Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The key word in the article is "restrained"....

 

"posing for photos with the 7-year-old tiger, which was being restrained by its handler"

 

If the tiger has to be restrained for the photo, I wouldn't even bother trying to take the photo.

Posted

I'm in my senior picture. Does that count? Actually I didn't pick up the moniker ("Tiger") until well after I was out of high school.

Posted
I don't know how this ever sounded like a good idea.  Poor girl, it is a tragedy...but just a bad idea from the start.

 

article

412518[/snapback]

Darn, she was a cute girl.

 

Why can't wild animals concentrate on eating ugly people??

Posted
Kill the tiger.......yeah it was his fault. WTF? Put a wild animal in that predicament and it kills someone......jeez how odd.

412928[/snapback]

 

You know, after the fact, I agree. It's probably law, though. Meant to deal mostly with dogs. If my neighbor's pit bull mauled the mail lady, I'd want it put down too. The idiots putting that poor girl in that situation are the ones to blame on this one, though.

 

On the other hand, if the tiger had to be restrained while she had photos taken, I really would have hoped *someone* would have had some type of portable cannon available while they had it out playing amongst the humans.

Posted
The idiots putting that poor girl in that situation are the ones to blame on this one, though. 

412956[/snapback]

Or maybe it's the "poor girl's" fault for wanting a freaking wild cat in her picture.

Posted
Or maybe it's the "poor girl's" fault for wanting a freaking wild cat in her picture.

413033[/snapback]

 

My first thought was the same. But if her parents and/or the keeper of that Tiger told her it was safe, why the hell should she doubt 'em?

 

 

-Jeff

Posted
My first thought was the same.  But if her parents and/or the keeper of that Tiger told her it was safe, why the hell should she doubt 'em?

-Jeff

413052[/snapback]

Well, because it's a giant tiger.

×
×
  • Create New...