It's not that... If the tiger was a man eater they would've put it down. This is the policy of that zoo. The death was an accidental death as per reports.
We're talking about the survival of the animal regardless. My point is simple. The animal would be dead if it was man eater, it wasn't so it's alive. It's not about the living state of the 'victim'.
If by man eater you mean a continuing threat to human life, then no he is not, but that distinction makes absolutely no difference to what I said because, again, I was talking about WHILE THE MAN WAS ALIVE. If you are trying to claim that the tiger didn't kill the man, then you are wrong.
You're point is that the reason they haven't shot the Tiger is related to if the victim was alive or not. It is not. Read the meme again if you've forgotten what this entire thing is about. It is not about whether the man was alive or not. It's about the survival of the animal REGARDLESS!.
It doesn't matter if the kid fell in by accident or on purpose, and it doesn't matter how old the kid was.
If an adult purposefully climbed into a zoo enclosure, and a gorilla started dragging them around the enclosure for 10 minutes, that gorilla would be shot to protect the safety of the human.
Harambe's first mistake was not listening to the zookeepers when they signaled him to return inside, and his second mistake was not killing the kid more quickly.
14
u/AviatorJac 4h ago
one grown man vs one small child who fell by an accident
but fine farm your karma