ZOO Tiger Kills Moronic Idiot Update

[QKShooter]

Empty bottle of Vodka found in the car and also SLINGSHOTS were found.
Kinda helps to explain the extremely POed Tiger and why the two survivors of the attack clammed up so doggone tight.

Torment Tiger with slingshots...not such a good idea Grasshoppers.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[TN_Mike]

Natural selection can happen anywhere. And it is a good thing for the over all health of the species.

This moron and his two buddies where in the process of being naturally selected out of the gene pool. Too bad the cops interrupted the process.

[Airborne Sniper]

At YAHOO News, some ambulance chasing attorney has announced that the zoo was "too slow in helping those people attacked by the tiger." NO, I think that the attorney was not there to offer himself up as bait and take the wrath of the tiger like he, the attorney, should have done. That would have been one, probably the only, attorney that I could have ever appreciated.

[CopperKnight]

Famous nearly last words: "Hey guys, I know where they keep a really big jungle cat with large fangs and huge claws. Let's go make it mad and see what happens."

[bandit383]

What is sad is the tiger paid the price...

Rick

[David in FL]

What is sad is the tiger paid the price...

Rick

+ 1

[Old Chief]

And yet another candidate for the Darwin Awards.

[pgrass101]

What idiots

[randytulsa2]

Well, since I have the day (mostly) off, I'll introduce a discordant note into this symphony:

It doesn't freaking matter if they shot the tiger with slingshots, darts, threw rocks at it, or squirted with the vodka.

Such an animal cannot be permitted to get to the customers/spectators/patrons.

Ever. Period.

Even (ESPECIALLY) if the customers/spectators/patrons are foolish enough to provoke the animal.

And to throw more gasoline on the fire, it isn't sad to me that the animal was shot.

Unless it's like a guard dog, and the circumstances of the killing are justified, I'm absolutely, four-square always FOR the immediate death of ANY animal that kills a human being.

Now that I have my asbestos longhandles in place, I'll post....and maybe run away for a day or two....

[airbornerangerboogie]

Well, since I have the day (mostly) off, I'll introduce a discordant note into this symphony:

It doesn't freaking matter if they shot the tiger with slingshots, darts, threw rocks at it, or squirted with the vodka.

Such an animal cannot be permitted to get to the customers/spectators/patrons.

Ever. Period.

Even (ESPECIALLY) if the customers/spectators/patrons are foolish enough to provoke the animal.

And to throw more gasoline on the fire, it isn't sad to me that the animal was shot.

Unless it's like a guard dog, and the circumstances of the killing are justified, I'm absolutely, four-square always FOR the immediate death of ANY animal that kills a human being.

Now that I have my asbestos longhandles in place, I'll post....and maybe run away for a day or two....

I'm not one to subscribe "human" emotions to animals, but I also have seen wild animals much better behaved & seemingly much more intelligent than some humans. I do agree that when any animal kills a human (even though they may have richly deserved it) it needs to be put down for the safety of others. The zoo should be held accountable for the safety of these animals and the drunks (the ones that lived) should be fined.

[SIXTO]

I see your point Randy, and agree on most levels. The Tiger did need a killin, but only because of the actions of these guys. I dont know what could have been done differently given the set of circumstances.

I dont think animals should be killed when humans are dumb enough to invade their homes and expect to behave like domesticated house cats. We (humans)took that cat, put it in a cage and poked with a stick. Then we killed it because it behaved like a jungle cat.

When a person enters the wild, he is part of the wild, subject to all the dangers and risks of being part of the wild. For another example, people are killed by bears here in the states once in a while. In most circumstances, these people sought the bears out, fully knowing that a wild grizzly isnt soft and cuddly like their golden retriever. Once in a while, bears do what bears do and a person pays that toll. I dont think its right that the bear is killed for that.

[ccw9mm]

KTVU News article, 8am on 1/1/08.

According to the article, the tiger mauled and killed the one guy, then followed their trail to a cafe and singled out the other two. Smart tiger, to focus on just the three that apparently taunted it. It will be interesting to hear just what the two surviving folks have to say, in the end. Whaddayathink ... something like this?

Yes, we had vodka, but we didn't drink. Yes, we drank, but we weren't drunk. Yes, we had slingshots, but we didn't use them. Yes, security cameras show three people firing slingshots that day at that tiger, but that wasn't us. Yes, we each had four legs and a brain, but weren't very smart about it. Basically, as Mr. C. once said so eloquently: we "did not have sex with that woman."

Whatever else can be said, this much is true: when a strong, mobile and wild animal gets a taste for human flesh, it poses a danger so long as it cannot be put back to its rightful place in the wild. In such circumstances, it's hard to see another path than destroying the given animal. Sad, but it's one part of the reality we foist on ourselves as captors.

[Creature]

That tiger was just doing its part to make our gene pool that much deeper....

[4my son]

What is sad is the tiger paid the price...

Rick

I agree,

Maybe the Zoo should file a suit against the estate or family of the idiots, I'm sure it has cost them a ton. IMHO, slightly going off topic here, I would like to see more "Victims" file suits against the BG's estate instead of the other way around. If we shoot a BG and it's justified, the BG family files a civil suit, then the GG should file a counter suit for 1.5 times as much, maybe that would cut down on the civil suits, and might even act as a deterrent to crime. Let their ambulance chancing lawyer explain that one, If he only gets paid if he wins them money, would he have to pay if he looses them money. just a thought.

[ccw9mm]

Maybe the Zoo should file a suit against the estate or family of the idiots, I'm sure it has cost them a ton.

Sounds perfectly reasonable, if the facts warrant it. Wouldn't be any different than Search & Rescue operations charging for false calls, which can be highly costly.