Think of it as if it was a bear who accidentally killed a hiker. It didn't know better, it was just being itself. Odds are, if it really wasn't an accident, why don't farmers go to jail. They kill many bugs and occasionally animals with their equipment. If it truly was an accident, there should be a fine, but not criminal charges.
Animals or at least some may be delicate creatures but you can not accidentally kill an animal they have to be brutally handled or controlled violently to be killed, animals have a point when they reach near death if you ignore that point where they are dying and can not see that, than it is not accidental in is intentional. And if you are intentionally killing or hurting an animal it is technically animal abuse therefore you have to be charged criminally.
No one should be touching wildlife in the first place. We already destroyed most of their homes. We don't need to take pictures of them. Taking an animal out of it's home to take a picture in unforgivable. They're just trying to live their lives. Accidental or not people who kill animals you should be charged.
So saying no is kind of like saying that if someone accidentally kills someone it's okay because it was only an accident.I understand that it was only an accident. Animals deserve some respect and it was all for a photo, animals deserve to live their lives in peace like we do.
Bruh don't you realize they're just saying that to NOT get in trouble. I may be dat boi but CARE! CHARGE THEM. ANIMAL ABUSE. NO MORE PICS OF DEAD ANIMALS. CHARGE THEM. TELL THEM GET WHOOPED OOOOOOOOOOOH. DO I NEED TO SPEAK MORE... YASS DUD THEY ARE KILLING ANIMALS TO GET LIKES ON FACEBOOK. NO!!! CHARGE DEM
Even in murder of humans, it's not an issue of accidental or intentional. The justice system still has 2nd degree, 3rd degree murder...Et cetera. If you kill an animal, it doesn't matter if it was accidental or intentional, the fact is, you killed an animal. Animals that tourists frequently take pictures of are animals that are rare and frequently, endangered. If someone kills one, through a ridiculously idiotic act such as holding a shark on land, then they ought to be punished.
People are just so stupid when it comes to this sort if thing, especially in the case of the Dolphin (which I've read before). Imagine what it must be like to die from dehydration, not even for a good reason, painfully. Not one person thought about the feelings of the dolphin, I'm not sure if that's sad or disturbing. This is obviously animal abuse/torture, and those involved should at least face a heavy fine (which could go to wild animal protection organizations) for their actions if not arrested and charged criminally. Same applies with the other examples given in the article which I didn't know about before.
They should face criminal charges. If not for them, the animal may have survived. The dolphin may have survived—we will never know, of course—but it’s also likely that he or she was already in the final throes of life, and no intervention, whether obnoxious or well-meaning, would have helped. It is hard to stand and watch an innocent animal die.
It is never right for anyone to illegally kill a protected animal. Even though it may have been an accident, the tourists that killed animals for photos should be charged. If these tourists are not charged, then future incidents like this will occur, where people just claim that the animals were killed by accident.
It would be a disgrace if this was to go unnoticed. Accident or not, they had no business touching or harassing the animal. How is it even possible to 'accidentally' kill an animal? The tourists obviously must've been abusing the animal, which should be a crime on its own. There is no excuse for harming and/or killing animals.
Not much information is given, but if the headline is accurate, then it was just an accident that happened due to ignorance. These tourists probably learned their lesson and now know to avoid doing this in the future, so I do not see any reason that they should be punished.
One thing people fail to realize is that animals are not on this planet for their amusement. They are creatures just like us trying to live their lives and they, like us, don't really want a bunch of people in their business. The moral of this is to leave animals alone because they don't want to be bothered no more than we do.
This question centers around whether someone should be criminally charged if it was an accident while taking pictures. An accident is something that is not on purpose, so the intent was not there to kill the animal; just to take a photograph. If there was a sign stating that taking pictures are dangerous to the animal, than it might be a different situation.
Regardless of there being intention or not, the act of killing a creature of lesser sentience, is quite simply, how things work in nature, which we keep forgetting that we are a part of, as much as them animals despite them having been killed by the very products of zeitgeist for an absolutely vain, asinine, peer influenced (in other words, stupid) reason. We eat animals, and it isn't as though we wait for them to die at a ripe old age, because we require the nutrients and a sense of gastronomical satisfaction that can only come from eating meat products. And in other instances, like during hunting seasons, we kill animals for sport- literally meaning: for fun.
Those tourists had a goal which could not have been realized without killing the animals, much like killing a pig to acquire pork for making bacon, hence the deaths of the animals, while outraging it is to know that these animals who hold no prejudice against human beings and committed no act deserving of such disrespectful deaths for some very, very insipid reason, were necessary.
At the end of the day, it isn't so much that such seemingly gratuitous deaths are by their nature offensive, but rather it is the context which their deaths occurred that invokes our value judgement heuristics; most of us wouldn't very much care for their deaths if it had been at an abattoir or if they have been mushed by running tires, but because of the man-made notion that is the sanctity of life having been infringed, we become threatened when confronted with the delicate nature of life and with the ease those who the intention to rob us of it wield, thus becoming able to empathize with the deaths of the animals for reasons that are not conventionally accepted as justification.
Saying it some other way, the act itself is cannot be faulted on both objective (the tourist wanted something, and could only achieve by killing the animals) and, to a lesser extent, subjective grounds/from a reasonable 3rd party's point of view (being that some of us kill living creatures big and small for the rationalizations we conjure), therefore, the tourists should not be criminally charged.
Some might that intention is the key here, but really, being that intention cannot be defined either by a superior or inferior man as they would be skewed and sordidly lacking in accuracy as definitions, the law has been modified to recognize if the criminal charge issued against the tourists should be upheld based on whether it is considered reasonable by the everyman- or in most cases, everymen (jurors).
Criminal charges for killing an animal should only be filed when the person has the intention to kill an animal. If tourists don't have an intention to kill the animal while taking photos with the animal, then they shouldn't be charged.
P.S This is something that can happen to anyone, no one is immune from incidents.