Though your wit is apparently lost on these Philistines, Bryan, I just want you to know you’re crackin’ me up.
Actually, while not quite standard procedure, it’s not at all unheard of for a zoo animal to be euthanized due to a person’s ignorance. When I worked at a zoo/sanctaury/wildlife rehab center years ago, I had hand raised a “Bambi Sydrome” raccoon. Some visitors went over the exterior fencing we had surrounding his exhibit and encouraged their two year old to stick his hand in the cage to feed him some popcorn. Rowdy, the raccoon, bit the toddler, and was subsequently euthanized. Rowdy had been extensively socialized, had his vaccinations, and was still euthanized so that he could be tested for rabies. It was completely the visitor’s fault that the incident happened, but nonetheless, it was the animal that paid for it.
My ex-husband was gored by a deer while working there. The deer was subsequently euthanized. In this instance, the deer was in rut and attacked while being fed. He probably would not have been put down, but following this incident, he behaved more and more aggressively.
Another keeper was attacked by an escaped cougar. The cougar was subsequently caught but wasn’t euthanized.
I myself was bitten by a coyote. I didn’t tell anyone because I was worried about the consequences to the coyote. The accident had been my fault. He’d been hand raised by a family until they realized he wasn’t quite what they wanted. This happens all too frequently with exotic animals, but that’s another pit in itself. At any rate, when he was a pet, he’d played tug of war with his owners. I was playing tug of war with him and he decided my finger was the thing to tug. Ouch!
I tried searching the American Association of Zookeepers site for SOP’s for animal attacks at various zoos, but didn’t have any luck. I’ll post here if I do find some.
Cites wherein zoo animals have been destroyed due to attacks.
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/elephant_kills_keeper.html
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/1999/Bear_kills_russian_girl.html
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/1999/Salt_Lake_Chimp_attack.html
All of that said, I do feel that the tiger PROBABLY shouldn’t have been destroyed. People don’t seem to understand sometimes that wild animals are just that. They’re not tame house pets that you can play with. I CAN understand why the guy shot the tiger, even though I may not agree that it was the right thing to do. In an emergency situation, you don’t think sometimes, you just react. That may not have been the most proper way to react. Not having all the facts, it’s hard to tell just if he was completely out of line for doing so or not, however. If his buddy was safely away, then I’d say he was out of line. If his buddy were still being mauled or he believed that another attack by the tiger was imminent, then he acted as reasonably as could be expected in such an unreasonable situation. The guy who stuck his arm in the cage was definitely way out of line, however.
P.S. For what it’s worth, much as I love animals, I don’t think murder applies to them.
Completely ignoring the stupid hijack about the definition of murder, Xploder, could you elaborate on the above comment a little ?
I’m interested to know what you think the appropriate punishment should be, and why being in another country changes that punishment. I’m thinking of an off-duty but armed soldier in an American zoo, vs. an off-duty but armed soldier in an Iraqi zoo, for example. IOW, equivalent circumstances, but a differing location.
What I’d like to know before getting too upset about the whole thing is the following info:
-were they drunk or not
-were they on or off duty
-were they ‘partying’
and most importantly, was the tiger shot after the soldier had withdrawn his arm from the cage, sans finger and was out of danger, or was it shot in an attempt to free the soldier from the tiger’s jaws.
I agree that once the arm was in the tiger’s mouth, shooting the tiger was a reasonable thing to do. But holding the shooter blameless because of this is to ignore the long sequence of stupidities that brought the shooter and his buddy to this point. So, in and of itself, abstracted from all context other than that precise moment, shooting the tiger would not have been a crime. If I were magically plucked from my chair and materialized into the position of the shooter, I would have done the same thing. But the actions that led up to and made necessary the shooting of that tiger, taken together, make this pair morally (and, hopefully, criminally) responsible for the unnecessary death (or “murder”, if you will permit me to use the English language) of this animal[sup]*[/sup].
*[sub]The foregoing post, herein referred to as “the foregoing”, is to be construed as presuming the veracity, in all relevant particulars, of all statements of facts, speculations, attributions, and stipulations contained in the reports quoted in the OP and in all other posts pertaining thereto. In no way and under no circumstances are any assertions, be they moral, factual, or procedural, in the foregoing to be held valid categorically and without qualification; no claim is implied, nor is any to be inferred, that the foregoing is, in generalities or in specifics, anything other than speculations premised on the aforementioned hypotheses.[/sub]
Soldiers on active duty in Iraq aren’t allowed to drink alcohol, same as in Afghanistan or Bosnia or Saudi Arabia. It’s part of General order #1, and I guess you might have to be on active duty to get the whole scope of it - I can’t find a decent cite. It’s because of the cultural sensitivities of the host countries among other things, so the ban is in effect whether you’re actually out patrolling or just hanging around. Same with porn.
I really can’t imagine them running around dressed casually, either…if these were really US soldiers (there’s no guarantee of that just because Reuters prints it), then they’ve just fucked themselves three or four different ways.
You have got to be a lawyer, cause that is just perfect. Bravo!
Nah, not a lawyer :). I just get bored sometimes and read the warranties for my appliances.
Look at what I posted. Schwartzkopf was the then Commander of Centcom and he put the rules in place as to the conduct of American troops in the ME.
The difference is that Schwartzkopf isn’t planning to run for POTUS and Clark is.
Also, just because…here’s an interesting little news article about then General Clark…
My apologies, I missed that.
He’s running for POTUS which means he may become very relevant very soon.
But he isn’t at at the moment.
That may be sort of true, but I also cited Clark to show that I would be more supportive of our actions in Iraq if I had some faith in the Commander in Chief.
Thank you for the explanation.
**You’ve got that backwards. I hate Bush because I hate what he’s doing. **
I’m not gonna argue on the merits of the Bush regime in this thread but thank you again for your explanation.
Agreed. I’m not arguing the semantics of murder. My issue about Guin is that there always seems to be a quick little post by her in most threads and that’s it.
YMMV of course.
If the soldiers were drinking, out of uniform, in possession of weapons and in an off-limits area, then they should be court martialed just for those actions alone regardless of the shot tiger.
I agree that I too would like to know the same things as you stated above. Until then, I have no other opinion on what the punishment should be. BUT, since they are NOT in America and they ARE military, they will be subject to whatever appropriate section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice pertains. It isn’t as if they’re gonna be subject to a civilian trial like they would be if this happened in a zoo in America.
Let me refresh your memory on the occupation bit. The US published a draft UNSC resolution on May 9th 2003, containing this paragraph (my italics):
Not that it matters - the US/UK forces are an occupying power as defined in the Geneva convention and they have obligations to fulfill in that respect. Simple as that.
Thanks for finding that. I looked but didn’t see it…sigh…yet one more time I stick both feet in my mouth and therefore have to walk around on my hands.
Tee: Please provide the full text of General Order #1.
And so, you continue to just repeat the same thing over and over and you continue to ignore the many posts showing you were wrong when you said zoo animals which attack humans are destroyed. You are contributing nothing worthwhile to this thread. Nothing. Just making a fool of yourself. You obviously have nothing to contribute to the substance of this thread. Go start another thread on the meaning of murder and stop hijacking this thread.
You really should get a copy of the OED, milroyj. It’s got lots of interesting stuff in it, e.g.
Ah give him a break, Desmostylus. Since december left, his mini-me is having to work overtime in the “automatic knee-jerk gainsaying of anything remotely critical of the Republican administration and/or its policies” department.
It must be hard for him, jjimm. And now I’ve made it worse because he’s going to have to nitpick the OED again: “fucktard” is actually a portmanteau rather than a contraction.
Apparently you missed the fine post by Amberlei above. It was posted some 7 hours before yours, so who exactly isn’t reading the thread???
Are you referring to the clearly written post above describing a few anecdotal stories about animals that did need to be put down, yet cautioned that it was not standard operating procedure? The post that also included examples where animals were not put down? In all cases putting the animal down was a decision made my professionals, presumably after careful consideration. Are you asserting that the drunken soldiers had some zoological training? That missing digit would seem to indicate otherwise.
I’ve never quite noticed what an unrepentant wanker you are. I’ll keep it in mind from now on.
Um, that would be you, fucktard.