Humans behaving badly means zoo animals die

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is some video (nothing violent or graphic, so it's safe to watch)- http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gorilla-shot-dead-cincinnati-zoo-after-child-climbs-enclosure-n582211

The kid looks fine there.

[Anonymous]

The gorilla could have easily killed him while dragging him around although I do think the gorilla was trying to protect the kid from the other gorillas. It was sweet the way he pulled up his pants. The gorilla acted territorial over the kid based on what eye witnesses have said when zoo staff approached. All the screaming and mayhem in the background probably didn't help either. I don't think there was any way the zoo was going to be able separate the kid from the gorilla; it's just tragic that this beautiful, majestic animal came to such a horrific end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is some video (nothing violent or graphic, so it's safe to watch)- http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gorilla-shot-dead-cincinnati-zoo-after-child-climbs-enclosure-n582211

The kid looks fine there.

Yes, the gorilla actually seemed to be very gentle with the kid. Of course being so heavy and strong he could have hurt the child without meaning to. The mother sounds like an idiot "mommy's right here!"
Where the hell was she when she could have actually done some good? JFC. I wonder if she will give any public interviews. Or if she has already retained a lawyer who is telling her to keep her mouth shut.

[Anonymous]

I hate zoos - animals should not be put on display for our amusement. Maybe the poor gorilla is better off dead. Maybe. I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate zoos - animals should not be put on display for our amusement. Maybe the poor gorilla is better off dead. Maybe. I don't know.

Well, would you want to be shot dead two days after your 17th birthday?

Lowland gorillas are critically endangered--poaching, disease, deforestation, spread of humans. Harambe was expected to father babies at the zoo and further bolster the struggling population:
http://www.bustle.com/articles/163740-how-endangered-are-western-lowland-gorillas-like-the-one-at-the-cincinnati-zoo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate zoos - animals should not be put on display for our amusement. Maybe the poor gorilla is better off dead. Maybe. I don't know.

Would you be better off dead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate zoos - animals should not be put on display for our amusement. Maybe the poor gorilla is better off dead. Maybe. I don't know.

Adults should teach children in their care to mind. Children who cannot mind should be left at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

doodlebug wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The zoo should be held accountable. Obviously their safety standards are lacking. How did a kid fit through the rails? This isn't a case of the parents hoisting the child up. Isn't this the same zoo that had the polar bears get loose earlier in the year?

"it appeared the boy went under the rail, through wires and over the moat wall."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/28/us/zoo-kills-gorilla/

It sounds pretty safe to me, with numerous checks. Unfortunately it's not idiot-parent/caretaker proof.

The original article I read just said he slipped through the bars and fell into the moat. Either way, the child should not be punished for what is the fault of an adult.

yes he should. He should be punished for not staying w/ his caretaker and for not staying on the sidewalk and for climbing on/through/whatever a fence. All things a four year should know better than to do.

Honestly I agree - a 4 year old knows better. Doesn't mean he deserved to be killed by the gorilla, but the kid did a very dangerous, very stupid, very deadly thing.

Unfortunately neither the kid or parents will likely get any sort of punishment, and the poor gorilla had to pay the ultimate price. The vast majority of people and zoo-visitors are capable of basic common sense safety. There is no amount of security that will make these kinds of things "impossible" from happening. But too many parents expect others to do all the work for them, create a perfect world for their kids, without having to enact basic responsibilities parenting themselves.

LOL you all think the child wasn't punished by the "natural consequences" of his actions?

[Anonymous]

I read one article where a witness said she heard the kid telling the mother that he wanted to go into the moat. And the mother kept saying no.

So it isn't like the kid fell in. He was *trying* to get in, and the mother knew he wanted to go in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are unlikely to be charged. Much more likely is they'll sue and get a settlement from the zoo for their child's injury. The zoo may also be fined. It doesn't really matter for the purpose of charges/fines if the parents were paying attention or not, the zoo is supposed to have their enclosures designed in a way to make this impossible to just fall through.

In the Pittsburgh incident a few years ago where the child died, they decided it was the parents fault but they still got $$ and the zoo was fined c

The brat wasn't hurt.

Stop commenting if you haven't even read about the incident. The child was hospitalized with serious injuries after being violently thrown around by the gorilla.

Actually, none of the articles I've read indicated that. In fact, they all indicate the child was checked out at the hospital and then was sent home same day. I also read an article where one witness said very clearly that the gorilla wasn't violently throwing the child around. Rather, there were a ton of people screaming, and the person thought the gorilla grabbed the child and moved him in part out of being rattled by all of the screaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who are actually saying "bad, bad gorilla!" are insane.

Not the gorilla's fault. But no crazier than the people who are saying "bad child should have been left in the cage." Even if the 4 year old knew better, which he probably did, there is NO WAY he could have understood the magnitude of his actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are unlikely to be charged. Much more likely is they'll sue and get a settlement from the zoo for their child's injury. The zoo may also be fined. It doesn't really matter for the purpose of charges/fines if the parents were paying attention or not, the zoo is supposed to have their enclosures designed in a way to make this impossible to just fall through.

In the Pittsburgh incident a few years ago where the child died, they decided it was the parents fault but they still got $$ and the zoo was fined c

The brat wasn't hurt.

Stop commenting if you haven't even read about the incident. The child was hospitalized with serious injuries after being violently thrown around by the gorilla.

Actually, none of the articles I've read indicated that. In fact, they all indicate the child was checked out at the hospital and then was sent home same day. I also read an article where one witness said very clearly that the gorilla wasn't violently throwing the child around. Rather, there were a ton of people screaming, and the person thought the gorilla grabbed the child and moved him in part out of being rattled by all of the screaming.

ALL of the initial articles said he was serious injured. I think they've since been updated to reflect he was not. The witnesses have no real way to know what his "intentions" are, though, and even with good intentions, the gorilla could have hurt or killed the child. The ones who deserve blame here are the parents, and maybe the zoo, depending on the safety measures in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who are actually saying "bad, bad gorilla!" are insane.

Not the gorilla's fault. But no crazier than the people who are saying "bad child should have been left in the cage." Even if the 4 year old knew better, which he probably did, there is NO WAY he could have understood the magnitude of his actions.

The mother is to blame because, as one witness reported, the kid was TELLING the mother he wanted to go into the moat. It's not like he slipped away while she was distracted. He told her. At that point, she should have taken the kids away from the gorilla exhibit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are unlikely to be charged. Much more likely is they'll sue and get a settlement from the zoo for their child's injury. The zoo may also be fined. It doesn't really matter for the purpose of charges/fines if the parents were paying attention or not, the zoo is supposed to have their enclosures designed in a way to make this impossible to just fall through.

In the Pittsburgh incident a few years ago where the child died, they decided it was the parents fault but they still got $$ and the zoo was fined c

The brat wasn't hurt.

Stop commenting if you haven't even read about the incident. The child was hospitalized with serious injuries after being violently thrown around by the gorilla.

Actually, none of the articles I've read indicated that. In fact, they all indicate the child was checked out at the hospital and then was sent home same day. I also read an article where one witness said very clearly that the gorilla wasn't violently throwing the child around. Rather, there were a ton of people screaming, and the person thought the gorilla grabbed the child and moved him in part out of being rattled by all of the screaming.

ALL of the initial articles said he was serious injured. I think they've since been updated to reflect he was not. The witnesses have no real way to know what his "intentions" are, though, and even with good intentions, the gorilla could have hurt or killed the child. The ones who deserve blame here are the parents, and maybe the zoo, depending on the safety measures in place.

I'm responding to the PP who said the gorilla was violently throwing the kid around. The witnesses were clear that that wasn't the case. No, they couldn't know the gorilla's intention, but their description was that it appeared as if the gorilla was trying to protect him, not violently throwing him around.

Well, if the articles are updated, then why is it a problem for me to update the thread? I don't understand your hostility.

I agree the parents deserve blame. But let's be clear: If the 400 pound gorilla wanted to do harm to the child, the child would probably be dead. The fact that the child was in there for 10 minutes and the gorilla moved the child WITHOUT seriously injuring him should suggest to people that the gorilla was being decent to the kid.

I think that is important to note. It's one thing the gorilla had to die, but do we also have to act like it beat a child? Can't we at least honor the gorilla by suggesting that it actually behaved pretty decently to a child who invaded its space?

I get that it was dangerous because the gorilla could have hurt the child even if he didn't intend to. But it is pretty remarkable that the kid was in there for 10 minutes and wasn't seriously injured.

[Anonymous]

The gorilla sounds like he was trying to be protective, rather than intentionally hurtful towards the boy. The kid did not have serious injuries - he was checked out and released from the hospital the same day.

The kid was 4, and a 4 year old knows better. It's not like he was a "toddler" 1-year old. Shame on the careless mother, who will probably sue the zoo instead of taking responsibility for her own stupidity.

I hope the innocent gorilla did not suffer.