The next MJ isn't that important compared to an endangered species survival. The next Einstein? Yea I don't want a new kind of WMD. The next president? Not a big deal, as trump has shown, any idiot could potentially be president.
The next MJ or Einstein already exists. They are already out in the world. And a large proportion of these children will never reach their potential because of education. It's a meaningless statement to say "this person could be a really good singer" or "this person could revolutionise all we know about the universe" as there is a greater chance of that suffering due to their circumstance rather than through the luck of one child at a zoo
Maybe the gorilla would have helped along cancer researchî„… All humor aside, IMO using "what if" as per both their respective futures shouldn't apply to our opinions on it now. We must delve deep into philosophy here, are the intrinsic values of the lives of non-human species equal to the intrinsic value of human life? And, far more interesting to me, why or why not?
If the lady who held her child over a railing at Pittsburgh zoo which subsequently lead to the child falling into a African wild dog exhibition and being mauled to death wasn't charged then I can't see these parents being charged either. The former incident seems far worse. Also this zoo seems unsafe to me. There's been a few incidents where animals have escaped their enclosure like a gibbon who fled to a carpark and bit a man on his leg or the cheetah that escaped too.
The boy had previous made statements about sneaking into the exhibit to see the gorilla. The parents ignored the obvious hints at his future actions and the gorilla was killed. I feel as if the parents need to be charged. For child endangerment and for the death of an endangered animal. Or at least take into consideration how much it would cost for the zoo to replace said gorilla, and then have them donate that amount to an endangered animal charity to help protect the species from future mistakes of the human population.
If he had if wanted the boy dead, he would have been dead in seconds. If you watch the video, harambe is quite obviously protecting the boy from the crowds, as they got more anxious and loud, he got more protective. IMO, they did the right thing. IMO also, there should have been no possible way for a child to get that close. Parents should be charged with neglect
The Lil boy was Caucasian who mom was a white lady, if the child was black the breaking news would of been gorilla jumped! If you know what that means
It depends on what the parents were doing. Were they not watching their child closely enough? Did the child make a run for it while they werent looking? Were they holding their child over the railing or something? I'd like to know what the parents were doing while the child fell into the enclosure before pressing charges. I do believe that the family should be directly responsible for the killing of an endangered animal under the Endangered Animals Act. I do believe that the zookeepers took the necessary course of action in shooting Harambe. If they tranquilized him, he could become more agitated, as it takes time for him to become sedated. He could also drown in the water after being tranquilized, and potentially trap the child underneath him. Other animal experts and zookeepers said that Harambe was exhibiting aggressive body language, and that killing him was justified. It hurts me that the zookeepers had to kill such a powerful and beautiful animal. R.I.P. Harambe.
Omg. That animal was not aware that it was an endangered gorilla. You guys act like this animal was a productive member of society. He wasn't aware that the kid wasn't a toy. Obvious by the way he dragged the kid around. He was protecting a new toy. May the kid live long and prosper.
I've seen comments from more than a couple of people stating that the parents should be liable for damages/liable for prosecution for the killing. I understand the anger behind that sentiment, but the 'blame the parents' game is never useful and wouldn't prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. There is no legal case to be made against the parents for negligence, or endangerment, or whatever charge you'd want to chuck at them. Children do silly things and cannot be watched all the time. They can also move quickly, and, as demonstrated, can slip through small spaces where they shouldn't be going. The_Postman already gave us an informed POV that when the enclosure was built it met all existing safety regulations. Well from a European perspective that's not at all encouraging. The common assumption is that American safety standards are below EU standards anyway (certainly evidenced by vehicle and food safety) and doing the minimum required is simply not enough. Annual inspections are not a replacement for adequate risk-assessments. The enclosure barrier was insufficent to keep foreign objects (food, missiles, infants) from outside entering the pen, and if such weaknesses were never considered in a risk-assessment then the zoo would be liable. The zoo is a private establishment and when a family pays for admittance there is a contract between the two parties. The zoo wants to keep the animals safe from the pesky humans, the family wants to be protected from the non-domesticated and captive animals. The zoo failed on both counts.
Honestly I think they made a bad call. There was no sign of aggressiveness and Harambe was being protective. From the way Harambe dragged the child it could have looked threatening but honestly that was just trying to help. If Harambe wanted the child dead we know how it would have ended. Whoever made the shot made the wrong call.
Again, I agree. They do exist, however, the luck of this one child could fall into place. Almost everyone has the chance to make a difference, so no I do not think it's a meaningless statement. Who are we to say he won't be the next great? Are we in control of this kids life? Nope. So until life is finished it is never meaningless to say that one persons luck and fate may take them and create the next big thing. Every thing is important, heck someone could run a soup kitchen and they're great in my book. We never know, until the ones life is ended.
No, I said from a "European perspective", and then refered to EU standards. Answers my question then.