You consider saving human lives a matter of 'pure convenience'?
You do understand that one of the three dead was not a trainer or on the staff, correct? I had initially made the same point you did in my 'mitigate' comment in my first post, before realizing my mistake of saying only trainers are at risk. While not condoning trespassing in the least, it's clear that trainers are not the only ones at risk if they are not the only ones who have already died.
I believe in liberty - that is, freedom to act in within a moral context. That applies solely to humans who operate within a moral framework. It does not extend to animals in either sense. That is, I don't blame the animal for 'murder' in a human sense, but neither to I say the animal is blameless and that it should be allowed to kill again. The dead victim's liberty has been dramatically curtailed, and that is what matters.
He was trespassing after hours. You can hardly blame a wild animal for killing or eating someone who breaks into their cage. They're in a cage for a reason, after all.
"The dead victim's liberty has been dramatically curtailed, and that is what matters."
No ones liberty has been curtailed. The Killer Whale wasn't a member of the US government. It was an animal acting like animal. What part of "the trainer assumed all risk", don't you understand. If anything, liberty was upheld, not curtailed. The trainer did what she wanted to do.