Cincy Zoo kills critically endangered gorilla to save boy

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Which was the best one considering that time was of the essence.

- - - Updated - - -



A gorilla is easily capable of killing a human child even if it doesn't intend to, given their physical strength.

And so are humans.... /shrug

[Stormdash]

And so are humans.... /shrug

So... they should have shot the child because of the danger he posed of accidentally maiming or killing the gorilla?

[Syfy]

Americans...

[ParanoiD84]

Older video of a boy falling into a gorilla pit, what did the gorilla do? protect the boy just like it seems this one was trying to do before they gunned him down.

[Hammerfest]

Except this one was watching over the kid, dragging the kid is the way they do it to theirs. The only reason I saw the gorilla be nervous was because of all the screaming idiots in the crowd, so he kept trying to move away from them.

Doesn't matter. Apes have been known to go berserk over the smallest minutia. The gorilla's advocates are all "but this" and "but that." The truth of the matter is that the child was in significant danger and to ensure the safety of said child at that point, the best option was to put the gorilla down.

[HAcoreRD]

The lack of concern for human life is not surprising in the least bit, and proof that we really are losing our way to suggest a child should be killed to save an animal. This simple lack of compassion for a fellow human life is abhorrent but makes sense in this unemphatic society we are brewing.

This is why we can't have nice things, we don't respect each other at all, and would rather see a child be dead then to face the uncomfortable truth that the reason we can't move forward is that some people just don't want to.

Let me try and clear the fog for you. The Gorilla is....WAS part of an Endangered species.

en·dan·gered spe·cies
noun
noun: endangered species; plural noun: endangered species

a species of animal or plant that is seriously at risk of extinction.
"special collections of rare and endangered species from Crete"

That said, there's more interest in not killing another species off the planet, especially since this situation was avoidable.

Furthermore noone is outright saying "kill the kid". The gorilla was not presently hostile to the child, so many feel it was a safe bet to attempt sedating the animal. If lethal was ready, why not have someone tranq it, and if it tries to hurt/kill the child, THEN kill it?

What's the argument there "It might be too hard to hit?" It's a big ass gorilla. If you miss then shame on your poor aim.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

So... they should have shot the child because of the danger he posed of accidentally maiming or killing the gorilla?

Are you crazy?

[PizzaSHARK]

Yeah. I ate an apple for dessert, too

What, couldn't even spring for a watermelon or orange? Psh.

[muto]

If my dog was going to kill another human I'd shoot it myself.

He wasn't going to kill the boy. The kid was with the gorilla for 10 minutes and the most it did was pull him around in the moat. A male adult gorilla is probably stronger than John Cena or Triple H. If the gorilla wanted to kill him he would have done it in a matter of seconds.

[Kmids]

Poor gorilla, kept captive and then killed by his keepers. Didn't look to me like the kid was in danger at all, how the hell was he able to get in there in the first place?
Fail Zoo on all levels!

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

He wasn't going to kill the boy. The kid was with the gorilla for 10 minutes and the most it did was pull him around in the moat. A male adult gorilla is probably stronger than John Cena or Triple H. If the gorilla wanted to kill him he would have done it in a matter of seconds.

Agreed, I also think the article said it was longer than 10 minutes... why people think he was about to harm the child is beyond me.

[ItachiZaku]

People that didn't learn what they know about animal tranquilizers watching fictional TV/movies. The "why not tranq him?" people are the equivalent of the "why didn't the cops shoot him in the knee/shoot the gun out of his hand?" people -- consummately ignorant of the subject about which they are trying to signal expertise.

Oh, I'm not a "Tranq him" person, I mean, that'd just piss homie off initially. But should have just taken the L on that kid and moved on.

[Stormdash]

Are you crazy?

Was trying to follow the logic that implied the boy was a danger to the gorilla or some moral equivalence between them.

Let me try and clear the fog for you. The Gorilla is....WAS part of an Endangered species.

en·dan·gered spe·cies
noun
noun: endangered species; plural noun: endangered species

a species of animal or plant that is seriously at risk of extinction.
"special collections of rare and endangered species from Crete"

That said, there's more interest in not killing another species off the planet, especially since this situation was avoidable.

Furthermore noone is outright saying "kill the kid". The gorilla was not presently hostile to the child, so many feel it was a safe bet to attempt sedating the animal. If lethal was ready, why not have someone tranq it, and if it tries to hurt/kill the child, THEN kill it?

What's the argument there "It might be too hard to hit?" It's a big ass gorilla. If you miss then shame on your poor aim.

Honestly, because such calculation and risk is making too much of the gorilla. This was the right call even if that was the last reproductive age male lowlands gorilla on God's green Earth. Might the gorilla have been safely tranquilized without agitation that injured/killed the child? Might he have not just accidentally injured/killed the child while putatively protecting/caring for it? All possible. But the risk/reward analysis there is a no-brainer. Not out of sociopathic concern over civil or criminally liability for the zoo, but the basic life-for-life equity of someone's baby and a gorilla.

[Theinquisition]

I'm going to assume that those that are complaining about the gorilla being killed don't have kids.

Kids do dumb shit sometimes, but they are still children and wether you agree or not, human life is still considered more previous than a gorilla, especially a child.

I can't even imagine the panic of be in if it was my daughter who fell into a gorilla enclosure.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Was trying to follow the logic that implied the boy was a danger to the gorilla or some moral equivalence between them.

Someone stated that a gorilla could easily kill a child without intending to... I said so could a human... how does that earn your reply? That we should just shoot the child?

[Eviscero]

In a world where bad things happen people search for blame to regain control and make sense of the senseless.

[Stormdash]

Someone stated that a gorilla could easily kill a child without intending to... I said so could a human... how does that earn your reply? That we should just shoot the child?

Well, for one, I didn't parse it correctly and though the answer was that the child could kill the gorilla without intending. Muh bad.

To the intended point, a human can unintentionally kill a child, but we're talking about an order of magnitude difference between scenarios. A human negligently or recklessly killing a child is... reckless, or negligent. A gorilla could unintentionally injure or kill a human child while taking what would be, for a baby gorilla, exemplary responsible care. Just hauling him about to and fro or accidentally bonking him against something that wouldn't faze its own offspring could kill the hell out of that kid. So it's almost beside the point the danger the gorilla posed if it got angry at the child or other humans, it could have been an A++ rated gorilla caregiver and still been posing a risk of deadly danger to the child. That you really can't say about a human adult.

[Erudean]

I did. He had the kid for 10 minutes. Plenty of time for a tranq to take effect. I call bullshit on that excuse though since they can drop an elephant in a couple of minutes with the right drugs.


The animal didn't ask to be captive. Humans should accept any and all consequences of going to a zoo especially parents who don't watch their kids. Humans aren't endangered either.

You missed the ENTIRE point of why they didn't tranquilize it. It had the child for 10 minutes yes, but IF they decided to tranquelize it, it could have pissed the gorilla off, possibly taking its anger out on the child. It was not a time issue, it was a decision to not possibly enrage the gorilla, since the child may have ended up as collateral damage.

[Stasso]

Let me try and clear the fog for you. The Gorilla is....WAS part of an Endangered species.

en·dan·gered spe·cies
noun
noun: endangered species; plural noun: endangered species

a species of animal or plant that is seriously at risk of extinction.
"special collections of rare and endangered species from Crete"

That said, there's more interest in not killing another species off the planet, especially since this situation was avoidable.

Furthermore noone is outright saying "kill the kid". The gorilla was not presently hostile to the child, so many feel it was a safe bet to attempt sedating the animal. If lethal was ready, why not have someone tranq it, and if it tries to hurt/kill the child, THEN kill it?

What's the argument there "It might be too hard to hit?" It's a big ass gorilla. If you miss then shame on your poor aim.

You are persevere and corrupting our species allowing for the constant war and violence we beget each other because you think some damn animal should have been protected over a human life. If you can't allow for the empathy for a child then there is no hope for an animal that cares less for its own species.

Edit: I am done, honestly this makes me sick that anyone thinks outside of the safety for the child. This is why we have mass killings, fucking blind eye to genocides, fucking apathy.

[Erudean]

And so are humans.... /shrug

That is a stupid reply, the reason why should be self evident. if you don't understand why, I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you.