Patterico's Pontifications

6/3/2008

San Francisco Teenager Killed By Tiger Had Marijuana and Alcohol in His System

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:15 pm



The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The San Francisco Medical Examiner says a teenager who was killed by an escaped tiger at the zoo had marijuana and alcohol in his system at the time.

The toxicology report released Monday was included with an autopsy that concluded “blunt force injuries of the head and neck” killed 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.

The lawyer for the Sousa family says that it is “totally irrelevant” to the case.

98 Responses to “San Francisco Teenager Killed By Tiger Had Marijuana and Alcohol in His System”

  1. i wish that the tiger had gotten all three of them. regrettably, young punks are not an endangered species, but tigers are rare and beautiful.

    assistant devil's advocate (7d6ddd)

  2. the only reason his family should need a lawyer is because the city is suing them for the loss of the tiger.

    he was drunk, stoned and did something stupid that cost him his life: we call that “natural selection”.

    redc1c4 (e3877d)

  3. Probably should give this to the SJ Mercury-News, not the Chronicle.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9465097?nclick_check=1

    At 6 feet 1 inch tall and 272 pounds, how determinative is a .04 blood alcohol content? It’s not “totally irrelavant,” obviously.

    steve (fca31d)

  4. Er, “irrelevant.”

    steve (fca31d)

  5. Is there no duty to protect drunken, zonked-out punks* who torment a captive tiger in an enclosure? What kind of state is California becoming these days? Next thing you know, it will elect a Republican governor.

    *Sorry, I can’t think of a better word.

    nk (be56c0)

  6. nk – I’m sure a multi-layer bureaucracy-creating ballot initiative involving pot, tigers, alcohol, etc. will appear in an upcoming state election.

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  7. Another worthy candidate for the Darwin awards, working to improve the human gene pool. Dude could have played either the mutant baby or the daddy in Eraserhead.

    Speaking of genes, a guy approaches a lady and says if I were an enzyme, I’d be helicase so I could unzip your genes.
    But seriously, I’m sure the punk’s family could be consoled by a nice check from the city. Reminds me of the psychopath Derrick Smith who was shot to death by a transit cop as he knifed the officer to death. Family didn’t give a rat’s ass about him being released from nuthouse until his death and subsequent $$$ signs in their brains.
    Guess that is one “yoot” who will never lead a life of recidivist crimes nor create innocent victims, human or otherwise, with his acts.

    madmax333 (a3b746)

  8. “Speaking of genes, a guy approaches a lady and says if I were an enzyme, I’d be helicase so I could unzip your genes.”

    Please tell me you’re doing a two-week gig in the Catskills this summer.

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  9. #8
    No to Catskills. I’m more the Steve Wright genre in S. Fla., late of Philly.

    Who is really funny on tube these days? I thought Everybody Loves Raymond sucked, for example. Sometimes Carlos Mencia is funny, like when he plays a Pakistani grocer. That HBO Kiwi comedy/singing duo Chord-something didn’t do to much for me either.

    madmax333 (a3b746)

  10. It is “totally irrelevant” that this excuse for a family is able to sue. They reared and put this punk, who should have been in the cage, on the street. They should be in jail themselves.

    Scrapiron (c36902)

  11. Hey madmax333, the Phillies are KICKING ASS!!

    Jack Klompus (b796b4)

  12. It’s really not clear to me if it’s relevant or not.

    If the argument is that the city was negligent in the way that it housed the tiger, does recklessness on the part of the drunk/stoned teenager relieve them of liability?

    aphrael (5633e2)

  13. My opinion of a fitting finding by a jury would be to assign 99% of blame to the actions of the deceased; and, then to award damages of $1.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  14. Here in NC, it probably would be a complete defense, assuming that cause and effect can be proved. Anywhere else in the US, it’s comparative negligence, and the fact that the tiger could escape is going to be key.

    Xrlq (62cad4)

  15. Did the tiger have the munchies afterwards?

    Steverino (74937d)

  16. Wait, so the tiger was drunk and high when it killed the kid? I mean how else do you account for the stuff in the kid’s bloodstream?

    Somebody ought to have the animal cruelty folks look into the way they were keeping the tiger.

    daleyrocks (ae5951)

  17. Being stoned could have been relevant to whether the victim could have run away or though to climb a tree.
    But as far as letting the city of San Francisco off the hook for housing a tiger which can make a 14 foot verticle leap in an enclosure with a 12 foot fence, not a chance.
    Let the city beureaucrats dig deep. I hope the Sousa family’s award bankrupts that festering cesspool of a city.

    papertiger (ab2f41)

  18. I hope the Sousa family bleeds SF, like a drunken medieval dentist.

    papertiger (ab2f41)

  19. No, Papertiger, being drunk and stoned leads support to the theory that the teenagers were taunting the tiger and increases the likelihood that they earned the tiger attack.

    It is a shame that the zoo did not have an adequate enclosure, because the result was the death of a magnificent animal that deserved better.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. NOne of this matters. It shouldn’t have been possible for the tiger to get out of its enclosure even if it was being taunted.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  21. It is a shame that the zoo did not have an adequate enclosure, because the result was the death of a magnificent animal that deserved better.

    And there you have the tragedy in this. The rest is reckless misadventure.

    Pablo (99243e)

  22. Thinking back to my college days, I can safely say that all of the marijuana in the world wouldn’t cause someone to taunt a tiger unless they would have done so stone cold sober. That stuff makes you MORE afraid of tigers, not less so (it also makes you more afraid of ordinary household appliances, but that’s another story).

    Anyway, whether or not these teenagers provoked this particular attack, I would prefer to bring my kids to a zoo that is always held strictly liable for deaths caused by escaped animals. It just seems like it’d be safer than one that could try to lay blame on visitors for “provoking” the animals.

    Phil (0ef625)

  23. XRLQ: you used to be in California. Do you remember how California handles comparing recklessness with negligence?

    aphrael (5633e2)

  24. I would prefer to bring my kids to a zoo that is always held strictly liable for deaths caused by escaped animals.

    Oh, so if some unauthorized fool saunters up and opens the tiger cage using any means necessary, it’s the zoo’s fault?

    Paul (90f626)

  25. There is an old case from the California Supreme Court about a drunk who falls and is injured due to a defective walkway. The court said that even a drunk is entitled to a safe place to walk.

    The same is true of Beavis and Butthead. They are entitled to a safe zoo.

    Alta Bob (53a695)

  26. ^Except that B&B taunted the tiger–it’s not as if the cat thought “hey, these three retards look tasty–let me get some of that!”

    ECM (de5660)

  27. You know the motives of a tiger?
    Can you prove that in court?

    papertiger (202292)

  28. The intersection of comparative negligence with strict liability in the keeping of dangerous animals together with implied assumption of the risk and soverign immunity and waivers ( assuming the zoo is a city / county department ) can be a bit of a mess in California law. I used to practice in California and it got my head all hurtee back then.

    But when you boil it all down, the liability issue does not shift much away from the zoo.

    But it should. California’s tort law is an ass.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. Ahh, good point. I’d forgotten about strict liability in the keeping of dangerous animals.

    ISTM the city ought to focus on assumption of risk, given what I know of the facts of this case; but it’s probably a jury question at that point.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  30. Most of assumption of the risk got subsumed into comparative negligence in California although the case law used to be confused enough to justify law review articles.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. With regard to blood alcohol levels, a .04 reading means the same thing for a 5 foot 1 petite 105 pound blonde (a “tiger appetizer”) as it does for the 6 foot 1 271 pound doofus (the “tiger main course”). It just takes a greater absolute quantity of alcohol for the larger body to reach the same blood alcohol level.

    You blow or test .04 you’re halfway to being too impaired to drive. (At least it was .08 blood alcohol level last time I thought about the California statute–things may have changed.)

    What it did for this guy was leave him with enough remaining motor ability to (possibly) taunt the tiger. And in some moral, but not legal, sense that makes the fellow at least partially responsible for his own death.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  32. I am probably a bigger animal lover than most of you, but even I am hesitant to put all of the blame on the kid that died here. If you’re going to lock up animals in a zoo, you should know that some people will try to provoke a reaction from them. These people might be slightly inebriated (.04%), high (unknown amount of marijuana in the system), or just the kind of people that like to pick on animals/other people. Still, the zoo should have made the retaining wall high enough that even a tiger being taunted could not jump out.

    Mrs. Patterico (cb443b)

  33. I tend to agree with comments 19-21. I don’t like to see visitors taunting an animal, and if they do, that’s a factor with a wild animal. But the zoo should maintain enclosures that will work — for the safety of the tiger as well as the visitors.

    Patterico (d79ca7)

  34. What the hell is this “blaiming the dead guy for getting eaten” bs? “Blood alcohol was .04″ SO f’in what. An 04 is equal to a beer. One beer. Not a six pack. Not a weekend kegger. Just one beer. That’s it.
    What a load of horse shit for you to blaim the victim on this basis.
    And crocodile tears for a damned animal. Let me tell you a little secret. That tiger isn’t a victim. It’s an animal. A vicious killing machine which is shunned in it’s native land. The only reason for it being imported is for the amusement
    of liberal candyasses, who would soil their panties if they ever came face to face with a raccoon in the wild.
    For crying out loud the SF citizens passed an ordinance forbidding the ownership of a dog over 30 lbs. lest one of their precious snowflakes be startled while jumping fences.
    The city needs to pay up. They need to pay up bigtime. They need to stop dribbling outlandish excuses through their willing media enablers and pay the piper. Let the punishment fit the crime. And make no mistake, leaving your vicious animal unsecured is a crime in SF.

    papertiger (fbc22c)

  35. On reflection, I regret the use of salty language in my previous post.
    Please excuse me, and spare a kind word in your prayers for my mother – she strove mightily to correct this fault.

    papertiger (7e1f91)

  36. SAN FRANCISCO – A young man injured in the San Francisco Zoo tiger attack was drunk and had yelled and waved at the animal while standing on the railing of its enclosure, police said in court documents filed Thursday.

    Paul Dhaliwal, 19, told the father of Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, who was killed by the tiger, that all three victims shouted and gestured at the tiger but insisted they never threw anything into the pen, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Sounds like a Darwin Award winner to me. We give out compensation for that now?

    RickZ (8df857)

  37. Excuse me, but this is San Francisco, CA. The jury will just look at who has money and redistribute it. The law, morality, etc. will mean nothing.

    Yes, SF is so screwed up that the blame everyone who had noting to do with the incident crowd run the asylum.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  38. the sf citizens passed an ordinance forbidding the ownership of a dog over 30 lbs.

    no they didn’t. i know people in sf who own dogs in excess of 30 lbs. i look at the sf chronicle every single day, and have never heard of such an ordinance, so…

    did your mother also teach you to lie on the internet, or did you develop this faculty all by yourself?

    assistant devil's advocate (775b1f)

  39. In the end it doesn’t matter that the kid was drunk, stoned, stupid and illegally inside the out bounds area for the enclusure. Because the Tiger enclosure was out of specks the family will win. Sign of the times, a great deal of parents don’t raise their kids to be responsible adults and accountable for their own actions. It’s always somebody else’s fault. How much money can I get. Unfortunately, in this instance someone was killed.

    Richard Daugherty (b039e2)

  40. English Common Law would have deemed the death as one by, “Misadventure”. However, ECL has been replaced with a legal philosophy of lesser standards upon individual responsibility. Guilt, innocence, negligence and liability are all determinate according to assets. Nothing more.

    C. Norris (72cd91)

  41. Papertiger, you seem to have elevated animals to the status of humans as you imply that they have free will and sentient control of their actions. And you reduce the human teenagers to the status of animals by implying that they are not responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

    I find this inversion of responsibility simply ridiculous.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  42. The tiger is a consummate hunter, and will instinctively seek out the weakest animal in the herd. (Read that with a British accent.)

    Socratease (64f814)

  43. Firstly, I’m pretty sure (contra a previous commenter’s assertion) that a .04 BAC is like, two or three beers in the space of an hour.

    Secondly, regardless of who deserves the blame here, I’m a bit confused as to the relevance. If we’re suggesting that the teenager was inebriated and therefore more likely to taunt the tiger, I guess I can see that.

    But some people seem to be suggestign that that level of intoxication somehow drastically reduced the punk’s chance of survival in hand-to-hand combat with, um, a huge, fanged, razor-clawed precision killing machine.

    To put the same point in reverse: What would a non-intoxicated teenager have done differently once the tiger was loose that would have availed him? Run away from a tiger? Climbed a tree to escape from a tiger? Boxed its delightful fuzzy ears?

    What (other than, say, a gun,) avails a man against a dang tiger, intoxicated or no?

    jdub (ca6e17)

  44. Don’t you think that the tiger’s enraged state due to the taunting was a direct cause for the attack? I doubt the booze had much bearing on the teen’s desire to tease the beast. Should the tiger always be killed if he himself kills a human?

    I recall a young lady jogger being ran into by a deer and killed. Should that animal be slaughtered also? Lots of dead deer every year who manage to kill some people by running in front of cars. I was on a bike on a path with a moderately high fence on one side when a huge buck came charging out of woods, leapt over fence and very nearly into me. Who is at fault if either one of us should die? I guess our estate sues that owner of the property?

    madmax333 (9bbaf1)

  45. Look what I found reported here at Big Cat News.

    December 25, 2007 San Francisco, CA: A Siberian tiger named Tatiana escaped at the San Francisco zoo, killing17 year old Carlos Sousa who was in the cafe and mauled two other young men (19 and 23) before police arrived on the scene and shot Tatiana to death. All three boys were from San Jose. The zoo says they don’t know how she escaped. Tatiana’s enclosure was reinforced after the cat’s first attack two days before Christmas last year. In the attack that occurred last year, Tatiana chewed off keeper Lori Komejan’s arm during a regular afternoon feeding at the Lion House. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health later ruled the zoo was responsible for that incident, blaming poor training and the way the tiger enclosures were designed. The city, which helps fund the zoo, has been sued by Komejan and is assessing whether it is liable for the Christmas Day mauling.

    Now understand that the bold above is describing a separate incident involving this same tiger which escaped from the same inadequate enclosure in 2006. That time the zoo was found liable for their shoddy cage.

    From the same site a few other facts about the fatal attack of 2007.

    After interviewing the brothers, police said Kulbir Dhaliwal was the animal’s first victim.
    As the tiger clawed and bit him, Sousa and the younger brother yelled in hopes of scaring it off him, police said. The cat then went for Sousa, slashing his neck as the brothers ran to a zoo cafe for help.
    After killing the teenager, the tiger followed a trail of blood left by Kulbir Dhaliwal about 300 yards to the cafe, where it mauled both men, police said.

    So as the real interview with the victims shows – which the media has studiously avoided reporting –

    Sousa, far from being an inebriated reckless teen, out on a goof that cost his life, was actually not the target of this animal. Sousa hazzarded his life rather then see his friend maulled.

    Oh and BTW, FO ADA and SQ.

    papertiger (feba14)

  46. Papertiger, the interview does not rebut any claim about the teenagers taunting the cat. Further, mauling during a feeding is a completely different failure mode. It was a function of a different part of the enclosure and the process the staff member followed in feeding the animals.

    Do grow up.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. SQ
    Do you have some type of mental impairment, I should know about. Are you skipping your meds?
    Or is it just a bout of personal pique that makes it impossible for you to admit being wrong?
    Lots of people have that fault.

    papertiger (feba14)

  48. Papertiger, many people also act as juvenile as yourself. Some of them even have a young age as an excuse. Meanwhile, my comments above remain.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  49. papertiger, you’re the one who seems to be fact-challenged, between your false assertion that san francisco prohibits the ownership of >30 pound dogs, and your statement that a .04 blood alcohol level is the result of a single beer. i’m guessing you don’t have a lot of experience with beer or animals, but carry on, the drunken, stoned punks in this story need champions from wherever they can be found.

    assistant devil's advocate (4478ae)

  50. In any case, given that strict liability will be applied for fault, the measure of damages will be solely “What was the dead person worth?”

    What say you?

    nk (be56c0)

  51. Amount he had been drinking, if Steve is correct (Edit: He is) on his weight, would be most of a six-pack in the last hour. (have to estimate, they they don’t go above 240 on this calc)

    That said, the kid was *17*.
    Which means he was breaking the law, in public; where is the investigation of THAT crime? I know that Cali is week on MJ, but that should be looked into, as well. My bet is on the older of the two brothers he was with buying the alcohol.

    Which does rather make it seem that any charges against the zoo should be reduced because it’s evidence that he was being an idiot and his parents were negligent–the kid either was old enough to be held responsible or the parents should be held responsible for his actions.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  52. So a drunk and stoned underaged beaner gets killed by a tiger that he teased, and we all are supposed to:
    A) Care
    B) Pay?

    martin (cd5d90)

  53. Martin, I don’t think we need the racism here.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  54. Foxifier: in San Francisco, nobody’s going to bother going after small-scale marijuana possession. There’s no political support for that.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  55. Carlos Mencia is allowed to say it.

    martin (cd5d90)

  56. So a drunk and stoned underaged beaner gets killed by a tiger that he teased, and we all are supposed to:
    A) Care
    B) Pay?

    Both. If you are any kind of decent. Well, if you happen to live in SF, or are a patron of the zoo, you should pay. The tiger should have been put down the first time it munched a human.
    The zoo is horribly, serially, negligent. In the most craven way imaginable the zoo and city are seeking to avoid their culpability, by attacking the character of Sousa. They have gone so far as to attack the character of their own employee who was maimed for life by their carelessness, inspite of CalOSHA finding them guilty.
    Sousa’s character is beyond their or your reach. Sousa saved his friends life. He gave his life for the welfare of his friend. Just as if he had been in Iraq and jumped on a grenade.

    Which one of you would do that? Which one of you ever risked your life in a tight situation for a friend? My money is there isn’t one person with the courage of a Sousa on this board.

    papertiger (b31b59)

  57. Sousa saved his friends life. He gave his life for the welfare of his friend.

    Is that like the 30 lbs dogs you posted about earlier?

    nk (be56c0)

  58. Papertiger, good job, now your arguments depend upon your own ignorance of your opponents.

    Brilliant.

    Comparing beer-drinking, marijuana smoking teenagers taunting animals at a zoo to soldiers deployed to Iraq: not brilliant.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. papertiger –
    You are disgusting.

    And a moron.

    There is NOTHING that makes being a drunken idiot the same as those who jump on a grenade to save their fellows; had he refused to taunt a caged animal, and risked himself to prevent his friends from doing so–or even been an innocent bystander!–he might at least be brave– but instead, he joined in and died for it.

    It is a slight redemption that he tried to protect the other idiots, but it is nothing NEAR the sacrifice of those trying to defend his brothers-in-arms, who are defending the defenseless.

    He was wrong. They thought they could get away with abusing what they THOUGHT was a helpless animal–it just turned out that a twenty foot moat and a twelve foot wall wasn’t helpless enough.

    It’s like trying to be sorry for people who play in traffic and get hit by cars.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  60. Martin: “[x] can say it” isn’t really a good defense when someone calls you on saying something inappropriate. It has more than a whiff of adolescence about it.

    aphrael (5633e2)

  61. “The lawyer for the Sousa family says that it is “totally irrelevant” to the case.”

    The lawyer for the Sousa family has been living in the echo chamber for so long they have no idea how obvious a lie this is.

    tyree (e24364)

  62. “Sousa saved his friends life. He gave his life for the welfare of his friend. Just as if he had been in Iraq and jumped on a grenade.”

    Disgusting and disrespectful. Are you saying that this kid should get a CMH and his mother a hug from the president? Or are you saying that the GI who actually did die on a grenade is no better than a stoned, drunken Mexican?

    martin (cd5d90)

  63. The abbreviation is MoH, BTW.

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  64. Do they give medals of honor to civilians?

    I would settle for the daily gossip sheets, and the city they serve, calling a halt to the tap dancing on Sousa’s grave.

    papertiger (f6198c)

  65. There is an exact relation between a soldier in the field jumping on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers, and a teenager confronting a marauding tiger to save his drinking buddy. Or punching in a window on a burning vehicle to pull an unconscious driver to safety. Or running into a dog attack to kick and gouge the eyes of a pitbull locked on to someones throat.

    It’s called character. If you had some you wouldn’t be disparaging Sousas.

    papertiger (f6198c)

  66. Give me enough liquor and marijuana, papertiger, and I’ll wrestle that Eskimo lady and have sex with the polar bear too.

    That these little jerks thought they could mess around with a tiger and get away with it is indisputable.

    They might get a few million dollars from the City of San Francisco which is more than they would ever earn by working. It’s partially offset by the welfare we would have paid them otherwise.

    nk (be56c0)

  67. papertiger –
    Or punching in a window on a burning vehicle to pull an unconscious driver to safety.
    Only if he’s the drunk that crashed the car.

    You’re trying to equate my cousin– who dove into the water to *save* car crash victims– with what Mr. Kennedy should’ve done, by trying to save those he helped get into deadly peril.

    Or comparing someone who trained dogs for dog fights jumping in to save a customer who got in the middle of a fight.

    You are ignoring the instigation and guilt, in short.

    If he had CHARACTER he wouldn’t have been taunting a caged animal.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  68. Here’s a more fitting example:
    An arsonist has two partners.

    They set fire to a house.

    One of them has part of the house fall on him, and one of his partners gets killed trying to save him.

    THAT is closer to the moral worth of this situation.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  69. It sad how many of you seem to think that courage in the face of adversity is a trait confered by a uniform. There are cowards who wear the stars and stripes on their arm or a badge on their chest, just like there are heros who wear blue jeans and drink Budweizer.

    If you can’t grasp that concept, then you have a blindspot. There’s a big gaping hole in your middle where a conscious should be.

    papertiger (a38535)

  70. A guy diving into a lake isn’t imperiling his own life – he is just doing what anybody would do. Given he can swim the worst consequence he can expect, is to fail to save the other person and suffer his clothes getting wet.
    Are you seriously equating teenagers on a trip to the zoo, where they should expect a modicum of safety from the animals, with arsonists burning down a building?
    firefox get a reality check. Your judgement is broken.

    papertiger (a38535)

  71. NK
    No matter how much liquor or marijuana you ingested, after looking a polar bear in the eye there would a big brown spot in your shorts
    (that is if someone could find them while sifting the red stain in the snow).

    papertiger (a38535)

  72. papertiger-
    Once again, you show your ignorance; courage isn’t confered by the uniform, those who choose the uniform already have courage to sacrifice themselves unselfishly.]

    modicum: a small portion : a limited quantity Kind of, like, if you don’t try to piss off the huge cat, it won’t try to eat you?

    I notice you avoid the most acurate arsonist comparison.

    BTW– my cousin isn’t a guy, and she risked hypothermia. More than these asses thought they were risking when they taunted a huge cat.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  73. What a punt. Risked hypothermia in the age of global warming? Impossible.
    Please tell me there were barracuda in the water… Or sharks… Water moccasin? Anything your fevered imagination can invent to salvage your indefensible attack on a dead boy’s honor.

    papertiger (a38535)

  74. papertiger –

    Now, I am not sure if you’re a moron or just a really pathetic troll.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  75. Winter in Oregon is VERY prone to hypothermia.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  76. Call me a monster, but given then facts of the story if I had to pick either that tiger to live or that “honorable” dead boy to live, I’d go with the tiger. Unfortunately they’re both expired. Hopefully other miscreants might stop to think of the potential consequences before messing with animals. I’m sure that won’t help the millions of dogs, cats and even horses that are abused.
    Have to wonder what makes papertiger so adamant that Sousa was worthy of any sympathy at all. Of course now the loving family can be made whole by taxpayers’ largesse. Perhaps Spielberg or another propagandist can make a flick gloryifying Sousa.

    And whatever happened to the nice SF couple whose vicious canine murdered a woman in the hallway of her apt. building?

    madmax333 (123c3d)

  77. I wonder if papertiger is one of the two “friends” of the expired Souza? He’s even dumber than Levi.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  78. And whatever happened to the nice SF couple whose vicious canine murdered a woman in the hallway of her apt. building?

    I think the husband got three years. I don’t know about the woman.

    nk (be56c0)

  79. He’s even dumber than Levi.

    BBBBZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTT. Wrong answer. Not possible.

    JD (75f5c3)

  80. And whatever happened to the nice SF couple whose vicious canine murdered a woman in the hallway of her apt. building?

    They each got four year sentences for involuntary manslaughter. Marjorie Knoller, who was present at the time of the attack, was originally convicted of second degree murder as well. That charge was thrown out but per Wikipedia, is now being reconsidered.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  81. Foxfier you like similies?

    Your cousin, who didn’t freeze to death, did you read about her act of altruism in a paper, or did she tell you about it herself?
    It’s conceivable that the local paper gave a write up and you could prove your assertion of her heroism in that way.

    On the other hand, it is far more likely that she told you or another family member about it herself, in which case it brings her motives into question. Did she “rescue” this person out of samaritan impulse, or was she seeking the “geek” she would get from telling you about her alleged heroic act? Nobody expects it because it is so rare for a girl to do the right thing, that when it happens, it always seems a bit shocking, novel, newsworthy.
    Alert the press “girl acts with basic human decency” film at eleven.
    And any time they do the right thing you can gaurantee there will be publicity. If it’s self serve publicity well then so be it.
    You all lionize her – She’s the hero of the family. You sing her praises on the internet with strangers. That’s got to make a person feel good.

    Personally, I can’t remember how many people in trouble I pulled out of the drink. It’s not a topic of conversation saying you pulled someone out of the water. To talk about it would be like bragging that you’re a decent human being who does the right thing occasionally. To show how out of joint it would be, imagine a guy telling you this “I saw Joe drown out in the lake”.

    See – no self respecting guy would ever say that, because it would never happen that way. If you saw Joe drowning he wouldn’t have, and there wouldn’t have been any talk about it afterwards because it goes without saying. ANYBODY WOULD DO THE SAME for you.
    But that’s not the way it went with your girl, is it.

    That anticipated reward, (being the hero of the day) makes the act itself a little callow. The hero’s halo is tarnished. She wanted you to know what an awesomely great gal she is. Self serving but awesome. She didn’t so much rescue someone from drowning as pad her personal resume. The person who didn’t drown, how lucky for them that she was looking to augment her personal portfolio that day.

    Ordinarily, I wouldn’t think twice about someone who dived in to pluck a stranger out of a river, tooting their own horn a little. It’s a good story. Happy endings and all that. Heck I’d probably clap right along with whatever audience she can scare up for the retelling. Maybe a good segment on Oprah. But it is bragging. There is no denying it. I hate braggards.

    Lets get right to your major complaint about Sousa. He was antagonizing the tiger, and that erases any feeling of remorse you have for his demise. Got what he deserved right? Deserved it because he was drinking a beer.
    My contention is this, being who I am I probably wouldn’t make googly eyes at a zoo tiger, but if by chance I happened to, I would expect that the tiger behind the steel barrier wouldn’t be able to get out, and that there would be no real harm done.
    I am sure Sousa and friends felt the same way – and they had every right to expect that the city zoo would keep a dangerous creature like a tiger in an escape proof enclosure.
    So they are playing a game of “look how brave I am” booga boo with the tiger. So what. It’s an escape proof enclosure, there’s no real danger and no real harm done.
    Then the impossible happens. The worst thing imagineable. A harmless game of “look at how brave I am” turns into “the tiger is killing Kulbir.”
    “What do we do?”
    “We can’t go, the tiger is killing him.”
    “We got to do something.”

    In this moment Carlos Sousa weighed the personal narrative of his life, and decided that running away while a tiger mauled his friend was a worse fate then death. He wasn’t looking to pad his personal resume, he wasn’t thinking about his own skin. Instead of heading for the first exit, he resolved that he would not abandon Kulbir to be murdered.
    He stood his ground and yelled “Get off him tiger leave him alone”. He waved his arms and tried to distract the tiger from his friend, deliberately drawing the attention of the beast to himself, knowing that this action would almost certainly make him the next victim.
    This is a very different act then giving a caged beast a “booga booga”.
    It’s a lot different then taking a swim in a cold river.
    This is a premeditated act of naked courage with expectation of no return.
    Carlos didn’t have any anticipation of being fetted as the “awesome hero” of the family.
    He just did the right thing as he saw it, as the situation demanded. The only thing he could do in an impossible situation.

    papertiger (7a9e8b)

  82. Foxfier

    All that stuff I said about your girl, it’s all bullshit. I didn’t mean a word of it. Girls talk about such things, it’s their nature, and its a good thing that they do. Sets an example for the youngsters. Teaches the next wave right from wrong, code of conduct and whatnot.
    She dove into freezing waters to rescue an accident victim. That is truly commendable.

    What kind of a prick would disparage a person’s character like that? When she is just doing the right thing as she sees it, as the situation demanded, the only thing she could do really.

    Look in the mirror.

    papertiger (7a9e8b)

  83. papertiger @ 64…
    Actually, the MoH can be awarded to civilians who are in a combat situation alongside US troops. Don’t know if it has ever happened though.

    foxfier @ 75…
    As is Summer in San Francisco!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  84. Normally, the highest award for civilians is the Congressional Medal of Freedom. They give away a lot of those at the WH every year; not neccessarily for heroism, but for significant works that expand/define the meaning of freedom.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  85. The kids-party-clowns who taunted this animal did not get what they deserved; if they had, all three would have been killed AND eaten by the tigress.

    Taunting of the tigress by three high punks will prove to be a mitigating factor in the zoo’s liability. Even humans are capable of superhuman effort when sufficiently provoked; this caged animal was taunted into a state of hyperaction she probably could not have effected by any other means.

    The prior incident at the zoo involving her handler had nothing to do with the outer enclosure at all, rather, the cage INSIDE, how it was designed to feed the animals and obvious carelessness by the handler. These enclosures were all state of the art at the time of their design. Are you ready for fiscal meltdown when all municipalities begin to dismantle ALL infrastructure built state of the art, which are now considered inferior by 21st century technological standards? There is no criminal liability here because the zoo was in compliance with nominal standards; the fact that they were not in alignment with the latest guidelines does not make them negligent.

    ALL zoos are archaic and barbaric and should be abolished and dismantled. Adults AND kids should learn about other living creatures via books, video and internet; let those who want to get up close and personal go on safari and get mauled on their own dime. By what right does any so-called civilized, enlightened society capture free living creatures and cage them for their own amusement and entertainment? Anyone who visits a zoo should be required to sign a waiver of all liability—where wild beasts are concerned, there can be no guarantee of safety (and anyone who believes they can, belongs in a cage of their own—a booby hatch). Those who frequent zoos encourage this “Roman circus” mentality and, likewise, deserve to be eaten—every one of them.

    PaperTiger
    : talk to your shrink about your meds ’cause they ain’t workin’ and your mouth could cause considerable harm to yourself or others.

    Bash (6829e2)

  86. Papertiger:
    All …I said …it’s all bullshit.

    Fixed that for ya.

    Bash- most of the animals have more generations in the zoo than my family has in the USA; zoos are also the primary reason that several species are still alive, since a lot of the really cool animals are from cruddy, inconsiderate countries.
    Besides which, kept animals are a heck of a lot healthier than the ones in the wild. Books also don’t carry over information as well as they should–you’d be amazed how many folks think that cows are closer in size to dogs than horses.
    Agree with some of your points, though.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  87. Bash, you remind me of that fag from the Heavy Metal movie, whining about his locknar.
    “I want my tiger. Give it to me. Gimme gimme gimme. If I don’t get my tiger you die, she dies, everybody dies.”

    PaperTiger: talk to your shrink about your meds ’cause they ain’t workin’ and your mouth could cause considerable harm to yourself or others.

    Your flattery means nothing to me.

    papertiger (a38535)

  88. Foxfier

    Now I am sure you are a souless, bushwacking, gutter snipe.
    Just like the SF zoo officials, city council, and SF media, you have no honor.

    papertiger (a38535)

  89. Most people, thankfully, have never had one of their children die. I have, six years ago, and I can say it’s an ongoing, never healing wound. I’m sure it doesn’t matter to the parents whether the death was stupid or courageous, or neither – our daughter died of a long term illness (though she fought it courageously). I think tigers are magnificent, but this was just a tragedy all round.

    Personally, if the kid who died had been my child, I would not have sued the zoo, but understand that’s unusual these days. No award of pain and suffering would bring my child back even if the tiger enclosure was unsafe. The enclosure’s been fixed so it will never happen again. What’s the point? Revenge perhaps, but I’m not into that.

    Peccator Dubius (0a6237)

  90. Papertiger, you can’t even get your insults to work.

    Now I am sure you are a souless, bushwacking, gutter snipe implies that gutter modifies snipe– the actual words are “guttersnipe,” “bushwhacking,” and “soulless.”

    The correct way to type it is “soulless, bushwhacking guttersnipe.”

    Translated, that means inhuman homeless child who either sneak-attacks or cuts brush.

    Sadly, that’s not the stupidest thing you’ve written.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  91. Foxfier – papertiger is a veritable font of ignorance and a wonder to behold. I enjoyed his ignorance of the dangers of lifesaving. Very special.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  92. 79, JD, you want to reconsider that? Papertiger has made additional entries into the stupidity derby. He’s like the Big Brown of stupidity. Levi has to pull a few more boners to keep his position.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  93. “Levi has to pull a few more boners to keep his position.”

    What does a solo on the rusty trombone have to do with it?

    martin (cd5d90)

  94. PCD – It is giving Levi a run for its money, to be sure.

    Why must you talk about Levi pulling his boner?

    JD (75f5c3)

  95. 93, Martin, your homophobia is bordering on the extreme. Seek professional help now. Also, get a thesaurus. There is more than one meaning to that word.

    Just as an aside to you Martin. Broaden your vocabulary. I won’t tell you the definition of the word you misconstued, but I’ll give you a hint: The Brits call it a “Cock Up”.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  96. 94, JD, you are taunting martin like this idiot taunted the tiger.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  97. PCD, to be fair, I went right to “trombone” as well…

    And then went to “Sylvester Stabone” of Growning Pains fame.

    And THEN I went to “dumb screw-ups”.

    Such is the mind of a former band geek and TV nerd…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  98. We think it was the tiger that was on drugs! He’s the one to blame! Innocent teenagers could have easily killed the tiger but were too nice not to. They all were well armed but chose not to harm God’s creation.Innocent teeneagers killed at the expense of a drunken high tiger. WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO!!!!!!! TEENAGERS RULE! DRUNKEN TIGERS DROOL!

    Ned Flanders (86b098)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3833 secs.