There's no BUT here IMO and I don't understand the mentality of people who think there is.
A young man who very clearly did not understand the danger he put himself in for WHATEVER reason, was slashed, clawed and had chunks bitten out of him by an extremely powerful, savage, beast leading to him being killed within a few minutes of getting into it's enclosure.
A brutal, gruesome, bloody, savage painful death for an obviously vulnerable and cognitively impaired young man.
It's a horrific tragedy. There are no buts.
I want to know why these animal parks do not have to legally ensure the enclosures of these dangerous animals, that they chose to house, are totally secure from inside and outside.
That should be pretty goddamn basic!
RIP to that poor young man who was dancing, maybe had an obsession with and was excited about seeing the tigers, who thought he could pet them and didn't understand what the tiger was going to do to him. I don't want to imagine the shock, fear and pain he felt.
Even as a lifelong ethical vegetarian who isn't disgustingly hypocritical, unlike meat eaters are about the worth of animals they raise to suffer so they can eat them and the other more aesthetically or emotionally pleasing animals they pamper and protect, I have no hesitation in saying the tiger should have been shot dead immediately to save that lad. I don't betray my own species either.