The 3 men had been drinking and were shooting the tiger with stones using slingshots. The slingshots were wrist-rockets, which are high velocity and considered a weapon in NY. Imagine all 3 of them nailing the tiger at once. The tiger jumped/clawed its way up the wall and got them. These drunk men then ran around yelling that a tiger was out. No one believed them. They didn't see a tiger because it was busy killing one of them. Then it went to the cafe, where it attacked another person. That was when 911 was called.
Apparently they didn't try to help their friend. The guy at the cafe tried to help another guy at a cafe which is how they both ended up mauled. The 2 drunk guys just ran screaming. I have been following this story cuz it made me so dang mad and curious that the 2 men never went to the press with their story. If a tiger scaled a wall and killed one of my friends, I'd be screaming for higher walls. But that tiger managed to make it over the wall for a reason.
Udate: I just heard a news story about 30 minutes ago that said the cops had completely debunked the slingshot story - actually is was never more than just a rumor to begin with but still had to be checked out. And that part you just posted about a fourth person being attacked at the cafe is simply not true. (Try to be a little careful what you pick up and spread around.)
Not a fourth person, 3 people. The dead guy and 2 at the cafe. If I ever said there were 4, please show me where. And the media said slingshots, just as they are now reporting no slingshots.
so who was the victim? Tatiana Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Carols Sousa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Police are investigating whether several items found in the enclosure of a tiger who fatally mauled a 17-year-old man show that the animal was attacked or taunted, San Francisco Zoo spokesman Sam Singer said Wednesday. Police are examining a large rock, a tree branch and other items, Singer said. "They [police] are trying to make a determination that those items or any other things that happened on Christmas Day were part of some attack on the tiger or something that angered Tatiana, causing her to come out of her cage," the spokesman said. San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong has said that a shoe print found on the railing at the tiger enclosure is being examined to determine if one of the victims climbed over the rail or threw their leg over the side....
Then it was just a poor choice of wording. You said, "Then it went to the cafe, where it attacked another person." In fact, it attacked the three kids AWAY from the cafe and not one at it. It jumped the first one, the second tried to help him, and the third was running around close by yelling for help. He MIGHT have made it all the way to the cafe but I've never seen that reported. Why did you mention this??? :shrug: I clearly said the cops said there had been a rumor of slingshots but had debunked it. I never challenged you on that point at all.
Maybe I shouldn't have said that the boys deserved to die, but when you mess with a 300 lb cat that can kill you, and it comes and kills you, then I cannot have any sympathy for you. Maybe he didn't necessarily deserve it, but I can say that he got what was comin' to him. The zoo is by far not blame free in this either. Since the tiger escaped, we know that the enclosure is not escape proof. And if the height of the wall was lower than it was supposed to be, they've got some 'splainin' to do. If it is determined that those boys did taunt the tiger first, I may have to submit that article to www.darwinawards.com. That reminds me of a joke: What are a redneck's last words? "Hey y'all. Watch this!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! R.I.P. Tatiana
To say "he deserved to die" is not the same as saying "I think it's a good thing he died". The former is just stating a fact, while the latter is a judgment based on one's moral principles.
I have, but that doesn't mean they won't defend themselves if they perceive they are being attacked. Sure I can, and do. It's not just about pets though, is it, but animals in general. Parents are duty bound to teach their kids how to avoid danger, be it from pet dogs in the street, cows in a field, or tigers in a cage. Provocation, ... last summer, I was in Pub garden, with my dogs laying around me. There was a childrens play area, with a big sign that said 'Children must be supervised at all times.' and a young girl playing by herself, unsupervised. She then ran past one of my dogs back towards her parents, treading on it's tail. The dog jumped up, and barked at her. She started to cry. Then I get the parents having a go at me 'cos their kid was crying. I then gave them a lecture about supervising their kid, educating her about dogs she didn't know, treading on tails, and generally being grateful she didn't get bitten. It's a two way street, see. If my dogs are on a lead, I am making sure they cannot get to other people, even though my dogs are good natured, friendly, and approachable. If kids run inside that radius, screaming, waving their arms around, they may be perceived as an attacker. This is where parents must educate their children, and tell them not to do it. I am a responsible owner, with good natured dogs, but too often I've had kids run towards my dogs. Lots of kids ask 'can I stroke them' etc, and that is good, my dogs ar approachable and friendly, as long as they are approached the right way. It doesn't take long to tell kids what to do, and kids once told, do remember, and it is the parents responsibilty to do that.
I disagree, I think it's your responsibility to steer clear of playing kids. Not all dogs are like yours apparently, lots of dogs do tolerate screaming, waving kids.. If you know that your dog doesn't, don't get near those kids.
That's just stupid. I am not going to exclude myself from areas because parents cannot be bothered to educate their children. Oh, by the way, the example I gave was a PUB. You know, where adults gather to drink alcoholic beverages? Kids are allowed in the garden under supervision, maybe you missed the whole point because you are so keen to keep your prejudices. I've also had idiot kids run up to my dogs in the street, you going to exclude me from all public places now? Because breeders and their little cherubs take precedence? You also didn't seem to read that my dogs are friendly. If you approach them nicely, and don't spook them, they love fuss. It's not about my dogs, but that kids will run up to any dog. I'm merely doing the job of educating children where the parents have failed. Again, you were so keen to push your prejudices you didn't actually let what I wrote sink in. And no, dogs do not tolerate screaming waving kids, eventually they snap, and if you did not know that, you should neither have dogs nor children. Only an idiot would leave a child alone unsupervised with a dog. An ex gf's sister did that, and I caught the child trying to stab the dog with one of those skewers you put in corn on the cob, but if the dog had bitten the kid I guess you'd have blamed the dog. Like all things in life, reasonable people reach a compromise, but it seems you want to be unreasonable and put all the responsibility on dog owners and absolve breeders. Well, I hope if you ever have kids, you don't endanger them by not educating them, and you grow up, and realise it's in your own self interest, and that of your child.
Maybe you could point out what prejudice that is ? :shrug: Not all dogs react like that to children, I know first hand. If you can't control your dog then you shouldn't have one. On the other hand, people should teach their children not to abuse animals and be friendly to them. And in areas where dangerous wild animals are common, the kids should be taught about that too. But YOU want to have a dog, so YOU take responsibility. "..but if the dog had bitten the kid I guess you'd have blamed the dog." I would certainly not have blamed the dog, in this case the ex gf's sister was to blame. "..but it seems you want to be unreasonable and put all the responsibility on dog owners and absolve breeders." Certainly not all, but most.. Say you walk through the park with your dog. A screaming kid runs by. Your dog attacks the kid. You would blame the parents ?? I can tell you that any court would sooner blame you than the parents of that kid.
If you can't expect people to teach their children how to act around animals, you sure as hell can't expect people to teach their animals how to be around children.
Domesticated animals.. And why not ? You want a dog, you are responsible for it.. why are you so resistant to that ?
How do you teach a child how to act around an animal if they don't have one? How would you control a child with a mental handicap? How do you teach a 2/3 yr old not to run towards a dog? If your dog cannot be trusted around children, don't bring him around them. Its not fair to the dog for you to knowingly put him in that situation.
