system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Zoo animals should generally not be killed if adults intrude on their habitats.

I really don't want to get into endless "what if"s about whether the adult is mentally incapacitated (i.e., the cognitive equivalent of a child). Let's just assume that the adult is a normal adult with normal cognitive function because this is all theoretical. Let's also assume that this adult PURPOSEFULLY intruded on the habitat, and that the zoo has access to this intent (e.g., if there's a huge fence, you have to climb it in order to access this habitat, so it's impossible for it to be an accident). 

In this case, you basically have a win-win scenario: you get to experience this animal in a way that most zoo-goers don't, and you have a bunch of trained assassins (the police, whoever zoo security is, etc) unleashed to protect you. One might say that you are going to jail/pay a fine for this activity, but, since you basically have a 100% chance of getting caught, you literally get to decide that for yourself as a price of admission for this super-exclusive-zoo-experience, while the animal has no choice but to die for your reckless behavior. There are literally zoo dedicated to people who want to interact with animals--petting zoos! You are forcing zoos to become very expensive petting zoos and killing animals for your sick benefit. 

One might say that human lives are more important than animal lives. Sure. But there are LIMITS. We are fine with delaying development in Latin American countries, which would definitely prolong some of their lives, to preserve the rain forests particularly because of the rich biodiversity. Moreover, the animals in zoos literally dedicate their lives to entertaining us--i.e., their entire lives are a public service to humanity. And, in the design of the zoo, there is no contest between animal life vs. human life. Animals are in often very cramped areas for human enjoyment where, if they stick to established boundaries, have only risk from other people--not the animals! 

One may say that the animal is at fault for wanting to murder the person. Honestly, I don't know how to dismiss this argument other than my opinion that it's a dumb argument.

One may more reasonable say that the person wasn't reasonably well-educated. A lot of people think polar bears are really cute and cuddly, and not ferocious beasts. Similarly, tigers, lions, etc. look like big cats, and there are some Youtube videos of people petting those big cats, and them acting like big cats. This is the part that gives me a bit of pause, but I think it's incumbent on the ADULT person to do a bit of research before climbing a fence or going over a fairly-difficult-to-overcome barrier and interacting with an animal in the zoo.
gpt
>Let's just assume that the adult is a normal adult with *normal cognitive function* because this is all theoretical

Is would argue that no adult who climbs willy-nilly into a literal lion's den has normal cognitive function.