Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    They probably could have been watching him more closely but kids wander off and get lost ALL the time. It just so happens that this time, the consequences were tragic. The barriers really should have been strong enough to keep at four year old out.
    Right. I'm not necessarily laying the blame with the parents but there are questions that need to be asked to both the zoo and the parents.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niv1234)
    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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Id like to know why the babies life was believed to be in danger. The tranquilliser point also raised a question as to why to shoot the animal with a child in such proximity.

    Same as the lions who got shot instead of the guy commiting suicide, its a shame that the zookeepers had to punish animals for the flaws of humanity. I hate our species some times.

    Parents should be absolutely punished for that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Roast)
    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.
    By that I meant move him after they get the kid out when he is tranquillised.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Had the gorilla mauled or killed the little boy and the zookeepers had not shot him there would have been collective outrage over the zookeepers not doing anything. It wasn't a pleasant situation either way but I believe the zookeepers chose the lesser of two evils option. They don't deserve condemnation, the parents do
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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?)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niv1234)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsIP2016)
    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?)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_flo...be&app=desktop

    That looks pretty dangerous to me
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_flo...be&app=desktop

    That looks pretty dangerous to me
    ********, notice how the gorilla doesn't even look vaguely threatening, notice when in close proximity with the baby it held it. The major concern there has to be the risk of drowning but in that case, shoot the water, not the gorilla.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niv1234)
    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.
    I agree 100%
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_flo...be&app=desktop

    That looks pretty dangerous to me
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsIP2016)
    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.
    If I was seen dragging a child around like a rag doll I'd be accused of neglect... oh no, wait, in your world I'm the number one parent.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhysicsIP2016)
    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'll go get the firing squad ready for you then
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    if it was a crocodile or a snake or a tarantuler there would be less emotion i guess ?

    :dontknow:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    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?
    Gorillas are not aggressive, especially if in captivity without competition with rival troops. That is of course unless you threaten/harm it. Letting a zookeeper enter the enclosure could have worked. Gorillas are even less aggressive if they recognise the person.

    It was unlikely that the child would have been killed. If the gorilla intended to harm him, he would have done a lot worse than drag him about, like biting him. I guess it depends on whether the zoo was willing to risk non-life-threatening injuries.

    I feel it was a really difficult situation and I can't really blame the zoo for what they did.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Roast)
    And risked their own life... you're trolling right?
    I'm saying that in zoos aren't zookeepers trained to be able to safely enter animal enclosures?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 3, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.