The Amur tiger, which this one was. Is only about 400-600 left. Maybe less.
Harambe, who was a western lowland gorilla have a population of over 300k
Not saying that makes it right but those are the numbers. Aswell Harambe was in the past and it caused a huge uproar. Do you not think this zoo has learnt from those mistakes?
It wasn't a choice. If the zoo intentionally refused to save a man for the life of a tiger, they would have committed manslaughter. The personnel simply weren't quick enough to reach the man before tragedy occurred.
From what I understand they fired in the air and the tiger immediately retreated so that they could capture him and treat the injured but under the injuries weren’t survivable- if the tiger hadn’t let go I’m convinced they would have shot him
I said IF x had occurred and then explicitly rejected that possibility. IF they had intentionally let the man die, which they hadn't. Which is what the above commenter suggested, then there likely would be manslaughter charges. I then explained what I thought actually happened, which would not entail manslaughter charges.
Majority of people care actually. It is sad the guy died but he made his choice, he willingly got in there with an animal he should know could easily kill him
134
u/Ok-Pea8209 4h ago edited 4h ago
The Amur tiger, which this one was. Is only about 400-600 left. Maybe less.
Harambe, who was a western lowland gorilla have a population of over 300k
Not saying that makes it right but those are the numbers. Aswell Harambe was in the past and it caused a huge uproar. Do you not think this zoo has learnt from those mistakes?