The mother should have but she didn't... He fell in the exhibit anyways idk why that always gets brought up like he was in there what were they gonna do when he was in there is the debatable part
It was protecting the kid, the screaming could have felt hostile so he pulled the kid away from the crowd quickly, and then sat helding his hand.
That gets brought up because if she was a decent mother she would of watched her kid and because of her neglect hears be was dead.
It dragged the kid super fast like regardless if it was protecting it or not a kid isn't strong enough to handle that. Also yeah but it did happen, stuff happens and I'm still not even sure how a kid could get in there
And if experts determine its hostile then I don't think whatever you've read on tumblr/twitter/Instagram gives you the qualifications to judge
Experts tend to know what they're on about but at the end of the day the things they say are just trusted opinions. You can never know for certain what a animals or even a humans intentions are. I don't need qualifications or anyone's to permission to judge. I can judge anything. And I'm not staying my opinion based on stories or others opinions, I'm stating it based off the video that was taken and pictures showing close ups. Seemed like the gorilla moved fast because it wanted to get the kid a way from a potential threat. And then it sat with him, keeping him close. The most likely scenario that involves the gorilla harming someone is where he attacks whoever tries to get the kid out of the enclosure. Let's just all agree that we don't know for sure though ok? Cause' you don't know I don't know and the experts don't know.
Experts tend to know what they're on about but at the end of the day the things they say are just trusted opinions. You can never know for certain what a animals or even a humans intentions are. I don't need qualifications or anyone's to permission to judge. I can judge anything. And I'm not staying my opinion based on stories or others opinions, I'm stating it based off the video that was taken and pictures showing close ups. Seemed like the gorilla moved fast because it wanted to get the kid a way from a potential threat. And then it sat with him, keeping him close. The most likely scenario that involves the gorilla harming someone is where he attacks whoever tries to get the kid out of the enclosure. Let's just all agree that we don't know for sure though ok? Cause' you don't know, I don't know and the experts don't know.
I'm positive on the fact that if the gorilla woulda kept dragging that kid around given the chance the kid wouldn't have survived with the injuries he did. Like regardless if the gorilla was trying to protect him you can't drag a kid around like that, the gorilla doesn't know any better but we as humans know it's dangerous.
Yes, monetarily speaking the lawsuit for wrongful death/negligence probably would be cheaper than the amount of money invested in Harambe. I'd say try and tranquilize it before killing it. Broken bones can heal, extinction of a species is forever. All sentient life has value, so it is best if we at least attempt to make death meaningful. If logic and morals are the reason humanity has no hope, then that's just depressing. I'm a man of facts. The fact is if the mother had watched her child better neither would have had to die. I'm not saying the zoo is blameless, but ultimately I blame the mother for the child's actions. If it had been a street the child had ran across instead of a gorilla's enclosure the mother would have been held responsible.
You're positive, are you? Guys we got an animal and behavioral expert here. Let's listen to this bloke. Please, none of us here are experts. Not you. Not me. Not others on this thread. We can only speak of what we saw and what we THINK might have happened. None of us can be positive of anything. Don't speak in absolutes on a matter you clearly know very little about. Share your opinion if you must but you can't be certain. Experts can't be certain either. But they are in the best position to give a knowledgeable answer. But even experts differ in their opinions. Look at a number of different articles. Some experts say Harambe was agitated and killing him was the best option. Others say, that as the troop leader, he was curious and investigating the boy. And trying to pull him away from the humans that were likely going mental up above. Tbh to me, the video looked like the gorilla was trying to pull the boy away from the crowd. But that is only my interpretation. The way I see it is that yes the mother should definitely have been watching her child. But the zoo should also have made it virtually impossible to get into any enclosure. Both of them failed the kid and the gorilla. In saying that we need to remember that kids can't rationalise and form decisions like an adult would. They don't know going to say hello to a gorilla is dangerous. That's why there are adults around.Kids also wait for the adult to turn around and do somwthing silly. That's why the animals are kept in ENCLOSURES. If the child got in, it couldn't have been adequate. The whole point of an enclosure is to keep the animals on one side and the humans on the other. I believe the zoo failed greatly in that respect and Harambe paid the ultimate price. All we can do from this is review animal and zoo regulation and learn from past mistakes. Zoos around the world should take note of this situation and reassess whether their enclosures are sufficient. And parents need to take note too.
Imagine yourself in the parents situation. You would kill harambe in an instant. I know that gorillas drag their own children the like of which you see in the video so it's not like it wanted to kill the boy but the possibility existed and nobody can refute that. The fact is that a tranquilizer was not an option and they chose to shoot him but from what I've gathered when an animal has something they shouldn't the keepers usually bargain with them by trading them treats and such so was that ever a thought? In any case the parents should be blamed for damages because gorillas are expensive!
Naturally any parent would want to take any steps necessary to keep their child safe. And that's why they're not the ones who make decisions about what happens. It is left to their experts. I believe the zoo made the best decision possible with the information and resources they had available. I imagine they considered all options, including the possibility of saving them both. At the end of the day they obviously saw no way to do it and as such they saved the kid. All we can do now is try to make sure this doesn't happen again.
They should have shot the kid (plenty more of them running around) then shot the parents (probably on welfare) saving the government money and also taking a little bit of stupidity out of the human gene pool.
I think that the killing was shocking. But it's a moral dilemma. I am not sure why they did not use a sedative dart. Maybe if it did not work the ape could have got aggressive no one knows. Forget the facts that the child's parents have a shady history the fact was a child was stuck in a enclosure with a potentially deadly mamal If that was anyone else child what would they do? I think protect the child at all cost. Stupid the child got in the enclosure and I believe the zoo may not have had any option.
:lol: I'm curious as to what options they considered or if they tried to lure the gorilla away? Couldn't find any info on it. I guess they wouldn't disclose it.