Cincinnati Zoo Kills Gorilla to Protect Child Who Fell in Enclosure

[.Rai]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-child-falls-into-gorilla-enclosure-20160528-story.html

 

The Cincinnati Zoo has temporarily closed its gorilla exhibit after a special zoo response team shot and killed a 17-year-old gorilla that grabbed and dragged a 4-year-old boy who fell into a moat.

Saw the story on Reddit, and was interested by peoples' responses. Lots of people who think killing the (male) gorilla was incorrect, instead suggesting stuff like tranquilizers. Of course, there's also the classic internet outrage immediately blaming the parents and accusing them of negligence and the like. Was shooting the gorilla probably the right decision? Yeah. Still incredibly sad though, of course.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Tranquilizer is risky. What don't cross people's mind at times is how most tranquilizers don't actually work instantly, and it risks making the target going berserk before it works. Even higher dosage wouldn't help that much as far as I know. Regrettable as it is, killing the gorilla was the right choice.

 

The parents perhaps could be at fault here, but small mistakes and negligence that could lead to incidents such as this happens really often and to all sort of people, so blaming everything to them felt disproportionate. They're not free of fault though.

 

I'd question more on how the child could fall into the enclosure in the first place, but I guess it's just an understandable oversight that didn't account for a rare scenario like this.

[Progenitor]

Oh no, higher dosage WILL work, but just like any drug you risk killing the animal anyway from overdosing.

Killing the gorilla was the smartest option in that given situation. It wasn't nessisarily the most ethical, but it was the only available one that yielded a 100% chance of the boy surviving the encounter.

 

Blaming the parents is idiotic. What to people expect? Put your kids on a leash? Accidents happen. I absolutely detest when someone tries to play that card. It just goes to show how ignorant people are of what true negligence looks like.

 

I honestly don't even want to read the Reddit thread because of how much ignorant SJWing seems to be going on. A gorilla died to save a boy. Cry me a river of tears, then build a bridge and get the funk over it. It was the right call. Ethics does not overpower logic in crisis decision making. If a funking madman breaks into your house, grabs your kid when you grab your gun and he holds said kid at knifepoint, are you gonna just sit there and debate the ethics associated with killing this man? No. You're gonna funking shoot him to protect your kid. This situation with the gorilla is no different, and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what the funk they're talking about

</rant>

[vla1ne]

it was a correct choice to kill it if you want the kid to get out as safely as possible. but the parents are still negligent though. i have no idea how they lost their kid for long enough that he made his way into a gorilla cage, but they did, and due to it, the gorilla had to die, somewhat sad, but it's already over.

[Ire]

But is a human life worth more than the gorilla's life ?

Was the child REALLY in danger ?

 

Well, I'm sure they did what has to be done at the right moment (what if the gorilla fell on the young boy ? :/), because I trust in the zoo staff abilities.

 

However, I'm sure of this only under the axiom : human > gorilla.

And to be honest, i'm not sure about the legitimacy of such a presupposition...

Anyway, we all are humans, so our instinct tells us to protect our people, for the sake of the human being. Gorillas have to watch out !

[Progenitor]

But is a human life worth more than the gorilla's life ?

Was the child REALLY in danger ?

 

Well, I'm sure they did what has to be done at the right moment (what if the gorilla fell on the young boy ? :/), because I trust in the zoo staff abilities.

 

However, I'm sure of this only under the axiom : human > gorilla.

And to be honest, i'm not sure about the legitimacy of such a presupposition...

Anyway, we all are humans, so our instinct tells us to protect our people, for the sake of the human being. Gorillas have to watch out !

I'm so funking sick of this argument. Allow me to completely dismantle it.

Ok, yes. Let's approach the argument of "it was just curious". Well Gorillas are like 8x stronger than humans in every conceivable physical way possible. So what if our gorilla friend got "curious" and ripped the child's face off? The child would either barely survive and be scarred for life, or just straight up die. The gorilla would then have to be euthanized for killing a child, regardless of circumstance. So yes, there was a chance that the gorilla did not mean any harm in it's actions, but there was an EQUALLY LIKELY CHANCE that said behavior would STILL BE HARMFUL to the child, whether the gorilla meant it to or not.

 

So let's say it was a 50/50 chance for it to be aggressive vs curious, and if curious, there was a 50/50 chance that the behavior would still be dangerous. That means there is a maximum of a 75% chance that the kid is not going to make it out in one piece, if at all, so long as the gorilla is free to act. There was no tranq readily available on hand that was both strong enough to instantly KO the gorilla, but low enough dosage so that its life was not in danger.

 

THEREFORE the only logical course of action to MINIMIZE casualties was to incompasitate the gorilla, of which the only method of doing so was to shoot to kill. If they didn't, and the boy was injured or worse, THE GORILLA WOULD BE PUT TO DEATH ANYWAY. So then we could have had potentially TWO deaths if they chose to wait and see. IT WAS NOBODIES FAULT. Not the parents, not the kid, not the gorilla, not the response team. Trying to put blame on someone in this event would be like if a meteor struck earth and we blamed scientists for not yet having force field technology. It's completely absurd. The only way this could have been avoided is if you had psychic powers and could read the future.

 

So I ask you this: would you of rather had the gorilla die a hero, or live long enough to see himself become the villain. Cuz you are currently arguing for the latter.

[Ire]

I'm so f***ing sick of this argument. Allow me to completely dismantle it.

Ok, yes. Let's approach the argument of "it was just curious". Well Gorillas are like 8x stronger than humans in every conceivable physical way possible. So what if our gorilla friend got "curious" and ripped the child's face off? The child would either barely survive and be scarred for life, or just straight up die. The gorilla would then have to be euthanized for killing a child, regardless of circumstance. So yes, there was a chance that the gorilla did not mean any harm in it's actions, but there was an EQUALLY LIKELY CHANCE that said behavior would STILL BE HARMFUL to the child, whether the gorilla meant it to or not.

 

==> That was not an argument, only a question. Of course, even if the gorilla doesn't want to hurt the child, it remains dangerous. But animals, and especially apes, have some kind of feelings similar to ours, and more particularly when it involves kids. An analysis of the behavior of the gorilla then is a way to give more options to rescue the child. As I said I'm sure it has been done properly, that's why this part remained only as an interrogation.

 

So let's say it was a 50/50 chance for it to be aggressive vs curious, and if curious, there was a 50/50 chance that the behavior would still be dangerous. That means there is a maximum of a 75% chance that the kid is not going to make it out in one piece, if at all, so long as the gorilla is free to act. There was no tranq readily available on hand that was both strong enough to instantly KO the gorilla, but low enough dosage so that its life was not in danger.

 

==> So let's say it was a 50/50 (wow, that's 1 !!) chance we miss the shot and kill the kid and a a 50/50 (!!  :O)  the gorilla fall on the kid after being shot : it represents a 200% chance the kid is dead and a 100% chance the kid is shot with the gorilla, which falls onto the corpse of the child who dies another time...

 

THEREFORE the only logical course of action to MINIMIZE casualties was to incompasitate the gorilla, of which the only method of doing so was to shoot to kill. If they didn't, and the boy was injured or worse, THE GORILLA WOULD BE PUT TO DEATH ANYWAY. So then we could have had potentially TWO deaths if they chose to wait and see. IT WAS NOBODIES FAULT. Not the parents, not the kid, not the gorilla, not the response team. Trying to put blame on someone in this event would be like if a meteor struck earth and we blamed scientists for not yet having force field technology. It's completely absurd. The only way this could have been avoided is if you had psychic powers and could read the future.

 

==> I forgot this law (there isn't such a law in my country...), that I clearly find silly and disproportionnate. That made me realize that this is also a problem - because it inteferes onto the way people react to situations like this one.

 

So I ask you this: would you of rather had the gorilla die a hero, or live long enough to see himself become the villain. Cuz you are currently arguing for the latter.

 

==> hero for what ?? villain for what ?? Putting this Good-Evil s*** like that makes me surely as angry as my 'argument' made you feel. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Js, gorilla attacks and maulings are an extremely real thing. Yes, they look kinda like us, yes, a few can even use sign language, but gorillas are animals, and need to be regarded as such in emergency situations.

 

Tranquilizer could have worked better, but that is too high a risk. The most important thing in this is preservation of the child's health.

 

Also, cauchemar, that isn't how percentages work. At all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He climbed through the public Barriar, fell. 10-12 feet and was in the moat according to the story before the Gorilla picked him up

 

What the bloody funk were the parents doing? funking each other? The Gorilla shot was the right call, but these parents don't deserve a child

[.Rai]

He climbed through the public Barriar, fell. 10-12 feet and was in the moat according to the story before the Gorilla picked him up

 

What the bloody funk were the parents doing? funking each other? The Gorilla shot was the right call, but these parents don't deserve a child

While I agree that it's ultimately hugely silly for this to have happened, and the parents really shouldn't have let it go this far, but I think it seems like a case of 4-year olds do what a 4-year old does.

 

 

It's frankly a pretty easy barrier for a kid to go over, perhaps get a wrong footing on the foliage, and slip into the moat. Freak accidents happen. It can happen to the best and worst of people.

[Wizarus]

The zoo did the right thing, tranquilizers are not guarenteed to work and might have angered the gorilla. Its hard for me to put blame on the zoo though. I mean that's what caution signs all over the zoo are for, and this sort of thing hasn't happened at that zoo. Accidents happen, but that still doesn't excuse parental negligence. I know when I went to the zoo as a child, my behind was going nowhere.

[Ire]

Also, cauchemar, that isn't how percentages work. At all.

 

Ah ah, I was misinterpreting the "50/50" for a 50 chances on 50 (so a 100% chance) instead of a 50% chance thing 1 to happen - 50% chance thing 2 to happen...

Then nvm the sheet I said.

 

OT : It seems the security could be enforced a bit and surely will after this incident. Of course parents should stay with their children, but it's not that easy. Kids at that age are good enough to go anywhere when their parents don't look for a second. And only 5 minutes is enough to climb this kind of barriers. I don't think parents are to be incriminated with the fault, nor the zoo or the kid (or the gorilla...). They maybe all share only a neglectable little bit of it. These kinds of accident are after all common (cf the one that occured with the 2 lions), even if they don't end always tragically like that.  Circumstances were bad, but at least the kid is alright now, thanks to the zoo staff and the medical staff.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I really hope parental services looks into these parents. I know for a fact that I never left my daughter alone for five minutes, and my parents for all their fualts, never left me alone for 5 minutes. It's shameful a beautiful creature had to pay because the parents didn't understand responsibility

[Slinky]

I mean, clearly, the gorilla was saving the child. Poor gorilla, got killed for trying to help.

..Maybe.

Or maybe it was a homicidal gorilla. Nobody knows for sure, but I'd like to believe it was trying to save him.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Yeah, looking over the picture Rai posted, it really looks like an easy barrier to pass when kids are being kids.

[mitchermitcher]

I'm not sure I'm willing to blame parental neglect for this. It's a bloody zoo, of course children are going to be curious and want to explore and move around a lot rather than follow their parents. It's a magical place for kids to learn to explore on their own, putting a leash on the kid would be the worst possible thing to do. Of course if they had just kept their eye on the kid this could've been avoided real well, but I wouldn't say the fact that they didn't suggests they're neglectful parents. In other situations, the accusation possibly stands, but not at the zoo, I feel.

 

But is a human life worth more than the gorilla's life ?

Was the child REALLY in danger ?

 

Well, I'm sure they did what has to be done at the right moment (what if the gorilla fell on the young boy ? :/), because I trust in the zoo staff abilities.

 

However, I'm sure of this only under the axiom : human > gorilla.

And to be honest, i'm not sure about the legitimacy of such a presupposition...

Anyway, we all are humans, so our instinct tells us to protect our people, for the sake of the human being. Gorillas have to watch out !

In the assumption that all life is equal(a lovely assumption by the way), it would've still been more natural, more logical to kill the gorilla. The chances of both of them making it out alive is next to none and shouldn't be counted on, so the staff could either let the child die or killing the gorilla. Now if they let the kid get killed, imagine how big the resulting outcry will be. They killed the gorilla instead and look at how my debate's going on. The other way round and I'm pretty damn sure the zoo having to close would be the least that could possibly happen. Consequentially, killing the gorilla gets them into less trouble and if morally you value both lives the same way, there's really nothing to do but shoot the poor ape.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's not so bloody hard to hold your kids hand

[Aerion Brightflame]

Unless we have video evidence of how the parents were acting before the child fell in, blaming them is pointless. Because we have no idea whether it was neglect, or if the child managed to fall in before anyone could react. Because children are slippery bastards when they want to be, and just looking at that fence makes it seem easy to slip through in some form or another. 

 

This is a tragic incident, and it's a shame it happened. But we do not have anywhere near enough evidence to judge the parents. 

[Ire]

I'm not sure I'm willing to blame parental neglect for this. It's a bloody zoo, of course children are going to be curious and want to explore and move around a lot rather than follow their parents. It's a magical place for kids to learn to explore on their own, putting a leash on the kid would be the worst possible thing to do. Of course if they had just kept their eye on the kid this could've been avoided real well, but I wouldn't say the fact that they didn't suggests they're neglectful parents. In other situations, the accusation possibly stands, but not at the zoo, I feel.

 

In the assumption that all life is equal(a lovely assumption by the way), it would've still been more natural, more logical to kill the gorilla. The chances of both of them making it out alive is next to none and shouldn't be counted on, so the staff could either let the child die or killing the gorilla. Now if they let the kid get killed, imagine how big the resulting outcry will be. They killed the gorilla instead and look at how my debate's going on. The other way round and I'm pretty damn sure the zoo having to close would be the least that could possibly happen. Consequentially, killing the gorilla gets them into less trouble and if morally you value both lives the same way, there's really nothing to do but shoot the poor ape.

Yep, but only because of this killer animal law (or is it an animal killer law ? ) which I wasn't taking into account at that moment. And the outcry would have been because we don't think all lives are equal. That is what you call natural but it don't mean it's logical. It's more fitting a certain logic than it is logical.

 

And yes it's almost impossible and unproductive to keep your children in the hand every second of their life.

I was shocked when I first saw this IRL...

[Snatch Steal]

 Zoo officials said the boy fell after he climbed through a public barrier at the Gorilla World exhibit Saturday afternoon. He was picked up out of the moat and dragged by the gorilla for about 10 minutes.

 

Sucks to be the kid, he got himself into that situation. Why weren't the parents looking out after him? Why is this stupid kid worth the gorilla's life? I guess zoos aren't particularly ethical to begin with, so I shouldn't be too surprised, but this seems to be a new low.

Besides, I bet it would be fun to see a gorilla flinging a kid around a little.

 

 

 

 "We are all devastated that this tragic accident resulted in the death of a critically-endangered gorilla," he said in a news release. "This is a huge loss for the zoo family and the gorilla population worldwide."

 

Well, on the bright side, you saved some stupid-ass toddler who is part of the most overpopulated and detrimental species on the planet, whose parents didn't even give enough of a sheet to take better care of him. 

 

 

Oh no, higher dosage WILL work, but just like any drug you risk killing the animal anyway from overdosing.

 

Then go for it.

 

 

While I agree that it's ultimately hugely silly for this to have happened, and the parents really shouldn't have let it go this far, but I think it seems like a case of 4-year olds do what a 4-year old does.

 

 

It's frankly a pretty easy barrier for a kid to go over, perhaps get a wrong footing on the foliage, and slip into the moat. Freak accidents happen. It can happen to the best and worst of people.

 

HURR DURR, OKAY CHAMP, YOU KNOW WHY THERE'S A BARRIER HERE? FOR YOU TO DEFINITELY CROSS IT!

 

 

If a funking madman breaks into your house, grabs your kid when you grab your gun and he holds said kid at knifepoint, are you gonna just sit there and debate the ethics associated with killing this man? No. You're gonna funking shoot him to protect your kid. This situation with the gorilla is no different, and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what the funk they're talking about

 

Clearly, no gorilla broke into a child's pen. The child is the one who wandered over to the gorilla's pen.

I guess they didn't really have much of a choice, since, yes, the gorilla would have been euthanized anyway. However, there's definitely blame here. Most of the blame is the parents', not just because they didn't keep good track of their kid, but mainly because they didn't explain to him that he couldn't just jump over the boundary that's there for a reason.

[Maeriberii Haan]

 

...Wait, so the gorilla wasn't even an immediate threat?

 

So if I'm on the subway and there's a black guy standing next to me, it's okay to just stab him in the chest out of fear because he's "very strong?"

 

this is funked up on so many levels.

 

If we're really more concerned about a totally replaceable kid as opposed to an endangered species, then funk it, let's kill off the whole species. You can't be both for human advancement and species preservation at the same time. Pick one.

 

Difference between the two thing is, Gorilla isn't a human.

 

There's a lot of risks involved, and no one knows whether the gorilla would attack the child or not, or whether the child would do something that would provoke the gorilla. Is it the absolute right thing to do? No, it's something that shouldn't really happen, but the zoo official has no other choice. If the kid got harmed in any way, the animal has to be euthanized anyway as it has been mentioned by someone else on this thread.

 

It's a regretful thing to happen, but they're not having much choice. Either wait and see whether the gorilla would maul the child or not, or they take preemptive action. The difference between the two is the first one has a big chance of the two dying.

 

Also, a kid is not replaceable.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Difference between the two thing is, Gorilla isn't a human.

 

There's a lot of risks involved, and no one knows whether the gorilla would attack the child or not, or whether the child would do something that would provoke the gorilla.

 

Also, a kid is not replaceable.

It's really NOT hard to hold a child hand. If they're that young you should hold their hand. The parents have no excuse short of someone kidnapping their child and throwing him over the boundary

Unless we have video evidence of how the parents were acting before the child fell in, blaming them is pointless. Because we have no idea whether it was neglect, or if the child managed to fall in before anyone could react. Because children are slippery bastards when they want to be, and just looking at that fence makes it seem easy to slip through in some form or another. 

 

This is a tragic incident, and it's a shame it happened. But we do not have anywhere near enough evidence to judge the parents. 

Um, how does a child fall through that if you're holding his hand like any diligent parent should?

 

People don't understand or appreciate the responsibility of having a child these days. 

 

 

It's not sad, it's negligence. If your child is a slippery bastard, don't take him out till you can deal with that. Others should not have to suffer for your mistake

 

Also what if the gorilla had fallen on the child? 

 

Those parents don't deserve a child

[Progenitor]

Yep, but only because of this killer animal law (or is it an animal killer law ? ) which I wasn't taking into account at that moment. And the outcry would have been because we don't think all lives are equal. That is what you call natural but it don't mean it's logical. It's more fitting a certain logic than it is logical.

 

And yes it's almost impossible and unproductive to keep your children in the hand every second of their life.

I was shocked when I first saw this IRL...

You're misinterpreting the law. We aren't charging the thing for murder here. But if it severely injures or kills someone, even by accident, then it is considered "resonably dangerous", and therefore cannot be kept close to the public. So either one of two things happens. Either (A) the zoo dips into their own wallet and/or whatever funding they are given access to, and send the animal to a location where it's species lives naturally, or (B) whether due to lack of funding or due to the highly dangerous nature of said animal, it is euthanized, much the same as a horse with a broken leg. While it may seem cruel, in a lot of these cases the animal is actually just going to suffer. In the aforementioned example of a horse with a broken leg, horses don't have the ability to naturally heal broken leg bones. Their bodies are too heavy, and lifting them up for 6 months is not only painful, but the LACK of weight will cause the bone to heal weakly, and be extremely prone to re-breaking. The horse will literally live in agony with such an injury. The most humane thing you can do is end its suffering. This law has the same mentality behind it, as most of the extremely dangerous and spontaneous animals that are subject to this law are, unfortunately, not well mentally. Since these animals are not sapient, you can't treat mental disorders. Whether or not they recover from it might as well be random chance.

 

Additionally, if the animal was born in captivity, it has not developed the skills required to survive in its native habitat. It's chances of thriving in option (A) are usually very slim. Sometimes option (B) is better to give it a painless death rather than a potentially excruciating one in the wild.

 

Also, somewhat off topic, on the final point you made on my first post:

1) that was a quote from The Dark Knight Rises which was meant to summarize my points, as I will now show:

2) if the gorilla is killed without being the chance to do something wrong, then it basically becomes a social martyr for animal enthusiasts and SJWs, as we are currently seeing (dying a hero). BUT, if the gorilla IS given the chance, and the child is killed as a result, there will be a large public outcry for its euthanization, ESPECIALLY from the friends and family of the victim (becoming the villain)

Get it?

[Aerion Brightflame]

I mean, a Black guy on a subway isn't an animal prone to savage attacks. A black guy has confirmed morals that can be appealed to, and will generally behave rationally. Tranq-ing a Gorrilla in order to get to to sleep so it lets the child go is no guarantee, because as we've said before they aren't instant and can set-off psychosis of a form. 

 

Like f***, if you want to be very very cold about this it would be far worse for the conservation future of the Zoo if they let a Gorilla tear a child in half trying to save said child. Because that sort of s*** gets either the Zoo, or the Gorilla areas shut down due to the resulting lawsuit and fall-out on the animals. 

 

Like most moral standpoints, conversvation often requires shitty choices to be made for the greater good of the species. In this case, it's far far better that the story is 'Gorilla is put down to save the life of a 4 year old toddler' than 'Gorilla is put down after mauling a 4 year old toddler'. Because the latter is going to cost them funding and public support because of the scandal. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You can shoot a Gorrila. Good luck shooting a car to save your kid. And streets don't have railings

 

Child Services really needs to look into these two people