an attack had occurred. This while one of the brothers was bleeding. We haven't really heard from the zoo about this, but: (i) the 911 call by the zoo employee indicates that he did not believe an attack had occurred; and (ii) by not allowing the injured brothers into a secure building a second attack occurred on the brothers; and (iii) by not allowing the brothers into a secure building the tiger had to be killed rather than tranquilized.
3. Mr. Sullum points out that the brothers did not talk. Why does he not point out that the zoo security guard did not talk? Why does he not point out that the zoo cafe employee has not talked? Does Mr. Sullum believe that corporations should be forced to talk immediately or face a presumption of guilt? Even if we were to ignore the fact that it would be legally unwise for the brothers to talk about the legal case while still unrepresented, bleeding and probably sedated
under any circumstances, it is understandable that the brothers would be
mad as hell if they couldn't convince a zoo employee to let them in a building and prevent their 2d mauling.
4. Sullum ignores widespread rumours that were spread in the week following the case, which have now been disclaimed. The first was that there was blood in the cage (many media sources). The second was that the brothers had slingshots (NY Post, repeated without criticism in many media sources). Where did these rumours come from? Since these tantalizing tidbits have been discarded, it seems that we should be pretty wary about jumping on the new generation of zoo-favourable rumours.
5. Sullum needs to go. Not just this article -- he is wandering into dumbness more and more as time goes by. He lets his Rolodex show too often. I wonder if Justin Raimondo is available to take his place?
6. No word on whether Mr. Gillespie ate the tiger.
7. I am open to the possibility that the brothers did do some "comparative fault" actions here. Either large comparative fault stuff like letting the tiger out, or mild comparative fault stuff, like climbing on the outside of the wall, or throwing pinecones into the cage. drinking and roaring ain't gonna cut it here however.
