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.
I'm not making assumptions. I'm arguing with a person who said that they intentionally let the man die. I said that wasn't the case, in part, because if it were, it would likely entail charges.
68
u/EstablishmentLate532 3h ago
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.