Who do you feel worse for? The tiger or the 17 year-old?

Depends. Is/was the couple cute?

 

The tiger exults in his victory in this SportsJournalists.com poll.




I voted for the tiger. The loss of a human life is overcome by the idea that a kid who would taunt animals at the zoo has been removed from the gene pool.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm guessing most of the people who are more than happy to revel in the kid's death are also against the death penalty. So, who wins in the sjpoll if the tiger had eaten a convicted killer?

 

Is the answer Jesus?

 

I think even the Supremes would agree that death by tiger digestion is cruel and unusual punishment so the death penalty foes would win in the end.

No so good for the convict or the tiger, who probably doesn't like the taste of prison tats.

 

Why do we have to feel worse for one or the other? It sucks for both. Neither gets to enjoy the beauty of life any more, and that's sad.

 

I think anyone who had the audacity to vote Tiger in this poll ought to do some soul-searching and try to figure out just what it is they value in the world and in his or her life.

It was a 17 year-old kid. Not saying you can't feel bad for the tiger too, but this isn't a joke. A kid died. When you were 17, if your best friend had died, would you be making arguments about how the Tiger is just a wild animal and your friend deserved it because he was harrassing it. People do dumb things all the time. A lot dumber than taunting a tiger. It doesn't mean they deserve to die, or that an animal is suddenly more important than a human being.

 

With the current facts being what they are, I stand by what I said. And I don't need you telling me how or what I should feel or value.

 

Apparently, this wasn't Tatiana's first brush with humans.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-23-tiger-attack_x.htm

 

That was mentioned on the initial thread after the attack.

 

What are those current facts? All we have is a collection of rumors and a family who's not talking until they sue.