Cue the witch hunt.

Scroll to see replies

It's a bloody 4 year old child. Its life is more important than any animal. Even if that gorilla was the last of its kind on earth, shooting it would still have been the right call.

That the life of a human is dearer than the life of an animal is not a point of contention.

It could be the next Hitler or never accomplish anything in his life, just because he is a human doesn't make his life important. Also, 4 year olds are annoying.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 41

tengentoppa

Original post by Dom2375

It could be the next Hitler or never accomplish anything in his life, just because he is a human doesn't make his life important. Also, 4 year olds are annoying.

Considering what you're arguing for here is letting a gorilla kill a 4 year old child, I feel your argument needs to be a bit stronger than "4 year olds are annoying"

Reply 42

username1258398

Original post by Guru Jason

Lol no one gave the MCCann parents this much of a hard time for leaving there child unattended and that ended in a tragedy. The hypocracy is unreal.

yah but in that case it was just a child that died, no biggie. when an animal dies its srs bsnss

Original post by Dom2375

It could be the next Hitler or never accomplish anything in his life, just because he is a human doesn't make his life important. Also, 4 year olds are annoying.

And just because it's a gorilla doesn't make its life important, lol?

Original post by thunder_chunky

The blame does lie with the parent(s), period.

Nah, some lies with the zoo. How the heck does a 4 year-old manage to get into a gorilla enclosure? That's the real question.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 43

Dom2375

Original post by tengentoppa

Considering what you're arguing for here is letting a gorilla kill a 4 year old child, I feel your argument needs to be a bit stronger than "4 year olds are annoying"

They are though.
However I don't think the 4 year old should be killed I just don't think the gorilla should be killed.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 44

tengentoppa

Original post by Dom2375

They are though.
However I don't think the 4 year old should be killed I just don't think the gorilla should be killed.

So what would your solution have been? It was the gorilla or the child

Reply 45

The Roast

Original post by tengentoppa

So what would your solution have been? It was the gorilla or the child

Isn't it obvious? He/she wanted the child to die.

Reply 46

melinae

Original post by tengentoppa

So what would your solution have been? It was the gorilla or the child

How do you even know that it was "one or the other" though? Or are you a fully qualified Gorilla psychologist? Yes he pulled the child around but whos to say he was actually going to kill it? You cant really comment on that...

Reply 47

tengentoppa

Original post by melinae

It's a 28 stone gorilla, you can't take chances. Any attempt to tranquillise it would have taken too long to be effective and the child could have been killed.

So long as there was any risk that the child may die, killing the gorilla was the right call.

Reply 48

melinae

Nvm, letting this go before I get pissed.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 49

tengentoppa

Original post by melinae

Nvm, letting this go before I get pissed.

You can't do that. I'm really curious about what your reply was now...

People are so quick to judge the parents. It's easy to imagine an ideal situation in hindsight and blame the parents for not having their eyes on their son every passing second. But I bet most of us here have hurt ourselves, wondered off from our parents at some point at the supermarket, in a department store, at the park, at the zoo... It happens, and it doesn't necessarily mean bad parenting. Usually nothing bad comes of it, but this time it ended in something unfortunate. S**t happens.

Stop acting so high and mighty.

Reply 52

mrITguy

Wow I cannot believe some of the responses that some people in this thread are coming out with......

Firstly, anyone who actually has watched the full video will see that the gorilla was protecting the child. It thought the child was a baby gorilla!! and thus treated it as one. The child was perfectly safe, it was only when everyone was screaming that alarmed the gorilla.....

However, when this happened the gorilla's first natural instinct was to go into parent mode and thus to get the child out of the danger (the people screaming etc), the gorilla did this by dragging the child through the water and although it might have been a bit rough (which is how gorilla's treat their baby's when moving them out of danger), the child was perfectly fine.

After, the gorilla had dragged him out of danger, the gorilla then checked over him to see if he was all right (and he was). It didn't help when the mother was making the child nervous by saying ("its ok, mommy's here, don't move bla bla), then what do they do?

Proceed to shoot the ENDANGERED gorilla!!!

The gorilla would have had contact with zoo keepers, so why on earth did a zoo keeper (who feeds it on a regular basis) not go in with a banana and trade the child??

Or they could have tranquillised it and if it showed any chance of harming the boy (though extremely unlikely) THEN shoot it.

But Americans shoot first and think later :angry:

People on here don't seem to know how gorilla's work, if he wanted to kill the child he would have done it there and then when he first entered the zone. But he didn't and instead thought it was a baby gorilla (not surprising really since the resemblance to humans is uncanny).

Some people saying "The boy's life was more important than a silly gorilla" clearly are the ones who would probably go out and kill animals just for the fun of it because they are less important than humans (and don't have guns so they can't fire back). Gorilla's are very intelligent creatures and thus are not some rampaging brain dead monster that you see in movies (heck even king kong was friendly :P)

In terms of the boys mother/parents, yes she is to blame for her son falling in. She it supposed to watch the child and take care of his safety!! For those that say "you can't watch your child 100% so he must have climbed when she wasn't looking" I ask you this, in that time that the boy managed to climb the railing, another person could have kidnapped the child!!!

Yes you cannot watch them 100% of the time, BUT you can check on them every few seconds (or have a strap like other people have suggested) and in a busy crowd, she should have had held of her child so that these things wouldn't happen. its common sense which clearly the mother doesn't have.

I do feel that the mother should make a public apology for the gorilla's unlawful death, since she was as good as hold the knife and now makes a comment on twitter that doesn't even mention the gorilla (which shows how much she cares about it).

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 53

Kim-Jong-Illest

Original post by mrITguy

Gorilla specialists have already disputed the fact that there was no evidence to suggest that the gorilla was treating the child as one of its own. They've also said that the fact that it was dragging the kid around was similar to when a gorilla drags along a branch or something in order to make noise and mark its territory when its alarmed.

The child could have quite easily been seriously hurt when he was being dragged if there was a rock in the water which he hit his head off. Can't take you seriously when youre saying that you'd take the risk by allowing the gorilla to be tranquilized when that could have made things worse and made it panic even more. Shooting was the only realistic and safest option on the cards, you'd be saying the same if it was your kid.

I don't know why you think you know more than these specialists or zoo keepers on how silverbacks act but please do enlighten me lol

Reply 54

mrITguy

Original post by Kim-Jong-Illest

Ok, let me ask, who are these gorilla specialists you are clearly think are correct because they are "experts"? No doubt they are the same people who love guns and think its ok to have the right to use a modern military weapon to kill things.

There is no evidence? LOL the video is more than enough evidence, as you can clearly see the gorilla was protecting the child. Gorilla's are not just stupid beasts that don't know what they are doing, it can certainly tell the difference between a branch and a human imo. The fact that the gorilla helped the child up and checked him over (like they do with their baby's) shows this.

But they child did not get hurt did he? You are trying to change the situation on what happened. Fact is, he didn't hurt himself on sharp rocks that he bashed his head against (you would know if you were a gorilla's toy).

That wasn't my preferred method, as I said the zoo keeper with the banana would have been the best option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05CItceEdg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfC0gyCbpR4

Yes if it was my child I would be scared and want him to get to safety as quickly as possible BUT on reflection I wouldn't want to kill the ENDANGERED gorilla. If it did get killed I would at least make a public apology for the gorilla's death.

Reply 55

joey11223

Original post by tengentoppa

So what would your solution have been? It was the gorilla or the child

I'd have said since they clearly had a team of riflemen ready to take our the gorilla on command, to try a tranquilizing dart, if the Gorilla reacted badly to that they could pull their triggers in a second.

Really though pretty poor security on the enclosure for such a small child to easily get inside.