San Francisco Zoo San Francisco Zoo tiger escape

It would have saved taxpayers a lot of money if the tiger killed all three.

Pity the police arived so quickly.
 
CZJimmy said:
To be fair tigertiger, the policemen were just doing their job and very admirably from the sounds of the story (I know i wouldn't like to be in that situation).

It's not the police's fault that some idiots thought it would be fun to entice a very dangerous animal...
Click to expand...

I agree that they were just doing their jobs but they're getting medals of honor shooting a tiger in a zoo, primarily to protect themselves. I don't really see the heroic value that act that so highly earns them a medal that has been given before to a man who rescued another from a canyon bottom, a women who rescued a teen from an ocean lagoon, a man who intercepted a drunk driver riding the wrong way on the road, a fireman who rescued a baby from a burning building.....and now a handful of cops who shot a tiger? How are all those actions akin?

The comments are still ridiculous from half the people on the article though.
 
tigertiger said:
I agree that they were just doing their jobs but they're getting medals of honor shooting a tiger in a zoo, primarily to protect themselves. I don't really see the heroic value that act that so highly earns them a medal that has been given before to a man who rescued another from a canyon bottom, a women who rescued a teen from an ocean lagoon, a man who intercepted a drunk driver riding the wrong way on the road, a fireman who rescued a baby from a burning building.....and now a handful of cops who shot a tiger? How are all those actions akin?

The comments are still ridiculous from half the people on the article though.
Click to expand...

Because the policemen were protecting the people...

It matches up to your examples because they put themselves in great danger in order to protect someone.

Regardless of what the victims did, it's still the police's job to protect them. A loose tiger has to be stopped somehow for public safety and the officers did that.

Yes, they may have shot an endangered species, but in a zoo environment the safety of visitors is of vital importance.

Edit: had a quick look at the comments section and most that i've read seem fairly reasonable. The zoo was irresponsible in having a dangerous big cat enclosure and isn't blameless, but the victims didn't help matters (allegedly).
 
I'm not arguing in the sense of 'oh look at the poor species they killed--that's bad,' I'm arguing in the sense of that's just not the same. I'm not arguing that shooting the tiger was wrong. I don't personally care what the retarded idiots did to piss the tiger off, that doesn't change the fact that the tiger had killed. The zoo was evacuated and they were primarily the only people in harms way.

Shooting the tiger was probably the best thing to do in the situation (I wasn't personally there, I can't gauge the timescale or the like...) but I don't think doing so was a massive act of public good that deserves such high honor. Doing something that needs to be done isn't an honor--it's your job. If I were a fireman who rescued a baby from a burning building who actually deserved my medal of valor...I'd be pretty pissed that they give the medal to just about anyone.
 
tigertiger said:
I'm not arguing in the sense of 'oh look at the poor species they killed--that's bad,' I'm arguing in the sense of that's just not the same. I'm not arguing that shooting the tiger was wrong. I don't personally care what the retarded idiots did to piss the tiger off, that doesn't change the fact that the tiger had killed. The zoo was evacuated and they were primarily the only people in harms way.

Shooting the tiger was probably the best thing to do in the situation (I wasn't personally there, I can't gauge the timescale or the like...) but I don't think doing so was a massive act of public good that deserves such high honor. Doing something that needs to be done isn't an honor--it's your job. If I were a fireman who rescued a baby from a burning building who actually deserved my medal of valor...I'd be pretty pissed that they give the medal to just about anyone.
Click to expand...

I would put the cops in the same bracket as the firefighters. The guy who had been mauled was still in very close proximity to the tiger, it could easily have gone in for the kill. The cops could have held back and waited for someone with a more powerful weapon. The guys only had handguns and had to move the tiger from the victim so that the victim was not at risk of being shot. When the cops diverted the attention of the tiger they were putting themselves at risk. There was no guarantee that their handguns would be effective against the tiger, thats why hunters don't use handguns but use shotguns. The report says that the tiger lunged towards them and it took 3 or 4 shots to bring the tiger down. A tiger can travel a lot of distance in that time, especially if it is travelling toward your jugular! It took another 3 shot to the tigers head to kill the animal outright. They put themselves at risk and saved a life, just the same as the fireman example you used. Both of them do a risky job, so why is the fireman a hero but the cop just doing his job?
 
In 2006, Lex Salisbury shot an escaped tiger that was lunging at a veterinarian and could not be sedated with tranquilizers. Is Salisbury a hero?


I too would put firefighters and cops in the same category as far as risky job and the like. And I still contend that they *needed* to shoot the tiger. However, I don't think shooting a violent, aggressive animal warrants a high honor. It warrants the right action, yes. A sad situation, yes. But I don't feel there's any level of heroism in the act. The firefighter doesn't *have* to go back into a burning building to save an infant. Yes, you'd be an admonished, terrible firefighter if you choose not to, but you could. A firefighter chooses to put himself into immediate danger. In this case, the police people themselves were in danger and reacted primarily for their own benefit. Self-defense nor a necessary action don't warrant high accolades in my mind.
 
tigertiger wrote "In 2006, Lex Salisbury shot an escaped tiger that was lunging at a veterinarian and could not be sedated with tranquilizers. Is Salisbury a hero?"

Does he wear his underpants on the outside of his pants?
 
Just a question on our legal system, I don't know if this rule applies to civil cases but if they admitted to provoking the tiger attack, the families who received a settlement could not be deprived of it right? I highly doubt that the brothers would admit to anything and that a confession would solve anything, but I just want to know the answer to the question.
 
Otter Lord said:
Just a question on our legal system, I don't know if this rule applies to civil cases but if they admitted to provoking the tiger attack, the families who received a settlement could not be deprived of it right? I highly doubt that the brothers would admit to anything and that a confession would solve anything, but I just want to know the answer to the question.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no lawyer (:D ) but I believe it all depends on the details of the settlement. Settlements are, after all, essentially contracts.
 
BeardsleyZooFan said:
Looking Back; 5 years after the attack...
Click to expand...

I was in Vienna when this incident happened. Caught the incident on CNN International, so I missed all of the local coverage. Still blame the alleged victims for the whole thing.

Based on the amount of general asshattery that still occurs at the zoo, I would definitely stand by that statement. My favorite occurrence of recent memory: a couple pouring part of their beers into the sea lion enclosure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top