So about this Cincinnati Zoo gorilla they killed..

[polishgenius]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  The parents are at fault.  My 4 year old's hand was never out of mine, my wife's, or another trusted family member.

I'm afraid I simply don't believe you. Never ever? Not once?

 Does depend on the kid as well. If this kid was like maarsen's, fair enough, you have to keep a super-tight reign, especially in places like this. If he was a usually model child without a history of trying to disappear, letting him walk free wouldn't normally be considered unreasonable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

I'm afraid I simply don't believe you. Never ever? Not once?

 Does depend on the kid as well. If this kid was like maarsen's, fair enough, you have to keep a super-tight reign, especially in places like this. If he was a usually model child without a history of trying to disappear, letting him walk free wouldn't normally be considered unreasonable.

I'm trying to modify my post but that's no mean task on the iPhone any longer.  I re-read it and I'm particularly harsh.  I do maintain that at that age letting your child run free in a croweded place like a Zoo is really a dangerous thing to do.

[Filippa Eilhart]

how do you know they "let it run free"?

[Altherion]

The zoo is at fault: it should be completely impossible for children to get into the enclosure. Hundreds of thousands of children visit the zoo every year. Some non-trivial subset of that escape their parents for a short time (you can blame the individual parents, but this is mathematically inevitable). If there's a way in, one of them will eventually find it.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

She was 2 when she started to run. By the time she was the age of the kid in the zoo, 4, the situation was well in hand. 

I'm still not sure why you think you are so above the zoo parents because this seems even worse, tbh.  Two is sort of the age where 'you should have known better'.  Not only are two-year-olds becoming more independent, wanting to explore more, just learning about how to interact in public settings outside the confines of their strollers or carriers or whatever, but they are also easier to pick up and run away with.  I mean, what you're basically saying is that you were letting your toddler, who is just learning the rules of being a mobile person with responsibilities, run around without direct, immediate, constant supervision and yet you somehow think you're so above what happened with these parents of a 4-year-old who is more likely to be at a developmental stage where they can be trusted to not jump into a gorilla cage when you turn your eye for even a moment.

I mean, I'm willing to think you and your wife probably did your best when your kid was two and I'm glad the worst that happened was that some shoppers might have been inconvenienced for a short time, but by your own words, y'all were fucking morons. rocksniffer would probably think you deserve to be buggy whipped.  

[Seli]

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why was the Silverback shot instead of tranquilized?

Apparently they thought the risk to the kid to great since it takes a while for the tranquillizer to act. Also tranquillizer dosage is tricky. 

[rocksniffer]

51 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'd think you wouldn't want to reach the point where something does happen.  There's a lot of things they can't know, like the injuries the child has already sustained which could be life threatening on their own.  Just pushing the kid around in the water, whether Harambe's intentions were good or not, is a serious danger to the child. It's surely a huge and upsetting loss, and I'm sure they didn't come to the decision lightly at all.  

What the fuck is wrong with you people?  Not only is it incredibly easy to lose track of a kid, but this family is already dealing with a hurt child, will almost surely undergo a CPS investigation, will possibly experience extreme guilt over what happened to Harambe, are being ridiculed all across the web (sometimes even from parents who have already fucking dealt with a child slipping away ffs) and yet you're advocating for cruel, unusual, inhumane, and medieval punishment.  

i haven't noticed anyone claiming to be an animal expert...and if there was no other option of course the gorilla's life was forfeit in favor of the child's...however the original point is this if the parents had been focused on their child and not whatever had distracted them, all would have transpired differently...no trauma to child and no dead gorilla... 

 

and as for your last statement which i bolded...i can think of a shit load of punishments for an ignorant parent who allowed their toddler to put himself in danger that are cruel, unusual, inhumane and medieval...buggy whipping seems mild considering their ineptitude could have cost their child his life...and it surely did cost the life of the gorilla 

 

and to address a comment you made along with others, yes i agree zoos are just prisons for animals being used to make money like a carny freak show...and they should be abolished in favor of real research facilities and wildlife sanctuaries to protect endangered animals from human expansion and exploitation...

 

 

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  The parents are at fault.  My 4 year old's hand was never out of mine, my wife's, or another trusted family member.  Particularly in a crowed locale like the Zoo.

Why was the Silverback shot instead of tranquilized?

i know you think this first part was harsh but it is a harsh old world my friend, and when i was charged with guarding the ever curious Karate Princess for example i also kept physical contact at all times...even if i was in a store and needed hands to pay she was required to hold my shirt tail/beltloop etc and/or stand literally in front of me until transaction was complete...to do otherwise put her at risk.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Why was the silverback shot and not simply tranquilized?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, Filippa Eilhart said:

how do you know they "let it run free"?

Because they didn't have a hand on their child when they got into the enclosure.

Altherion,

I'm more inclinded to blame the parents than the Zoo.  They know their child and should have control of their child.  Demanding the Zoo successfully anticipate any and all possible methods in ingress is a much larger task than simply holding your child's hand.

[Filippa Eilhart]

that doesn't mean they let it run free. the child might have slipped away. someone might have pushed them. There is a difference between a child accidently getting away and parents not controlling what it does.

[Dr. Pepper]

20 minutes ago, rocksniffer said:

i haven't noticed anyone claiming to be an animal expert...and if there was no other option of course the gorilla's life was forfeit in favor of the child's...however the original point is this if the parents had been focused on their child and not whatever had distracted them, all would have transpired differently...no trauma to child and no dead gorilla... 

 

Half the people on the first page acted as though they were Harambe experts, pretending they knew best about how the gorilla was acting or what cues from his keepers he was ignoring or what he could have done.  I think we can all agree that we wish it transpired differently.

Quote

and as for your last statement which i bolded...i can think of a shit load of punishments for an ignorant parent who allowed their toddler to put himself in danger that are cruel, unusual, inhumane and medieval...buggy whipping seems mild considering their ineptitude could have cost their child his life...and it surely did cost the life of the gorilla 

We really have no idea what the parents allowed or didn't allow.  There is no evidence that the parents intentionally gave their child permission to crawl through the enclosure.  There are plenty of examples of children being injured or killed because parents intentionally endangered them at zoos by holding them on or over the railings.  This isn't even remotely similar.  The family is certainly already experiencing plenty of consequences.  I don't think even you would want to live in a world were any and all accidents can be prevented.  If new evidence emerged that these parents were acting completely different than the average family at the zoo, maybe some y'all advocating going medieval on the parents might have some validity.  But chances are, they were behaving like most of the other families around them, only they made the news because their child happened to wander into a gorilla pen instead of a bathroom or a gift shop or the reptile house.

Quote

and to address a comment you made along with others, yes i agree zoos are just prisons for animals being used to make money like a carny freak show...and they should be abolished in favor of real research facilities and wildlife sanctuaries to protect endangered animals from human expansion and exploitation...

Yup, and all of the evidence that shows zoos aren't doing even a mediocre job at educating, conservation or long term protection of endangered species makes it even more baffling that there haven't been large-scale movements to cease these operations in favor of better options.  Frankly, it shouldn't surprise anyone at all that nearly every year there is some story of a kid who just wanted to get in and play with the cute little carny critters considering they are presented to the public at various zoos and other exhibits as fun, cute, cuddly things.  

 

[TrueMetis]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why was the silverback shot and not simply tranquilized?

Tranqs aren't magic Scot, they don't drop animals instantly. And getting shot with a dart tends to piss things off. To quote zoo officials.

Quote

"In an agitated situation, it may take quite a while for the tranquilizer to take effect," he explained, "At the instant he would be hit, he would have a dramatic response. You don't hit him and he falls over."

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/cincinnati-mourns-gorilla-killed-to-save-boy/ar-BBtC52J?li=AAggNb9

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because they didn't have a hand on their child when they got into the enclosure.

Altherion,

I'm more inclinded to blame the parents than the Zoo.  They know their child and should have control of their child.  Demanding the Zoo successfully anticipate any and all possible methods in ingress is a much larger task than simply holding your child's hand.

Methods a four year old can use are hardly "any and all possible methods" Scot. Which means the method in this case was literally "crawl through."

 

I'm going to give the zoo the benefit of the doubt on whether shooting the Gorilla was needed. Because as much as people on the internet didn't want the animal shot, people working at the Zoo wanted it shot much much less.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why was the silverback shot and not simply tranquilized?

The sedatives probably take a moment or so to kick in. I imagine, that at the time between the dart piercing the silverback's skin, and his lights going out, you have a somewhat pissed 400 pound animal. And that should be enough time for the gorilla to inflict serious injuries upon the kid. 

As for the Zoo. It's kinda hard to design something foolproof, as some fool will always proof you wrong.

As for the parents, I know and I respect that you can't keep an eye on a little kid the whole time. And I have no idea how long it took the kid to take that leap into the gorilla habitat. But I somewhat feel, that ultimately they brought that kid into the zoo. So that's really where the majority of the blame should be placed.

As for zoos in general. Those are morally ambigious institutions. But in their defense they are not purely evil animal prisons. I know, I will take flak for mentioning the good they do. But nevermind. zoos (at least the ones I know) also have an educational purpose. So that the visitors also learn a thing or two about the animals they see (especially school trips). Another purpose is to preserve endangered animals. Some zoos even have breeding programs with the purpose to resettle them in their natural habitation. I am not talking about sea world and other horrible water parks, with their shows. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Notone said:

 

As for zoos in general. Those are morally ambigious institutions. But in their defense they are not purely evil animal prisons. I know, I will take flak for mentioning the good they do. But nevermind. zoos (at least the ones I know) also have an educational purpose. So that the visitors also learn a thing or two about the animals they see (especially school trips). Another purpose is to preserve endangered animals. Some zoos even have breeding programs with the purpose to resettle them in their natural habitation. I am not talking about sea world and other horrible water parks, with their shows. 

Except it's constantly concluded that zoos aren't actually educating people in any meaningful way.  They haven't done well with long term conservation plans, or with breeding programs, or preservation of endangered animals.  I mean, I know zoos like to claim that they give lots of kids lessons during field trips and such, but I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that suggests this 'thing or two' kids learn at zoos couldn't be taught in a classroom with way less overall costs incurred (not just the direct money paid for the lessons/entrance to zoos, but also all of the costs the animals and sometimes their entire species pay in being warehoused in prisons).  

If the goal is successful reintroduction programs, or reestablishing critically endangered species, these things can and are done quite well outside of zoo environments (which, btw, aren't demonstrably any different or better than the sea world water parks you've identified as horrible, but for whatever reason, people seem to think one is so much better than the other, probably due to the success of Blackfish).  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I was never a fan of the Blackfish movies. I was probably a tad too old, when the first came out. Dolphins were in the discussion a bit longer than orcas. Yes, the breeding projects outside the zoos are better, but to say those are doing quite well is to some degree wishful thinking. There are simply too few and often times underfunded projects. 

 

[Theda Baratheon]

Ultimately Zoos should just be phased out and I say this as someone who visited the Zoo often as a kid and loved it. Zoos are just businesses like old sideshows and the animals are commodities...it's all about money. It  matter how many animals you breed in zoos that doesnt help the animals in the wild. Maybe some individual zoos are good and educational but zoos as a whole are not. Sanctuaries are different because they're not about gaining maximum profit by presenting animals like nice furniture. Genuine sanctuaries and charities I sympathise with but the more I think about them the creepier zoos become 

[DireWolfSpirit]

My hope is that these parents are held liable for damages. They should be on the hook for the resources required to save another endangered Gorilla since they are now responsible for destroying one. They shouldnt just get to walk away from this without some penitence. I'd like to see them required to contribute towards some habitat protection or some measure that can protect other endangered animals. The fine should a minimum of $250,000.

[Howdyphillip]

 Two things...

1. We have a lot of humans on this planet and very, very few gorillas. From a purely ecological standpoint, we lost in the exchange. 

2. I finally saw the video and heard the mother of the child in the background. I have no doubt that if that would have been me in the enclosure today, my elderly mother would be over the fence confronting that gorilla. When I was 4, she would have won a fight.

[Calibandar]

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I didn't say anything about it being a satisfying conclusion.

 

I wasn't referring to you specifically, so no need to direct a general comment to yourself and then say "I didn't say that".

3 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

  What I have said is that I'm pretty sure the trained professionals know more than all of these newly minted armchair gorilla experts who are suddenly coming out of the woodwork.  You might feel like they were too quick to kill Harambe, but there isn't any reason to not trust that they made the best decision they could based on what they knew as well as what they didn't know.  

 

1) No one is claiming to be more of an expert at when to shoot a gorilla than zookeepers. Though having said that I have always been interested in gorillas myself and through literature and documentaries know a fair bit.

2) It seemed to me that there is something of a discrepancy in the reporting, talking about wild and rough behaviour from the gorilla necessitating a kill shot, compared to the various footage videos available which do not show this. So maybe the rough housing really did happen and was threatening and in that case, ok, no queries. Of course it is also entirely possible that any possible rough housing is being brought up to prevent enraged audiences from saying "guys this wasn't necessary, you fired way too soon" . That would not be a first.

3) You don't need to be a gorilla expert to judge a situation if you have the facts. But we don't have the facts. At the same time do not overinflate the knowledge of the people that shot the gorilla. This was the guy from the dangerous animals response team, armed with a rifle, and this person may well have simply thought, better safe than sorry. Or he may he very well have been instructed by the zoo's manager to simply shoot at the moment of clear sight, just to run no risk whatsoever. Who knows what deliberations this person made, and whether he had any specific knowledge of what gorillas do in these sort of situations? You don't, you simply assume that he made the right decision because you think it's the right decision, and if someone says, maybe they were a bit hasty there, than you say that person must be lacking in knowledge. He may well have been given an order.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Howdyphillip said:

2. I finally saw the video and heard the mother of the child in the background. I have no doubt that if that would have been me in the enclosure today, my elderly mother would be over the fence confronting that gorilla. When I was 4, she would have won a fight.

Then the loss would possibly be greater.  She'd merely enrage a gorilla such that your four year old self is much more likely to hurt, she'd be much more likely to be hurt, and the gorilla would have been shot anyway, and probably much quicker, too.  So, yay for your super strength mother? 

Thankfully the mother of the boy didn't do this and confuse the situation more and possibly cause much much much more harm, but instead kept her voice calm so as to help her son while zoo officials spent ten minutes trying to do everything they could before determining that they'd have to shoot the gorilla.  

2 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

 

3) You don't need to be a gorilla expert to judge a situation if you have the facts. But we don't have the facts. At the same time do not overinflate the knowledge of the people that shot the gorilla. This was the guy from the dangerous animals response team, armed with a rifle, and this person may well have simply thought, better safe than sorry. Or he may he very well have been instructed by the zookeeper's manager to simply shoot at the moment of clear sight, just to run no risk whatsoever. Who knows what deliberations this person made, and whether he had any knowledge of what gorillas do in these sort of situations? You don't, you simply assume that he made the right decision because you think it's the right decision, and if someone says, maybe they were a bit hasty there, than you assume that person must be lacking in knowledge. Odd.

So you're saying that I shouldn't judge because the only facts I have are the ones the zoo has offered (tried for ten minutes then determined they'd have to shoot Harambe) but you are perfectly fine making random assumptions despite not being a trained keeper and definitely not an expert in Harambe's particular behavior because reasons.  Ok then. Sorry, but watching some documentaries and reading some books doesn't make you an expert, it definitely doesn't make you all that knowledgeable about Harambe.  

I think if the gorilla were shot immediately, or if the gorilla was nowhere near the child or wasn't interacting with the child in anyway, or appeared to be responding to signals from the keepers, then it would definitely make sense to call the decision hasty.  Ten minutes of the gorilla doing all those things to a child that had just fallen from a height, not so hasty. Tragic, sad, upsetting, even infuriating, yes absolutely.  Hasty?  Not even close.