In the not so distant past, a man captured a tiger from the wild and placed it in a cage with a flimsy lock. Shortly thereafter, a young girl spied the caged tiger and began poking it with a long pointed stick. The tiger did not take likely to being poked with a stick and broke from the cage and ate the girl. When the man returned to his prize, he found the tiger engorged and cover with the girl's blood. He quickly gathered his gun, aimed and pulled the trigger. The gun misfired killing not only the tiger but the man himself.
Who is at fault? Was it the fact the man captured a tiger? Taking it from its place in nature, its home and where it was perfectly suited? Was it the use of flimsy lock to cage a tiger? For no man should think it would contain a tiger? Was it the girl poking the tiger with a sharp stick? No caged animal should be teased? Was it the tiger escaping and eating the girl? After all, what is a tiger to do if poked with a sharp stick? Was it the man shooting the tiger or the gun misfiring and killing them both? Does the use of a gun solve all problems? Where is the fault, the guilt, the satisfaction of justice?
As in cascading events, one begets the other, culminating in a conclusion of greater consequence than each separate event.
No comments:
Post a Comment