Gorilla killed at Cincinnati zoo sparks public outcry

[Nah]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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​

 

[Desert Stream~]

I knew this would become a thread. honestly, I have to side with the animals on this one. Humans seem to take priority over everything, and it's just not fair :p
Also how does a 4 year old get past all that?!?! I could see maybe a 12 year old, or older, because they are smart, but they wouldn't go into a gorilla pen.
So, I blame the zoo.

Also, I could see a parent take their eyes off at a playground, but at a zoo, there's tons of people, and animals, almost anyone could get lost. I blame the parents too.

 

[maccrash]

I hope we all realize that we're talking about a four year old kid at risk compared to a very heavy gorilla. The gorilla could've done something as "innocent" as squeeze the kid a bit too hard when dragging him and it would've shattered several bones.

yes this was another thing I forgot to mention in my post. this shit could go severely wrong if so much as an ounce more pressure is applied on the gorilla's part.

 

[Astinus]

When I watched the news segment on this, there was video of the gorilla dragging the child through the moat at high speed by the child's leg. Having a silverback gorilla (who weighs up to 400 lbs, is pure muscle, and is a wild animal) drag a toddler (who weighs around 40lbs, is uncoordinated, and is a young human) through water by the leg definitely qualifies as a "dangerous" situation.

Tranquilizing the gorilla would have taken far too long and would have agitated the animal even more, posing more danger to the child. Also note that the gorilla ignored the zookeepers recalling him away from the child (while the other gorillas in the enclosure listened to the recalls). The zookeepers took whatever steps they could to protect the child while keeping the gorilla alive. Unfortunately, the situation escalated to the point where both of those options were no longer viable, and the zookeepers had to make a choice. And that choice, as it should be, was to protect the child.

 

[Omicron]

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 to 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.​

You are terribly misinformed. The fastest acting tranquilizers would take an average of 7-8 minutes to knock down a male adult gorilla. Nowhere near instantly. That's added to the point that a lot of sedatives make animals react violently. That would have been, more likely than not, a death sentence for the kid.

 

[Pebbles]

This is not how tranquilizers work. They would've pissed off the Gorilla and it would've killed the kid, which would then result in the Gorilla dying, anyway.

so when a vet needs to operate on an animal, they give them stuff that first makes them go crazy and agressive and then they eventually fall asleep?
i thought people nowadays got strong enough stuff that makes an animal, even big ones, fall asleep just like that......​

 

[Sheep]

Officials should've gone down and attempted to take away the child from the gorilla.

These are very dangerous, muscular animals that can easily be provoked by human interaction. Disrupting the situation and potentially aggravating or scaring the gorilla would've not only further endangered the life of the child but officials/keepers as well. I don't think that would've been a good decision at all -- there is no telling how the animal would have reacted. Similar situation with tranquilizers which, unlike in movies, don't take immediate effect.

Ultimately I agree with Mana and Razor Leaf. It's very unfortunate that it came down to this but I believe zookeepers made the best decision to help save the child's life. It was a massively difficult choice where they were under pressure and had to think quickly. You can fault the parents as much as you'd like (and I'm absolutely not denying they're at least somewhat at fault) but zoo enclosures, housing many potentially dangerous animals, should be kept as safe and impenetrable as possible. No one should be able to get in and no animal should be able to get out.

 

[Omicron]

so when a vet needs to operate on an animal, they give them stuff that first makes them go crazy and agressive and then they eventually fall asleep?
i thought people nowadays got strong enough stuff that makes an animal, even big ones, fall asleep just like that......​

IV sedatives work very differently from intra muscular tranquilizers.

 

[Pebbles]

No one should be able to get in and no animal should be able to get out.

true
when i am in a zoo , i always think;
i am not safe here AT ALL

for example, when i look where lions are hold in where i live, just lying about outside in a ''cage'' where they can freely walk etc
but because there is ''water' in between humans and the animal , we are safe? i doubt that
if the animal wanted, they would easily make a big jump and just grab you anyway as there is no fence really protecting us to get in touch with the animal

but the cages outside have to be open, wide and big because other wise we cannot enjoy ''watching the animals'' as much :|​

 

[Melody]

In essence the blame is shared in this case.

Zoo: Is guilty of not ensuring their enclosure is safe against children properly.
Parents: Are equally guilty of letting such a Young Child out of their supervision radius.

I get that children are unpredictable. I get that children can lie. I get that sometimes parents and even zookeepers are not super people with super concentration able to keep attention on the kids present. I get that children can be innovative and very intelligent in ways they get around restrictions. But I can't help but wonder if perhaps too many things broke down at once. The child likely saw a golden opportunity in its mind to "Go see the Gorilla!". The child did not have any other sense to know that the Gorilla might not be friendly!

So you can't blame the child!. All Adults Present were responsible for this tragedy, and it would have only taken ONE ADULT a moment to speak up or have their eyes on the child enough to know what was going on to let the Parents themselves or a member of the Zoo staff know what was going on. Heck even shouting or something to get the child's attention could have done well, or shouting to get the attention of Zoo staff. But even Zoo Staff probably might not have been fast enough to get to the child in time.

The problem lies in the fact that the enclosure was not secured sufficiently against an Unauthorized Human Incursion. These enclosures should be impervious to children and always be secured against unauthorized persons from entering them in any way. The article itself has noted that similar incidents have indeed occurred in the past. These incidents fortunately did not end in tragedy, because the beasts were in fact gentle in those cases, but that doesn't mean they always are. They are wild animals...even when in captivity. The Zoo staff did what they had to, killing the gorilla to save the child from it.

There simply wasn't time to think twice! The child was in immediate danger from the Gorilla, likely he could have drowned and died due to being dragged through the water. I don't blame the Zookeepers for using lethal force. In the situation it was likely the only way to make the gorilla STOP harming the child immediately. There is no question that the Gorilla maybe could have been saved if there had been time for a keeper to "negotiate" with the animal. But there wasn't. I don't feel like there was any time to save the gorilla, if there had been, it would have been done.

 

[Sirfetch’d]

I usually don't comment here but this thread (and event in general) has me outraged. I want to preface this post by saying that I 100% believe that every life is valuable and that includes animals. That said, in no way should we even be debating which life is more important here. This is a 4 year old CHILD. By choosing to save the boy, the zoo is not saying that the gorilla's life is not important, but just doing the right thing that almost all of us would do. The poor gorilla did not ask for this, it did not ask to be put into captivity, it did not plan to wake up that day and be killed, but the fact of the matter is--due to negligence from humans, it had to have it's life cut short. Is it a guarantee that the Gorilla would have harmed the child? No, but it is better to be safe than sorry. What if the Gorilla had killed the child here? We would not only have a dead Gorilla but we would have a poor innocent child dead, countless lawsuits, many other displaced animals because the entire facility would probably be shut down. Despite how saddening this thing is, the right decision was made by the zookeepers. This whole thing is a tragedy and if more precautions were taken by the zoo itself(who deemed this place safe? They should be investigated) and if the parents had just been more responsible, this entire debacle could have been avoided. The only thing we can do now is hope that this serves as a lesson for all other parents who choose to take their kids to zoos and the zoos themselves to provide safer habitats that visitors have 0 way of getting into.

 

[Cay]

I don't think some of y'all understand..... gorillas are UNBELIEVABLY STRONG. there's lions, tigers, and gorillas (oh my). i was reading stuff about harambes zookeepers and NONE of them fuck with the gorillas. feeding time? stay 20 feet away. gorillas are SERIOUS BUSINESS. even if he were to be tranquilized:

A: It wouldnt take effect for around 5 minutes
B: Given A, when he would be shot with one, we would have a very angry gorrila on our hands. His reaction could kill that child in seconds.

And yes, a human life is much more important than a gorilla life. That child may grow up to create the cure for cancer or something, and the gorilla could just grow up to be...a gorilla.

I also add that it's not 100% certain that Harambe was attempting to shelter the child. Gorillas are incredibly smart (look up koko's kitten) and could be taking that child exactly where he needed to be. Plus, adding to Chase's statement, we'd have a large ongoing lawsuit on our hands. If the zoo were to be shut down in the case that the boy was killed, that would mean that all the other animals in the zoo would now have to be relocated (which can be dangerous as well). In the spur of the moment, this was the ultimate best decision they could make.

 

[Astinus]

I doubt they thought twice about shooting the thing.

The zookeepers didn't run into the enclosure with guns blazing, glad to finally shoot an animal that they cared for. They did everything else in their power first to get the child out of the enclosure without having to hurt or enrage the gorilla.

They recalled the gorillas to get them away from the child. The gorilla didn't respond to the recall.

The zookeepers could have tranquilized the gorilla. Except tranquilizers would only give the gorilla a rush of adrenaline, which would have made him more angry and more willing to hurt the child. As others have said in this thread, tranquilizers could take around five minutes (or more) to take effect. That's an additional five minutes where an enraged 400-pound wild animal is swinging a child around through water and across concrete.

The zookeepers watched as the gorilla dragged the child through the water by his leg. You have a 400-pound animal swinging a small child around by the leg in water. In the grande scheme of things, humans are always going to put other humans--especially human children--above other life forms, including animals. The zookeepers had to save this child in the fastest way possible, and that meant that the gorilla had to be killed.

 

[Her]

I think everything that can be said in this thread has been said ad nauseum so don't expect anything new here.

- Whether or not the gorilla should have been in the zoo in the first place is an entirely different discussion and not relevant. If the gorilla hadn't been brought to this zoo, then it obviously wouldn't have happened. But it was there and that's simply the fact of the matter. The emphasis should be placed on the fact that zoos in their current state still exist and thus it is up to the zoo to protect humans from the animals enclosed within them. The ethical dilemma of whether commercial zoos should exist is really an altogether different topic.

- When we view it on a worldwide scale, sure, human lives are worth no more than the lives of any other animal. There is no list inscribed on the mountains by Gaea stating the order of worth a species has. We aren't equal, because for better or worse humans have supremacy over the planet, but our lives are not inherently worth more. That's kinda irrelevant, but it's not the point I'm trying to make. Relatively speaking, a human life is worth more to other humans than a gorilla or any other animal, with perhaps the exception of dogs. Particularly when you factor in the emotions that will arise when a child is in danger - we will do anything to protect our children, end of story. As much as we want to let our romanticisation of non-farm animals get in the way, we will always value our children over other species regardless of whether it is ethical or not.

- I do not blame the parents or the child on this one. Yes, it's the responsibility of a parent to keep an eye on their child anywhere, especially in a place like this, but it is chiefly the responsibility of the zoo itself to provide a place of safety for those involved and the fact that an unknowing four year old could slip past their 'defences' is pretty fucking pathetic. It is the job of the zoo to account for the fact that people will make mistakes and prevent those mistakes from turning into something as tragic as this. Whether the shooting should have happened is one thing, the biggest issue is that the option had to come about in the first place.

- The staff were justified in eliminating the threat in the quickest way possible. Other people in this thread have detailed why tranquilisers were not an effective option. You've all seen the video - regardless of its intentions, the gorilla was dragging the child around and was a severe danger to the child's wellbeing. If the child had died, or simply injured, not only would the gorilla have been killed immediately or put down afterwards, the hysteria would have heightened to unbelievable worldwide proportions. Perhaps the tranquilisers would have been effective. But they were not willing to risk a person's life to prove a point and so they took the correct course of action. The zookeepers should not be demonised by the public for doing their job and what must have been an especially traumatic action for those close to the gorilla, whether or not it should have been there in the first place. The blame should be put squarely on those in charge of running the place, not the zookeepers.

 

[bobandbill]

To bring in a different point, I wonder how the kid is and will be? A lot has been made about who is at fault, should they have shot, etc, but I can't say I've seen much news at all about the kid beyond 'he's not dead/is okay'. And he wanted to go see a gorilla - a harmless desire - and the tragic result is that it is dead. I imagine he may have some guilt later about the event, even though he is just a young curious kid who wouldn't have possibly anticipated such consequences from him ending up in the enclosure. On top of that having your parents subjected to such scrutiny - rightly or wrongly - may have an intriguing effect as well...

 

[Omicron]

To bring in a different point, I wonder how the kid is and will be? A lot has been made about who is at fault, should they have shot, etc, but I can't say I've seen much news at all about the kid beyond 'he's not dead/is okay'. And he wanted to go see a gorilla - a harmless desire - and the tragic result is that it is dead. I imagine he may have some guilt later about the event, even though he is just a young curious kid who wouldn't have possibly anticipated such consequences from him ending up in the enclosure. On top of that having your parents subjected to such scrutiny - rightly or wrongly - may have an intriguing effect as well...

Apparently there are attempts to doxx the family. People are terrible.