Of course you didn’t. And witnesses will confirm that you were politely observing the animals at the San Francisco Zoo while thoughtfully considering their majesty– but more on that later. Finally, the parents of mauling victim Carlos Sousa received the phone call they pleaded for:
One of two young men who survived the Christmas Day tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo that killed their 17-year-old friend told the teen’s mother that they had not taunted the big cat, the mother said today.
“He said, ‘We didn’t do nothing. We were just normal kids at the zoo,’ ” Marilza Sousa said after talking with her son’s friend Paul Dhaliwal, 19, of San Jose.
“That’s what happened, just dancing, talking, laughing like normal kids,” said Sousa, whose son Carlos Sousa Jr. was killed by the Siberian tiger. “I believe him.”
…The brothers have so far refused to speak publicly about the incident. Sousa said Paul Dhaliwal had told her he has remained silent because he is still tormented by the incident, not because his attorney has told him not to talk. [sfgate]
Both brothers attended Sousa’s funeral, which is what their friend’s grieving parents hoped for.
But there’s still more to this story and it contradicts the recounting of events provided by the Dhaliwal brothers. A witness came forward, to describe what the boys were doing that day at the zoo:
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.”
…Her family was looking at the lions when the young men stopped beside them at the big-cat grottos – five outdoor exhibits attached to the Lion House. The young men started roaring at the lions and acting “boisterous” to get their attention, said Miller, who added that she watched the four for five minutes or so a little after 4 p.m. “It was why we left,” she said. “Their behavior was disturbing. They kept doing it.”
Sousa refrained from such tactics, Miller said. “He wasn’t roaring. He wasn’t taunting them,” she recalled. “He kept looking at me apologetically like, ‘I’m sorry, I know we are being stupid.’ “ [sfgate]
Experts on big cats continue to agree with what Jack Hanna said; I quoted Hanna in my last post as being skeptical about the boys’ innocence.
“First and foremost, people need to be educated. We need to respect them accordingly,” said Jonathan Kraft, who runs Keepers of the Wild in Arizona, which has more than 20 tigers. In the San Francisco escape, “I would bet my reputation that the animal was taunted.” [CBS5]
More sketchiness (and the reason why many continue to doubt the brothers Dhaliwal):
Sources told The Chronicle that paramedics taking the Dhaliwal brothers to the zoo by ambulance had overheard Kulbir Dhaliwal tell his brother, “Don’t tell them what we did.”
The sources also said Paul Dhaliwal was intoxicated at the time of the incident, having used marijuana and consumed enough liquor to have a blood-alcohol level above the 0.08 legal limit for driving. The older brother also had been drinking and using marijuana around the time the tiger escaped, the sources said.
Police say they spotted an empty vodka bottle inside the car the group took to the zoo that day, but investigators cannot legally search the vehicle without the Dhaliwals’ permission.
A person who picked up the phone today at the Dhaliwals’ home hung up without answering questions. [SFGate]
The Dhaliwals’ have retained the services of Mark Geragos, the man who represented luminaries like Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder, and murderers like Scott Peterson. Geragos is obviously fighting tooth-and-claw to get the car back, unsearched. As of yesterday, he’s losing:
In anticipation of a lawsuit over the fatal tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo, the City Attorney’s Office obtained a temporary court order Tuesday to secure the cell phone records and car of the two brothers mauled in the attack.
While zoo officials have stopped short of accusing Paul and Kulbir Dhaliwal of taunting Tatiana the tiger, they have repeatedly said something must have provoked it to jump from its enclosure. Police have confirmed that an empty bottle of vodka could be seen on the front seat of the car, and city attorney investigators have expressed interest in images captured on the brothers’ cell phones. [Examiner]
I’d love to know what their cameraphones may have captured, wouldn’t you? Isn’t that the point of all this Jackass-inspired-stupidity? To document it recklessly and later upload it to Facebook?
The order comes on the day the brothers were scheduled to pick up their property from police, said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who referred to the emergency hearing as a “race against the clock.†The brothers’ lawyer, Mark Geragos, refused to comment Monday on whether the brothers would give the permission needed to give police access to their property. He also rejected claims that the two have been uncooperative.
Referring to correspondence between Geragos and himself, Herrera accused Geragos of “just stalling until his clients could get to the Police Department to claim their cell phones and car. [Examiner]
As for the New York Post’s screeching headline about the “slingshot theory”:
In the ongoing chaos that is the aftermath of the fatal tiger mauling at the San Francisco Zoo, the plot has thickened, or thinned I guess, depending. ABC7’s intrepid rabblerouser Dan Noyes has seemingly debunked the mighty New York Post report, based on an unnamed source, that brothers Amritpal Dhaliwal and Kulbir Dhaliwal were taunting 350-pound Tatiana the Siberian tiger using slingshots prior to her escape and fatal mauling of their companion, 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr.
“Today, we received official word from the San Francisco Police Department. Sgt. Steve Manina told us he checked with inspectors working the case and “there were no slingshots on the kids, in the zoo or ambulances that night.†No slingshots.” [SFWeekly]
Developing…we’ll try and keep you posted.
This SF Chronicle story sheds some light on some of the problems at SF Zoo. There have been problems brewing at this zoo for a long time. Just happened to be this tiger.
That doesn’t excuse the behavior of people who tease animals, but I think that these are two separate issues.
chachaji, even if the brothers broke a law, they can;t be forced to say anything that would incriminate themselves – basically, pleading the fifth. which could explain why many details are not coming out (or at least, not from them).
You’re right, zoos are not 100% capable of that. There is always room for human or structural error. But I have been to zoos many times in my life, and never did I entertain the notion that the tigers could escape. But I guess that goes back to what ANNA said – “We assume the enclosures are built right. We want to believe that the animals are happy and we’re safe and that bad things only happen to bad people.”
As far as I recall, the common law views dogs as less dangerous (or, at least less unusual), so dog-owners aren’t responsible for the first time their dog bites someone–this is the origin of the term “you get one free bite”! But tigers, you need to enclose securely or else you’re liable, simpliciter, if they bite someone.
All right, I’ll confess that I love the law, just didn’t find big-firm practice that congenial! Woot common law!
see, i just don’t get that – why are people not afraid, esp. in some situations, e.g. where the animals are not completely enclosed. sorry, but i would never take a kid to a zoo thinking that i need to throw all vigilance out once i stepped onto zoo grounds. just because the zoo should be responsible doesn’t mean that nothing can go wrong; i would feel an awareness to minimize my contribution to any such situation as much as possible. because whether the zoo is to blame or not, it’s not the zoo’s physical safety that’s potentially at risk.
amitabh, i do agree that there was prob. something more to the taunting – i am curious as to the full extent of the provocation….
rob – as to dogs – i wasn’t going to the legal liability – bit just an idea that even dogs, who don’t fall in the dangerous/unusual category – are still animals, and to deny their potential dangerousness (even though that probability is lower) is irresponsible
tell me about it…
Great article Uma. The last line by a former employee scorches the zoo:
“Animals being taunted was always an issue,” an ex-employee said. “But you should be able to walk down there slathered in raw meat and not have them get out.”
Some other quotes regarding the mismanagement of the facility:
Employees characterize the current regime as arrogant, autocratic and dismissive of those with experience and institutional knowledge. Keepers, who know the animals and their habitats inside and out, say they have little input and are not listened to by Mollinedo and Bob Jenkins, the zoo’s director of animal care and conservation. Workers of every variety fear they’re being spied upon and will not speak publicly, afraid of reprisals. Even before the Christmas rampage, information was tightly controlled. One ex-employee said worn-down zoo workers would sometimes say: “It won’t change until somebody dies.”
On Dec. 22 of last year, 300-pound Tatiana severely injured keeper Lori Komejan inside the Lion House, “degloving” her arm, as the state’s workplace safety report put it. That agency, Cal/OSHA blamed the zoo, citing defects that the zoo knew about but hadn’t fixed, and imposed an $18,000 penalty.
Although tiger experts agree that there was no reason to euthanize Tatiana, Mollinedo described the 4-year-old tiger – a day after her death – as having been “at the top of her game.” A former management person at the zoo said, “Here you’ve got a young cat that’s testing her environment – very agile, very strong. A cautious zoo manager would call other zoos and say, ‘How big is your moat?’ … This is like having Hannibal Lecter. There’s a reason they put that mask on him.”
The article Uma cited goes on to talk about how a number of animals have died due to neglect. I think the enviornmentalists who were so enraged at the Dhaliwals when the story first broke, should start directing their anger at the zoo.
Yes, if you want to minimize your physical risks, you should maximize your precautions. But, legally, you don’t have to do the latter. So, e.g., if my neighbor starts an explosive factory, maybe I should build a blast-proof wall along my property line to protect me. But even if I don’t do so, the neighbor is still liable to me for damages if his factory blows up and harms me on my property. So, here, there’s nothing inconsistent with saying that (1) zoo is legally liable for failure to enclose Tatiania the Tiger and (2) the kids didn’t act prudentially. Their moral culpability, whatever it may be, doesn’t track 1:1 legal liability, which is with the zoo. The rule of liability for the zoo is adopted for some sort of utilitarian reason, I’m surmising (i.e., message to zoos–enclose tigers securely!) rather than a more fine-grained moral analysis of how guilty the mauled kids are.
55 · ak said
I think a LOT more people will have this mindset, now.
That sense of responsibility and awareness (and many other things!) = why I heart you. 🙂
But it’s so much easier to not think of that, isn’t it? Until it’s too late, that is. Yay, mindless parenting/existing.
rob, i’m not arguing the legal points – but when you’re dead, and the zoo is not, arguing legal liability and culpability is a bit pointless. i don’t think carlos sousa’s parents ae comforted by the fact that it was not his friends but the zoo that was legally liable.
sigh. i know. one of the reasons why i think twice about having kids is because i fear i’ll end up this paranoid, hyper-vigilant freak mother (and send my children to therapy for life. lucky them 😉
aw…thanks. been a LONG week – this totally made me feel better:)
True that (your last sentence), but if we can sock it to the zoo, future zoo-goers should be safer, b/c zoos will take better care to enclose dangerous animals, no? So, without being unduly argumentative (I hope), I’d argue that given that what’s happened has happened, socking the zoo with liability is the point! But I am a bit of a utilitarian calculator, I suppose (not that I don’t sympathize with the victims, of course!).
57 · Jangali Janwar said
I sense there is more to these reactions. I’m fairly sure that a lot of the outrage was being expressed by people who do NOT carry reusable shopping bags or curate a compost pile. I think in some ways, we’re becoming more compassionate towards animals because humans are disappointing us; in comparison, animals love us fully, sans conditions, plus they’re loyal and sweet.
Yes, I understand that tigers aren’t the same as house pets, but that doesn’t mean we keep that in mind when we see them. If anything, some of us are remembering how we thought it would be so awesome to have one to play with, a la Princess Jasmine in Aladdin.
At one point, when my father was reeeeally pissed off and bitter at me (I refused to apply to law school), I overheard/then saw him in the garage, talking to my two, uber-adorable German Shepherd puppies (alsayshun pattis, if you eat thenga).
“Why did I suffer and sacrifice, to have her throw her future away?”
wag wag wag
“What is the point in having children, if they will disappoint you?
wag wag wag
“When I walk in the door, she gives me a dirty look. At least you wag your tails and are happy to see me.”
wag wag wag
“My damned dogs are better than my stupid children!”
arf!
.
Animals are innocent and pure and good. How many things do we still feel that way about? I think that’s where a lot of the outrage is coming from. But I’m totally invoking the callipygian rondure clause, so you can’t yell at me.
Yes (re: innocent and pure, at least–not so sure about “good,” as opposed to “neutral” on a good-bad axis), but note that blaming the zoo doesn’t entail blaming the tiger! As I see it, the (innocent!) tiger should have been securely enclosed (by the zoo). Even if the victims were unusual in their degree of taunting, etc., it should have been foreseeable to the zoo that the tiger needed to be prevented from attacking zoo-goers, regardless of how unusually they acted (as long as they didn’t enter the cage). I suppose one could maintain that extreme taunting = entering cage, but I think a simple rule of “cage/moat/enclosure should keep tiger away from zoo-goers” is defensible. If you want to have (humans and tigers) as neighbors, you gotta build walls! 🙂
Anna,
You make a very compelling point regarding the innocence imbued to animals. BTW, if you had become a lawyer, who would have put up this thread and used the words callipygian rondure.
10 · Jangali Janwar said
Can a tigress fit the definition of an attractive nuisance?
11 · Faiza said
But raising that objection allows for the possibility of so many tasteless puns!
Well, I just don’t get THAT…why in the world should you be afraid if you go to a zoo. And if you go to a zoo and an animal gets out, what is your vigilance going to do? Whether you had any contribution to its escape or not, once it’s out you’re in as much potential trouble as anyone else there. If you realistically think something might happen at a zoo, don’t go (rather than going but being wary and afraid).
Don’t be to hard on these Dhaliwal kids. They were just Jatts being Jatts. So give these poor kids a break.
Since my mom maiden name is Dhaliwal and all of her family is from that part of California, I wonder if there any chance that we could be distance relatives.
69 · Clueless said
Sousa is dead; it’s too late to build offense now.
Amen to Anna #8 and # 32. She is always the voice of reason.
The amount of ignorance people have towards animals is astonishing. I’ve seen folks trying to pet prairie dogs, which look cute but are still wild. I actually wish more people would realise that e.g. tigers are not like Princess Jasmine’s pet Rajah from Aladdin. Btw, the tiger population across the globe has halved in the last 10 years, off the top of my head. Don’t hate on zoos – they’re the last chance for most endangered species. I don’t like cages either, but I wish folks would realise that before expressing so-called outrage over the enclosures.
Its forseeable to almost anyone that kids will taunt the animals. The Zoo is responsible for not taking into account ‘taunting’ when setting up the safety precautions at the Zoo.
these seem like the kind of idiot indian guys that go to my school.
Anna,
when I was young, a fellow who used to live in Yogaville would occasionally bring his animal train back and one of the anecdotes I remember him telling was that lion cubs were very pliable, friendly and cooperative (which allowed him to let them roam in a hall full of 300-500 people who were picking up and petting them, I remember the great combination of fear/delight from the experien but grew up to be fairly intractable adults, as opposed to tiger cubs which started out all hissing and claws but ended up as very mellow and cooperative adults.
just an anecdote but the, “awww, we can keep it at home” sentiment” isn’t always without some substance (although both cats will quickly call any kind heart’s bluff when they start eating the weekly familial meat purchase in a day.)
“I know you didnt draw any conclusions, but if anyone should imply that these guys bear some fault is like saying a woman who wore skimpy clothes must bear some fault for getting molested.”
…and your point is…that human males have the mentality of tigers and other animals and are therefore unable to control themselves. If so, it makes one rethink the whole concept of curfews.
Gosh, I cannot believe this outrage! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2008/01/09/BAM6UBGRT.DTL&o=7
I really feel the stories are losing focus here, moving the ‘bad guys’ from the zoo officials who didn’t provide enough protection to the visitors like they were legally supposed to, to a bunch of visitors – no matter how inebriated/uncultured they were. Now, I think visitors at American zoos differ from visitors at zoos in many other places. I have seen countless times in Indian zoos where visitors try to get the animal’s attention, either by whistling, or calling, or waving, or trying to feed it, or whatever.
Part of the allure for many visitors to the ‘wild animal’ displays is the feeling of seeing an animal that could potentially kill you right in front of you, about being this close to death, and being merely separated by glass (in the case of snakes ) or enclosures like for this tiger. It’s part of the ‘thrill’ for a good portion of the visitors – to face death, or to look at a real deadly creature in the eye… or to even confront it – while at same time being sure that you are completely secure. Now, the very concept of zoos and the treatment of these animals can be left for a different discussion altogether – but the fact remains that the zoo is well aware of its visitors and should know that there are people who are in it for the thrill.
Talking about the Dhaliwals’ taunting at this point as a ‘but they started it’ reason, is like attributing the blame of the death to them … making them feel like murderers – and this is absolutely unfair to them, as they were supposed to be comfortably protected from the animal that was being displayed for their entertainment.
Personally, I despise Zoos and Circuses – but the Dhaliwals are being unfairly pinned with the cause of their friend’s death… and I feel this is blatantly unfair and can ruin the rest of their lives ( An incident which, if not to end so tragically, would have merely been a case of ‘Look at those people, they are disrespectful to animals’. )
Best comment of 2008 (so far)
rob, can we run a “street law” column called “ask rob” in the comments sections? I don’t know if I could afford your $810/hour, though 🙂
ANNA, I think the idea that animals are good and love us unconditionally is not entirely fair. Animals are animals, not dopey humans, and I think there is a responsibility (on the part of humans) not to anthropomorphize them or project our needs onto them. When I was a little kid my parents were VERY clear about not taunting animals (e.g., no poking on the glass barrier in snake/prairie dog cages, no making noises/gestures at monkeys or tigers, no terrorizing dogs/cats in the neighborhood). They were pretty adamant about respecting other lives as just that — sentient lives — and about understanding that even domesticated animals can have feral traits, and that an animal’s patience with a tormentor is not an excuse to continue to torment it.
That said, I think the zoo has still messed up big time. I’m sure it’s in their interest to push the blame back onto those boys instead of addressing the real safety issues (for visitors, handlers/zookeepers, and animals) that face the SF Zoo.
72 · Meena said
To be fair, I’m pretty sure the reason the tiger population has declined isn’t due to the Pembroke Welsh Corgi– but probably thanks to humans. It’s great that people can learn at zoos and see these creatures first-hand, but I don’t think we should be taking some pedestal of “look, we’re doing this for your own good.” If I were to take a closer look at zoos and their history/ reason for existence, which would I find more of:
1) education, scholarly interest, research 2) human guilt for wiping out animals, some attempt of “Hey, look we’re compassionate! We’re doing you a favor! Let me make it up to you!”
I am not a tiger, but if I were, I would much rather be taking my chances out in the wild and living my own life instead of being cooped up in some form of enclosure where the daily highlight is some combination of dinner and people watching. Oh, and sometimes it’s a really nice day out.
Every time I go to the zoo I see children “roaring” at lion’s or tiger’s and what happens if a tiger ate a 5 year old kid? Would we be ripping apart the parents for letting a kid make “roaring” noises at a tiger or would we be waving our fist’s at the zoo for having such a weak barrier? I have a feeling it would be the latter. I know that these guys are not kids, but how does that keep the zoo the completely innocent party?
You really nailed it ShallowThinker, although I would hope a 5-year-old’s parents would be on hand to rein them in. Taunting animals is never okay, but whether the person doing it is 5 or 55, they have the right to expect the dangerous killing predatory animal to stay in its frakkin’ enclosure. What about the people who accidentally make eye contact or smile at some of the monkeys?
Incidentally, does anyone remember this story, about the 9-year-old girl in Minneapolis who climbed into the meerkat exhibit and got bitten? Her parents refused to get her the rabies shots, therefore all 5 meerkats were put to death. I seem to remember a lot of fury being directed at the girl’s parents and not as much for the zoo.
79 · Camille said
Are dopey humans the only creatures who are good at unconditional loving? 🙂
In an ideal world your parents’ beautiful strategy of treating animals as sentient creatures who are not fuzzy versions of us, yet deserve the same amount of respect would be just that—ideal. But, I’ve met perhaps a handful of people over the course of my entire life who were taught that way or believed such an enlightened concept. The vast majority of people I know do baby their dogs and cats, give them human names and treat them as family members.
Just to clarify–I didn’t type that comment randomly or on behalf of myself, I was responding to a comment upthread, regarding all the outrage (and how it was hardly just environmentalists who were feeling it) when I said what I did about animals being so loving. The question “Why is all the anger being directed at the Dhaliwals instead of the crappy SF Zoo?” is being posed on many sites and I thought I had a possible answer.
After covering this story twice, I have now read several thousand readers’ comments on many newspapers which display such pain and outrage, and that’s what informed my view. Stories like, “my cat was the light of my life and my companion through two graduate degrees, I haven’t been the same since I lost her†or “my ex-husband could have the house, I just wanted our dog…since he was the only source of unconditional love I had†are being told constantly, to a chorus of “I agree completely!â€s. My entire point was, it’s not conservationists or environmentalists who are calling for these boys’ heads, it’s regular people who probably sit in a cubicle across from you, who have had a cherished relationship with the family pet, who can’t bear the thought of an animal being taunted or hurt because their love for Fido or Katamari is so overwhelming, they are protective of not just their own kitten, but of her much-larger, much-wilder relative, Tatiana.
Anna – “Of course you didn’t.”
A couple of weeks back you were willing to believe that a corrupt to the bone politician had changed her stripes, solely based on how “articulate she was”. So why not at least believe the Dhaliwal boys until proof to the contrary comes forth? Unless you have first hand knowledge that the teens are lying?
And here I always thought that the Christian way required forgiveness.
sebastian:
This isn’t about guilt – a lot of people are genuinely concerned about endangered animal species and are making a real effort trying to save their existence. Besides, ecosystems would collapse if the creatures on the top of the food chains were removed. It’s hard to oversee the consequences. Remember that the people who work at the zoo are not the same as those who are responsible for the decimation of the animal’s natural habitat. Don’t lump us humans all on the same boat. Should we shut all zoos and by that token let dozens of species go extinct because we think that the tiger would rather be out in the equatorial rainforest? Remember, don’t anthropomorphise.
Weird to hear about the 9 year old climbing into the meerkat exhibit. How in the world did the parents allow this? What sort of parent would encourage this behavior? (Thanks for the heads up on this, to Mary,post 81).
You also make a good point about zoo animals in general. Even making eye contact or showing teeth (like smiling/grinning) may come across to some animals as a threat. For this reason, zoos must take safety precautions seriously and most all of them do, I guess. Of course, it is still safer to go to a zoo than it is driving after midnight on New Years.
Yes, my skepticism is based on an eye-witness account of two people who have had issues with their behavior/the law in the past, having fun emotionally abusing animals. How horrible a bitch am I?
If you’re going to attempt to impeach me, have the decency to link to whatever you are referring to. Sketchy is as sketchy does. Why don’t you ask all the other people–who think one brother’s admonition to the other, “don’t tell them what we did” is suspect– that question, too?
Cheap shot, but I expect nothing less from your IP address. By the way, bringing my faith in to this reflects poorly on you, not me.
Cat’s got their tongue.
84 · Meena said
Especially if there’s a tiger on the boat.
What if they were taunting the animal? Do you think the tigers feelings will get hurt? The tiger inspite of all its majesty is a dumb animal. It does not understand english and it does not care one bit if you make faces at it.
It would be a different thing if they threw things at the animal but there is no proof of it.
If they were taunting the animal then I think that’s relevant because they provoked it. For the second time, personal responsibility needs to make a comeback. And it’s not about a tiger’s feelings getting hurt, it’s about respecting a sentient being and not abusing it just because you can. How do you know that it doesn’t care? It’ so disturbing, how many people think that mistreating animals is no big deal; it speaks volumes about those who callously put forth such a selfish position.
Why is that different from baring teeth or taunting? One of my friends from India told me two days ago that you’re not supposed to smile at monkeys, because they consider it a provocation. We can’t have it both ways, if emotional/mental abuse of “lower creatures” is no big deal, then neither is those animals’ “dumb” reactions.
88 · tk said
Do animals understand English? Well, not right off the bat. My dad struggled with the idea that our dog wasn’t born understanding Malayalam, and was always surprised when Peaches just didn’t obey.
No, animals do not necessarily understand our human verbal language, but noise is noise, teeth are teeth, and there are certain signs, elements, and triggers that generate responses or feelings within different animals, hardwired into their instinct. If you run around making noise, flashing your chompers, and make eye contact with an animal, don’t be too surprised if it considers it a sign of aggression.
Our dogs were mischief-makers, and if we told them to stop sniffing the Karuveppilai plant in English, they wouldn’t even look at us. But the second one of my parents snapped, “mathi, edi/ada!” they were like little lambs, all contrite. 🙂 They may not have been born understanding it, but at some point during that memorable ride home after we first got them, they magically learned it– and they minded it. 😉
Awww, I miss our Alsayshun pattis.
I once dog sat for friends whose Lab, Bathsheeba, spoke only Hebrew. It was an quite an aspirating experience.
A big aside, I know how things can get off track at SM. But there is some diversity among arch atheists. For example Sam Harris (neuroscientist and author of “End of Faith”)feels that consciousness is probably nonmaterial. While this does not imply a belief in a Platonist/Hindu type “soul”, it shows that there are differences between Dawkins, Dennett, and at least some antireligion polemicists like Harris. End of this digression
91 · A N N A said
Hahaha, loud Malayalam does work its wonders, especially across life forms. Woe to my dog Peaches if she ever made Kunjumon-chayan raise his voice.
25 · Amitabh said
<
blockquote>I hate to bring in race but I wonder if the whole world would rush to indict these kids if they were blond haired blue-eyed babes.
I so hated that. Actually, a large number of Americans said the caning was too cruel of punishment. A white guy commits vandalism spray-painting cars (Mercedes Benzes, btw) and they feel SORRY for him? Talking that bullcrap, “If he spray-painted cars in America, he wouldn’t be caned.” No, he wouldn’t be caned. He’d be shot. It’s a Mercedes-Benz, not a Pinto.
66 · Harbeer attractive nuisance?
It depends. Some people consider this to be an attractive nuisance, while others consider this to be a greater one. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder or is that the eye of the tiger?
A little late in jumping into this conversation but here’s my two cents. After following this story quite a bit and reading other arguments I actually agree with Amitabh.
I don’t know how many of you have been to the Bronx Zoo in NYC. You want to slap the kids in there upside down their heads. They act like a bunch of monkeys (no pun intended) and there is a lost of horseplay going on especially with teenagers.
It’s a zoo, it’s supposed to be a fun place, yeah people do stupid things like roar at a lion. I had no idea till today that someone would find this simply act of silliness so rephrehensible. Yeah it might hurt someones sentiments that a poor animal is in a cage and someone is making faces at them or roaring at them. But it does not by any means justify anyone roaring at an animal getting killed period.
Are the tigers sentiments hurt? Was the tiger pissed because a bunch of dumb kids taunted it? Are we serious? The tiger is in a damn cage, not in it’s natural habitat, this same tiger also attacked the same hand that fed it everyday a year or so ago. I’m having a hard time with this argument.
If these kids were 7 instead of 17 and did the same thing, roar at the lion as a lot of 7 year olds would including one I recently took do, would we try to justify them getting mauled?
Look I love animals. I know my sweet docile housecat will jump on you and bite you if you bait him and mess with him but it’s general horseplay and by no means anyone being stupid deserves to be killed by a wild animal that ws supposed to be secured. The zoo fucked up by not providing an enclosure that kept both the public and tiger at a safe distance. It’s a wild animal. It could have easily attacked other kids and zoo goers.
We can’t have it both ways, if emotional/mental abuse of “lower creatures” is no big deal, then neither is those animals’ “dumb” reactions.
I agree that knowingly taunting animals, and not caring about their reaction, is reprehensible. But I would add it’s also the zoo’s responsibility to mediate between animal and human impulses. Sadly, maybe the answer is more aggressive policing of human behavior, the way I get yelled at instantly in the art museum if I get too close to the paintings (no, I don’t touch them, I’m not one of those art-ruining jerks).
When you think about it, it’s “lucky” (I hate to use that term but I can’t think of a better one) that Tatiana only went after the people who allegedly taunted her. What if she had also mauled, say, a little kid who had nothing to do with the taunting? The Dhaliwal kids would bear some responsibility for that, yes, but it would also indicate the bigger problem that the SF Zoo simply is not safe. And in terms of preventing future incidents, that is what really needs to be focused on.
JoaT, you are confusing multiple issues.
And apart from all this, society has a very opportunistic and inconsistent approach to how they feel about various different behaviors towards animals (eating meat/factory farming/horse racing/dog fighting/bestiality/caging animals/interaction of cuteness of animals with level of sympathy), which makes things problematic.
But that’s just it, Rupa-di…the one who was roaring didn’t get killed. His friend did, trying to save him from the consequences of very reckless actions he may or may not have committed. No one is saying the Zoo is faultless.
The Zoo has had very serious issues, and in fact, those issues are the reason why the ZOO was cited as being at fault in the case you mentioned, when Tatiana bit her handler last year. There’s a reason why Tatiana wasn’t put down after that; it’s because the zoo didn’t have a proper setup with regards to feeding and that is irresponsible and dangerous. We cannot blame animals for doing what is in their nature.
It is reprehensible to harass helpless animals who are stressed out in cages and unnatural situations, especially when the persons doing so are out of their teens and damned well know better/don’t deserve all the excuses being made for them. People keep bringing up possible scenarioes involving small children and how we wouldn’t blame them for taunting but that’s irrelevant. Small children did NOT do this.
In fact, thousands of them had seen Tatiana and she never jumped. It took two rowdy people who were very drunk and high to put in to motion this tragedy. It’s not okay to provoke any creature just because we can, and that message of respect is the one good thing I hope comes from all of this.