You think justice was done, lol? No, justice will be done when the zoo pays a 7 digit number to them.Nintendogamer wrote:
yeh, the zoo should have had their darts ready, but it is justice for the family of the dead person.sergeriver wrote:
The police hadn't. But the damn zoo should have used their fucking darts. They are going to be sued and now their image is on the floor.Nintendogamer wrote:
yeh, but its got the tast of blood, so its gonna want to kill again. besides, the tiger came towards the armed police who shot it in fear of being attacked by the tiger themselves. they had no choice
Poll
Was It the right thing to Do?
| Yes | 64% | 64% - 86 | ||||
| No | 35% | 35% - 48 | ||||
| Total: 134 | ||||||
Sounded more like you thought it was wrong to stop the tiger at all instead of then stopping her in a wrong way.sergeriver wrote:
What part? The part saying fuck you SF zoo?Gawwad wrote:
Ok, you're OP is a bit missleading tbh.sergeriver wrote:
No, I don't blame the police. I blame the damn SF zoo for letting her scape, and for not having the guards with darts at the scene when needed. They are to blame.
I think the tiger shouldn't be dead, and I blame the zoo for that.Gawwad wrote:
Sounded more like you thought it was wrong to stop the tiger at all instead of then stopping her in a wrong way.sergeriver wrote:
What part? The part saying fuck you SF zoo?Gawwad wrote:
Ok, you're OP is a bit missleading tbh.
Yeah, I got that now, but thought you were out of your mind when I read the OPsergeriver wrote:
I think the tiger shouldn't be dead, and I blame the zoo for that.Gawwad wrote:
Sounded more like you thought it was wrong to stop the tiger at all instead of then stopping her in a wrong way.sergeriver wrote:
What part? The part saying fuck you SF zoo?
When it comes to animals rights I am.Gawwad wrote:
Yeah, I got that now, but thought you were out of your mind when I read the OPsergeriver wrote:
I think the tiger shouldn't be dead, and I blame the zoo for that.Gawwad wrote:
Sounded more like you thought it was wrong to stop the tiger at all instead of then stopping her in a wrong way.
A zoo should never exist. Animals are not here just so we have something to bring kids to go see.
Here's Tatiana a few days ago, she seemed very happy.
Yeah. Nosely safari park is better.usmarine2005 wrote:
A zoo should never exist. Animals are not here just so we have something to bring kids to go see.
Animals do stuff. Rather than lying down.
Of course it was absolutely the right thing to do. If an animal is on the rampage, killing people, you kill it - as quickly as is possible.
End of.
Of course the owners of the zoo should get in loads and loads of trouble for allowing this tragedy to happen.
End of.
Of course the owners of the zoo should get in loads and loads of trouble for allowing this tragedy to happen.
Yep. You want to drive a landrover and view them by all means go ahead.jord wrote:
Yeah. Nosely safari park is better.usmarine2005 wrote:
A zoo should never exist. Animals are not here just so we have something to bring kids to go see.
Animals do stuff. Rather than lying down.
Zoos are not there for the kids amusement only. They also are supposed to work for threatened species conservation. That's their most important job. While the environment is being destroyed we rely on them to keep these species alive.usmarine2005 wrote:
A zoo should never exist. Animals are not here just so we have something to bring kids to go see.
Have you heard of darts?Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it was absolutely the right thing to do. If an animal is on the rampage, killing people, you kill it - as quickly as is possible.
End of.
Of course the owners of the zoo should get in loads and loads of trouble for allowing this tragedy to happen.
Response times are the issue here. The tiger would've been destroyed after being tranqed anyway (standard policy), so it really makes no difference.sergeriver wrote:
Have you heard of darts?Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it was absolutely the right thing to do. If an animal is on the rampage, killing people, you kill it - as quickly as is possible.
End of.
Of course the owners of the zoo should get in loads and loads of trouble for allowing this tragedy to happen.
I agree the zoo response time wasn't good enough, then the cops had no choice but shoot the tiger. I disagree a tiger must be put to sleep just because it killed a person. It's a wild animal, it's not its fault at all.Bertster7 wrote:
Response times are the issue here. The tiger would've been destroyed after being tranqed anyway (standard policy), so it really makes no difference.sergeriver wrote:
Have you heard of darts?Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it was absolutely the right thing to do. If an animal is on the rampage, killing people, you kill it - as quickly as is possible.
End of.
Of course the owners of the zoo should get in loads and loads of trouble for allowing this tragedy to happen.
Of course the Zoo is guilty, not the tiger (what she was supposed to do? ask "where is the library?"), and relatives of those who were killed should understand that. As for the policemen well they had to protect themselves. Sad story.
Once predatory animals attack humans, it learns that people are a food source. This shit happens in countries like India. The only thing to do is kill the beast. I am sure the powers that be can relocate it but the animal has a way of coming back to human population. This holds true to bears in the U.S.
Yah killing it was the best, now what are they going to do with the pelt....I need a new rug
Yah killing it was the best, now what are they going to do with the pelt....I need a new rug
Last edited by loubot (2007-12-26 05:16:35)
That doesn't change the fact that it is standard policy in these instances to destroy animals that have killed someone. Whether or not it is the tigers fault is beside the point.sergeriver wrote:
I agree the zoo response time wasn't good enough, then the cops had no choice but shoot the tiger. I disagree a tiger must be put to sleep just because it killed a person. It's a wild animal, it's not its fault at all.Bertster7 wrote:
Response times are the issue here. The tiger would've been destroyed after being tranqed anyway (standard policy), so it really makes no difference.sergeriver wrote:
Have you heard of darts?
It is obviously the zoos fault for not keeping the tiger properly confined, but the cops should be commended for their swift action which ensured there was no additional loss of life.
Some of you say it was wrong to kill the tiger, so how would you like your relatives to be eaten alive after searching for a TQ dart for 1 hour?
sick fuckers.
sick fuckers.
So people are wild animals too. More predatory than any others...loubot wrote:
Once predatory animals attack humans, it learns that people are a food source. This shit happens in countries like India. The only thing to do is kill the beast. I am sure the powers that be can relocate it but the animal has a way of coming back to human population. This holds true to bears in the U.S.
Yah killing it was the best, now what are they going to do with the pelt....I need a new rug
So you wouldn't care if a human died instead of a hamster? Think it through next time.PZmohax01 wrote:
So people are wild animals too. More predatory than any others...loubot wrote:
Once predatory animals attack humans, it learns that people are a food source. This shit happens in countries like India. The only thing to do is kill the beast. I am sure the powers that be can relocate it but the animal has a way of coming back to human population. This holds true to bears in the U.S.
Yah killing it was the best, now what are they going to do with the pelt....I need a new rug
That is reason why we have a prison system.PZmohax01 wrote:
So people are wild animals too. More predatory than any others...loubot wrote:
Once predatory animals attack humans, it learns that people are a food source. This shit happens in countries like India. The only thing to do is kill the beast. I am sure the powers that be can relocate it but the animal has a way of coming back to human population. This holds true to bears in the U.S.
Yah killing it was the best, now what are they going to do with the pelt....I need a new rug
This is where I think you take pity in the animal too much. No, it's not a wild animal. It's coarsely domesticated and fed multiple times a day, why it decided to attack (out of hunger or innate violence?) I couldn't say.sergeriver wrote:
It's a wild animal, it's not its fault at all.
Secondly, where does the blame lie? The tiger raised it's paw, opened it's jaw and violence ensued. There is a clear difference between a tame tiger and a violent tiger. What happened at the zoo was a case of the latter, as well as a year ago.
At first I voted no, but then I watched the movie in the link.
The man sais the tiger resumed his attack on the victim (one that is still alive) as the officers approached. There was no time to get a tranquilizer dart, so shooting the tiger was the right thing to do.
The man sais the tiger resumed his attack on the victim (one that is still alive) as the officers approached. There was no time to get a tranquilizer dart, so shooting the tiger was the right thing to do.
Only if the Dog Whispherer (Ceaser Milan) was there all of this would of been prevented.
ShsssT ShssssssT >=\
ShsssT ShssssssT >=\
Yes, he would've fully satisfied the Tigers hunger and the innocent visitors will be spared.loubot wrote:
Only if the Dog Whispherer (Ceaser Milan) was there all of this would of been prevented.