Endangered Gorilla shot to protect young boy

[stinkynuts]

1)Zoos should not exist in the first place. Animals such as tigers, elephants, lions, and gorillas should not be prisoned for the entertainment of humans. They should be roaming free. This would not have happened if zoos were banned.

2)The zoo was negligent for allowing the possibility of a child entering the habitat. There should have been a secondary barrier. I've seen this kind of stupidity before. One time, I was at Niagara Falls, and a child around 9 years old was sitting dangerously on the fence around the Falls in front of her parents. Had she toppled over, she would have rolled down the cliff and into the Falls.

3)The parents were possibly negligent. The father has a long criminal history. If properly supervised, this young child may not have fallen in.

4)The child is at fault for wandering away and falling in. Had the law of natural selection been allowed to be enforced, this child, who strayed from his parents and safety, and recklessly entered a dangerous, unknown area, would never have survived and his genes for dangerous behaviour would not be allowed to survive.

5)The zoo needed to take immediate action, but a tranquilizer gun should have been the first choice, with the gun ready for immediate action thereafter in case the gorilla reacted violently.


Either way, the gorilla was the victim of human stupidity from:

a)A society that prisons animals for their entertainment
b)Zoo officials that failed to eliminate a potential saftety hazard
c)Idiotic parents that allowed a todlder to be near a dangerous situation unsupervised
d)A child whose recklessness would have ensured its own demise in a natural setting
e)Zoo workers who did not consider using non lethal force to take down the gorilla

 

[Frankfooter]

1)Zoos should not exist in the first place. Animals such as tigers, elephants, lions, and gorillas should not be prisoned for the entertainment of humans. They should be roaming free. This would not have happened if zoos were banned.

The only arguments for zoos is that they could be breeding zones for endangered species (but that's not very successful generally) or that it keeps more humans from feeling the desire to go tramping around in those endangered animals habitats or that maybe it helps educate the masses. None are great reasons.

Either way, the gorilla was the victim of human stupidity from:

Yup.

 

[Promo]

I cannot believe the number of fucking idiots that want to blame the parents. None of you have ever had kids, have you. Or have forgotten what it is like to have a toddler. You blink and they're off doing something dumb. It is physically impossible to keep an eye on them EVERY MOTHERFUCKING SECOND OF THEIR WAKING EXISTENCE. It just cannot be done. And yet, everyone rushes to judge the parents as if this tragedy is their fault. What about the fucking zoo, morons? Do you think, just maybe, perhaps, there is the faintest sliver of a possibility that they SHOULD NOT HAVE DESIGNED AN ENCLOSURE FOR A POWERFUL AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMAL THAT SOME FUCKING TODDLER CAN GET INTO SO EASILY?

Jesus Christ the derp is thick today.

The zoo is 100 fucking percent at fault, which is only mitigated (kinda sorta) by them making the right choice in a horrible situation that should not have happened... a situation that arose because of their fucking negligence.

Christ.

I agree 100%.

The press reports from the eyewitnesses are starting to come out now ...... every witness (so far) is saying that the mother was keeping a close watch on her child. The total time it took the child to cross the barrier and into the moat was seconds. Several witnesses heard the mother say: “He was right here! I took a pic and his hand was in my back pocket and then gone!” http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...protect-her-preschooler/ar-BBtGQ8h?li=AAggNb9

Several other supporting witness reports available on the net. According to the above report, one man who was standing right beside the place where the boy got through the barrier was not not able to grab him in time as the child moved too rapidly.

Some conflicting information: some say be crawled under the barrier, others saw he wiggled through it and others claim he flopped over the top (barrier was 3 feet tall).

Regarding the barriers: "Maynard (Zoo Director) told reporters the facility is inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and that the enclosure barriers exceed recommendations"

 

[Promo]

3)The parents were possibly negligent. The father has a long criminal history. If properly supervised, this young child may not have fallen in.

I'm calling bullshit
The name of the child and his family has not been released. Can you provide a link from a reputable source supporting your information about the father.
Can you provide any verification that the father was there?
What is the relevance of the background of the father and this incident? <-- I hope you are not stereotyping.

4)The child is at fault for wandering away and falling in. Had the law of natural selection been allowed to be enforced, this child, who strayed from his parents and safety, and recklessly entered a dangerous, unknown area, would never have survived and his genes for dangerous behaviour would not be allowed to survive.

Dumb statement. Do you honestly believe a 3/4 year old child has developed an intuitive understanding of "dangerous areas". Human children are naturally curious and he was in a fun place with his mom and several other kids, he had every right to believe he was safe. Do you have children?

5)The zoo needed to take immediate action, but a tranquilizer gun should have been the first choice, with the gun ready for immediate action thereafter in case the gorilla reacted violently.

Although there is much conflicting information on this topic, most experts seem to agree that it would take a fair amount of time for the animal to become unconscious. In the meantime his stress levels would have increased due to all the people screaming around the cage and his actions would not have been 100% predictable.

I watched a news reports last night where experienced gorilla handlers said that if the crowd remained quiet and out of sight that they were sure the gorilla would have remained defensively by the child's side until it fell asleep. It's really too bad that the zoo staff couldn't have moved the crowd away from the cage and your idea tried ( tranquilizer with back-up gun).

 

[cunning linguist]

The tranquilizer argument for zoo staff is as misinformed as the taser argument for cops; it's a specialized tool for specific situations and not the cure-all that Hollywood has led the masses to believe it is. You know how an anesthesiologist calculates dosage based on factors like body weight, metabolism and the last time you've eaten? Add marksmanship and you now have a better idea of tranquilizers work.

 

[IM469]

All second guessing but just out of curiosity - why wasn't a taser an alternative choice to the gun ? I would have thought it would certainly instantly rendered the gorilla incapacitated long enough to recover the child - or is the gorilla too big ? Just seems like a logical escalation of choices between life and death for the zoo to have on hand. Of course if the gorilla was tasered after the first child, Lord help the second one that drops in.

 

[fuji]

Animals such as tigers, elephants, lions, and gorillas should not be prisoned for the entertainment of humans.

Animals are property. They exist to benefit us.

 

[MissCroft]

Very sad. Gorillas are amazing and very much capable of caring and affection.

 

[MissCroft]

Apparently when they told Koko that Robin Williams died, she signed "Koko sad" and was teary-eyed and wouldn't eat for days.

 

[silk123]

I cannot believe the number of fucking idiots that want to blame the parents. None of you have ever had kids, have you. Or have forgotten what it is like to have a toddler. You blink and they're off doing something dumb. It is physically impossible to keep an eye on them EVERY MOTHERFUCKING SECOND OF THEIR WAKING EXISTENCE. It just cannot be done. And yet, everyone rushes to judge the parents as if this tragedy is their fault. What about the fucking zoo, morons? Do you think, just maybe, perhaps, there is the faintest sliver of a possibility that they SHOULD NOT HAVE DESIGNED AN ENCLOSURE FOR A POWERFUL AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMAL THAT SOME FUCKING TODDLER CAN GET INTO SO EASILY?

Jesus Christ the derp is thick today.

The zoo is 100 fucking percent at fault, which is only mitigated (kinda sorta) by them making the right choice in a horrible situation that should not have happened... a situation that arose because of their fucking negligence.

Christ.

I raised 4 kids, the mother is 100% to blame, I couldn't bring my kid to the zoo and tell my wife - sorry honey your kid ended up in the Gorilla cage (ooops Sorry my bad), she would throw me in the cage. There is no excuse, parents need to keep their eye on their kid especially in public places.

 

[stinkynuts]

I'm calling bullshit
The name of the child and his family has not been released. Can you provide a link from a reputable source supporting your information about the father.
Can you provide any verification that the father was there?
What is the relevance of the background of the father and this incident? <-- I hope you are not stereotyping.


Dumb statement. Do you honestly believe a 3/4 year old child has developed an intuitive understanding of "dangerous areas". Human children are naturally curious and he was in a fun place with his mom and several other kids, he had every right to believe he was safe. Do you have children?


Although there is much conflicting information on this topic, most experts seem to agree that it would take a fair amount of time for the animal to become unconscious. In the meantime his stress levels would have increased due to all the people screaming around the cage and his actions would not have been 100% predictable.

I watched a news reports last night where experienced gorilla handlers said that if the crowd remained quiet and out of sight that they were sure the gorilla would have remained defensively by the child's side until it fell asleep. It's really too bad that the zoo staff couldn't have moved the crowd away from the cage and your idea tried ( tranquilizer with back-up gun).

Here is a link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-emerges-father-lengthy-criminal-history.html

Seen here for the first time is mother Michelle Gregg, 32, who has four children by father Deonne Dickerson, 36, a man who, Daily Mail Online can disclose, has a lengthy criminal history.
Criminal filings against Dickerson stretch over a decade and include burglary, firearms offences, drug trafficking, criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and kidnap.


The point is simple. If the parents are criminals, they probably didn't win parent of the year awards. Their child is a product of their parenting.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-lengthy-criminal-history.html#ixzz4AFtaGmNa



Also, you can do a google search "criminal past gorilla parents cincinatti"

Dumb statement. Do you honestly believe a 3/4 year old child has developed an intuitive understanding of "dangerous areas"

The child should have a natural, born instinct about what is dangerous and not. By definition, you can't develop something that is natural or intuitive. Natural instinct is what allowed species to survive. For example, in humans, babies have a natural fear of heights, and will not climb over a glass surface that is raised because it can sense that it is dangerous. If a child recklessly does something very dangerous without any fear and dies because of it, it is natural selection at work.

This toddler not only didn't have a natural fear of heights, nor a fear of wandering into a tight, unknown place, he also ignored his mother's command that he was not to go there.


Witnesses said the child had expressed a desire to get into the enclosure and he climbed over a 3-foot (1-meter) barrier, falling 15 feet into a moat.

"The little boy himself had already been talking about wanting to ... get in the water," O'Connor said. "The mother's like, 'No, you're not, no, you're not.'"


This is the same child who would probably grow up to do something reckless that could kill himself or someone else. Because of his extremely poor natural judgement and inability to naturally sense potential danger, he most likely would have been a harm to society, and natural selection should have taken its course. Instead, the gorilla paid with its life. Unfair. Even if the kid had no natural instinct that squeezing through a tight space, down a small cliff, into a moat, and into the cage of a 500 pound gorilla was probably not a good idea, he should have listened to his mother. If anything at all, he should have been better behaved in a public setting. At this age he should know right from wrong. In all these years, with millions of kids visiting the zoo, he was the only would stupid, reckless, and disobedient enough to do such a dumb thing. Would your child do that, even after you told him not to?


All in all, this could have been prevented. It's a senseless loss that was the culmination of human selfishness and stupidity.

 

[silk123]

Not only is the Mother negligent, the Cincinnati police are reviewing circumstances around the kid ending up in a Gorilla exhibit - http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/us/gorilla-shot-harambe/, they might lay charges on the Mother.

 

[Promo]

The point is simple. If the parents are criminals, they probably didn't win parent of the year awards. Their child is a product of their parenting.

I've always liked your posts, you seem level headed, decent and thoughtful. But respectfully I really feel on this issue you are stereotyping, jumping to conclusions and ignoring facts in evidence.

My feedback:

1) I'll certainly concede that Dad has a bad past. In your article it states "in recent years he appears to have turned his life around to become the proud father of four". <--Why do you assume he is a bad father?

2) You state "If the parents are criminals...". <-- show me proof that the mother has a criminal record. Nothing in your URL, nor the first 5 I checked in your google search.

3) You didn't answer my question; was the father at the zoo at the time of the incident? <-- Evidence provided so far says no. Why are you laying blame on him?

4) I don't believe your conclusion regarding the criminal father = reckless son is valid. Regardless, you've provided NO proof that it applies to this child. The child didn't disable or break anything. He easily bypassed the barrier in seconds - not much of a barrier. The picture I saw shows the bushes right up against the moat edge, the child might not have realized the fall was even there.

5) Why are you ignoring the eyewitness reports that said the mother was indeed watching her children and that the total time was measured in seconds. You indicated that mom had already firmly said no. There were other adults at the barrier when the kid got across, they didn't have time to react either. <-- what do you feel a normal person could have done differently?

6) Why are you ignoring the fact that the police have decided not to pursue charges. I couldn't find any info on Children's Aid (or equivalent) getting involved either.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you give me no choice but judge your opinion as nothing more than nasty stereotyping and jumping to conclusions.

The child should have a natural, born instinct about what is dangerous and not. By definition, you can't develop something that is natural or intuitive. Natural instinct is what allowed species to survive. For example, in humans, babies have a natural fear of heights, and will not climb over a glass surface that is raised because it can sense that it is dangerous. If a child recklessly does something very dangerous without any fear and dies because of it, it is natural selection at work.

This toddler not only didn't have a natural fear of heights, nor a fear of wandering into a tight, unknown place, he also ignored his mother's command that he was not to go there.

C'mon! The kid was at the zoo with his family. The zoo is a fun place. Nice day, interesting sights, big kitty cats, water features that look like a water park, etc. The kid only senses joy and pleasure around him, no tension at at. Lots of visually stimulating sights to invite his attention. Being 4 years old he can't read warning signs. No, he would NOT have a natural, born instinct that a zoo is dangerous.

This is the same child who would probably grow up to do something reckless that could kill himself or someone else. Because of his extremely poor natural judgement and inability to naturally sense potential danger, he most likely would have been a harm to society, and natural selection should have taken its course. Instead, the gorilla paid with its life. Unfair. Even if the kid had no natural instinct that squeezing through a tight space, down a small cliff, into a moat, and into the cage of a 500 pound gorilla was probably not a good idea, he should have listened to his mother. If anything at all, he should have been better behaved in a public setting. At this age he should know right from wrong. In all these years, with millions of kids visiting the zoo, he was the only would stupid, reckless, and disobedient enough to do such a dumb thing.

He's only 3/4 years old!! Jes*s, are you a child physiologist? Have you met the kid in question? That is a ton of nasty comments on your part. I see you've exaggerated the gorilla up 100 lbs.

Now, I'm going to stereotype: Are you really old? Do you hate children - you know those nasty, noisey, dirty little undisciplined brats? Did you have a super-strict childhood where you weren't allowed to play, experiment and take risks?

 

[Promo]

Not only is the Mother negligent, the Cincinnati police are reviewing circumstances around the kid ending up in a Gorilla exhibit - http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/us/gorilla-shot-harambe/, they might lay charges on the Mother.

And here's a statement, also from CNN from today saying Police are not at this time pressing charges. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/30/us/gorilla-shot-harambe/

Of course the Police will investigate. As will Child's Aid and other organizations. Hopefully emotion is set aside, the petitions ignored and we get a balanced and fair assessment of the root causes. If indeed Mom is found negligent, she should be charged.

 

[LeeHelm]

Very sad. Gorillas are amazing and very much capable of caring and affection.

That is an orangutan.

 

[stinkynuts]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Promo...

There was no report of the father being there, but that is irrelevant. His has a major influence on the child's behaviour...

Only 100 lbs? I took a wild guess, but am glad I came close...

 

[brualex33]

And this is another reason why we shouldn't have zoos. :blue:
Time to end the freak shows.

 

[GPIDEAL]

That is an orangutan.

Yes, but that could look like Chloe Croft when she was just a tot. :adoration:

 

[fuji]

Let's assume the worst of the mother. Suppose it comes out that she encouraged her child to climb in to the gorilla enclosure. So what?

Shooting the gorilla was STILL the right call. The life of a child is worth more than any animal, even if the child misbehaved and had negligent parents.

 

[GPIDEAL]

1)Zoos should not exist in the first place. Animals such as tigers, elephants, lions, and gorillas should not be prisoned for the entertainment of humans. They should be roaming free. This would not have happened if zoos were banned.

2)The zoo was negligent for allowing the possibility of a child entering the habitat. There should have been a secondary barrier. I've seen this kind of stupidity before. One time, I was at Niagara Falls, and a child around 9 years old was sitting dangerously on the fence around the Falls in front of her parents. Had she toppled over, she would have rolled down the cliff and into the Falls.

3)The parents were possibly negligent. The father has a long criminal history. If properly supervised, this young child may not have fallen in.

4)The child is at fault for wandering away and falling in. Had the law of natural selection been allowed to be enforced, this child, who strayed from his parents and safety, and recklessly entered a dangerous, unknown area, would never have survived and his genes for dangerous behaviour would not be allowed to survive.

5)The zoo needed to take immediate action, but a tranquilizer gun should have been the first choice, with the gun ready for immediate action thereafter in case the gorilla reacted violently.


Either way, the gorilla was the victim of human stupidity from:

a)A society that prisons animals for their entertainment
b)Zoo officials that failed to eliminate a potential saftety hazard
c)Idiotic parents that allowed a todlder to be near a dangerous situation unsupervised
d)A child whose recklessness would have ensured its own demise in a natural setting
e)Zoo workers who did not consider using non lethal force to take down the gorilla

Not all wild animals are put into captivity. Most are free I hope to think. Zoos are bigger and their habitats more hospitable. Perhaps they can serve to educate the masses on the importance of preserving wildlife. Many such animals live longer than their counterparts in the wild. Poachers like to chop off the hands of gorillas I believe.

In any event, if they shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer, it might have instantly gone ape shit before the drug takes full effect, in which case, the child could've died in an instant. So they took it out while it was relatively docile under its own control.