system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Poachers don't deserve to die

After the frontpage glorification of the 'poacher hunter' recently - and a few other posts I've seen on reddit - I've realised that it's a commonly held belief that poachers deserve to die for their poaching.   

It's always seemed to me, though, that poachers are pushed to do what they do by a series of factors which mean they are fulfilling demand from developed countries , or trying to make a buck in poverty-ridden countries where a livelihood is extremely hard to come by.   

As much as I love animals and hate the way endangered species are being treated, I can't see why the animal's life is valued more than the poacher in these cases, especially when the large scale eradication of species - driven by demand from ordinary consumers - is happening all over the world every day.   


Even without context, I struggle to see how anyone can value the life of an animal over that of a human - but it's something I have encountered often.          



  
   





edit: I can't respond to all the replies here - thanks for the debate, some great points have been raised. A lot have said that the majority don't believe that poachers deserve to die, and that I've made a mistake in thinking that's widely-held belief. I hope this is true, but there are still people in the comments suggesting that at least some people do think that poachers are fair game.  


Many of the most upvoted comments are to do with the fact that poachers present a threat to law enforcement - other humans. Poachers who kill rangers is a *separate issue*. My original CMV was supposed to be about whether poachers deserve to die *for their poaching*, not for killing/threatening rangers - so the argument is about human/animal lives. I think on this count the vast majority of posters here agree that for the very act of killing an animal, nobody deserves to die. Some replies have claimed that the fact an animal is endangered means their lives are worth more than humans, which I'll unfortunately have to disagree with on a fundamental level.  

The other main argument is that in upholding any laws, force is necessary. This is more fraught, and a deeper philosophical issue, but I think in the posting exchanges I have had, it's been agreed upon that this force should really be *applied higher up the chain of demand*. Killing poachers will not stop species from becoming endangered. The effort should be towards removing the environment that makes poaching profitable and attractive so that people would not turn to it in poverty-stricken environments as a way to make money.  

As a result, my V hasn't quite been C'd - YET - , but I've considered more thoroughly the implications of violent poachers and the futility of trying to change the forces of global capitalism.
gpt
Poachers do deserve to be arrested and punished for their crimes to the fullest extent of the law. The problem is that arresting them is difficult because they are usually heavily armed and dangerous. When they resist arrest then the use of deadly force is quite possibly the only realistic option to stop them.