Gorilla shot Dead

Forums › Off topic › Gorilla shot Dead

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562754 31-May-2016 08:15

blakamin:

I'm with the "Why/How can a 4yo get through a fence into the enclosure?" crowd.

Parents should keep an eye on kids, but 2-4yo's can be quick. How many get run over in driveways or drown every year because someone "turned my back for a second"?

Still sucks they had to kill the gorilla. :(

And I don't agree with the stupid petition.

Kids are weird. You can be the worst parent and the kids survive despite complete negligence. You can be the best parent and the kids can end up in a very bad shape.

Until we know exactly how the kid did what he did we can't really say.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562756 31-May-2016 08:20

cruxis: Just n saying I reckon a 4 year old could get into Orana parks brand new gorilla enclosure if not watched. A adult with ease. Gotta survive the 10 meter drop though.

Come to think of it a lot of enclosures a child could get in. Even the lions a child can go up and stick a arm through the fence. They are designed to keep the animals in Not people out. The rhinos paddock could walk through the gap between the posts if you wanted to die.

When I was a child, we used to go to several Safari Parks where you could drive through the enclosures in your car amid lions, tigers and baboons etc. I guess any one of us could have jumped out of the car...!

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562757 31-May-2016 08:21

profrink:

I honestly can't believe people are up in arms about the decision at the lethal shot.

Is it devastating we have lost an endangered animal? Absolutely. But there was a situational thought processes undertaken, with the highest priority being to ensure the safety of the child.

If you listen to the actual interview with the staff, they explain exactly how they had considered using tranquilizer darts, and why they ultimately did not deploy them.

Am I an expert? Nope. But I sure as hell would rather trust the decision making of the people dealing with these animals on a daily basis, over a bunch of people who have watched 'Born to be Wild' or 'Dunston Checks In' a couple of times.

I'd be focusing on how the child even managed to get in to the enclosure in the first place.

Tranquilizer darts have issues in time critical situations.

1. Tranquilizer works like alcohol. Give enough they pass out. Give less than that they actually become *agitated and aggressive. Give too much they die (well, not a problem in this situation)

- How do you know it is enough

2. It takes time to work. During that time they WILL go through a phase of agitation and being aggressive.

*unmask whatever they are feeling and remove inhibition - so they could well be calm and go to sleep. but IF they feel threatened they will get very violent. child will be dead before you can say oops

profrink

257 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1562760 31-May-2016 08:27

joker97:

profrink:

I honestly can't believe people are up in arms about the decision at the lethal shot.

Is it devastating we have lost an endangered animal? Absolutely. But there was a situational thought processes undertaken, with the highest priority being to ensure the safety of the child.

If you listen to the actual interview with the staff, they explain exactly how they had considered using tranquilizer darts, and why they ultimately did not deploy them.

Am I an expert? Nope. But I sure as hell would rather trust the decision making of the people dealing with these animals on a daily basis, over a bunch of people who have watched 'Born to be Wild' or 'Dunston Checks In' a couple of times.

I'd be focusing on how the child even managed to get in to the enclosure in the first place.

Tranquilizer darts have issues in time critical situations.

1. Tranquilizer works like alcohol. Give enough they pass out. Give less than that they actually become *agitated and aggressive. Give too much they die (well, not a problem in this situation)

- How do you know it is enough

2. It takes time to work. During that time they WILL go through a phase of agitation and being aggressive.

*unmask whatever they are feeling and remove inhibition - so they could well be calm and go to sleep. but IF they feel threatened they will get very violent. child will be dead before you can say oops

Absolutely. If only readers/viewers could also "unmask whatever they are feeling and remove inhibition" and look at things from a decision & risk POV.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1562762 31-May-2016 08:30

If the gorilla is not shot, the kid died, those same wowsers likely to organize a petition to get the zookeeper to be sacked.

You only have a few seconds to make the decision and of course human life should come first. That poor kid must be traumatised.

The very same people who blame the parents for not looking after the kids etc, obviously they don't have
kids or just have one or two. Kids behave differently and at that age they can certainly do something like that easily.

The fact that we are discussing this it shows that people are becoming more ......

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1562776 31-May-2016 09:05

IMO. Yeah horrible situation and decision to shoot gorilla is right and justified, but now there should be:

1. Charges against Zoo for negligence, no people should be able to fall/enter enclosure, zoo is 1% responsible.

2. Recover the cost of new gorilla from parents, as they 99% responsible in this situation.

helping others at evgenyk.nz

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18664 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1562781 31-May-2016 09:13

1. Celebrate the survival of the child.

2. Mourn the loss of the gorilla.

3. Create a place where gorillas can live naturally and unmolested.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

cruxis

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1562796 31-May-2016 09:31

Sick of people who think the zoo enclosures need child proofing,They must let their kids run lose. Have you been a zoo lately? They are not a safe place to let a child roam. The signs on entry tell you watch your kids. I take my pre schooler monthly I seen many enclosures he could get in and has tried I am always holding his hand is certain areas.

The only enclosures I have noticed that are really child proof are the ones where the child could hurt the animal, Eg insects, Lizards, Kiwi, Tuatara.

The only one I been attacked in is those keas, Cheeky bloody thing bit at my shoelaces, razor sharp beaks and claws, again a sign on entry "keas bite enter at own risk"

Here is christchurchs zoo latest enclosure up to the latest standards and my boy could pull himself over the side if not watched. There is a sign not to hang over the edge.

A dry moat ensures the gorillas cannot escape, but that public view is not unduly. Not too keep Humans out.

Fully child proof enclosures would ruin the experience in my opinion.

dafman

3928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1562801 31-May-2016 09:36

According to the mother, "God protected my child until the authorities were able to get to him."

Memo to mother: Its a pity for the Gorilla that god didn't just tap you on the shoulder a little bit earlier to suggest you to keep a better eye on your kid.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1562834 31-May-2016 10:04

kobiak:

IMO. Yeah horrible situation and decision to shoot gorilla is right and justified, but now there should be:

1. Charges against Zoo for negligence, no people should be able to fall/enter enclosure, zoo is 1% responsible.

2. Recover the cost of new gorilla from parents, as they 99% responsible in this situation.

I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with you there. Neither can I agree with the other 200,000 people who have signed the most popular "Justice for Harambe" petition.

And I quote ......

"The most popular "Justice for Harambe" petition seeks police action and also urges child protective services to investigate the boy's home to guard against "further incidents of negligence.""

It seems to me that people just want to jump on the bandwagon, become a self appointed judge and jury and create additional misery for all concerned (in what was a tragic accident), before all the facts are known.

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1562850 31-May-2016 10:23

DaveB:

So what exactly you don't agree? that parents should not watch they kids in the zoo? They are negligent if they (did not take reasonable care for their action) missed their kid.

They should not be liable?

helping others at evgenyk.nz

Azzura

603 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#1562855 31-May-2016 10:32

I am not sure it was necessary to kill the gorilla Harambe.

Kids falling into gorilla enclosures has happened in the past --- Jambo and Binti Jua. But perhaps the zoo keepers got it wrong (back then) and should have killed the gorillas (?). I honestly don't know....

Finch

2851 posts

Uber Geek

#1562856 31-May-2016 10:32

I dont agree with Mike Hosking that much but thought he summed it up pretty well last night. He basically said, "There are no winners, everyone is to blame".

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1562862 31-May-2016 10:38

The continual silliness involving the furore to have the mother charged for endangering the child is just disgraceful. One: the internet warriors have not actually witnessed the full event and frankly aren't qualified to comment; two: as a former prosecutor, defence lawyer AND a person who has lawyered for the judiciary, I can safely say that without being aware of the specifics of the Ohio statutes, generally speaking laws proscribing against negligent treatment of children do not criminalise momentary lapses of concentration or instances where a child is put into danger through a dynamic, unpredictable series of events; three: conviction on such charges often require a substantial departure from the requisite duty of care; four: any defence lawyer for the mother worth his/her weight in paper will instantly call the zoo's director and refer him to the statements that are widely known relating to this enclosure having been incident-free for 30+ years and I see some reasonable doubt already.

But back to my first point. As a person who identifies himself with the liberal side of the political spectrum, it appalls me that people of the ilk that would sign these Facebook petitions - who almost certainly will present themselves as liberals - will rarely/if ever have the same appetite for expressing outrage for the needless suffering of "other" humans, such as the continuing deaths of migrants/refugees in the Mediterranean. Nor can many of these people stretch their narrow, little minds to considering whether it is consistent to claim to love the primate that was shot whilst supporting the effective caging of these animals purely for human gawking/pleasure, a point that a primatologist has made in an article in the Herald.

As a GZ user, I am pleased to say that, overall, the debate here has been far more intelligent than what I've seen elsewhere on the internet.

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1562863 31-May-2016 10:42

kobiak:

DaveB:

So what exactly you don't agree? that parents should not watch they kids in the zoo? They are negligent if they (did not take reasonable care for their action) missed their kid.

They should not be liable?

Signing an on-line petition (ie having formed an opinion calling for, I assume, justice) ....... before all the facts are known.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5