Posted on 12/27/2007 10:18:04 AM PST by wardaddy
There was a leg in that area and that tiger took a shoe as a souvenir...
“According to the article, the enclosure was built in 1940, which might well explain the inadequate idiot-proofing.”
Sadly it took 67 years to grow the right idiot that could exploit the enclosure’s weakness... !
rebommend not REQUIRED big difference
I think there were four police present at the time, from most events down here in LA that means one lucky shot to the head, maybe a couple into flanks, and 40-plus dead trees, wounded rocks, and new vents in the snack stand.
Major cities consider it a gift to the poor, and is usually free that day
Major cities consider it a gift to the poor, and is usually free that day
To taunt a hippopotamous?
Oh okay free admission because it is CHristmas.
YUP
I am petty sure that here in Houston it is a free day...may be that way in SF...
See post 169.
See post 169.
And female forest rangers use tranquilizer guns to take down Grizzly Bears for health checks and fitting radio collars, imagine that? As for taking down a tiger with a pistol I know a lot of hunters who would take a pass on that as too dangerous. I'll make the same point as you do regarding the tranquilizer guns, unless you are very lucky the animal is going to live for a time and make your life very interesting. By lucky I mean a heart, brain, or spinal cord shot. I seen white tail deer shot through the "boiler room" with a 30-06 run for a couple of miles. I seen others drop where they stood. That's not a chance you want to take by being under gunned.
Regards,
GtG
It's an unpleasant reality, and applies to 'innocent by insanity' defenses as well, but regardless of the 'how', it is society's obligation to put an end to the threat.
The cat was, in fact, innocent; she was simply being a cat.
The cat was innocent; she was not able to choose where she was when the kids showed up, she was not able to rely on protection from others.
The cat was innocent; she relied on instinctive defense measures - attack if you cannot retreat - generally good advice for humans as well.
But ultimately, judging an angry, blooded, tiger to be a threat to additional citizens, and themselves, the cops had no choice. Besides, much like the cat, they also acted on instincts developed in the course of their duties - difference is that we license police to use force - zoo animals don't have that benefit.
At close range?
Never mind all the silly arguments about what was more dangerous that what. The fact is the cops have to deal with whatever they're called in to deal with and they did. Listening to you, it's unlikely the cat is even dead. Well, it is dead, and they shot it. What are we debating?
Those two will be facing homicide charges, and I'm pretty sure the police knows how to get to the truth in such cases. These guys had ho chance to get their stories straight, and even if they did they couldn't possibly think of every detail.
As if the police are “trained” for irrational tiger behavior....
As if the police are “trained” for irrational tiger behavior....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.