A boy fell into a gorilla enclosure. Do you agree with the zoo's decision to shoot and kill the gorilla?

Question

The boy's family was visiting the zoo when the boy slipped away and entered the enclosure. The boy went under a rail, through wires and over a moat wall to get into the enclosure, according to the zoo. Footage shot by a witness shows the 17-year-old silverback Harambe dragging the child through the water as the clamor of the crowd grew louder.

Zookeepers shot the 450-pound gorilla with a rifle rather than tranquilizing him. Cincinnati Zoo Director Thane Maynard said he stands by the decision to kill Harambe in order to save the child. The child was taken to the hospital but has since been released.
Jack Hanna, the director of the Columbus Zoo, also says the Cincinnati Zoo made the right call by killing Harambe.
The host of "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild" tells WBNS-TV that he saw video of the gorilla jerking the boy through a shallow moat in the exhibit Saturday afternoon.
Hanna says the boy would have died if the gorilla wasn't killed. 

Do do you agree with this? Do you think the boy would have died, or do you think there were other options to ensure that the gorilla wasn't harmed?

xHoneyxBeex · Accepted Answer

I agree with the zoos decision. As sad as it is that the gorilla died, it was necessary given the circumstances.

1) I blame the mother for not watching her child closely enough, however, I can also say that it's easy to judge the parent when bad things happen. I was really angry at the mother when I first heard about this but people need to think about it from the perspective of a parent. Anyone who has kids or has spent time around children knows how fast things can happen and how quickly a child can do something potentially harmful. Turn your back for 5 seconds and something can happen, even the best parents lose sight of their kids sometimes. I do think the mother should have been holding his hand since it was a crowded zoo, but that's a moot point now. So regardless of everyone's feelings about the mother, the fact is, the child fell in and at that point, action had to be taken for the child's safety.

2) People criticize zoos and say "the child was in the animals habitat" but that's irrelevant. As terrible as it is that the child was in the animal's habitat, you can't just sit there and let a gorilla hurt or kill a child and then say, "oh well, the kid was in the animals home so nothing should have been done." I fully believe there are people out there who would have been less angered/upset if the child had died instead of the gorilla, and that's extremely disturbing to me.

3) The gorilla was dragging the child around by his leg. Whether or not people *think* the gorilla was "protecting" him or "didn't intend to cause him harm," a gorilla is a LOT bigger and a LOT stronger than a child. So regardless of the gorilla's intentions, the child still could have been hurt.

4) Tranquilizers do not work instantly. They take time to take effect, especially on a 450 pound gorilla. The impact from the tranquilizer also could have angered and agitated the gorilla, putting the child at further risk of being seriously injured or killed.

It's extremely easy to look back on a situation and say what "should" have been done but when someone is in that situation themselves, you make the best decision at the time given the information you have. The zoo made the right call.

Azara · Accepted Answer

Well first of all I don't go to zoos or circus because its disrespectful torturous cruel and unusual punishment for innocent creatures.

Some thoughts though. Its of course good the kid is alive and i hope not harmed. Its unfair the Gorilla gets stuck in there without being asked, has a stranger drop in screaming in its face, and gets killed because of a situation he did not create.

The crowd was insane Totally hysterical. Its not like its going to help the kid to behave them screaming, The Gorilla could have taken it as a warning he was in danger. Or just got scared himself. Initially he was looking like he was trying to be gentle... But thew bat shit crazy crowds scared him and to test the danger he gave the kid a test drive.

Its not enough to say parents look after your kids,. Yes of course its necessary but things happen kids get abducted lost a person can have a health condition and pass out. so we can't just say oh watch your kids and if you don't 'oh well'.

The habitat needs to be 100% secure. You bring animals out of their habitat into a prison, at least make it secure so they don't die for others mistakes. As a spring break project I have made a 400$ iron fence with parts from my local hardware store that a 4 year old could not get into. I think they could manage something at least as high tech. ;p

This animal as not 'respected'. He was put in danger that he should not have been put in , and punished for it.

1

EllieLexis513 · Accepted Answer

Ugh, I'm so tired of hearing about this lol. I live in Cincinnati and have been to that zoo several times and have seen that enclosure up close all the time..

For everyone who said that gorilla should not have been shot, I'm sorry, but it did. As much as I HATE to say it, the child's life was in danger. Tranqs would not work.

1. Tranqs take several minutes to work on an animal this large.

2. Tranqs would have agitated the gorilla and it easily could have torn the kid limb from limb.

Unfortunately, it needed to be killed but had this dumbass MOM been watching her fucking kid, this situation would never have had to happen. I don't know if the boy would have died or not, but if it was your kid, would you really want to risk that chance? Probably not. Unfortunately, that's just how we are. We place human life over the life of an animal.

Still think the mom is a complete moron. No one has ever gotten into that enclosure during the 35+ years it's been open and because she was doing what the fuck she was supposed to be, this gorilla died. She should be fined for it. Also, here's a picture of the enclosure that my friend posted on Facebook so you can see it for your self.

scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/.../...37141933_n.jpg

vishna · Accepted Answer

Did they at least try to enter the enclosure and separate the two? That's my qualm. Did they at least try other options.

If the gorilla had turned violent at any point, it was absolutely necessary to use deadly force because the child was simply so young that he didn't deserve to die.

And tranquilizers wouldn't work because 1) the animal isn't put to sleep immediately and 2) being shot would have possibly agitated the animal so that he turned violent.

I think the mom should have to pay or volunteer at a zoo/gorilla rescue because her negligence did lead to the death of an incredibly valuable animal.

Plus, I've heard she's gotten death threats-which is beyond hypocritical in my opinion.

Phoenix98 · Accepted Answer

It probably didn't have any intention on killing the child but with that kind of strength it could have easily done so, in the end it was probably the right decision. Is it sad and unfortunate? yes very, but what's done is done, as for the people saying to tranq is tranquilizers take a little bit to take effect, and one won't always fully do the job sometimes they have to be shot multiple times, and shooting it with a dart would have pissed it off if it didn't put it to sleep. And that could have led to the child being killed.

The problem with situations like this though is you never know how the animals are going to react, they could protect the kid or they could kill the kid, and all it takes in a split second for them to do either and it's in that moment that you have very little time to react and do something about it. You have to remember you can never really domesticate a wild animal fully, they will always have that wild, primal side to them and that's what makes them dangerous in captivity.

SleepingSnorlax · Accepted Answer

I think if they did anything but kill the gorilla the gorilla wouldve killed the boy
For example of they hit it with a traq the gorilla might think the prick of the needle was the boy trying to hurt it and kill him
I agree it was the right choise to save the boy but i dont like it and i hope the parents know its their fault the gorilla is dead for not paying more attention to their kid

Mustachekitteh · Answer

100% disagree and think they didn't care about saving the gorilla's life at all. They just cared about saving their own hid by not getting sued by them. Though now that mother is greatly hated by thousands and thousands of people now and they are calling for her head figuratively.

Though of course majority of people don't care if all the animals on the planet died and humans were the only ones left. Since humans are just more important to them.

LittleSally · Answer

I can't say I'm an expert in gorillas... I presume they know better than me when it comes to this.

ConsultantIsBack · Answer

My thoughts:
-parents and kid are negligent
-if I was zoo owner you bet I'd kill a $20k (just a guess) gorilla to avoid a $2 million + lawsuit settlement
-too bad gorilla had to die
-totally jealous gorillas eat leaves n shit and are strong af. Mirin, genetics of the gods. I have to eat tons of boring bland shit to get nice and joocey lol

kambo_trick3y · Answer

I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but I agree with what they did. It sucks having to kill the gorilla, but whether or not the gorilla was playing, or was agitated, it doesn't matter, when you're as strong as a gorilla and you're a baby boy, NOTHING is going to end well. You either risk the death of the boy and the welfare of your zoo employees, or the gorilla, and I think he chose did the right thing by choosing the lesser of the two evils.

I'm not an animal expert, but I do know gorillas are extremely big, and extremely strong, and from what I read, tranquilizers don't work like they do in the moves, you don't just fall asleep instantly, even a slight twitch from the gorilla once a tranquilizer makes contact could've ended with him snapping the boy like a twig.

Oram52 · Answer

Yeah I read that story, and first thing that came to my mind was why not tranquilize him. The gorilla was also endangered species. Obviously child was in danger, and his safety was firt priority. As I don't have the answer to why decision to tranquilize instead wasn't chosen, I do agree with the decision.

They are experts, dealt with gorilla for years. If they took the decision to kill the endangered gorilla instead, they must've had legitimate reasons. Imagine what would've happened if child was harmed in anyway, worst died.

Cmasterson · Answer

I do think they could've tranquillized them, but first off, fuck the zoo. The zoo alone is so sad and should not exist, anyway, where the hell WAS THIS BOYS MOTHER? Apparently the gorilla thought he was just playing with the young boy, but obviously their strength is a lot stronger, so the boy would've yes had more serious injuries, but its not going to help with the crowd shouting. People who work there the "animal" keepers and trainers work there for a reason, if so- they most likely need to be in contact with the animals at some point, so how come no one jumped in to help the situation.

Mistnigqa808 · Answer

"I disagree with the zoo's decision. Gorilla's are endangered, and there were other options." via letting nature take its course. Since the boy made a stupid mistake that he should have paid for dearly if it wasn't for that "rifle" and the parents of the world (and everyone else who heard about it) would have learned a valuable lesson also, which is to "WATCH YOUR FUCKING KIDS".

There's probably 500 of those gorillas left in the world, yet billions of men so who life matters more?

Anonymous · Answer

The fact that the kid is fine (not dead, no broken bones etc) and the gorilla is dead pisses me off. Many primates are endangered and they shot it? The parents need to be held responsible for both neglecting the kid and for the cause of the gorilla being shot. I've read and seen a lot on this and that kid was in the exhibit with the gotilla for 10-15 minutes. The gorilla didn't kill him though. Parents need to pay attention to their kids, discipline them and take control. The fact that the kid was able to get through the rail, wires and a moat is not the zoos fault! Normal people wouldn't go through all that just to get inside a gorilla or any other animal exhibit. Parents put your damn phones away, put your kid in a stroller and watch them!

oldanddecrepid · Answer

If all they had is the gun and no tranquilizer then that is what they had to go with. It likely happened in a matter of a couple of minutes and no time to think.

Besides a tranq does not happen instantly and the sting of the tranq dart is felt instantly, therefore, if the gorilla thought for second the child was responsible, it would likely have had time to kill the child before going down.

I have seen a large black bear tranquilized and it took about 10 seconds to work... meanwhile it was in a very agitated state for that 10 seconds. That kind of delay would allow for the gorilla to kill the child.

Although, I hate to see something so beautiful like that put down, it was necessary.

Anonymous · Answer

considering the boy was in there for 10 minutes before any action was taken to get him out, they could have done something else. it wasn't absolutely necessary to kill the gorilla. all of the onlookers, save for the boys family, should and could have been moved by staff during that time. the noise they were making agitated the gorilla. several people noted he was acting protective towards the boy initially. if it wanted to hurt the kid, it would have immediately..

I do, however think that by the time the zoos staff finally reacted there wasn't much else they could have done. they waited too long and the onlookers freaking out were causing the gorilla to potentially become dangerous towards the boy.

the outcome is both the fault of the mother (who should be held accountable for neglect) and the zoo for not acting faster.

DabieberRoyalty · Answer

I don't think the Gorilla would have attacked the boy. Why? With Gorillas especially alpha males they attack with immediate reaction. This gorrilla seemed a bit tamed and not aggrevated. In terms of it dragging it through the water us humans exhibit same behaviour too especially with babies and their first experience under water. The intention of the gorilla Was to actually protect but the problem lies in the fact that it protected the human child the way it would have protected an infant gorrilla. What may seem as rough and rowdy handling in Human interpretation is seen as caring, playful and gentle towards a gorrilla.

Oladeji12 · Answer

i'm 50/50. The gorilla didn't look like it had any intentions of hurting the child but due to its strength, it could have accidentally killed the kid. The zoo could have handled it better as well. This is similar to another case of a kid who fell into a gorilla pit and was knocked out. The gorilla though stood by the kid and protected it from the other gorillas until people came down and took the kid away

MrOracle · Answer

I know this sound cruel, but in my opinion, the gorilla should have been tranq'ed, and if the boy died before the gorilla was asleep, that would be sad, but given the status of these creatures, it should not have been killed. The parents are the ones who put their child at deadly risk, and it should have been the parents' responsibility.

The truth is that I see parents put their kids in VERY dangerous circumstances far too often - as if the world owes them and their children a "child-proof" experience. I promise you here that the parents were being idiotic and that led directly to the initial problem. At least, in my opinion, the parents should be financially responsible for the gorilla.

Kaylyne · Answer

I regret to say that it was yet another typical American action to "shoot first and answer questions later".
However I've read today that fortunately the completely irresponsible parents could be facing court precedings regarding child neglect, maybe justice could be done by shooting them, as they're not fit to ever be parents.

sweettckae · Answer

Gorillas love kids so I highly doubt he would've killed the kid if anything he was probably saving him. I disagree with the zoo. It's the same thing they do to pit bulls, if a pit bull bites a person, the dog gets euthanized while it's the owners fault. it's not fair.

MaiNameIsSunshine · Answer

One say when the martians take over Earth and they put us in zoos they'll shoot one of us when one of their young falls in to our enclosure and say alien life> human life.

Disclaimer: This is a joke, so G@Gers, please don't come here with your bitch ass comments ☺

AleDeEurope · Answer

There were no other options. It was either kill the gorilla and save the kid, or save the gorilla and kill the kid.
People say they should have used tranquilizers, but those things take a few seconds, if not minutes, to affect the animal, so most likely in that time, the gorilla would have killed the kid cause he was attacked.

SomeGuy37 · Answer

So, an endangered Gorilla, some idiot parents that couldn't keep track of their kid, so the Gorilla had to die? Why couldn't they just tranquilize it? Why couldn't then just net it, and restrain it?
I watched the Youtube video, and I didn't see anything that made me think the child was in any danger, at all. Of course, video can be 'altered' so what can we really believe is the 'TRUTH'
I don't know all the facts, but why do so many 'other' species need to suffer because of our IGNORANCE?
Maybe is is just part of our culture, where some are just 'expendable', being 'lesser beings.' Where is the line? When do some people become 'expendable' because of some situation?

heavensgift2girls · Answer

The safety of the child had to come first. There is no excuse for all these kids that keep falling into the gorilla enclosures. People keep blaming the parents, but they need to change how they are built so this can't keep happening.

No parent on Earth can watch their child 100% of the time. If the kid happens to take off the moment the parent looks away then unfortunately this means kids can wander into danger. It doesn't mean they are bad parents. I don't think this is a case of neglect.

That said the child is responsible for the gorilla dying, and i feel the parents should be responsible for the damage the child caused. Perhaps a huge fine to go towards conservation efforts for the silver backs are in order.

brookeelizabeth96 · Answer

I don't know if I fully agree with the zoo's decision. When watching the video, I don't see an aggressive being out to kill the boy. If he wanted the boy dead, he would be dead right now. However, his actions were unpredictable, and we don't know what would happen if the boy was in there much longer. I believe that even though it's easy to look away for two seconds and something happen to your child, the parents/mom were/was negligent. Supposedly the boy's mother was distracted by her phone, and the boy kept saying he wanted to get in the enclosure with the gorillas. She should have been paying more attention to her child, and he shouldn't have been able to even try to get into the enclosure. It's sad that now a gorilla's life is lost due to human actions.

A boy fell into a gorilla enclosure. Do you agree with the zoo's decision to shoot and kill the gorilla?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

A boy fell into a gorilla enclosure. Do you agree with the zoo's decision to shoot and kill the gorilla?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.