Cincinnati Zoo Kills Gorilla to Protect Child Who Fell in Enclosure

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

TBH the zoo is at fault for this even being remotely possible.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

TBH the zoo is at fault for this even being remotely possible.

Exhibit opened in 1978 iirc, 1st incident 

 

Statistics would disagree with you on that matter

[T. Sankara]

Glad the kid's okay.  Sorry the gorilla got killed for it.

 

But what's even more sorry is how worked you bastards got about objective views until you were basically starting your own witch hunt because "HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME!".  You're all funking pathetic.

[ihop]

Sad story and I wish it hadn't happened, but the right thing was done in the end.

 

There's a lot to be said for glass panes in dangerous animal enclosures.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well we got the signatures. Hopefully something gets done about this mother

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

Well we got the signatures. Hopefully something gets done about this mother

 

You know, something's been bothering about me about how you've been acting in this thread, and it can be perfectly summed up in just a few words "innocent untill proven guilty". This is a fundamental legal rule, and you're disregarding it.

 

Because if this is reffering the petition I think, a staggeringly high ammount of people are starting a witch hunt based on pure hearsay.

You do not know what happened. You think you know what happened, so I will ask you kindly, put down the pitchfork, and stop calling for vengance on something that was a accident, and nothing more.

 

Believe it or not, kids are slippery bastards, and unless the kid's known to disbehave, most parents will eventually trust them to behave. I know for a fact mine did when growing up. As long as they had a general idea where I was, it was AOK.

 

And the fact that the people responsible for the petition are also trying to accuse the family for being negligent at home, is something I consider utterly disgraceful. There's absolutely nothing indicating that, so that people are even assuming it, I know if I was a parent to the kid, I would be deeply offended.

 

(Also, no you do not have the signatures, almost 70,000 more people need to sign before MAYBE there might even be a response)

 

 

Yes, it's a tragedy that Harambe had to die, but by the end of the day it's the life of a animal, versus the life of a human.

Forgive me if I do not weep for the former.

[Progenitor]

Glad the kid's okay.  Sorry the gorilla got killed for it.

 

But what's even more sorry is how worked you bastards got about objective views until you were basically starting your own witch hunt because "HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME!".  You're all funking pathetic.

No. We weren't saying that at all. We were saying to stop championing his opinion as fact. Because if you do, we can argue whether or not it's right or wrong. If you re-read the thread, then until halfway down page 2 he does nothing but say they should lose the child. Then he gets testy when people say he might be looking at the situation from a bias perspective.

 

The fact that you are trying to are somehow trying to shame us for this is more pathetic than how riled up we, or at least I, got.

 

Notice how once he provided facts and the reasoning behind his opinion we were able to actually discuss it.

[.Rai]

The general memery saying that the gorilla was a better parent than the mother by virtue of it being gentle is silly. It is a lowland gorilla. Even if it happens to be gentle, no child is safe around a lowland gorilla. Animal behaviour is unpredictable, volatile. This is particularly true of a mature male gorilla like Harambe. Even mentioning things like "Oh, but the gorilla was protecting the child" as an argument against the mother or as an appeal to humans' ability to humanise animal micro behaviour is facetious at best, deliberately misleading at worst.

 

Exhibit opened in 1978 iirc, 1st incident 

 

Statistics would disagree with you on that matter

To be honest, isn't this an awful argument considering this could easily be the parents' first incident as well? The zoo have just much responsibility to ensure that an incident like that couldn't happen, regardless or not whether it has happened in the past before or not. It probably shouldn't be that easy to get into such a dangerous enclosure.

[Maeriberii Haan]

Honestly, thinking about it, all the witch hunt to get the parents to justice won't really make them be better parents in general. All that it'll do is satisfying the cry of internet goers that doesn't even have any relations to the incident.

it's just putting unnecessary pressure to the whole family for what could've been just a honest mistake for the sake of what could be said as petty vengeance.

 

Investigation might be necessary to prevent similar incident from happening, but trying to "bring justice" to the parents with these witch hunts doesn't even really make sense.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Three pages is too much to read through when skipping around shows me a lot of heat.

 

So instead of arguing the above stuff for now I'm just going to say something which will be probably controversial because I guess I'm an idiot.

 

I'm not fully sure if I value the kid's life above the gorilla. That's just me though. And I'm admittedly twisted.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No. We weren't saying that at all. We were saying to stop championing his opinion as fact. Because if you do, we can argue whether or not it's right or wrong. If you re-read the thread, then until halfway down page 2 he does nothing but say they should lose the child. Then he gets testy when people say he might be looking at the situation from a bias perspective.

 

The fact that you are trying to are somehow trying to shame us for this is more pathetic than how riled up we, or at least I, got.

 

Notice how once he provided facts and the reasoning behind his opinion we were able to actually discuss it.

Wait...what? There's people (granted Eye-Witness is weak testimony) that the kid was saying he wanted to go play with the gorillas. 

 

I'm not championing my case as fact, I'm saying based on what we know so far, the mother did not take her kid seriously, and another animal had to pay the price for that.

 

"Bias" perspective, again, my situation had little to nothing to do with this, I'm not sure how many times you want me to tell you that. It wasn't my intention to insult or drag in your family or anyone else. And I'm certainly not the one that decided to make this topic about me and my short failings. Interesting enough to note, I wasn't the one who brought anecdotes into this, or even attacked your anecdotes once.

 

I'm not testy cause you guys bring up my past, I'm tired and a little confused what relevance it has here. A shitty dad w/ Drug problems =/= a mother who leaves her apparently hyperactive child, with only a hand in the back pocket, to take pictures. The question, "where is my child" is a problematic one to be asking in the first place 

 

I believe more often than saying they should lose the child, I said that there should be inquiry into whether this is recurring or not. The fact remains, even shooting the gorilla might not have been enough if it had, say, fallen on the kid. You keep siting clear and recurring negligence, but you do realize kids have been taken away for less right?

 

Ok, so say I'm witch hunting, how many times should there be incidents for an inquiry to occur?

[Progenitor]

Three pages is too much to read through when skipping around shows me a lot of heat.

 

So instead of arguing the above stuff for now I'm just going to say something which will be probably controversial because I guess I'm an idiot.

 

I'm not fully sure if I value the kid's life above the gorilla. That's just me though. And I'm admittedly twisted.

Uh oh.

Can you feel it?

The reverb of several triggers, all going off at once.

 

Although, from a PURELY...uhh I'm not sure the correct term to describe it...monetary perspective? That's not quite right but w/e. But from exclusively that type of lens, the gorilla's life was more valuable than the kid's. A healthy make of a critically endangered species is not something you want to lose. Ever. But I don't think that is worth standing and watching as a toddler gets brutalized to death by the adgitations of a gorilla. That's something far more gruesome.

 

But w/e. You're entitled to your own opinions, which I can at least understand from that type of perspective.

 

 

@winter nah bruh, I was moreso referring to your first 4 posts or so, where you kept stating that they deserve to lose their child without actually describing the specifics of why, providing any evidence whatsoever, and at a point where what actually happened at the time where the kid fell in was still in the dark. As soon as you provided the eyewitness account, we were actually able to turn it into a decently productive discussion, as you showed us WHY you felt the way you did. Until that point, all of your replies had no evidence or reasoning behind them other than "it's my opinion", yet you were still trying to argue.

 

We jumped to the conclusion that your personal bias as a parent might have been clouding your judgement and stopping you from looking at the situation form another angle. That's what upset me the most. If that was not your intention, then I apologize for retaliating with such ill contempt.

 

But like I said, you eventually gave us what we were asking for. For the future however, you can't use an opinion as justification for an argument, and even personal experience is a fairly weak form of evidence unless it is directly related or used to supplement credible evidence. Tryin. To play both angles at once just leads to toxic discussion. If it's your opinion, then you need to clearly state that that is how you feel and that won't change. Otherwise, you need to clearly and calmly explain but by bit why they might not understand your position and provide credible, factual reason to support the claim. You can't to both, or this thread is the result.

 

Like I said, no one thinks less of you for having opinions (at least I hope not), but you can't try to argue that your opinion is correct. You can only attempt to justify it by giving us what we want. I mean scientists live to DISPROVE theories. Why? Because it easier to disprove something for 1 case rather than to prove it for all, and that creates productive discussion. Rather than disregard our points and show us your theory again, refine it, and re-present it so that we can better understand where you are COMMING from. That's all

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The general memery saying that the gorilla was a better parent than the mother by virtue of it being gentle is silly. It is a lowland gorilla. Even if it happens to be gentle, no child is safe around a lowland gorilla. Animal behaviour is unpredictable, volatile. This is particularly true of a mature male gorilla like Harambe. Even mentioning things like "Oh, but the gorilla was protecting the child" as an argument against the mother or as an appeal to humans' ability to humanise animal micro behaviour is facetious at best, deliberately misleading at worst.

 

 

To be honest, isn't this an awful argument considering this could easily be the parents' first incident as well? The zoo have just much responsibility to ensure that an incident like that couldn't happen, regardless or not whether it has happened in the past before or not. It probably shouldn't be that easy to get into such a dangerous enclosure.

 

Well, that point was directed at the dimwitted nature of the crowd. As far as we can tell from the video, the gorilla was being protective and gentle with the child, until the crowd started screaming. The proper thing to do would have been to have zoo personal be quietly alerted. Or at the very least, not taking videos and jeering at the situation. 

 

It's not the best argument, but if you say that a million children have passed through that exhibit, and this is the 1st incident that's a 10^-7 incidence rate.  Pretty sure many things the child comes in contact with are more dangerous than that. Just as much responsibility is something I can get behind. Glass panels should be a thing, but the zoo should not be a scapegoat for the behavior of the mother

Honestly, thinking about it, all the witch hunt to get the parents to justice won't really make them be better parents in general. All that it'll do is satisfying the cry of internet goers that doesn't even have any relations to the incident.

it's just putting unnecessary pressure to the whole family for what could've been just a honest mistake for the sake of what could be said as petty vengeance.

 

Investigation might be necessary to prevent similar incident from happening, but trying to "bring justice" to the parents with these witch hunts doesn't even really make sense.

And Nai, since when are mistakes forgiven just because they were "honest"

 

The mother didn't listen to her child, as far as we know, and that's honestly dangerous. Anecdotal as it is, there was a case a while back about a kid asking his parents why there were holes in the electric socket, no serious attention was paid, kid tried putting his fingers in the holes. Thankfully you can't really fit your fingers in a socket so nothing happened, but parent dismissal of children is a problem and sometime it leads to others pay the price for their negligence 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You know, something's been bothering about me about how you've been acting in this thread, and it can be perfectly summed up in just a few words "innocent untill proven guilty". This is a fundamental legal rule, and you're disregarding it.

 

Because if this is reffering the petition I think, a staggeringly high ammount of people are starting a witch hunt based on pure hearsay.

You do not know what happened. You think you know what happened, so I will ask you kindly, put down the pitchfork, and stop calling for vengance on something that was a accident, and nothing more.

 

Believe it or not, kids are slippery bastards, and unless the kid's known to disbehave, most parents will eventually trust them to behave. I know for a fact mine did when growing up. As long as they had a general idea where I was, it was AOK.

 

And the fact that the people responsible for the petition are also trying to accuse the family for being negligent at home, is something I consider utterly disgraceful. There's absolutely nothing indicating that, so that people are even assuming it, I know if I was a parent to the kid, I would be deeply offended.

 

(Also, no you do not have the signatures, almost 70,000 more people need to sign before MAYBE there might even be a response)

 

 

Yes, it's a tragedy that Harambe had to die, but by the end of the day it's the life of a animal, versus the life of a human.

Forgive me if I do not weep for the former.

Sure? But Innocent until proven guilty does not protect you from the charges being made? It's not what I "think" has happened. There is more than enough people in some manner or the other admitting that the mother engaged in activities that in light of the child's desires, were unsafe. It's not a witch hunt, if the person you're hunting is a witch. There is cause of an investigation, and this screams negligence.

 

There is less than a million in one chance that this is the first child to want to go down to the gorilla enclosure, but yet this is the first one that was in some manner allowed to do so. 

 

And this is where I'm confused, children are slippery bastards, but we should still trust them to behave? The fact that they're slippery and volatile is all the reason they should be cared for a lot until they grow up to a reasonable age (6-8). I also have trouble believing that you remember how your parents took care of you when you were 3-4, but maybe I'm wrong there. 

 

I don't want a witch hunt, I want and inquiry to look into the parents so that this doesn't happen again or the child doesn't get hurt again

 

Oh, it was 75K yesterday, looks like they bumped the number up

 

 

@winter nah bruh, I was moreso referring to your first 4 posts or so, where you kept stating that they deserve to lose their child without actually describing the specifics of why, providing any evidence whatsoever, and at a point where what actually happened at the time where the kid fell in was still in the dark. As soon as you provided the eyewitness account, we were actually able to turn it into a decently productive discussion, as you showed us WHY you felt the way you did. Until that point, all of your replies had no evidence or reasoning behind them other than "it's my opinion", yet you were still trying to argue.

 

Oh, yeah I was wrong there for sure. I'm personally appalled by what she did, but it's not my right to say she should definitively lose their child, an inquiry however I do think is merited. Names don't have to be released or anything. But a beautiful animal gave his life for this child's life. The least we can do it make sure he's in relatively good hands. We=government

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

It's not the best argument, but if you say that a million children have passed through that exhibit, and this is the 1st incident that's a 10^-7 incidence rate.  Pretty sure many things the child comes in contact with are more dangerous than that. Just as much responsibility is something I can get behind. Glass panels should be a thing, but the zoo should not be a scapegoat for the behavior of the mother

Question, what exactly do you think we've all been saying? Because it sure as hell aint that.

This is a error on both peoples account, and the fact that you're turning this into a witch hunt because of some personalised vendetta is only inflaming a discussion that didnt carry much weight to begin with. Accidents happen, get over it.

 

Because

how many times should there be incidents for an inquiry to occur?

Lets start with, more then one. And deffinetely more then one incident that is clearly an accident.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Question, what exactly do you think we've all been saying? Because it sure as hell aint that.

This is a error on both peoples account, and the fact that you're turning this into a witch hunt because of some personalised vendetta is only inflaming a discussion that didnt carry much weight to begin with

Context dear fellow. That was a response to Rai, which was a response to me, which was a response to this post

 

 

 

See anything talking about the parents in that?

TBH the zoo is at fault for this even being remotely possible.

 

[Slinky]

Wait...what? There's people (granted Eye-Witness is weak testimony) that the kid was saying he wanted to go play with the gorillas. 

 

I'm not championing my case as fact, I'm saying based on what we know so far, the mother did not take her kid seriously, and another animal had to pay the price for that.

 

"Bias" perspective, again, my situation had little to nothing to do with this, I'm not sure how many times you want me to tell you that. It wasn't my intention to insult or drag in your family or anyone else. And I'm certainly not the one that decided to make this topic about me and my short failings. Interesting enough to note, I wasn't the one who brought anecdotes into this, or even attacked your anecdotes once.

 

I'm not testy cause you guys bring up my past, I'm tired and a little confused what relevance it has here. A shitty dad w/ Drug problems =/= a mother who leaves her apparently hyperactive child, with only a hand in the back pocket, to take pictures. The question, "where is my child" is a problematic one to be asking in the first place 

 

I believe more often than saying they should lose the child, I said that there should be inquiry into whether this is recurring or not. The fact remains, even shooting the gorilla might not have been enough if it had, say, fallen on the kid. You keep siting clear and recurring negligence, but you do realize kids have been taken away for less right?

 

Ok, so say I'm witch hunting, how many times should there be incidents for an inquiry to occur?

 

HEY, IMMA GO MURDER SOMEONE!

-proceeds to go murder someone-

-person who I told I was going to murder someone gets charged with murder as well because they didn't take me seriously-

 

See how stupid this sounds? This is what your argument is.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

HEY, IMMA GO MURDER SOMEONE!

-proceeds to go murder someone-

-person who I told I was going to murder someone gets charged with murder as well because they didn't take me seriously-

 

See how stupid this sounds? This is what your argument is.

If that person is your mother and you're a minor and she did nothing? Yeah she should be charged

 

She's an acomplice...but the cases aren't even similar since the kid was only being a kid, fault is on the mother and the zoo to a degree

[Delibirb]

I live here so it is absolutely massive in the news and Facebook and such. I don't know every factoid of the story, but from what I gather, there wasn't really any other option that could have saved the kid. Yeah, maybe the parent(s) were being negligent, that doesn't mean we can say the kid would have deserved whatever the gorilla dealt. There was an exceptionally small window, so regardless of whether tranquilizers weren't available as fast as they would have needed to be, or if the keepers knew that tranqs wouldn't have slowed or halted the gorilla quickly enough to rescue the kid, the best action for the situation was the kill the gorilla. It's sucky that there wasn't another good option, but we have to all agree that animals are beneath humans, particularly children, when making these impossible decisions. They may only be marginally less important, but we do have a moral and yes, biological imperative to protect members of our species over others.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

 but we have to all agree that animals are beneath humans, particularly children, when making these impossible decisions.

I wouldn't say "all".

[VCR_CAT]

I wouldn't say "all".

 

I would, but that's not to say that humans don't have a responsibility as being top of the food chain. Also yes, humans are indeed on the top of that food-chain. The animal kingdom is literally beneath us.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What if the gorilla had fallen on the kid after it had been shot? I'm not sure. On the other hand, the anger towards the situation isn't exactly going down, the goal yesterday was 50k signatures, and it's nearing 200K now.

 

At the very least I hope they add something to the zoo so we don't have a repeat of this situation

 

As for worth, Humans aren't exactly endangered  

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I would, but that's not to say that humans don't have a responsibility as being top of the food chain. Also yes, humans are indeed on the top of that food-chain. The animal kingdom is literally beneath us.

Well if literally one person disagrees, which they do, it can't be all. Is what I'm saying.

[mitchermitcher]

Reading through the fourth page, now it's like Winter's the one being witch-hunted tbh.

 

At the end of the day I'm still bothered that something like this is enough to warrant an investigation into the family but if there's enough people demanding it there's not much else I can say. An investigation attempt is not the worst thing ever.

 

And for the value of the gorilla. Do you value preservation of another species' continued existence over saving one of our own? Many, probably almost all would pick the latter. Is there some other value the gorilla's life had besides being an endangered species?

[♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪]

This is an example of the "danger" human inflicts on wildlife, many animals were extinct not because of natural occurrences, but because of humans........

Killing the Gorilla is a bit unwise, since it also has the right to live......, but if we are ever given a choice to save a human of an animal, we would do the same thing.....

 

I just hope the Gorilla rests in peace...., and like many others have said, it wasn't the Gorilla's mistake, but more directed to the parent, since they should have prevented the child from going into the enclosure.....