Am I the only one who doesn't care about #JusticeForHarambe's death?

The animals in the zoo are mostly wild, unpredictable animals, its in their nature to do this. Humans should not go in there thinking they are just like pets. The zoo should also have had more protection for tourists, they should have been educated enough to know the dangers even if the tourists weren't. I don't think the gorilla should have been shot, maybe just relocated to somewhere safer. Couldn't they have used tranquilliser darts if they are saying they did it to protect the boy?

No, it would've angered the beast.

They could've moved him, but they clearly didn't have the time to do it when the kid was in the enclosure, did they.

The animals in the zoo are mostly wild, unpredictable animals, its in their nature to do this. Humans should not go in there thinking they are just like pets. The zoo should also have had more protection for tourists, they should have been educated enough to know the dangers even if the tourists weren't. I don't think the gorilla should have been shot, maybe just relocated to somewhere safer. Couldn't they have used tranquilliser darts if they are saying they did it to protect the boy?

Of course there would have been repercussions had the zoo done nothing, however the gorilla did absolutely nothing wrong because he acted on natural instinct, so killing it almost symbolises how awful the human species is towards animals as well as completely defeating the point of a zoo. The parents must be punished for indirectly causing the death of an endangered species and the zoo need to also implement changes in their enclosures to prevent this from happening again.

Also, controversial point, humans are not endangered (I'm not saying that would justify anything but were there any real warning signs that the gorilla posed a true threat to the child?)

I think we need to know by what logic the animal was threatening. I find the "he's an animal, therefore unpredictable and dangerous" argument hollow and it that was the simple reason, that is totally unacceptable.

By all means, put the child's life first, but I'd like to see that they considered alternatives and were left with no choice but to. I doubt that is the case though.

Rather than blame the zookeepers per se, I think we have to look at what could help regulate and prevent 1) babies falling in and 2) shooting animals

Posted from TSR Mobile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_flos11MZP4&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

That looks pretty dangerous to me

They did try to relocate the gorilla. There were three gorillas, they managed to call the two females out of the enclosure but not Harambe. A tranq would have agitated the gorilla, putting the boy in even more danger. By 'if they are saying they did it to protect the boy' are you insinuating that the zoo secretly wanted to kill the gorilla? Because if you are, that's silly.

The argument that the gorilla was being protective and gentle is just as hollow, if not more. He was probably curious to see what new thing had landed in his enclosure and wasn't going to do any deliberate harm. However, it was entirely possible that the boy would have significant damage done to him just through rough handling.

As I see it, there were only three options:
1) Shoot the gorilla
2) Tranquilise it
3) Wait for it to retreat

You can't expect to tranquilise a 200kg mass of adrenaline and muscle without it panicking and getting angry.

Waiting to see if the gorilla left would have been far too risky. He may have left after severely injuring the boy. He may have just stayed there and led to either option 1 or 2 again. Or he could have dragged the boy further into the enclosure where shooting/tranq-ing it would be even harder.

I understand your argument, but I still do think that any organisation holding wild animals should have taken the necessary precautions to prevent something like this from happening before opening to tourists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_flos11MZP4&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

That looks pretty dangerous to me

To my knowledge as well, gorillas aren't particularly aggressive. True enough about aggressive handling, but couldn't a zookeeper have gone in to try and retrieve it?

Ah yes, that gorilla just looking at a child intrigued and not battering it to death is so menacing. Next time I look at a child I hope no one shoots me because we are just evolved monkeys.

Of course there would have been repercussions had the zoo done nothing, however the gorilla did absolutely nothing wrong because he acted on natural instinct, so killing it almost symbolises how awful the human species is towards animals as well as completely defeating the point of a zoo. The parents must be punished for indirectly causing the death of an endangered species and the zoo need to also implement changes in their enclosures to prevent this from happening again.

Also, controversial point, humans are not endangered (I'm not saying that would justify anything but were there any real warning signs that the gorilla posed a true threat to the child?)

To my knowledge as well, gorillas aren't particularly aggressive. True enough about aggressive handling, but couldn't a zookeeper have gone in to try and retrieve it?

And risked their own life... you're trolling right?

Ah yes, that gorilla just looking at a child intrigued and not battering it to death is so menacing. Next time I look at a child I hope no one shoots me because we are just evolved monkeys.