I know the police killed the tiger in the San Francisco Zoo that killed one guy and injured others. My question is, why didn't the police put anesthesia into a gun and then shoot the tiger so it would be unconscious and not killed? They could've then put the tiger into a locked up cage until further details are released. I don't think it's fair that the police killed the tiger without knowing any details beforehand. I mean, the guys could've been provoking the tiger especially being teenagers.
2007-12-30 13:30:19 · 14 answers · asked by EM23 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Does it matter if it was provoked?? IT KILLED A HUMAN BEING!!
Apparently they didn't have time to go find tranquilizer guns or they would have. The cops got there before the zoo keepers could even find it to shoot it. Even if they would have subdued it, it should have been killed, as it killed A HUMAN
I get so sick of people valuing animals over human life
Poor kitty????? What about poor kids! What about poor parents that will suffer their whole lives because of this?
What if that was your Dad or your son killed by that tiger - would it be poor kitty then?
2007-12-30 14:09:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Are you serious?? Here it is, let's say I'm a police officer and I am responding to this call. One guy is already dead and the tiger is on the loose with a lot of people in the area. I'm not going to run over to where the tiger is and think..."How can I stop all this without killing the tiger?" Or..."let me run around, or maybe I'll go find a vet to find something to knock it out." No, I am going to shoot that thing...the quickest, most effective way for me to eliminate any more incidents. You can't stop, make a plan and assess the situation, and then do something. As a police officer, you have to act as quickly as possible when lives are in jeopardy. What the officer did was the correct thing to do. Also, I read in my newspaper (bay area) that police found an empty vodka bottle in the kids' car.
2008-01-03 16:58:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That probably would have been an option, however, when the police got there the tiger had already started attacking one of the vicitms a 2nd time. The tiger was ripping through flesh as the police reached it, and then when they called out to the tiger to stopp the tiger then turned on them. It's my understanding the police had no choice to shoot to kill. It was either the tiger or them at this point. You have to remember the tiger was loose mauling people. As cruel and unfair as it was I think the police, and zoo personnel did the right thing.
Hopefully the zoo personnel have learned an important lesson this time.
2008-01-02 21:39:10 · answer #3 · answered by chicata25 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding? Police don't shoot people with anesthesia do they? When have you ever known a police officer to carry anesthesia? Did you want the police to apprehend the tiger to give him a fair trial? Even if the kids were provoking the tiger it was still killing people. How could the medics save the boys without killing the tiger?
2008-01-02 11:38:06 · answer #4 · answered by laineyette 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the tiger was out of it's enclosure, the police were left with no other option that shooting it. Even if they had tranquilizer guns, it would have taken up to 20 minutes for it to take effect.
The victims most likely provoked the tiger attack, but this information was not available at the time when a decision had to be made to either allow the tiger to do what was natural to her by attacked what she viewed as prey, or for the police to stop the attack on a human being.
The Tiger Exhibit opened in 1940 and a tiger had never escaped that enclosure for over 67 years; when the father of the young man who died called the two surviving brothers asking if they knew where his son was, they lied and told him that they did not know; the surviving brothers refused to cooperate when police officers tried to get their names shortly after the attack; & the three men who were attacked had slingshots on them and a mostly empty bottle of vodka was found in their car. This information is now known, but was not known by the police on the night of the attack.
2008-01-01 21:08:57 · answer #5 · answered by χριστοφορος ▽ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You don't use a tranquilizer on a rampaging tiger. It was sad that a beautiful animal was lost because the zoo was not properly built to contain the tiger. The police would not have used a tranquilizer even if they had one. You need to know the weight of the animal to prepare the proper dart, and you need time for the tranquilizer to work.
2007-12-31 00:01:21 · answer #6 · answered by paul 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is unfair that a tigers life was lost because of some stupid teenagers who decided to hop a fence and provoke a tiger. I live in SF so I'm pretty much keeping up with the story. The reason the tiger had to be shot was because it began to attack a police officer who had to other resort but to shoot it. If the police had better prepared themselves they would be ablt to tranquelize it, but unfortunately that wasn't the case.
We can't blame the SFPD, the real ones to blame are those kids who decided to hop a fence and play with a kitty.
2007-12-30 21:53:36 · answer #7 · answered by Nickay B 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Police usually dont have access to anesthesia, so that would be a Zoo keeper thing... Police tend not to wait around too long, so bang! New tiger vacancy open.
It's the same thing with Dog attacks... if animal control doesn't show up in time, it's bye bye doggie
2007-12-30 21:34:35 · answer #8 · answered by hivoltg30 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The guys did not do anything to provoke her. She got out and attacked .......the two that survived were in a different area than the first. There was not a keeper to tranquilize.....the cops weren't even allowed in for 10 min. They found her lying next to one of the victims and she suddenly began attacking again....thus they had to shoot her. Tigers are not like house cats where you can just make them go into a cage. They are left to be....for the most part wild.....Apparently this tiger had attacked before ...tigers are beautiful animals and I hate the fact they had to kill her as well but....she could have and would have killed more. It is not yet known how she got out though. Make sure you read the full story about it before you go blaming those boys
2007-12-30 21:57:43 · answer #9 · answered by worriedverymuch 2 · 5⤊ 4⤋
I want your local police to kill any tiger that starts mauling people in your city.
Trying to enclose Tatiana would have been foolhardy. For one: She made an unpredictable escape from the enclosure that she was already in, and then killed someone.
2008-01-01 23:16:08 · answer #10 · answered by Corwin A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋