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

Scroll to see replies

You get extra edge points for that skull avatar

Posted from TSR Mobile

The Punisher is one of my favourite Marvel characters. And they've done a great job of portraying him in the latest season of Daredevil.

Reply 101

nulli tertius

Original post by Wōden

Seriously? You'd be willing to take those risks with a 4 year child and 400lb, male gorilla? Just watch the video, the kid was being dragged around like a ragdoll at one point, he could have easily been killed or severely injured just from hitting his head on something, regardless of whether the gorilla intended it or not. Sorry, but a child's life is worth more than a gorilla's, and killing it really was the only sure way of getting the kid out of there unharmed.

There were risks involved in the shooting as well. Although there was little prospect of hitting the child, there were risks of missing the target or of failing to achieve a clean kill.

Although the child had been dragged around like a ragdoll, he wasn't being when the sharpshooter took his shot. Moreover no steps seem to have been taken to usher visitors away and thus reduce the risk of the gorilla being spooked by the public.

The low risk strategy has normally been to have a sharpshooter in immediate readiness and then try to distract the animal's attention.

It is unlikely a police marksman would have shot in these precise circumstances.

I wonder to what extent the decision to shoot was made by the senior keeper at the scene or was a gung ho "I can take him" attitude by the man with the rifle.

Reply 102

Asuna Yuuki

Original post by RobML

Do you think the life of a gorilla is more important than that of a worm?

From the perspective of a mammal, yes. I'm sure a worm would disagree.

Reply 103

Observatory

No doubt all of the internet's Captain Hindsights would be saying what a good job the zoo staff did if they had done nothing and the animal had eaten the child, and certainly not calling for their prosecution for negligent manslaughter.

I suspect the management of the zoo reasoned that shooting the animal only left them out an animal whereas anything happening to the child meant the end of the zoo and probably the peaceful enjoyment of life of all those on duty on that day. Even if the chance of the child being eaten were only 5%, I would have done exactly the same thing.

One can make the argument that an example of an endangered species is more morally valuable than a human child, humans after all being common and boring, but then the law must be changed to match.

Not that I would suppose such a change. I can only view the growing demand in the US that the innocent be devoured if it makes life safer for predators with growing unease.

Reply 104

Observatory

Original post by melinae

Can't believe some people are claiming the parents aren't in the wrong by mentioning that children sometimes escape supervision. And yes, look what happens when they do! If your child is running around next to a bloody Gorilla enclosure that he/she could easily get into, I'd think it'd require only a minimal amount of common sense to see that they need extra special supervision in that area. It's kind of like if you are next to a really busy road, you can't say it's not the parents fault for letting them run into oncoming traffic just because "they sometimes escape supervision".

People don't usually expect zoos to contain raging thoroughfares of deadly beasts into which one can slip and be devoured due to a moment's loss of concentration. They were not lost in the Amazon rainforest. They were at an entertainment park largely designed for children. What the parents did here was less inherently dangerous than letting a child play in street in the evenings or walk home from school alone. Given how many children visit zoos and how few fall into enclosures, surely less dangerous than having a child as a passenger in the family car.

Reply 105

cherryred90s

Original post by Jebedee

Should have shot the kid to give it a painless and quick death. The Gorilla was endangered, theres a crap-ton of 4 year olds around. Just sayin'.

Why would you kill the child when he posed no threat to the gorilla?

Reply 106

Jebedee

Original post by cherryred90s

Why would you kill the child when he posed no threat to the gorilla?

Already said that, to give him a quick painless death as opposed to a long painful one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36420730/expert-shooting-harambe-the-gorilla-was-only-decision-at-cincinnati-zoo

"His sheer strength could mean he'd hurt the child even if he wasn't meaning to. So even without being overtly aggressive, he could have caused grave injury to that child."

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 107

cherryred90s

Original post by Jebedee

weird logic. They were right in the actions, and if it was my child, I would've shot the gorilla myself

Reply 108

Jebedee

Original post by cherryred90s

weird logic. They were right in the actions, and if it was my child, I would've shot the gorilla myself

Of course you would and I would do the same. But the rest of the world does not share your maternal/paternal instinct for your child.

Reply 109

cherryred90s

Original post by Jebedee

Of course you would and I would do the same. But the rest of the world does not share your maternal/paternal instinct for your child.

Fair enuff

Reply 110

Joinedup

Original post by nulli tertius

Did you ever read 'Shooting an Elephant' by George Orwell?

I wonder if the gorrilla was shot partly because after steaming across the park with The Gorilla Gun and a belt of The Gorilla Bullets, the marksman or his boss decided they'd look stupid if they didn't shoot anything soon.

Reply 111

IXxi HIIDA ixXI

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/01/anonymous-hackers-declare-war-on-family-over-killing-of-gorilla-harambe-5917579/

Rescue Mission Launched As Thousands Stranded On Higher Moral Ground

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/06/01/rescue-mission-launched-as-thousands-stranded-on-higher-moral-ground/

Reply 114

L i b

Original post by Underscore__

That's bs, when you're out in a busy place with your children you make sure you know where they are.

As I'm sure any parent will testify, there is a difference between knowing where your children are and being in physical control of them, able at any point to stop them running off.

You hold their hand while crossing the road, granted, but you release it when they're in a fairly safe place place - or, rather, what you expect to be fairly safe.

Reply 115

nulli tertius

Original post by L i b

I am not sure you are right here. Whilst the danger that occurred was plainly not foreseeable, there were plenty of other risks for a three year old (wandering off, man offering sweeties, child run over by zoo maintenance vehicle) that one would have expected a parent to have kept very close control of them.

Generally speaking, toddlers are only allowed to roam free either in a confined space from which danger has been specifically eliminated such as a fenced off play area or an open space such as a playing field without dangers where they lack the stamina or determination to reach the edge of the safe space.

A zoo, a fairground, or a theme park has too many dangers for a three year old to fall into either category.

Reply 116

Dalek1099

Original post by The Roast

The gorilla was dragging the boy around, you simply cannot deny the kid was at risk.

Two lions were shot at a zoon in Chile when some suicidal chump jump in, they were shot as they were maiming the guy. Some people think that was "over the top" too.

You cannot risk anything with unpredictable animals - ever.

What people don't seem to get is due to the strength of the Gorilla the Gorilla doesn't have to be actually trying to kill or hurt the child it can easily hurt or kill the child by accident, especially by dragging them about.

Its the Zoos fault entirely everything in a Zoo should be sealed off, if a 4 year old child got in it shows security is very poor and makes you wonder whether animals can get out.Maybe the parents are responsible to some extent of child neglect although its easy to lose track of your children and they can easily run away but there is no way the child should have been in there with the Gorilla it shouldn't have been able to happen.

Reply 117

username1921011

Thats obviously a trolling tweet, nobody thinks that. An unpredictable wild animal had a child in its possession, as society stands human lives are seen as more valuable and so on that assessment the keepers acted as they should and removed the threat of the creature to the person. I haven't seen much about this but a clear evaluation of the circumstances leading up to the shooting is required, did the child climb in after being left unsupervised for two seconds as children are prone to do, or were the parents negligent in allowing the situation to emerge?

The keepers acted exactly as would be expected, the question mark hangs over the parents.

Reply 118

elizahughes

I'm sick of people blaming the parents. Why must we blame anyone? This was just a tragedy. Majority of people here aren't parents and don't understand how quickly a child can run off - can you expect them to have their eyes on their child 24/7 if they are at a zoo where you LOOK at animals? Also, children can run off so quickly and zoos get so busy. They may also have other children who also need their attention. And obviously they aren't going to jump in the enclosure!

There are no winners in this, only victims. Those parents are probably guilt-ridden and scared of taking their son out and the backlash they are receiving is horrible. Stop victim blaming and just accept this was an unfortunate incident!