WHY did that poor tiger have to killed? It's a wild animal....and now their thinking humans played a role in all of this...so this poor animal died because of some jerk .....WHERES PETA!?!
SOMEBODY do something! This is soo ridiculous!
This tiger went to the zoo to seek refugee and now..what...
I'm so upset about this...and whoever doesn't like my question...go to the next cuz i wont be bothered...
2007-12-26 12:25:04 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Yes i have been to SF zoo...thanks.
2007-12-27 11:53:50 · update #1
This upset me, as well. I believe the tiger was provoked, and that someone tampered with the gate or purposely left the gate open. Experts claim there was no way this captive animal would have been able to jump over the fence (like a tiger in the wild would be able to do). I agree with you -- it should not have been killed -- it was just being what it is - an animal - and was doing what any other tiger would do if some jacka** taunts it. And what about a tranquilizer gun??!!!
2007-12-26 12:35:53 · answer #1 · answered by mrsbeasley 2 · 4⤊ 4⤋
I have already answered a question similar to this so I'm basically going to answer with the same answer.
Animals that are at zoos and wildlife parks are NOT tame...they ARE wild. Tigers are predators and are carnivorous animals.
The tiger at the SF Zoo probably attacked on instinct...natural urges. We may never know what caused the tiger to attack. The victims in the case may well have been teasing the animal or otherwise enticing her.
The tiger in this case had attacked before...a zookeeper at the SF Zoo was mauled but she survived. The zoo decided not to euthanize the tiger at that time because it was believed that the tiger acted on instinct.
The shooting of the tiger, in my opinion, could have been avoided. The tiger could have been darted and sedated instead. I believe the tiger was shot because police believed that zoo guests were in imminent danger of attack.
Even if the tiger had been sedated, it's highly unlikely she would have ever been returned to the zoo population. I would like to think that she would have been sent to a wild animal refuge to live out her days in relative peace in an environment similar to her home environment.
Unfortunately, that can't happen now. While I don't believe police acted with unnecessary force, I do believe that there were other options. At the same time, safety of guests is paramount and often takes the lead over animals...even endangered ones.
EMT
Just a quick question...didn't Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs" do a segment of the SF Zoo? If he did, I wonder if he had ever been close to that animal...and what his opinion would be of this incident.
Let me add this: IF sedating the tiger was an option, it should have been done. However, the circumstances in this case warranted the shooting and killing of the tiger due to the fact there was a person in immediate and life-threatening danger.
Note: The SF Zoo had confirmed what I had seen as a child on of my many trips to the zoo...the fence around the tiger enclosure is ONLY 12 1/2 FEET HIGH...NOT 18. Yes, a tiger can easily leap or climb such a distance.
2007-12-26 13:09:40 · answer #2 · answered by emt_me911 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, all humans should take responsibility for their actions! Their excuse is that the wall was shorter than recommended, but I say that doesn't matter. The wall height is a rounded up recommendation. It is not mandatory or essential for safety in a reasonable situation. It has worked fine for 40 years, and passed regular inspections. These boys were determined to cause trouble, and they would have found a way no matter how tall the wall was. If they hadn't created an extreme tormenting situation, the tiger wouldn't have been energized enough to make it over the wall. Just like a human can do amazing feats with adrenaline when in danger, a tiger can react as well. I think they all the zoo and society a lot of money and community service to make up for their idiotic actions. The zoo can use reasonable safety precautions, but nothing is "fool" proof.
2016-05-26 11:23:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was killed because the zoo was unprepared. Simple as that. If you listen to reports from officers arriving at that scene they say that the zoo was really poorly lit, they could barely see, they weren't given any maps for the inside the zoo. I believe I read somewhere that one officer said it was like they were going in blind. They said that the zoo had tranquilizer guns but that they came upon the tiger before they were able to get them.
I truly believe that zoo didn't have an adequate enough emergency plan.
2007-12-28 03:43:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The police had no choice... the tiger had attacked it's trainer 2 yrs ago when the tiger was recently donated to the San Francisco zoo....and then it goes and attacks and KILLS MY FRIEND! and goes and injures 2 more......now I'm not saying that killing animals is right but when the police felt that they were in danger they had no other option....its just like if the police were chasing a suspect and he starts shooting at the police....its obvious that the police will shoot back...and that's just what happened with the tiger..if the tiger wouldn't have been killed..who knows how many more victims there would be....
2007-12-27 08:09:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
First I would like to say that I am saddened by the death of the young man, and the injuries of the other two young men.
The news has announced that all three of these young men knew each other.
My speculation on this is; the young men were taunting the tiger, and she did what any wild animal would do (and some humans who have been taunted and bullied), she went after them.
Hopefully there were enough witnesses to let the officials discover the truth in this.
2007-12-26 12:55:52 · answer #6 · answered by MOMMYBEST 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The tiger had to be killed in order to save the lives of 4 police officers and 2 other people whom the tiger was in the process of killing.
Nobody says the tiger was morally responsible for what it did. She was a wild animal acting on her instincts. Of course humans had a hand in it; they put the tiger in the zoo in the first place, for one thing.
But if speculation that somebody let the tiger out turns out to be correct, that person is guilty of murder of Carlos Sousa Junior.
It is truly sad that the tiger had to be killed.
But it is even more tragic that the tiger killed Carlos Sousa,
2007-12-26 13:49:54 · answer #7 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
i was about to ask the same question. it is totally unfair! Well, if this stuff keeps on happening tigers won't even survive 10 years. There's like, what? 3,000 or less? i'd rather save the species than save 1 person. You know, if tigers go extinct, our climate will change drammatically because then deforestation will go up. they didn't kill trees before for the tigers, because there were people who tried to help them, but if they go extinct, they'll cut the forests down!
2007-12-26 15:34:50 · answer #8 · answered by Nina 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well it is wild. And it would have killed others. The cops had no choice but to shoot it down since they did not know what was happening. They just saw the animal killing and attacking "innocent" people and had to act quick. You can use the same logic for an bullied teenager who tries to kill his hecklers/bullies and everyone else that gets in his way at his school. If the cops see this teenager, what appears to be randomly shooting people at the school, they have no choice but to kill them.
and oh yeah, I personnel hate the fact that people try to cage "wild" animals and get surprised when they go "wild"
2007-12-26 12:37:08 · answer #9 · answered by mike j 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What the hell? I am outraged, I am from san jose and I see that online, people or more sympathetic for the tiger then the victim.
The tiger was not provoked, have you even been to the sf zoo? The moat is huge
The tiger killed a human being, It had to shot down.
I feel for your friend whomp
Part of their sentence?! They lost their friend that day.
All of the bay area sends their condolences
2007-12-27 10:36:35 · answer #10 · answered by Cole W 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋