i just read news reports about the tiger that had to be killed at the san francisco zoo.
turns out the victims were drunk and stoned, had jumped up on the wall by the moat and were taunting and yelling at the tiger. Also it was reported they were harassing other animals. Cops found vodka and weed in their car
Seems to me the only victim was the poor tiger
It should have killed all of them

I agree....

Let's not jump to conclusions.  One of the surviving brothers had a BAC of .16, twice the legal limit for driving.  The other brother had a BAC of .04, only half the legal driving limit.  The dead victim had a .02.  As for cannabis, the test only proved that they had ingested cannabis within the past 30 days.  Yes, it does look like they were taunting the tiger (I always suspected this, as it seems the Tiger stalked them for a considerable distance, rather than attacking random zoo visitors).  Nevertheless, the Tiger shouldn't have been able to get out.  Unless one of the kids stuck his arm or leg down into the moat and only by grabbing it was the cat able to escape, the blame must be placed on the zoo, IMHO.  
 
Bill, tgo

i disagree conselor
the tiger had to be mighty pissed to jump a 12 foot wall....

I absolutely agree, but if the wall had been 16 feet, like it was supposed to be and like they first announced it was, the Tiger never would have made it out of the enclosure.  A zoo MUST anticipate stupid schmucks like these will taunt, even throw things at the animals.  The enclosures must be designed so that no matter what the provocation, the animal can't get out.
 
Bill, tgo

I dunno....For the Tiger to actually jump the fence, and than have the patience to stalk specific indiviudals instead of random passerby, he must have been severely taunted.
 
Whether caged or not (and dont get me started on the topic of keeping wild animals caged up and deprived of their freedom), one just should not mess with wild animals.  
 
Tragic as it was, these guys were aptly awarded for their stupidity.  The way I look at it the gene pool has just improved slightly.

Sounds to me of the three parties involved; The Zoo, The Tiger and Larry-Mo & Curly, the only one NOT at fault is the tiger.  
This is clearly a case of, not enough fence and not enough sense!

play with fire...
well you know he rest.
 
nuff said

I agree with, Bill. The zoo needs to take into account the physical abilities of these animals if provoked. With that said, it's criminal that the animal was destroyed. Tranquilize it, build a better enclosure and let the poor animal live. This wasn't some alley cat you can replace from Petsmart for $10. It was a friggin' Siberian Tiger! Such a senseless waste of a magnificent creature.

Agreed.  The only party *not* responsible here was the Tiger.
 
What would these chuckleheads have done in the Singapore zoo?  (The Singapore zoo generally eschews fences, etc. in favor of moats that prevent the animal from escaping.  It is an amazing zoo, and remember to hit the night safari if you're in the neighborhood.)
 
Of course, they'd have caned the idiot had he lived.  And more power to them.  (For reference, I'm referring to him taunting the animal, not the other aforementioned behavior.)
 
Bradley

Tatiana the Tiger wasn't destroyed in the usual sense of the term.  Rather, when the police arrived they found Tatiana on top of one of the victims.  The cops used the spotlight on their car to distract the Tiger from further mauling the kid.  When they did this, the Tiger apparently started advancing on the cops.  At that point the cops unloaded their pistols into the Tiger.  More self-defense than putting down.  Nevertheless, it seems there was quite a bit of confusion and inadequate response on the Zoo's part resulting in no one from the Zoo arriving with a tranquilizer gun.  
 
By the way, this was the same Tiger that reached under the bars and grabbed a keeper's arm last year while being fed, resulting in serious injury to the keeper, and a redesign of the inside portion of the enclosure by the Zoo.  Wouldn't it be nice if they figured out the problems and fixed them BEFORE someone got mauled and/or killed?
 
Bill, tgo

The only sad part of that story is that the tiger was killed.
 
Yes the zoo should have built an enclosure that was going to keep the animal restrained regardless of any idiot jackass' actions.
 
However the tiger had been living there - and I'm sure many others had - for quite some time with no problems.  Those three must have really been bugging that animal for it to react the way it did.

It's a shame- all the way around.  Shame that the Tiger's life had to be ended.  Shame over the loss of human life- regardless of the stupidity/immaturity displayed prior to death.  I did plenty of stupid things in my life that should have killed me and I'm sure grateful to be alive. I'm sure that the young man who lost his life at the zoo would take back his actions in a heartbeat if it meant he could have another chance at life. Finally it's a shame that the SF Zoo allowed things to get to this point- low walls and an animal with a history (as Bill pointed out above) are not a good combination.
 
One thing is for sure- once an animal (be it a bear, dog or lion) attacks a human, the 2nd attack isn't normally that far off in the future.

Maybe a cage for the humans, and then let the animals come by to see them!

I guess the bottom line here is Do Not Taunt The Animals. Tigers are predators and if they are prevoked they will hurt someone. I agree with everyone that they got what was comming to them.