Should've the gorilla been shot?

[zoltanspawn]

It's so easy to "know" the right thing to do when the responsibility and consequences for decisions don't fall on you.

Perhaps we are all a little guilty of this.

It's too bad the gorilla had to be sacrificed, but the experts say silver backed gorilla are violent and unpredictable. The zoo did the only thing they could do.

But I think as long as we don't remain inflexible in the face of compelling counter-arguments, there's no harm in advocating a strong opinion.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think it is fair to second guess those that had to make the choice.


I do blame the zoo for not having something to keep kids out.

The "experts" had certified the enclosure as meeting standards.

They should be held criminally liable for negligent endangerment of toddlers and civilly liable for all the future revenue the zoo could expect from the dead gorilla.

 

[Kulindahr]

It was certainly neglectful. I've never raised a child so I can only imagine how difficult it is to know at all times the precise location of one's children every second of every hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

At the age of four, my younger siblings were kept on a leash when in crowded public places. Knowing "at all times the precise location of one's children every second of every hour, 24 hours a day 7 days a week" isn't necessary; there are simple precautions that can be taken.

For example, I've been to zoos where toddlers aren't allowed to run about on their own feet in the first place.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, but there were other ways, right?

They could have planned for such a problem with the zoo staff and primate experts.

They could have tranquilized the gorilla.

Or they could have built effective barriers in the first place.

Or they could have decided that exhibiting animals in this manner was the wrong way to interact with nature.

Were ANY of these a better choice?

Tranquilizing was not an option. The fastest-acting tranquilizer would have taken at least twenty seconds to show any effect, leaving a gorilla angry at being pierced with a sharp object twenty seconds to be violent -- with a toddler within reach.

I go with "built effective barriers in the first place". At the zoo I used to visit as a kid, getting into any enclosure would have required scaling a twenty-foot fence if it was possible at all, and the only thing that might have squeezed through any of those fences would have been a chipmunk.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes..evil..and stupid. Destroying the planet that gives you life is stupid...and the stupid will not inherit the earth. The ultimate stupidity is destroying the one thing that brings you life....and for what? Greed.

This reminds me of my older brother's definition of humans: the only animal not to make use of the brains God gave us.

 

[gsdx]

Or they could have tranquilized Harambe and kept their rifles handy in case the sedation didn't work. The gorilla had already tolerated the hysteria of the crowd for several minutes. A few minutes more are entirely justified if it meant protecting the gorilla.

But what would Harambe have done from the moment of being shot and the moment that the tranque kicked in? Nobody knows, nor will we ever, but would the death of the boy have been worth saving the gorilla? Zoo animals are not domesticated. Even pet dogs have been known to attack and kill their owners. Wild animals are even less predictable.

I think the zoo officials did the only thing they could do to make certain the boy was saved. No matter whose fault it was, it happened. An animal died, but at least the parents and family don't have to face a funeral for their son.

 

[Kulindahr]

Either way this is another Animal that didn't need to die but ended up so because of human incompetence.

Yes -- specifically, the incompetence of the people who certified the enclosure as meeting standards. I say we find them then toss them into the gorilla enclosure, and no rescues with guns allowed.

That was my thought, too. It would have been a better thing to do, perhaps, and I've seen articles about protesters arguing that tranques should have been used, but those people probably haven't seen wildlife videos of wild animals, especially powerful animals like Harambe, don't just get stuck with the needle and fall down. It takes time and the animal goes nuts. It takes time for those tranquillisers to work. The boy would have been dead long before that.

Yes. A talking head last night stated that the strongest tranquilizer would take twenty seconds to show any effect at all. And large aggressive animals often react to the bewilderment of feeling themselves going all sleepy with, well, aggressiveness. So twenty seconds for the gorilla to be angry at being pierced, then a minute or more of acting out before falling asleep. Probable result: toddler paté.

 

[Kahaih]

For what it's worth, Harambe was born and raised in captivity. Harambe was never a 'wild' animal.

 

[Kulindahr]

For me...I would just love to hear someone say for once..."I was an irresponsible fuck..there is no excuse for what I did"....instead of making excuses....

Only then would I trust the person.....I think people who avoid taking responsibility for anything are generally treacherous with fragile egos and would rather blame someone else for their own actions....

I was always astounded by people who were baffled at all the precautions I took when building the safe beach access to a favorite beach, as conservation work. They didn't seem to get that I considered that if a new retaining embankment wasn't completed and stabilized before the end of a day then it would be my responsibility if someone got hurt.

Of COURSE it would also be the responsibility of the idiot who decided to mess around with an incomplete embankment instead of sticking to the area meant to be walked on, but that didn't take away from my responsibility for providing a situation an idiot could use to get himself hurt. So in all my projects, I always try to imagine the stupidest thing someone might do, and prepare against it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Or they could have tranquilized Harambe and kept their rifles handy in case the sedation didn't work. The gorilla had already tolerated the hysteria of the crowd for several minutes. A few minutes more are entirely justified if it meant protecting the gorilla.

And it's worth counter-balancing the suggestions in this thread that Harambe was behaving in a threatening manner. In fact, there are plenty of experts who note Harambe's protective nature. He dragged the child in response to the idiot screams from the spectators, not as a display of aggression to the kid. He held the kid's hand, and was shot dead sitting quietly next to him.

Best point yet.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Kahaih]

For what it's worth, Harambe was born and raised in captivity. Harambe was never a 'wild' animal.

Furthermore, Harambe was produced to be on display – much like common livestock. He wasn't the first and only gorilla to come about this way, nor will he be the last. His replacement/backup was likely already chosen long before his demise.

 

[Taralen]

No, but at the time it was the sensible choice to make, and judging from the video that's in the media.

The gorilla was acting very peculiar with the child, being protective one minute, then slinging him across the river the next and vise versa.

In hindsight, the mother should have watched and supervised her child better.

The zoo should have had a more secure system so that children don't fall in.

Workers should have attempted to tranquilize the gorilla anyways, and if it stated tripping due to being shot with the tranquilizer gun, then go on to more rash options.

 

[TickTockMan]

To give a better idea of what happened. Sorry I am not sure how to make the video show.


https://www.facebook.com/kytxcbs19/videos/10154254488169640/

 

[zoltanspawn]

^Absolutely mind-boggling that the only protection Harambe had from humans was a barrier 3 feet high.

 

[nycguydowntown]

Why can't they use tranquilizer gun ?
Zoo business should have these guns prepared

yeah it would have taken too long to take that big guy down---and he would have been pissed off getting shot----and would have taken it out on the kid.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

The quarters for the gorilla were satisfactory, after all a strong agile ape couldn't escape. Here try this. Like riding the roller coaster at Kings Dominion , you must be this tall 56" for example to enter the view of the apes in natural setting. I mean if 7-11 can post signs like no one under 16 allowed inside without a adult and limit 2 why not a zoo?
Fuck this happened to a kid years ago with the ape in Great Britain. Face it if that muscular tree twining ape couldn't get out and only a toddler could fall in then the problem is with the amount of kids a parent brings in. Does a fucking 4 yr old really need to swim with the chimps???
He told his mom he was
I got 3 toto cairn terrier dogs and man I lose track and they do crazy things when they want to like chase some thing I don't even see, I can't keep up
You can't regulate and protect everything unless you are a scared Republican you can only use caution, so limit this shit wads and kids will be kids so get them oout of there
People otherwise will go postal but we are talking kids

 

[TickTockMan]

^Absolutely mind-boggling that the only protection Harambe had from humans was a barrier 3 feet high.

Out of curiosity does anyone know how tall the kid is?

 

[Kabluey]

Plenty of public buildings and places end up with strange compromises and barriers in place to stop stupid human behaviour.
The tough thing about people is that some are persistent and will overcome almost any obstacle to be able to endanger themselves. Not just toddlers.

There are people climbing radio aerials, hanging from cranes and swinging from bridge girders, when any one of them fall, people start accusing the owners of negligence.
That's not really fair.

 

[Telstra]

yeah it would have taken too long to take that big guy down---and he would have been pissed off getting shot----and would have taken it out on the kid.

From what i've seen on the National Geographic,
all the big animals shot by tranquilizer did not "taken out" on anything.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Out of curiosity does anyone know how tall the kid is?

I don't think they've said. The barrier was 3 ft high but I've seen some tiny buggers scale some very, very large items. Your basic toddler can do three feet fairly quickly provided half a toe-hold and gumption. One of my sisters managed to get on the roof of a barn, via a tree branch from a tree off to the side of the property, I believe, and she wasn't yet in school. And no, I wasn't involved in the least, I like to think I watch children a hell of a lot more competently than that. Anyone under elementary school age or with bad impulse control should be leashed or held in high traffic areas because it's easier for them to make a run for it. I wouldn't trust anyone under 5 to not be holding someone's hand at all times. Preferably both hands are occupied in a line, harder for them to get distracted and slip away.

-one second, did they say he went through or went over? I thought he went over, but I'm seeing something else say through. If it was through both zoo and parents could stand to be held liable. If it was over, just the parents.

Mind you, I don't like how zoo's are situated and run currently anyway. Too much stress on the animals.