I don't doubt that. But the story just demonstrates survivor bias, literally. Surely there's a better way to illustrate the point. As it is the obvious fallacy makes me inherently skeptical of a conclusion that I'm otherwise inclined to agree with.

nosianu says "one has significantly higher chances to succeed against a tiger than a government"

I don't think so! A tiger will kill you in the blink of an eye.

As for fences: while clearing land for the British railway lines in India, it was sometimes necessary to bring in skilled tiger hunters to eradicate these beasts. In one attack, for example, a tiger jumped a high fence (intended to keep tigers out) around a human encampment, seized a victim, jumped over the fence again carrying his prey and ran away with the meal.

Please a village can at least try killing a tiger with traps, poison, and weapons. They can do nothing to the king.

Do you understand that the tiger functions as a metaphor here? The story is not about the impressive physical capabilities of Panthera tigris.