And one of them has finally admitted it. They had been drinking, smoking MJ and had climbed to the top of the railing to yell and wave at the tiger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22719922/

Like I just said - idiots - with more free time than brains!!! :mad:

P.S. Here's betting that the lawsuits against the zoo will now go nowhere - YEA!!!

And one of them has finally admitted it. They had been drinking, smoking MJ and had climbed to the top of the railing to yell and wave at the tiger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22719922/

Like I just said - idiots - with more free time than brains!!! :mad:

P.S. Here's betting that the lawsuits against the zoo will now go nowhere - YEA!!!

they also threw things at it

they also threw things at it

Although that has been said it's yet to be proven, But what I just gave you is by admission of one kid who was involved. The story isn't completely over yet...

Although that has been said it's yet to be proven, But what I just gave you is by admission of one kid who was involved. The story isn't completely over yet...

i read on yahoo news bout a week ago that they found stuf in the enclosure that didn't belong. though you do have to admire the stupidity of provoking one of the top predators of the world.

And one of them has finally admitted it. They had been drinking, smoking MJ and had climbed to the top of the railing to yell and wave at the tiger......

That's not taunting to me. How is that any more bothersome to a tiger than a bunch of people leaning over the rail to take photos or kids squealing in delight in seeing a tiger??

And one of them has finally admitted it. They had been drinking, smoking MJ and had climbed to the top of the railing to yell and wave at the tiger.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22719922/

Like I just said - idiots - with more free time than brains!!! :mad:

P.S. Here's betting that the lawsuits against the zoo will now go nowhere - YEA!!!

Good news !
And throwing things or not, they practically presented themselves to the tiger. They got what they deserved.

well, I learned my lesson with the sling shot story. Until I find out things in the pit were things they threw, I'm not picking a side. If they did, its their fault, if they didn't, its the zoos fault.

well, I learned my lesson with the sling shot story. Until I find out things in the pit were things they threw, I'm not picking a side. If they did, its their fault, if they didn't, its the zoos fault.

What do you think they were doing on that railing ?
They were practically inviting the tiger to come get them. They just didn't expect the tiger to get out.. the joke is on them.

I've set my kids on the top railing so that they could get a better look. They have squealed with delight, waved their arms, pointed, etc.

I've set my kids on the top railing so that they could get a better look. They have squealed with delight, waved their arms, pointed, etc.

And ? I say they deserved it because of their intention.

and their attention was to annoy a tiger. if that was their only intention, then I don't agree. If they were throwing things, intending to hurt the tiger, then I agree.
If you could kill things that annoy you, I think most of us here would have been killed a long time ago. lol

and their attention was to annoy a tiger. if that was their only intention, then I don't agree. If they were throwing things, intending to hurt the tiger, then I agree.
If you could kill things that annoy you, I think most of us here would have been killed a long time ago. lol

A person being annoyed and purposefully annoying a wild animal are two TOTALLY different things. Think about that for a while...

and their attention was to annoy a tiger. if that was their only intention, then I don't agree. If they were throwing things, intending to hurt the tiger, then I agree.
If you could kill things that annoy you, I think most of us here would have been killed a long time ago. lol

We are not tigers.. A tiger kills what annoys him..

Do you think those guys would have annoyed a tiger in the wild ? They only dared because they figured he could not get them. Well, guess what.. they figured wrong.

We are not tigers.. A tiger kills what annoys him..

Do you think those guys would have annoyed a tiger in the wild ? They only dared because they figured he could not get them. Well, guess what.. they figured wrong.

It's not quite the same, of course, but in a way those idiots remind me of the boneheads that participate in those "running of the bulls" events. The get out there on purpose and shout and wave to get the bulls to chase them.

One or more always wind up dead or seriously injured. Makes me thankful we have bulls - they help rid the world of stupid fools and I cheer for ther BULLS!!:D

It's not quite the same, of course, but in a way those idiots remind me of the boneheads that participate in those "running of the bulls" events. The get out there on purpose and shout and wave to get the bulls to chase them.

One or more always wind up dead or seriously injured. Makes me thankful we have bulls - they help rid the world of stupid fools and I cheer for ther BULLS!!:D

Exactly !! :D

So they shot the wrong thing!:(

Of course the did. (taunt tiger)

kill all tigers

kill all tigers

The government should do more to stop these constant tiger attacks.

Surely NSA has already tapped the dens?

It doesn't matter if the young men were taunting the tiger or not. The zoo is still responsible for their injuries and the death of one of them because the wall around the tiger enclosure did not meet minimum standards. The zoo is also responsible because zoo personel did not respond immediately to the attack but instead kept insisting that there was no attack and no animal had escaped.

That was a recommendation to increase the wall height, i would bet the height is similar to other zoo's. For that tiger to jump that wall indicates distress.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318539,00.html

Check this out:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060120.html

Moral of the story- Dont hit big tiger on head with big rock.:D

I'm sure I mentioned it before, the walls aren't suppose to keep the animals in, they are suppose to keep the zoo out!

The zoo is also responsible because zoo personel did not respond immediately to the attack but instead KEPT insisting that there was no attack and no animal had escaped.

(empahsis mine)

Do you have something to back up that statement????? I've read many, many news reports about the incident and never came across THAT before!

I have no sympathy for human casualties at the zoo.

Although that has been said it's yet to be proven, .

It HAS been proven by 2 different eyewitnesses and stuff what they found on the floor and didn't belong...

It doesn't matter if the young men were taunting the tiger or not.

Were I on the jury, I would give them back the cost of the ticket as reinbursement...with a note that they should be happy not to be countersued....

It HAS been proven by 2 different eyewitnesses and stuff what they found on the floor and didn't belong...

What does "eyewitnesses and stuff" mean?

And at any rate, do you have a link that shows that? Lot's of things have been "said" but not all of it has been substantiated.

I feel I should comment on this story because it represents a serious issue for many people / animals. What I've heard is the enclosure met the minimum standards and that the zoo only recieved a suggestion the wall height might be increased, however they were under no legal obligation to do that. The Tiger itself did escape but isn't that why it's called a Zoo? We keep animals trapped inside it for entertainment, then when the tide turns and Mr. Tiger wants some fun people freak. Isn't that good ole human nature!

I'd like to say I sympathize with the Tiger more than these kids. What I would learn from this is simple, don't have a zoo, don't keep animals trapped in cages. If you do then prepare for consequences later.

What does "eyewitnesses and stuff" mean?

Eyewitnesses:

1. A mother who saw the kids taunting animals, they were very disturb by it and went the other direction.
2. One of the kids himself, telling it to his father...

Do a google search, why should I do the homework all the time?

tiger got out. zoo's fault. it is their responsibility. simple as that.

I think they should let a good tiger have a bad kid every now and again as a reward.

(empahsis mine)

Do you have something to back up that statement????? I've read many, many news reports about the incident and never came across THAT before!

They published transcripts of the radio communications between zoo personel.

Eyewitnesses:

1. A mother who saw the kids taunting animals, they were very disturb by it and went the other direction.
2. One of the kids himself, telling it to his father...

Do a google search, why should I do the homework all the time?

Because YOU made the claim - not me. So it's up to YOU to prove your claim is correct, not for me to do for you.

And your statements above are STILL worthless unless you can provide some proof.

I am a bit surpirsed and disappointed at the number of people who feel no sympathy for the dead boy or the mauled brothers. People are exhibiting greater sympathy for the tiger than for human beings.

The penalty for stupid behavior by young men should not be death by tiger.

They published transcripts of the radio communications between zoo personel.

And those transcripts can be found where?? And, incidentally, just WHO would have recorded those conversations? I think you're confusing that with the calls to 911.

I am a bit surpirsed and disappointed at the number of people who feel no sympathy for the dead boy or the mauled brothers. People are exhibiting greater sympathy for the tiger than for human beings.

The penalty for stupid behavior by young men should not be death by tiger.

I feel some sympathy for them - but it's on the exact same level I would feel for an idiot that tried to run across a loaded 8-lane highway.

Stupid is still stupid no matter what YOU think it is.

Till,
People love to exaggerate on the internet. I do it all the time myself. It's either that or animal loving wackos.

The penalty for stupid behavior by young men should not be death by tiger. Or death by car, etc. But shit happens, when you're being stupid.

Besides, they were all stupid. Only one died.

The penalty for stupidity around tigers might be chance of death by tiger, reasonably ?

maybe if you are in the jungle. if you are in the zoo, penalty should be get your ass thrown out of the zoo. it probably shouldn't be - tiger escapes from inadequate holdings and mauls you to death.

Till,
People love to exaggerate on the internet. I do it all the time myself. It's either that or animal loving wackos.

I'm not an "animal loving wacko" nor am I exaggerating when I say this: the guys acted stupidly and the tiger simply did what tigers do. So it was all THEIR own fault - not the tiger - and they paid the price for their sheer stupidity.

Question: would anyone fault the machine if some idiot rammed his arm under a running lawnmower? (I didn't think so.)

Another thought just crossed my mind. Those jerks probably spent time watching things like "The Lion King" and thought all animals were noble and harmless. Brainless kids!!

Or death by car, etc. But shit happens, when you're being stupid.

Besides, they were all stupid. Only one died.

The penalty for stupidity around tigers might be chance of death by tiger, reasonably ?

Sure shit can happen when you are being stupid. Shit happens to stupid people every day. That doesn't mean you shouldn't feel sorry for those who are severely injured or die. Saying you have no sympathy for someone because he was stupid diminishes you as a person. I feel sorry for everyone who dies, stupid or not.

read,
you dont get it. of course it isnt the tigers fault. it is the zoos fault. when people go to the zoo there is a basic understanding that the animals cant get out of their pens!

if the guys were taunting - that is stupid. i would never do that and it is idiotic. but that is no excuse for the zoo. animals aren't supposed to be able to get out.

The penalty for stupid behavior by young men should not be death by tiger.

I think that 'death by tiger' should replace 'lethal injection' in the face of the recent furor over the ethics of lethal injection. Death by tiger is far more natural and thus better.

Plus, it's more enjoyable to watch than a paralyzed guy laying on a table, even if you secretly hope that the barbituates were administered ineffectively so that the condemned is suffering enormous pain. You want to see it, you know?

I do it all the time myself. It's either that or animal loving wackos.

Or people-hating whackos.

I'm not an "animal loving wacko" nor am I exaggerating when I say this: the guys acted stupidly and the tiger simply did what tigers do.

Never disrespect a tiger, right. Tigers demand the utmost respect or they'll pop a cap in your ass.

People-hating is cool as long as you don't love animals. If you know what I mean...

People-hating is cool as long as you don't love animals. If you know what I mean...

I like animals and certainly don't hate people - however, I do DESPISE fools of any kind!

Mod Hat - Inquiry &c.

Read-Only, what is the purpose of this topic? If it is largely to repeatedly call certain people at large "stupid" or "idiots", I will happily accommodate you by transferring this discussion to someplace more appropriate, such as Free Thoughts.

Many people are morons every day. It's part of the human condition. Big deal, move on. Very few people would argue that taunting a tiger is somehow not stupid. Indeed, as your source article reminds, at least one of the agitators was intoxicated.

But this is EM&J, and I would think it's not too much to ask that there be some purpose relevant to the forum about this topic. Some of your neighbors are, indeed, trying to inject those aspects into the discussion. And, in fact, I will split the difference and attempt to accommodate both by going farther than just calling the agitators idiots. They were assholes:

Taunting a tiger at the zoo is an asshole thing to do, of course, but it’s not a hanging offense. The boys, engaged in teenage assholery, had a reasonable right to expect that the zoo’s tiger enclosure would keep the tigers, you know, enclosed. This news will probably knock a couple of million off the city’s inevitable settlements with the two survivors and the estate of the boy that died. But let’s not forget that the walls of the enclosure were only 12 feet high, not the regulation 16.5 feet (tigers can jump 16 feet), and that zoo officials weren’t even aware of the exact height of the walls until days after the attack.

(Savage (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/01/here_kitty_kitty_kitty))

Now then:

• Does the zoo have any obligations regarding the dimensions of the animal's enclosure?
• How many people reasonably expect that animals can escape their pens at a zoo?
• What is the standard by which someone "deserves" to be mauled to death (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716327&postcount=6) by a tiger?
• Does any aspect of this incident raise questions about the nature of zoos in general (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716321&postcount=5)?

While I would not restrict the discussion to these questions exclusively, I will go so far as to say these are the sort of questions appropriate the Ethics, Morality & Justice forum. Whether or not people are idiots, generally speaking, is best left for other fora.

Additionally, basic notes regarding communication between zoo officials can be found via KPIX (CBS5.com) (http://cbs5.com/local/tiger.attack.scene.2.620128.html). And, yes, there are certain claims that ought to be backed with some kind of source reference.

We all there? Everyone's on the same page now? Good.

Thank you.

Thanks for posting the citation, tiassa. I knew I had read it but could not remember where.

Mod Hat - Inquiry &c.

Read-Only, what is the purpose of this topic? If it is largely to repeatedly call certain people at large "stupid" or "idiots", I will happily accommodate you by transferring this discussion to someplace more appropriate, such as Free Thoughts.

Many people are morons every day. It's part of the human condition. Big deal, move on. Very few people would argue that taunting a tiger is somehow not stupid. Indeed, as your source article reminds, at least one of the agitators was intoxicated.

But this is EM&J, and I would think it's not too much to ask that there be some purpose relevant to the forum about this topic. Some of your neighbors are, indeed, trying to inject those aspects into the discussion. And, in fact, I will split the difference and attempt to accommodate both by going farther than just calling the agitators idiots. They were assholes:



Now then:

• Does the zoo have any obligations regarding the dimensions of the animal's enclosure?
• How many people reasonably expect that animals can escape their pens at a zoo?
• What is the standard by which someone "deserves" to be mauled to death (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716327&postcount=6) by a tiger?
• Does any aspect of this incident raise questions about the nature of zoos in general (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1716321&postcount=5)?

While I would not restrict the discussion to these questions exclusively, I will go so far as to say these are the sort of questions appropriate the Ethics, Morality & Justice forum. Whether or not people are idiots, generally speaking, is best left for other fora.

Additionally, basic notes regarding communication between zoo officials can be found via KPIX (CBS5.com) (http://cbs5.com/local/tiger.attack.scene.2.620128.html). And, yes, there are certain claims that ought to be backed with some kind of source reference.

We all there? Everyone's on the same page now? Good.

Thank you.

I selected this particular forum because it contains ALL the elements of ethics, morality and justice. Were the actions of the kids and the responsibility of the zoo and the response of the police ethical and/or moral? Was justice served in what followed the taunting - or is it yet to be finalized?

Incidentally, the quote you provided, "...But let’s not forget that the walls of the enclosure were only 12 feet high, not the regulation 16.5 feet..." does not match the reported facts. The wall was actually 12.5 feet high and the recommended height is 16.4 - not required hight. So it was was really 3' 11" inches short. But the main thing is distorting the facts to say "required" as opposed to the truth which is simply "recommended." Iwould say that's more than enough inaccuracy to require correction, wouldn't you?

If you still feel that all the elements clearly stated above do not qualify for the EM&J forum then move it anywhere you like.

Thanks for posting the citation, tiassa. I knew I had read it but could not remember where.

If you and Tiassia will only take the trouble to READ that article you'll both quickly discover that it DOES not say what you wanted it to!! It was NOT communication between zoo officials as you claim but between zoo officials and the POLICE! So that bit of "reporting" you both did was also distorted and inaccurate.

The pertinent part clearly says, "Police radio transcripts from the night of a deadly tiger attack revealed a chaotic scene at the San Francisco Zoo as zookeepers struggled to sedate the animal and medics refused to enter until they knew they would be safe."

Mod Hat - Response


I selected this particular forum because it contains ALL the elements of ethics, morality and justice. Were the actions of the kids and the responsibility of the zoo and the response of the police ethical and/or moral? Was justice served in what followed the taunting - or is it yet to be finalized?

And that's a fine discussion for this forum. And it's far-removed from your repeated denunciations of the people involved as idiots, stupid, &c. Are you able to tell the difference between those two conditions?

Incidentally, the quote you provided, "...But let’s not forget that the walls of the enclosure were only 12 feet high, not the regulation 16.5 feet..." does not match the reported facts. The wall was actually 12.5 feet high and the recommended height is 16.4 - not required hight. So it was was really 3' 11" inches short. But the main thing is distorting the facts to say "required" as opposed to the truth which is simply "recommended." Iwould say that's more than enough inaccuracy to require correction, wouldn't you?

According to New York radio station WCBS (880 AM), 16.4 (http://www.wcbs880.com/SF-Zoo:-Tiger-Walls-Not-at-Regulation-Height/1396452) feet is the minimum recommended height according to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The AZA is an accrediting agency, so, yes, 16.4 feet is a regulation: if you want to be accredited, you must meet this minimum standard.

• • •


Thanks for posting the citation, tiassa. I knew I had read it but could not remember where.

On this occasion, it wasn't that big a deal. But I do need to take the opportunity to remind folks that especially in the case of contentious assertions of fact, it's worth it to take a moment or two to make even the most basic Google search. I believe the search I used was transcript zoo tiger communication. Indeed, in searching for some information on Read-Only's unsourced argument about "required" vs. "recommended", the search was equally simple, zoo enclosure regulation height.

I am a bit surpirsed and disappointed at the number of people who feel no sympathy for the dead boy or the mauled brothers. People are exhibiting greater sympathy for the tiger than for human beings.

The penalty for stupid behavior by young men should not be death by tiger.

Sympathy ?? They had it coming !
Tell me, do you think the tiger deserved to die ?

...or animal loving wackos.

I'll take that as a compliment..

Mod Hat - Response
Indeed, in searching for some information on Read-Only's unsourced argument about "required" vs. "recommended", the search was equally simple, zoo enclosure regulation height.


Unsourced? Here's a source for you:

"SAN FRANCISCO—The director of the zoo where a teenager was killed by an escaped tiger said Thursday that the wall around the animal's pen was just 12 1/2 feet high—well below the height recommended by the main accrediting agency for the nation's zoos.
According to the Association of Zoos & Aquariums, the minimum recommended height for tiger exhibit walls is 16.4 feet. (Emphasis mine.)

San Francisco Zoo Director Manuel A. Mollinedo said safety inspectors had examined the nearly 70-year-old wall and never raised red flags about its size.

"When the AZA came out and inspected our zoo three years ago, they never noted that as a deficiency," Mollinedo said. "Obviously now that something's happened, we're going to be revisiting the actual height."

Taken from here: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:rEfzNwmxizoJ:www.contracostatimes.c om/garybogue/ci_7820707+%22wall+height%22+%2B+tiger&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

I also found another reference that said during the entire existance of the wall (almost 70 years!!) an animal had ever escaped over it before this event. Apparently, the visitors were more reasonable during all that time.

(But I won't be bothered by going back and re-finding that one for you.)

Sure shit can happen when you are being stupid. Shit happens to stupid people every day. That doesn't mean you shouldn't feel sorry for those who are severely injured or die. Saying you have no sympathy for someone because he was stupid diminishes you as a person. I feel sorry for everyone who dies, stupid or not.

They weren't just being stupid, there was malicious intent.
Do you think they would act the same if the saw a wild tiger in the jungle ? Why not ?

Mod Hat - Response


Unsourced? Here's a source for you

Why don't you take the attitude and cram it? That's my official advice.

As to the source, there are two points worth making:

(1) Thank you. I would hope you could appreciate the irony of your failure to cite your counterpoint, given that you were so determined to drag a source reference out of T/E.

(2) Your source is only reinforcing my point. 16.4 feet is the minimum recommended height according to the accrediting agency. You do realize, do you not, that they recommend a range, as opposed to demanding a specific height?

What strikes me, Read-Only, is your thematic hostility. Why not relax and take part in the discussion, instead of imagining yourself at war with the world? As I noted earlier, the purpose you stated for this topic as relates EM&J makes this a fine discussion, albeit a far cry from your conduct so far.

This story has many aspects, and will continue to unfold as time passes. There will, in the end, be plenty of people to blame, a plethora of targets for your righteous condemnation. Pace yourself, at least. Nothing about these discussions is worth elevating your blood pressure so consistently.

I dont see the confusion.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:recommend&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:regulation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/1396452.php?

``When the AZA came out and inspected our zoo three years ago, they never noted that as a deficiency,'' Mollinedo said.
``Obviously now that something's happened, we're going to be revisiting the actual height.''

I dont know who wrote that article but perhaps they should write with a dictionary for reference.

Orleander:

If you could kill things that annoy you, I think most of us here would have been killed a long time ago. lol


A tiger isn't some domesticated human, it's a predator. That's why it is caged. Would you harass a crocodile in the wild? What about a shark?

There is no way in hell these kids would have taunted a tiger in the wild. They only did so because there was a wall between them and it. They thought they were top shit, and they paid the price, so the joke's on them. Our gene pool is that little bit cleaner.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who get bitten, mauled, mangled, disembowelled, or disfigured by animals they were harassing. If you're so stupid as to poke a wasp's nest, you deserve to get stung. In fact, I think it's quite awesome when an animal strikes back against its tormentor. I'd conjecture that in 90+% animal attacks, the human deserves it and brought it on themselves.

I do feel sorry for humans who attempt to help stray dogs/cats/wild animals and get hurt, though. But they knew the risks.

Question: would anyone fault the machine if some idiot rammed his arm under a running lawnmower? (I didn't think so.)
Why do you think lawn mowers have fluorescent yellow stickers warning people not to stick their hands underneath a running lawnmower?

To add to that^^, Zoo's foster the illusion of conservation. It is much better to actually see what may be lost.

BTW, this story reminds me of a joke:

Two guys were on safari in the African savannah, and were encountered by a vicious, snarling tiger.

One guy turns to his friend and says: "I'm glad I wore my running shoes today."
The other guy says: "What? There's no way in hell that you can outrun that beast!"
To which his friend responds: "Oh, I don't need to outrun the tiger. I just need to outrun you!"

Why do you think lawn mowers have fluorescent yellow stickers warning people not to stick their hands underneath a running lawnmower?

Sorry, you just didn't get the point of that at all. Care to re-read the whole post you cut that from and then try again?

Mod Hat - Response



Why don't you take the attitude and cram it? That's my official advice.

As to the source, there are two points worth making:

(1) Thank you. I would hope you could appreciate the irony of your failure to cite your counterpoint, given that you were so determined to drag a source reference out of T/E.

(2) Your source is only reinforcing my point. 16.4 feet is the minimum recommended height according to the accrediting agency. You do realize, do you not, that they recommend a range, as opposed to demanding a specific height?

What strikes me, Read-Only, is your thematic hostility. Why not relax and take part in the discussion, instead of imagining yourself at war with the world? As I noted earlier, the purpose you stated for this topic as relates EM&J makes this a fine discussion, albeit a far cry from your conduct so far.

This story has many aspects, and will continue to unfold as time passes. There will, in the end, be plenty of people to blame, a plethora of targets for your righteous condemnation. Pace yourself, at least. Nothing about these discussions is worth elevating your blood pressure so consistently.


HA-HA-HA!! Wow, are you on the wrong path! :D I'm as relaxed as anyone could possibly be - however, I CAN see how you drew the wrong conclusion about my attitude. ;)

My whole point in calling those kids idiots and stupid is that normal, average people would not anymore do what they did as they would stick an arm under a running lawnmower or try to cross a multi-lane highway on foot during peak traffic time.

What I'm trying to get at is that they are responsible for their thoughtless actions and the efforts to achieve justice (through lawsuits) by the survivors and family members is unwarranted. And basically that's it in a nutshell.

I'll also admit that perhaps I should not have responded as much in this thread because I'm mainly interested in what others think about it - especially with that confession in hand that I pointed out in the initial post. But it IS a little tough to NOT respond to some of the things I've seen posted here. ;)

in human animal encounters if they end badly it is ussualy because the human did something wrong or stupid

in human animal encounters if they end badly it is ussualy because the human did something wrong or stupid

Thank you, dude, and I agree. That's a big part of the thought I've been trying to get across.

Animals, of course, are not subject to human laws, ethics, sense of justice or anything like that. It's completely up to the human to act responsibility and use proper judgement in ANY dealings with animals.

this thread makes me smile,

It's not quite the same, of course, but in a way those idiots remind me of the boneheads that participate in those "running of the bulls" events. The get out there on purpose and shout and wave to get the bulls to chase them.

One or more always wind up dead or seriously injured. Makes me thankful we have bulls - they help rid the world of stupid fools and I cheer for ther BULLS!!:D


well said!

these boys deserved what they got, no body in they're right minds would torment a tigger, the tigger did not deserve to be shot, it was just doing what it does to protect itself.

Orleander:

A tiger isn't some domesticated human, it's a predator. That's why it is caged. Would you harass a crocodile in the wild? What about a shark?

There is no way in hell these kids would have taunted a tiger in the wild. They only did so because there was a wall between them and it. They thought they were top shit, and they paid the price, so the joke's on them. Our gene pool is that little bit cleaner.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who get bitten, mauled, mangled, disembowelled, or disfigured by animals they were harassing. If you're so stupid as to poke a wasp's nest, you deserve to get stung. In fact, I think it's quite awesome when an animal strikes back against its tormentor. I'd conjecture that in 90+% animal attacks, the human deserves it and brought it on themselves.

I do feel sorry for humans who attempt to help stray dogs/cats/wild animals and get hurt, though. But they knew the risks.

Are you sure you are not me ? ;)
I agree with every single letter in your post !

what age would the person have to be to not deserve it?

Stupid kid got his Darwin award. Too bad not all of them.

Orl:

what age would the person have to be to not deserve it?


Any age before the realisation that a tiger can tear you a new hole if there isn't a cage/wall between you and it.

I realised that tigers could tear you to shreds when I was about 7 years old. But then again, I was a pretty sharp kid.