A bit of boost for the .40 S&W

[phoglund]

No animal is worth the life of a human. Ever. For any reason.

I beg to disagree. There are sh*tbag humans and noble animals. I'd trade one for the other any day. Being "human" doesn't guarantee the right to exist. Being an animal does not make it expendable.

Kill a Tiger because it's dangerous? You must then kill them all for they are all dangerous. If you keep a dangerous animal in proximity to humans you don't want harmed you must provide a way to separate the human from the animal. The fault here is with the zoo and the individuals who taunted (if true) the animal, not with the animal. Would you go to Siberia and taunt a tiger who could get to you? Of course not. How do you suppose the animal in the cage knew killing live meat was wrong?

 

[Choclabman]

No animal is worth the life of a human. Ever. For any reason.

I would put animals above and before, 99% of the humans on this planet.

 

[Buzztail]

Going to have to side with Ls, phoglund, Choclabman and others on this one. Taunt my animals, and your likely to get a real eye opener from me (until the swelling closes it for you) BTDT. To keep it gun related, I'd want more that a .40 when dealing with a big cat!!

 

[DENALI]

Funny thing, I hear the two survivors are not cooperating with San Francisco LE. Could they have been doing things they should not have?

 

[herohog]

No animal is worth the life of a human. Ever. For any reason.

Humans IZ animals!

The guys were fools, the walls were to short, his death may have saved others from this moron's stupidity and I don't blame the cat.

carry on...

 

[phoglund]

Actually didn't address the gun related nature of this thread. If I were to have to face an aggressive full grown tiger with naught but a .40 it would be "big eyes and brown shorts" time for me. I'm thinking a BAR would be about right. The fact the LEO didn't get mauled is probably more a testament to the relative non-aggressiveness of the tiger at the time he was shot than to the effectiveness of the .40. If the tiger was serious about attacking the LEO I think the LEO would likely have died before the .40 did it's work on the tiger.

 

[jmr40]

I have changed my mind a dozen times over the years in the never ending 9 vs .40 vs .45 debate. My current thinking is that it probably makes very little difference with normal size people. I don't have a bit of evidence to prove it but have always felt that the .40 would be the better choice against really big people or in an emergency against a large animal like this.

 

[spiroxlii]

I know this was SF, but you've gotta wonder if one of them had a CCW how quickly that would have ended. Then they'd have some explaining to do for sure.

If these people had CCWs it would've been bad news for all of us. Based on the news coming out of this story, I'd venture to guess that they do not possess the judgment or maturity to carry firearms in public. If one of them had drawn and shot the tiger after it started attacking, then not only would we have a story where some immature folks taunted a dangerous animal and got hurt for it, but then the media would grab this and run with it, and we'd have an even more sensational story where some angry and unstable gun owners maliciously taunted a tiger and then shot it dead in a zoo.

 

[Bezoar]

SInce i first heard the news story break I have had only one conclusion as to what happened.
Three idiot friends who have no real intelligence decide to "save" the pretty tiger froms its "horrible cage". But as they arent very bright, they fail to notice the improperly mainttained walls and moat designed to keep the "poor' tiger from eating idiots like them.

Sad the tiger had to die, not really bothed that Darwin was proved correct again, and that another sample of stupidity wont get to breed and pass on inferior genetic material.

 

[davepool]

anybody know how many rounds hit the tiger?

 

[GEM]

Quite a few years, a NYC Policeman killed a polar bear with a 158 gr RNL 38 SPL round to save some idiot who climbed in the cage.

 

[dom1104]

Ok.. let me get this right.

All you people who think animals have more worth than human beings....

Are you actually saying that if a ... say... grizzly bear was mauling a defensless camper, you wouldnt do a thing to save that person? Because of the "noble grizzly" has more worth than 99% of the humans?

Man. Our liberal school system is worse then I thought.

 

[dom1104]

Ok.. let me get this right.

All you people who think animals have more worth than human beings....

Are you actually saying that if a ... say... grizzly bear was mauling a defensless camper, you wouldnt do a thing to save that person? Because of the "noble grizzly" has more worth than 99% of the humans?

Man. Our liberal school system is worse then I thought.

 

[dom1104]

Ok.. let me get this right.

All you people who think animals have more worth than human beings....

Are you actually saying that if a ... say... grizzly bear was mauling a defensless camper, you wouldnt do a thing to save that person? Because of the "noble grizzly" has more worth than 99% of the humans?

Man. Our liberal school system is worse then I thought.

 

[Lonestar49]

Yes, No, under certain circumstances

Quote: Man. Our liberal school system is worse then I thought.
----------------
...

In reading skills, I have to agree with ya..

Also, depending on what size caliber gun one might have at a given time.. could work for ya, or go badly against ya..


Ls


Ps.. Quote: *I would put animals above and before, 99% of the humans on this planet.
--------------------
...

*Let me put my touch/spin to this/his statement which, could be right, could be wrong:

But: "all" of God's animals DO exactly what HE told them to do.. Man is the only creature that defies Gods word..

Think about it..

 

[texas bulldog]

the story i read said that, not one, but four officers opened fire with .40 caliber pistols. it also said that an "unknown number" of shots were fired. maybe further details have come out since then, but that's what i read. i remember it quite clearly, as i laughed out loud at the thought of four grown men pissing their pants while emptying their magazines.

i would personally want something more than a .40S&W, but then, cops don't arm themselves each shift in anticipation of facing dangerous wildlife...

 

[inherentical]

Man. Our liberal school system is worse then I thought.

Dom, let it go. Insults aren't going to change minds.

Besides, next time someone asks you "What caliber for tiger?", you'll have the answer.

four officers opened fire with .40 caliber pistols.

Assuming typical police marksmanship, if all four officers dumped the entire magazine at the tiger, they hit it at least six times.

 

[Silvanus]

Like many others, I agree 100% with Lonestar. I hate it when animals are caged up for any reason. Be it scientifical reasons or just for the pleasure of other poeple. And I hate people who humiliate these animals even further by taunting them. I certainly don't value all humans more than any animal. Quite the contrary actually. Most animals just do what they are supposed to, but humans choose to do bad or good things, so they can be blamed for their actions.

 

[spiroxlii]

Are you actually saying that if a ... say... grizzly bear was mauling a defensless camper, you wouldnt do a thing to save that person? Because of the "noble grizzly" has more worth than 99% of the humans?

I don't think anybody's trying to absolutely define animals as more worthy of life than humans.

I think the issue here is with the humans' intent. The camper being mauled by a grizzly took a risk by going out into the forest, even if he exercised precautions like putting his food into odorproof containers. But even though he took a risk by entering the bear's environment, he did NOT enter the woods with malicious intent or increase his risk by seeking out a bear's den to play in. The meeting between the bear and the camper would be unfortunate, but the camper didn't "ask for it," so the bear's death would be necessary to save the camper's life.

If I saw a tiger mauling a zoo visitor, would I kill it to save the human? Yes, I certainly would, no matter why the tiger was attacking. Would I be happy about it if the tiger's attack were a result of taunting? No, I'd be upset that the tiger's death was the direct result of immature, irresponsible, malicious behavior on the part of some person who "asked for it" by doing something stupid to increase the risk of an animal attack. I would save the human's life and kill the tiger, but I'd expect the humans responsible for causing the tiger's attack and subsequent death to be held accountable for their actions. Not just because they caused the tiger's death, but because they could've endangered any bystanders by enraging a predatory animal to the point of attacking.

 

[FieroCDSP]

It's sad at the outcome, but really.....If you taunt a tiger, expect a reaction. Just sit and watch a house cat as it plots to attack anything else that lives. They're evil creatures when it comes to hunting. My friend's cats have managed to attack both a bat and a squirrel, and after getting them on the ground, they toy with the thing a while. And the worst part is, in their mind, anything can be hunted.

The unfortunate thing here is that the lawsuit will go through on the basis that the zoo did not maintain an adequate fence or moat to contain the creature. The family will get millions for their sons' stupidity.

It all comes down to Stupid being the new smart. Why work your way though life when you can do something dumb and then sue the smeg out of someone else.

 

[22-rimfire]

From what I've read, my support would have to go with the tiger. Any idiot who does what they did, deserves what they get from a very deadly animal. There are some things you just don't do.

If you mess with a poisonous snake and it bites you, who is to blame? Oh... the cage was 2" too low, so it must be the cage owner's fault? Let's not forget the contractor (builder) and the various manufactures of the materials used. They must be defective too.

I guess there will be lots of "sportsman" wanting to hunt tigers in the bush after this with their Glocks and a couple of magazines full of ammunition. Good luck!

 

[Jeff Timm]

Pity it's SF. I would like to see the Zoo sue the parents of all three, followed by a Police Department action for endangering the responding officers.

Geoff
Who knows it's not going to happen. Sigh.

 

[PC40]

Death by misadventure, don't blame the tiger, the tiger is the victim. Victimized by the instigators. The police performed their duty, they had no choice but to finish what the punks started.

If you play Russian Roulette and lose, the gun is not to blame.

 

[OhioPaints]

Well, at least now we know that, should the need arise, you can kill a rampaging tiger with a 40 S&W.

So what? Charging grizzly bears have been killed with single shot .22 rifles. You want to try that on purpose?

No animal is worth the life of a human. Ever. For any reason.

I wouldn't say it is either. But when you play chicken with a dangerous animal, you deserve ending up on the lunch menu. Stupid hurts sometimes. I don't blame the tiger for being what it is.

I remember watching some kids playing tug of war with a alligator with a chicken leg on a string. Candidates for the Darwin Award. Improve the gene pool.

 

[GLOOB]

Harsh Judgments

I don't know how y'all have decided that the actions of three kids should exhonerate the SF Zoo's responsibility in this case.

If I'm responsible for the SF Zoo tiger exhibit, I'd be damn well sure that a tiger could not get out, even if provoked. Are we really satisfied with the thought that a wild animal taken out of the jungle and put into a cage is appropriate, so long as the animal can only scale the enclosure when angered?

I smell idiot as strongly as the rest of you, but if you run the SF Zoo, and you let your staff leave at 4PM but allow the public to run around after 5PM in the pitch black dark, are you really sure that idiocy isn't going to happen? And if it SHOULD happen, aren't you a bit miffed that rather than the idiot get mauled inside of a tiger enclosure where he may have deserved it, the enraged tiger had the ability to scale its enclosure, endangering anyone else in the vicinity of said idiot?

Yes, the kids took their own lives into their hands; but because of the inadequacy of the enclosure, they were also able to take into their hands all the lives of everyone else in the zoo. If they had died in the enclosure, it would be a totally different thing. They would have clearly owned the repurcussions of their actions. But they were mean to an animal, and they were able to get back out of the enclosure with their lives. So now they are mean daredevils who may have watched Jackass too many times. They were then chased and mauled by an enraged tiger who was able to scale its enclosure; this is the part that is unacceptable. The kid who died may have been mean to an animal, but he confronted an enraged 350 lb tiger in order to save his friend, and that action speaks of his character as much as any allegation of taunting.

As an aside: In Spain, men show their bravery by taunting and killing bulls. Indian snake charmers repeatedly taunt poisonous snakes. In the US, people watch Jackass and replicate stupid stunts. I'm not saying that it's ok, but if you're responsible for a 350 lb man-eating tiger which is exposed to the public unattended, you have to consider that possibility, and you have to make sure it's safe for anyone that may be nearby.