The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   News Gorilla killed at Cincinnati zoo sparks public outcry (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=369754)

Nah May 31st, 2016 4:12 AM

Gorilla killed at Cincinnati zoo sparks public outcry
 
This is a few days old and y'all have probably heard about this already but whatever

On May 28th, 2016, a 4 year old boy slipped through the railings and wires of the Cincinnati zoo's western lowland gorilla (an endangered gorilla species) exhibit, and fell into the moat. There he encountered Harambe, a silverback, who dragged the boy through the water. Shortly thereafter the gorilla was shot and killed by zoo staff.

Video of the boy and the gorilla can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfuz7cTDNeI

The death of Harambe quickly became controversial. It brings a lot of things to question such as zoo security measures, the boy's parents (some people even started a petition to hold the parents responsible for the gorilla's death), was there a better way to handle the situation, was the gorilla's intent to harm the boy or not, why the boy even decided to get into the exhibit, etc.

What do you all think?

ShinyUmbreon189 May 31st, 2016 4:19 AM

It's simple, this is a prime example of horrible parental guidance. The mother should of kept attached to her child, there is no excuse for this stupidity, Child Services should take away her child because she is clearly unfit to raise a child if she allows this to happen. The gorilla didn't at all seem aggressive to me, but the gorilla is a wild animal so s/he is very unpredictable and can explode at any given money so they had to take action. But I guess it is what it is, you can't change the past.

gimmepie May 31st, 2016 4:21 AM

It was a shit situation all around and all the courses of action the staff could have taken all would have posed risks to the child or the gorilla. The staff responded following the established protocol and took the most humane course of action they had. So you can't blame them for the unfortunate death.

The people who can and should be blamed are the parents who clearly did not do a good enough job watching their child and on the administration who clearly did not have a sufficiently safe enclosure.

Biogoji May 31st, 2016 4:41 AM

Now i'm no expert but would they not have some kind of tranquillizer they could have used instead of lethal force.

Mana May 31st, 2016 5:15 AM

Do people really think the parents should be blamed though?

I mean, who here has banged their head or had an accident because a parent has looked away for a few seconds? I'll put money on every parent/child having an incident like that. If the enclosure was lacking security to the point a child could get through it then it's clearly a Zoo problem. Does anyone go to a Zoo and think there's an easy way in to the enclosure? No, we assume its safe for animals not to get out and that people can't get in.

The Mother is, no doubt, beating herself up over it enough. She doesn't need people calling her a shit mother and encouraging the zoo to prosecute her as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biogoji (Post 9264568)
Now i'm no expert but would they not have some kind of tranquillizer they could have used instead of lethal force.

Tranquilised animals are not knocked out immediately, and can become agitated and violent when first darted.

Omicron May 31st, 2016 5:26 AM

There is no one to blame here, honestly. Shitty situation, a tragedy really, but there is no one to blame.

The zoo follows the security norms established well and you can't blame the parents either. No situation like that had presented itself in the 130+ years of the zoo.

It's a freak accident that ended in a tragedy.

gimmepie May 31st, 2016 6:56 AM

I would argue that if you're standing above an enclosure containing a wild animal that one could fall into, you should be watching your child. This wasn't like when you look away for five minutes and your kid falls off the monkey bars, this was something preventable by adequate supervision that clearly was not being given.

donavannj May 31st, 2016 8:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9264765)
I still argue we shouldn't be so hasty in blaming the parents. Unless I somehow missed the part of the article that explained it, what was the mother doing at the time that her child was missing and went straight towards the enclosure? Do we have any information on that, and what took her attention away from the child?

Under no circumstances should you really operate under the assumption that your child is safe alone, but at the same time, we don't know exactly what the mother or father was thinking, or what took their attention away, or really anything like that. It's best to leave it as just an unfortunate tragedy.

Regardless of what distracted her (conversation or otherwise), the odds that it was more important than keeping an eye on her 3 year old are pretty slim. She signed up to raise the kid by choosing to give birth to or adopt the kid. She needed to remember her surroundings and realize that a 3 year old can vanish on his/her own if you don't maintain a constant vigilance in a busy public place like a zoo. There's more than just the danger of him falling into an enclosure at a zoo, after all.

Mana May 31st, 2016 8:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9264753)
I would argue that if you're standing above an enclosure containing a wild animal that one could fall into, you should be watching your child. This wasn't like when you look away for five minutes and your kid falls off the monkey bars, this was something preventable by adequate supervision that clearly was not being given.

I don't think any parent would take their child to a zoo if they thought their kid could somehow slip through security and get inside. It's ludicrous to think that any parent would consider that happening - its the first occurrence ever at this place which further cements the idea of 'safety'.

Sure, parents could probably do with being extra vigilant sometimes. But in this case, the thing that happened shouldn't have been able to happen. If I released 500 children in to a zoo and didn't watch them, they shouldn't be able to get into an enclosure.

... or do you disagree with that too?

gimmepie May 31st, 2016 8:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9264924)
I don't think any parent would take their child to a zoo if they thought their kid could somehow slip through security and get inside. It's ludicrous to think that any parent would consider that happening - its the first occurrence ever at this place which further cements the idea of 'safety'.

Sure, parents could probably do with being extra vigilant sometimes. But in this case, the thing that happened shouldn't have been able to happen. If I released 500 children in to a zoo and didn't watch them, they shouldn't be able to get into an enclosure.

... or do you disagree with that too?

No that part I fully agree with. There is definitely a safety issue at that zoo that needs to be fixed. One incident is one too many.

donavannj May 31st, 2016 8:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mana (Post 9264924)
I don't think any parent would take their child to a zoo if they thought their kid could somehow slip through security and get inside. It's ludicrous to think that any parent would consider that happening - its the first occurrence ever at this place which further cements the idea of 'safety'.

Sure, parents could probably do with being extra vigilant sometimes. But in this case, the thing that happened shouldn't have been able to happen. If I released 500 children in to a zoo and didn't watch them, they shouldn't be able to get into an enclosure.

... or do you disagree with that too?

This gets into regulations on enclosure standards, which the zoo apparently has met, which would mean there needs to be a change from the national federal government level on what standards to require for zoo enclosures. Those probably do need to change.

People will still somehow find ways to get into enclosures even with far stricter standards, though.

Nihilego May 31st, 2016 9:05 AM

What makes it any more the parents' fault than the zoo's fault? When you go somewhere where dangerous animals are being kept, the assumption is that they're held securely - which means both that they cannot get out and that you cannot get in. Zoos are absolutely full of kids that want to get closer to animals and its their responsibility to be aware of this and to make sure it this doesn't happen.

Don't get me wrong, you should always be watching your kid while you're out in public. I'm not arguing against that; certainly, there was for one reason or another a lack of responsibility shown by the parents. But what I am saying is that this incident, although facilitated by the parents' lack of attention, should not even have been even physically possible.

Regarding their decision to shoot the gorilla, I'm completely behind it. We can only speculate on how the gorilla was going to act but we know for a fact that the child's life was potentially at risk, and no animal's life is more valuable than a human's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biogoji
Now i'm no expert but would they not have some kind of tranquillizer they could have used instead of lethal force.

Maybe they could have, but it's worth considering the time taken for a tranquiliser to set in. Most tranquilisers used on animals take several minutes to exert their full effect, and I'd assume that this could be much longer for a big animal like a gorilla. It's not really like in movies etc. where you shoot it with a dart and it just drops to the ground. It would, of course, have been better for the gorilla but far more dangerous for the child.

Omicron May 31st, 2016 9:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf (Post 9264942)
Maybe they could have, but it's worth considering the time taken for a tranquiliser to set in. Most tranquilisers used on animals take several minutes to exert their full effect, and I'd assume that this could be much longer for a big animal like a gorilla. It's not really like in movies etc. where you shoot it with a dart and it just drops to the ground. It would, of course, have been better for the gorilla but far more dangerous for the child.

Not only that, many animals react violently to the tranquilizers as a side effect. The gorilla could have easily killed the kid because of that.

Kanzler May 31st, 2016 9:15 AM

Silverback gorillas can be fucking brutal, especially if male. They're extremely muscular, so even if it wasn't aggressive to the boy, it could still cause serious damage because it doesn't know its own strength. Shooting it was the right decision.

Quote:

The boy went under a rail, through wires and over a moat wall to get into the enclosure, according to the zoo.
Sounds like something's wrong with the zoo if none of the three obstacle could stop the boy. Maybe the parent was distracted, but I hope this shines a light on how stupid and irresponsible children can be and an important lesson for anybody thinking about kids. 4 year olds are perfectly capable of lying and if he had made up his mind to go touch the gorilla, then he would have waited for the perfect moment and use that split-second opportunity to slip under a rail.

Omicron May 31st, 2016 9:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9264954)
Silverback gorillas can be ****ing brutal, especially if male. They're extremely muscular, so even if it wasn't aggressive to the boy, it could still cause serious damage because it doesn't know its own strength. Shooting it was the right decision.

All Silverbacks are male, haha. That's the name given mostly to troop leaders but could be used to refer to males over 12 years of age in general.

Frequency May 31st, 2016 10:00 AM

There have been incidents where a kid has fallen into a pit with a Gorilla in it and nothing happened in it. Meanwhile, I haven't found enough of them where a kid is actually being hurt/killed by a gorilla when they fall in it.

Example A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-CMxMv34_A&feature=youtu.be

Example B: http://abcnews.go.com/US/gorilla-carries-year-boy-safety-fell-enclosure-1996/story?id=39479586

For those that are lazy, Jambo in example A waited for help, and clearly showed no signs of injuring this kid, and in Example B, back in '96, Binti Jua carried a kid who also fell to the doors where the zookeepers were close to help the kid.

The thing to keep in mind is that Gorillas are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. It wasn't a aligator pit, it wasn't a bear pit, it wasn't a lion's den, it wasn't any animal that we could have been sure that the kid would have been in danger. So no, I don't think the kill was justified, and while I'm not going to question the parenting here cause I just don't feel like it (if anything, the Zoo needs to make sure that falling into a pit of animals can not happen as MUCH as possible), it does need to be said that if a close eye was being kept on your child. a situation like this would not have happened at all anyway, regardless of any excuse. What happened to holding your kids hands so they don't stroll off when you're out and about in public?

I understand the "well rather safe than sorry" and the "what ifs" but the odds that the kid was safe regardless is pretty high. Hell, the vids/pictures kinda hint towards the kid not being in any immediate danger, because let's be honest, if the kid was in danger, he would have been dead the instant he fell into the pit.

Frequency May 31st, 2016 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowlet (Post 9264997)
I also just find it sad we place ourselves above another animal automatically.


THIS.

"Let's put ourselves, animals, above other animals!"

Makes me sad that an animal had to die because of, for all intensive purposes of conversation, an instance of lack of competence.

Omicron May 31st, 2016 10:45 AM

Let's not pretend we're animal behaviour experts here. Gorillas are known for infanticide, the gorilla could have gotten angry and killed the child at any second.

No one is more devastated about the results of all this than the zookeepeers that had to shoot him. They acted on what is the standard procedure for these events.

It is a tragedy. It is devastating. If you are interested, truly care and are able to, donate towards the conservation of gorillas. It will go a longer way.

Pebbles May 31st, 2016 12:27 PM

MKAY
hold on http://s9.favim.com/orig/131203/beautiful-boy-gif-iron-man-Favim.com-1111925.gif

somebody tell me this, because i cannot watch an animal getting shot, im high sensitive and when i see animal abuse i cry instantly, it touches me too much -_-
do you actually see the gorilla HURT the kid? as in bite, attack, throwing around in the air , punching, pulling etc?
what i just saw was basically the animal taking him for a rough swim.....

look i can understand they want to protect the HUMAN and all that .... but if the animal is not attacking the kid then why the fuck kill it?
animals do not mean any harm most of the time... the gorilla probably thought he got a new ''toy'' or maybe some ''living meat to play with'' but still
if it is not showing off agressive behaviour towards the kid, wtf is the problem

after all, it is not the gorillas fault or problem the fucking parents dont pay attention and the kid falls down or something

that fucking stupid ass zoo should of shoot something that put the animal to sleep but not kill it
@£$%$&*&(* actions like these make me mad
and here is why...

why is it RIGHT/OK
to shoot an animal dead like THIS, in zoo situations especially, when supposedly a human is in danger (yes i know gorillas are big animals that can easily kill you if they wanted) and it is all fine because as long as the human is safe and sound....
BUT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.... for example, when an animal is in danger because people are hunting them for their awesomeness, you are not allowed to save it and kill the human who is hunting them...
and then why, as result you fucking end up in jail for that?

just in general basically... why is it ok for us to kill animals just like that when they are a danger for humankind but the other way around, not many care that much for animals, to protect them from ACTUALL evilness and harm (aka humans).... :|

gorilla did not deserve to die, even if it did attack the kid
end of story. it is not the fault of the animal the kid ended up there, it is not like the gorilla grabbed the kid himself and got him down there right and then hurted him on purpose
so fuck you zoo people>:(

Mana May 31st, 2016 12:52 PM

@Hakumen, both previous examples are irrelevant really. The first one shows no contact and the second shows a maternal instinct kicking in.

Meanwhile, this Gorilla immediately rushed over and began to play quite violently. It may be play, but we humans are pretty fragile when compared to a muscular male gorilla.

If we waited for the Gorilla to get more violent we'd have ended up with two deaths. This solution was the only way to guarantee the child lived. Sad but true.


Edit/ @Electra,

Wait what? You'd rather the kid died over the gorilla? I can tell you disapprove of Zoos but that's not really the issue here. A child should ALWAYS take priority over a gorilla.

If we were talking hunter v gorilla perhaps I could find some common ground with your thinking, but... Wow.

Nah May 31st, 2016 12:56 PM

I'm not sure I see what's so sad and/or wrong about prioritizing a human life over an animal's life

I'll expand a bit on this later when I'm not on my phone at work

Pebbles May 31st, 2016 1:10 PM

if it is so important the kid lived
and the gorilla was all so bad and dangerous and so HAD to get killed
might as well have shot the parents there and then for basically making it happen and not paying attention, putting the kid in ''danger''


#iknowsoundsharshbutshootinganinnocentanimalisfuckingharshaswell

maccrash May 31st, 2016 1:19 PM

yeah, okay, it's very odd to me that people even want to attempt to make it seem like killing the gorilla was the wrong move when literally every other avenue would result in a heightened chance of the child dying. I do think it's right to prioritize a human's life over the gorilla's, especially in this instance, regardless of whether or not it's endangered or w/e; gorillas are aggressive.

I know it's, like, A Thing to say that this is animal abuse and that why would they kill it and "they were just taking the kid for a rough swim" or "it just thought it had a new toy!" but if you genuinely think that they should have risked this 3 year old or 4 year old or however old child getting killed just because they're maybe possibly perhaps not sure if this gorilla's actually going to do something to harm it, then I don't know what to tell you. perhaps it's time to prioritize. and of course it's easy to shift the blame to the parents but it's not physically possible for a parent to have their eyes on their child at every given moment. of course, like Fletch said earlier, it may be for the best to perhaps take a little extra care given that this is a busy zoo with a shitton of wild animals that are willing to Kill Things, but it's still again not actually an attainable goal to always be keeping a close watch. things slip away. people make mistakes. etc. some mistakes are worse than others.

basically, it's no-one's fault, and I cannot even fathom how someone could possibly, uh, "take the gorilla's side," for lack of a better phrase.

Omicron May 31st, 2016 1:19 PM

These ideas people have of zoos being evil and terrible places are so, so wrong. I'm going to have to construct a post about it when I get home in a couple of hours or start a new thread if this topic is getting too derailed.

The fact that people are classifying the more than capable staff of the zoo as inhumane/killers and accusing them of animal cruelty or murder because they were able to make a very hard decision under pressure is just sad.

Pebbles May 31st, 2016 1:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biogoji (Post 9264568)
Now i'm no expert but would they not have some kind of tranquillizer they could have used instead of lethal force.

basically. i am sure there is stuff that you can shoot as well, making it so the animal the animal falls asleep almost instantly,
they should and could of done that instead of killing it, end of story.
there was no need for the innocent kid to die of course, put in danger because of the zoo making it not secure enough and parents not paying attention but then be fair and realise, there was no need for an innocent animal to die as well. period.

animals are just as important as us humans. why is there less respect for them?
because we eat them? we are the boss? we own them?
oh please

if we humans had no guns, weapons etc to kill animals so easily like that, they would rule the damn world and i reckon the world would be much different, incl more fair.

animals have a brain too, a heart, they feel too. they breath. WE ARE THE SAME, we just look differently.
so much for equality


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.