I firmly believe that more understanding is always better than less. If you understand that the tiger is eating you because it's hungry, you at least have some chance of diverting its attention by offering an alternative, less feisty meal.
But covering your ears and eyes and shouting "it's an evil tiger that hates me!"... how is that in any way better than understanding objective reality? And why in the world would you attack someone for making the observation that the tiger is hungry rather than agreeing with factually incorrect claims about the tiger holding a personal vendetta?
It's bizarre, and IMO unhealthy.
Hanlon's razor would be used to stop a mob from lynching the tour guide that was supposed to guide that person through the zoo. One explanation is that the tour guide intentionally arranged for the person to be eaten. This is malevolent and dispicable act. Hanlon's razor says "Hold on, maybe he just wasn't aware the tiger was out of the cage at that time".
It is effectively the presumption of "Innocence (stupidity)" vs persumption of "Guilt (malevolence)" stated another way.
Read about any kind of historical coup and there's all kinds of both 1) incompetent fumbles and 2) elaborate subterfuge.
Since they are the most rational and capable actor in this whole situation it's not at all surprising that they ended up being in a better position than everyone else.