Zookeeper sets beasts free then kills himself!!!

root_canal

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3883208/Zookeeper-sets-beasts-free-then-kills-himself.html

Scroll to see replies

What a retard.

Why did they shoot them they didn't shoot all those povos when they escaped from their council estates and rioted in London ;l

Reply 3

LostRiots

18 Bengal tigers

Great, now there's even less left...

Reply 4

username310124

Those poor animals. :frown:

Reply 5

jessica170

Why were the animals shot? I wasn't their fault :frown:

Reply 6

SophiaKeuning

Original post by CB91

Those poor animals. :frown:

Woops, I was going to quote and agree with you, but accidentally negged you- sawi. :colondollar:

Reply 7

thunder_chunky

Original post by Einheri

What a retard.

Reply 8

Charlaatte

Original post by jessica170

Why were the animals shot? I wasn't their fault :frown:

The animals were shot so they don't eat the humans.... :L

Reply 9

Pochi_X

Hopefully an entertainer dies for each killed animal that didn't do wrong,

Those animals just followed their natural instincts.

Reply 10

Hanvyj

I can see why they shot them, I mean having one animal escape is controlable - you can organise tranquilisers and stuff and have the man power to contain it/keep public away and are unlikley to loose it.

When there are 300 though... There is that famous saying about hurding cats. Its sad to have to do - they haven't done anything wrong, but imagine if they ate some poor kid.

Wtf was the guy thinking. I assumed he cared about the animals or he wouldn't be a zookeeper - what did he think would happen? Pretty selfish.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 11

Tommyjw

Original post by Charlaatte

The animals were shot so they don't eat the humans.... :L

Yes because lethally shooting an animal is the only one to bring it down...

Reply 12

Oh my Ms. Coffey

How did they guy have such a collection in the first place?

Reply 13

Swindan

Original post by Tommyjw

Yes because lethally shooting an animal is the only one to bring it down...

"Zoo staff with tranquilliser guns arrived from nearby Columbus, but when an animal shot with one "went crazy", it was killed."

Sounds a bit fishy, but I'm guessing they just couldn't take the risk 55 more times.

Reply 14

7~UP

Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey

How did they guy have such a collection in the first place?

Er use your imagination coffee

Reply 15

EffieFlowers

Original post by Tommyjw

Yes because lethally shooting an animal is the only one to bring it down...

Agreed. Completely unnecessary.

Reply 16

timowebo

Original post by Tommyjw

Yes because lethally shooting an animal is the only one to bring it down...

Yeah so if this animal ate some-one, which it has the potential to, im sure all the perfect people like you who have answers to everything wouldn't complain would you? You'd be first on the band wagon with "Well why didn't they just shoot them," if this happened... I'm also guessing you have no idea how much effort is taken in tranquillising ONE animal of this size, let alone 49 or whatever there was...

Reply 17

EffieFlowers

Original post by CB91

Those poor animals. :frown:

Why on earth do you have 2 negs for this., I completely agree with you.

Original post by SophiaKeuning

Woops, I was going to quote and agree with you, but accidentally negged you- sawi. :colondollar:

I love how you get negged for saying that! :rolleyes:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 18

timowebo

Original post by Swindan

The adrenaline that these animals work up has the potential to over ride the drug that is used to tranquillise them. Therefore just making them worse and actually having zero effect on the animal. THAT is why they had to be shot, its not fishy at all...