Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Tiger at S.F. zoo escapes, kills man

Tiger at S.F. zoo escapes, kills man
Thread Tools
CaseCom
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Paul, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 03:04 AM
 
Tiger that killed zoo patron had attacked zookeeper one year ago

Horrifying ... apparently the victims were not zookeepers but visitors. How can this happen? Wouldn't the moat be wide enough / fence high enough to prevent this?
     
IceEnclosure
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 04:11 AM
 
ice
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 04:32 AM
 
With all due respect to the victims of this tragedy, why didn't they tranquilize the tiger? A man-eating endangered animal is still an endangered animal.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 05:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
With all due respect to the victims of this tragedy, why didn't they tranquilize the tiger? A man-eating endangered animal is still an endangered animal.
Police officers showed up with nothing but their handguns. It might take another 30 minutes, maybe even hours to get a tranquilizing gun.

If you were a police officer and you are able to distract a tiger from chewing on someone so that he comes after you. Would you say hey, lets wait until someone can find a tranquilizer gun before we take action? Mean while the tiger kills another several people.
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 06:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Police officers showed up with nothing but their handguns. It might take another 30 minutes, maybe even hours to get a tranquilizing gun.

If you were a police officer and you are able to distract a tiger from chewing on someone so that he comes after you. Would you say hey, lets wait until someone can find a tranquilizer gun before we take action? Mean while the tiger kills another several people.
Um, I had a friend who worked at the zoo. Zoos have tranquilizer guns--as a rule. They're needed for all kinds of reasons, not just tiger attacks. So there.
     
zro
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The back of the room
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 10:43 AM
 
Because if any one of you animal bastards ****s with one of us, you're dead.

Seriously. Man hunters need to be destroyed.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
Um, I had a friend who worked at the zoo. Zoos have tranquilizer guns--as a rule. They're needed for all kinds of reasons, not just tiger attacks. So there.
So what they have one. Big deal. That will do you a lot of good locked up in some office while the animal is chewing on someone. The fact is the guys that showed up DIDN'T have one or even know where to get the gun. No matter what, it would take time to get the tranquilizer gun to put him to sleep.

I'm sure that while the tiger is chewing on your face that you'd prefer that they'd wait until they get the right gun.
( Last edited by Buckaroo; Dec 26, 2007 at 12:09 PM. )
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Damn your stupid.
Quoted for hilarity in an otherwise somber thread.
     
scaught
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 11:53 AM
 
That's what you get when you **** with mother nature. Animals don't like to be locked up and put on display.

This is like those Sigfried and Roy dudes. Thought their tigers were tame and trained since they've worked with them for so many years. Wrong.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by scaught View Post
That's what you get when you **** with mother nature. Animals don't like to be locked up and put on display.

This is like those Sigfried and Roy dudes. Thought their tigers were tame and trained since they've worked with them for so many years. Wrong.
Considering how many shows they did and how many different tigers they must have worked with, I think they did ok.
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 12:01 PM
 
If you have less than 5 seconds to make a life or death decision, you better make the right choice. The animal has already killed one person, although the police may not have known that one person was already dead, it was in the process of killing another person. At any rate, the two guys on the ground appears to be in really bad shape, and blood is everywhere. Now the animal is charging right at you, you have less than 5 seconds before you become it's next meal. What do you do? Do you jump into your car and let the animal attach other innocent people, or do you pull out your side arm and try to stop the animal?

It's a shame to loose such a nice cat, but there are rules for dealing with situations. If it was up in a tree scaring people, then you wait until someone shows up with a Tranquilizer gun. If it's attacking people, you stop the attack.
     
scaught
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Considering how many shows they did and how many different tigers they must have worked with, I think they did ok.
My point is somewhere 300 yards behind you.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 12:15 PM
 
No, I just didn't find it very insightful. It's like claiming humans weren't meant to fly because every time a plane crashes everyone dies.
     
CaseCom  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Paul, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 01:10 PM
 
I don't think anyone here is criticizing the police for what they did -- certainly they did the right thing given the situation. But it may be a valid question to ask why zookeepers didn't respond sooner with a tranq gun. Maybe not in time to save the dead guy, who apparently was right outside the enclosure, but before the two men outside the cafe were attacked. They're still not sure how long the tiger was on the loose.

AP update

LA Times
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
With all due respect to the victims of this tragedy, why didn't they tranquilize the tiger? A man-eating endangered animal is still an endangered animal.
Well humans come first so if a tranq. Gun is not readily available the Tiger is a threat since it came after the police.

Its a shame but oh well
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 04:11 PM
 
Should have blown a doobie in his face and rode him to White Castle.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 04:14 PM
 
Shut up, Twinkie.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 06:22 PM
 
The attack last year was really the zookeeper's fault. This escape is a bit baffling at the moment. The police apparently responded very quickly and acted entirely properly.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 07:30 PM
 
From the news report I just saw on TV, the tiger jumped a 15ft moat and got up a 20ft wall to get out. The heads of the zoo are baffled at how the tiger managed to do that.

Zoo Officials Probe Killing by Tiger | World Latest | Guardian Unlimited

The sizes of the moat and wall are different here, but it was basically a heck of a size to get out of. Possibility is that someone wanted to let the tigers out and put a board over the moat!!?!?!

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
Should have blown a doobie in his face and rode him to White Castle.
That only works with cheetahs.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice View Post
From the news report I just saw on TV, the tiger jumped a 15ft moat and got up a 20ft wall to get out. The heads of the zoo are baffled at how the tiger managed to do that.
I know a Tiger who can do that!!
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
scaught
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 08:19 PM
 
...
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 09:11 PM
 
38 in hand + charging man eating Tiger = one dead cat

I assure you the last thing on your mind with a crazy-ass tiger running loose at you is "Oh #$%@ it's an endangered species!"

Put the dna on ice... call it a day.
     
AngelaBaby
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2007, 09:24 PM
 
I would be pissed too if I was a captured Tiger
     
CaseCom  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: St. Paul, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:06 AM
 
SF Chronicle reports that all three victims were together and one of them may have climbed the fence around the enclosure. Also they may have been throwing things at the tiger.

Police in tiger-mauling probe look at whether victim dangled leg
     
Zeeb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 09:44 AM
 
That wouldn't surprise me. It's hard to believe a tiger could have escaped on its own or would even be motivated to do so. Idiots taunting it certainly makes it more likely
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
If you have less than 5 seconds to make a life or death decision, you better make the right choice.
No one is faulting the cops for shooting. The fault lies with the zoo for not having the tranquilizers ready by the time the cops showed. Seriously, the cops drove to the zoo, got out of cars, ran through the zoo to where the tigers were. The freaking zoo couldn't produce a tranquilizer in that amount of time? That's just irresponsible. But, this is a zoo where zookeepers get chewed on in public demonstrations and tigers can get out of their pens.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 10:33 AM
 
note to self: don't taunt dangerous animals with living humans, unless the human owes you money.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 12:20 PM
 
According to the sfgate.com article, 3 idiots were taunting and antagonizing the tiger. If this is the case, I hope the zoo press charges against the survivors for causing the death of an endangered animal.
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
scottiB
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 01:33 PM
 
If true, this is number one with a bullet for the Darwin Awards.
I am stupidest when I try to be funny.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by legacyb4 View Post
According to the sfgate.com article, 3 idiots were taunting and antagonizing the tiger. If this is the case, I hope the zoo press charges against the survivors for causing the death of an endangered animal.
The zoo probably failed to put up a sign saying not to taunt the tiger. Plus, you should be able to expect that the zoo would have the tiger contained.

I think the lawsuit is going to go the other way - the family will sue the zoo and the zoo will settle. Given the right lawyer, they'll find something the zoo didn't do right and they'll exploit it. The zoo's insurance will go up and therefore the admission prices will go up. The whole city of SF will be paying these folks to kick back and stop working.
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
With all due respect to the victims of this tragedy, why didn't they tranquilize the tiger? A man-eating endangered animal is still an endangered animal.
It was bound to happen - the tree huggers are decrying the killing of the tiger.
The tiger had a person cornered and was getting ready to pounce, the police were justified in using their guns on the animal. Even if they had not killed it, the odds are pretty high that it would have been destroyed afterwards because its a man-eater.

Humans > animals. That being the case, I personally would want the police to act immediately and not wait for someone to go and find a tranq.

Originally Posted by legacyb4 View Post
According to the sfgate.com article, 3 idiots were taunting and antagonizing the tiger. If this is the case, I hope the zoo press charges against the survivors for causing the death of an endangered animal.
There's been conflicting reports about this, and the police have backed off and (and supposedly) ruled this out. Its not a reach to consider a bunch of teenagers running around the zoo, taunting the animals, but so far they've not found any proof. Regardless, that doesn't mean the kid deserves to die

From what I've read its pretty much impossible for a tiger that's been in a zoo all (or most) its life to be able to jump the moat and then climb the wall. they're thinking the tiger had help escaping, i.e., throwing a board to span the moat..
     
Tiresias
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Korea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 01:59 PM
 
Humans are not an endangered species.

I mourn the loss of the tiger. The yahoo who threw missiles at it—not so much.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by scottiB View Post
If true, this is number one with a bullet for the Darwin Awards.
Just what I was thinking!

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacosNerd View Post
From what I've read its pretty much impossible for a tiger that's been in a zoo all (or most) its life to be able to jump the moat and then climb the wall. they're thinking the tiger had help escaping, i.e., throwing a board to span the moat..
Uhh, wouldn't the board still be sitting around in plain sight? And where the hell would you find a really long board in the middle of a zoo?
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
Uhh, wouldn't the board still be sitting around in plain sight? And where the hell would you find a really long board in the middle of a zoo?
I'm not making this stuff up, that's what I read. Also why would that leave a board (that could span a moat) lying around.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacosNerd View Post
I'm not making this stuff up, that's what I read. Also why would that leave a board (that could span a moat) lying around.
Perhaps the zookeeper left it there by mistake.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
Humans are not an endangered species.

I mourn the loss of the tiger. The yahoo who threw missiles at it—not so much.
No, but Human life is still much more valuable and precious then an animal's life.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacosNerd View Post
No, but Human life is still much more valuable and precious then an animal's life.
Why?
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:56 PM
 
We're made in God's Image.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 02:59 PM
 
That is your opinion - nothing more, nothing less.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That is your opinion - nothing more, nothing less.
I'll take God's word over yours.
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That is your opinion - nothing more, nothing less.
Nothing more???

Consider various laws in this country. The preciousness of life is well established overly or discreetly in many laws.

Take the current issue, if human life was considered more precious, the cops that shot the animals would be arrested because they destroyed an endangered animal. But because the tiger was going to lunge (or was lunging) at them they shot it.
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
I'll take God's word over yours.
Well put
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:08 PM
 
These arguments have been going on for centuries. The way I see it, this is really distilled down to emotion vs. reason. I don't deny that the precedent in this country has been to value human life above animal life, and I don't deny that this country was founded on Christanity. However, using reason as a tool for debate, I don't think that it is a given that human life is more valuable than animal life - especially when we are talking about an endangered species. Biologically speaking, human life is cheap in comparison to tiger life.
     
wallinbl
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: somewhere
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
However, using reason as a tool for debate, I don't think that it is a given that human life is more valuable than animal life - especially when we are talking about an endangered species.
Uh, we have reason, and they don't! Problem solved.

Biologically speaking, human life is cheap in comparison to tiger life.
Yes, but legally speaking, letting the tiger kill more humans would have cost the police/zoo a lot of money.

We've even gone so far as to say that it's okay to kill another human in self defense. So, if self defense is a valid reason for killing, I'd say that should extend to any animal. There's no telling how many people could have been killed if they waited for a tranq gun. Is the tiger worth 2 people? 5? 10? Where does the trade become even?
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:15 PM
 
Well to you use your line of reasoning - that's your opinion and as wallinbl aptly put I'll take God's word over yours any day.

Besides if you want to consider yourself on the same level of an animal, be my guest. I would much more prefer to consider myself "fearfully and wonderfully made" (PS. 139)
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
Uh, we have reason, and they don't! Problem solved.
That is not my claim... There is likely a balance between both that explains everything, as observationally speaking, most things known to us live in a balance. However, the dogmatic religious side generally swings in the favor of emotion far more so than reason, and vice versa for the staunch atheists.


Yes, but legally speaking, letting the tiger kill more humans would have cost the police/zoo a lot of money.
Yes, I don't fault the cops. We have always favored our own species, and I would have likely done the same. I'm just saying that it isn't a given that human life is more valuable than animal life, philosophically speaking.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by wallinbl View Post
I'll take God's word over yours.

I would also like to point out that this is lazy thinking. My word doesn't meaning anything, you need to find your own word, but believing something just because it's in the Bible just because is very lazy thinking (and also very Stephen Colberish)
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 27, 2007, 03:30 PM
 
It was probably sarcasm.

Having the human species taking precedence can be explained theologically or biologically by being a survival advantage. Either way, it's plain obvious.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,