CDZ This is what happens when folks haven't a lick of common sense....Harambe gets shot dead

[320 Years of History]

Saturday, a boy somehow got into the moat of the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo. A male gorilla got hold of the boy and drug him around. What video there is of the event is on the WWW....The zoo's spokesperson says they had no choice but to destroy the Harambe, an endangered species of gorilla (that may be redundant....are there any gorilla species that aren't endangered?)...they couldn't tranquilize the beast because the drug is slow acting.

Per CNN...

The child was not under attack but all sorts of things could happen," Thane [zoo official] said. "He certainly was at risk." Thane said zoo officials decided against shooting Harambe with a tranquilizer because the drug takes effect too slowly. "You don't hit him and he falls over," Thane said. "It takes a few minutes.​

So a few things have crossed my mind about this situation:

• Lowland gorillas --> "critically endangered."
  Stupid and/or careless boys --> no shortage of them, not even close.
  Negligent parents --> again, got plenty of them runnin' around too.
  
  Gorilla does what gorillas do + child doing what it has no business doing + parents not doing what they should do = dead endangered gorilla. Hmmm....something's just not right about that...Call me a social Darwinist if you like, you'd be right.
• "Shiny Objects" -- The "shiny object" approach -- distraction -- works for all sorts of creatures. The only ones it doesn't work for are the really, really dumb ones, like nematodes, crustaceans, arthropods, annelids, cnidarians, and echinoderms. It even works with some mollusks, notably octopi and cuttlefish. But once one gets up to the chordates, it works pretty well. Toss a shiny object across the room and watch your cat race after it....it doesn't even need to be shiny. Anyone who's ever been fishing knows how well "shiny objects" work as sources of distraction and wonderment for fish even. When you get to the human level, the "shiny object" need not even be physical, although physical ones work too if they are the right ones.

So why did nobody think to give the gorilla something that was more interesting to it than was the boy? I don't know what may have qualified. That's what the zoo keepers and zoologists are supposed to know. They've been studying gorillas in the wild and in captivity for half a century. Harambe had been at the zoo for years.

How does one, presumably one who is something of an expert on gorillas, study and interact with the creatures for years on end and have no idea of what is more interesting to them to than a boy? God help these zoo people's spouses, kids and friends come birthday time. How on Earth do decide what to buy as a gift?

The gorilla wasn't eyeing the boy as though dinner was being served. It most likely saw the boy as a plaything. I'm thinking just spraying a ball with some "eau de gorilla vagina" would have been eminently more interesting than that boy. I'm sure that gorilla can literally smell girl gorilla from quite a distance, far enough that if the smell is on the other side of the pen, a keeper or a few of them could have jumped into the moat to get the boy while some others lowered ropes to get them all back out while the gorilla was having a conniption and a big ol' "woody" over whatever object reeked of "eau de girl gorilla."

Now the "eau de gorilla" idea is a bit "out there" perhaps, but there are surely myriad other things that are at least appealing enough that the gorilla would want to check them out. The boy was surely something new. The gorilla just needed something new-er than the boy to forget about the boy. If you have pets, you know exactly what I'm getting at. Hell, food would have worked too...what animal, even if it's not hungry doesn't at least go check out food?

In closing, I don't know anything about the zookeepers at the Cincy Zoo, but I know this. You can't be working around wild animals and have no common sense.

P.S.
If you watch a web video of the boy being tossed around by the gorilla, it looks like the boy was really being thrashed about hard. Reports described the gorilla as, "violently dragging and throwing the child."

The boy is out of the hospital already and is reported as being "fine," apparently fine enough that the boy didn't sustain any injuries seeing as none are mentioned.

 

[Wilbur Right]

320, Did you hear about the woman who had a similar experience?

She was caught by a gorilla and treated badly. Beat, sexually assaulted and drug around like a rug. When this woman was finally rescued and came to in hospital, her friend was waiting; do it hurt the friend asks?

Our "victim" being emotionally distraught says; do it hurt? DO IT HURT? Of course it hurts. He don't call, don't write, don't even send no flowers. Yeah it hurts.


That was her son in the gorilla cage. Betcha.

 

[320 Years of History]

320, Did you hear about the woman who had a similar experience?

She was caught by a gorilla and treated badly. Beat, sexually assaulted and drug around like a rug. When this woman was finally rescued and came to in hospital, her friend was waiting; do it hurt the friend asks?

Our "victim" being emotionally distraught says; do it hurt? DO IT HURT? Of course it hurts. He don't call, don't write, don't even send no flowers. Yeah it hurts.


That was her son in the gorilla cage. Betcha.

I was not aware of that story. TY for sharing. I certainly had a good laugh at that one.

You know...Gorillas manage to carry and meddle with baby gorillas and not hurt them. My cats know not to be as rough as they can be when we're playing "whack-a-mole." Gorillas are purportedly much smarter than cats. I would think that gorilla knew it didn't need to go "full on whatever" with that boy, quite likely it was using "gorilla comparable" force to what you or I might have used to push/pull or hustle our our child to a position of safety. The whole thing clearly looked more brutal than it actually was.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I got sick of reading your subhuman op as you made it very very clear that the kid should have died a slow horrible agonizing death, while the parents watched.



So I would like to note, that if that was your kid in there, your own opinion would be that your kid should die.

And I just love how you think you know better than the pros that work with them everyday.

fucking arrogant subhuman pile of shit

 

[OldLady]

I think we're back to the infant boy in the back seat and the teenage female in the front seat and which one do you save. Once again, I choose the baby (3 year old) and disagree with you.
Your idea of distraction is a good one, and if the trainer who knew the gorilla well was right there and had something quickly available to try, it might have worked. The gorilla certainly wasn't attacking the child, but it wouldn't take much for a 400 pound gorilla to hurt or kill a 3 year old, unintentionally or not.
When I saw that little boy huddled behind the gorilla, every cell in my body screamed "Save him!" If I'd been the kid's mother, I probably would have been in the enclosure, too, making matters worse.
I respect wild life. I respect it so much that I don't like to see it living in a cage in a zoo. So what if the kid was climbing on the wall where he shouldn't have? What 3 year old boy doesn't? I'm sure when you were 3, you did as well. That's more a safety issue for the zoo, not something the child should die for.
What could possibly justify this decision of yours? Are you serious that an endangered gorilla is worth more than a child? Any child?

 

[sartre play]

No need to insult op, sad tale, hope the zoo secures there fences.

 

[Bonzi]

 

[320 Years of History]

I got sick of reading your subhuman op as you made it very very clear that the kid should have died a slow horrible agonizing death, while the parents watched.



So I would like to note, that if that was your kid in there, your own opinion would be that your kid should die.

And I just love how you think you know better than the pros that work with them everyday.

fucking arrogant subhuman pile of shit

Red:
What I made patently clear isn't that the child should have died, but that the gorilla should not have. I realize there's a subtle difference between those two things. Do you?

Blue:
If frogs had wings,
among other things,
on landing from a jump,
the ground and their rump
would not bump.

As I wrote in my OP, I'm unabashedly a Social Darwinist of sorts. The loss of a child is a terrible thing that nobody wishes for themselves or others. I would, no more or less than anyone else, have not wanted my child to perish in the situation. At the same time, I realize that if I or my child didn't exhibit the "fittest" behavior that would have kept the situation from happening in the first place, neither I nor my kid would have to deal with the pitiable potential outcomes. I live my life that way. I've raised my now grown kids that way.

• My children all had better sense than to attempt to crawl through the barrier to a gorilla cage.
• On those occasions when my children attempted to prove that they thought God said "trains" instead of "brains," thus why they asked for a slow one, I or their mother did our jobs as "conductors," and made sure they at least didn't "get on board."

This is what good parents do with their small children at the zoo. They do it not only so their kids can see the animals, but also to protect against their kids falling prey to nefarious humans and other potential hazards that they can't be sure won't manifest themselves.

See, doesn't that look like fun for the kids and the parents? That's part of a parent's job...to make learning and safety fun.

Green:
I don't think I know better than the keepers who daily work with the beasts about what specifically to have done. I merely had a few ideas about what action plans the zoo might have had at their disposal. But whether those precise ideas be among the viable alternatives the zoo might have had isn't what I am "on about." What I'm "on about" is that the zoo left themselves in a position of having the fatal option as their only viable contingency plan.
So, while I'm not certain just what actionable alternatives the zoo should have had, and I'm not sure what it might have been done re: the barrier to the exhibit, I am, however, certain that had the zoo's contingency planning been better, it would have had some viable alternative other than shooting the creature, a beast the zoo considered valuable. I have no doubt the zoo didn't desire to shoot the animal, but, if the zoo's statements thus far are to be believed (see the remarks from Ian Redmond at the end of the linked article), they also created for themselves a situation that left no alternative.

Having said what I have above and in my OP, the person whom I hold most at fault is the child's parent(s). If you leave your kid in a car, you get prosecuted. If you wantonly abandon your child, you get prosecuted. Frankly, I think the zoo ought to sue the bejesus out of the child's parent(s) and I think Cincinnati should prosecute the parent for child abuse/neglect or something...perhaps "parenting while stupid as all get out."

And even, if circumstances required, a contingency plan for his contingency plan's contingency plan.
-- Frank Beddor​

 

[Elvis Obama]

The mother is to blame, 100%. The zoo keepers had no choice. Shiny object? The gorilla was dragging the kid with him, so a shiny object may have only meant another trip through the wading pond for the kid. A potentially fatal trip, as the animal could have torn his arm off with the slightest miscalculation of the stress tolerances of this child's arm. I think their choice to take no chances was the only possible choice for them. Damn shame. I'm sure the mother was doing something very important when she left her child alone to fall 15 feet into the arms of an dangerous animal. And after he'd already told her he intended to jump into the pit.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think we're back to the infant boy in the back seat and the teenage female in the front seat and which one do you save.

I don't see the "zoo matter" as being materially similar to the "Trolley Problem," but broadly speaking, yes, I can see why you or others may think it is. To my mind, the key difference is that in the "Trolley Problem" is there is no indication that anyone exhibited negligent behavior and there's no indication someone did something they should not have. The same cannot be said of the "zoo matter."

Your idea of distraction is a good one, and if the trainer who knew the gorilla well was right there and had something quickly available to try, it might have worked.

According to one report, they were there: "The zoo's response team includes full-time keepers, veterinarians, maintenance, zoo leadership and security staff."

If I'd been the kid's mother, I probably would have been in the enclosure, too, making matters worse.

As a parent, I am sure I'd have jumped in were I and my child in that situation....If to no other end than making myself the "shiny object" that takes the beast's attention away from my child.

Red:
It may be that the crowd doing what crowds do was what escalated the tension and risk factors in play. According to one witness, "It wasn't until the gorilla became agitated because of the nosey, dramatic, helpless crowd; that the gorilla violently ran with the child."

So what if the kid was climbing on the wall where he shouldn't have? What 3 year old boy doesn't? I'm sure when you were 3, you did as well. That's more a safety issue for the zoo, not something the child should die for.

Red:
FWIW, I just heard on CNN that bystanders claim to have head the child tell his mother that he wanted to go into the water and the mother told him not to and that it wasn't safe to do so. (It was during Brooke Baldwin's segment; I don't know if it's made it to print on the CNN site. I don't see it yet...)

Blue:
No question about it. Climbing on things, curiosity, and impulsiveness are typical toddler behaviors. That it is thoroughly predictable behavior is yet another reason why I hold the mother preeminently responsible for the whole matter.

• Fact: The woman has a three year old.
  • Assumption: She's had the child for three years, maybe even three months, but surely not "three or thirty minutes," or even "three hours or days."
• Premise: The woman has the obligation of anticipating her child's behavior and acting to prevent the child from harming itself or putting others at risk, and that includes the gorilla.
• Fact: The woman took her child to the zoo.
• Fact: The child articulated to the woman that he had an interest in entering the enclosure.
  • Inference: That should have cued the woman sufficiently that she secured her child to, for the child's own good, protect it from his own impulsive behavior.
• Fact: The woman did not do that.
• Fact: The barrier was insufficient for preventing a small child from entering the gorilla exhibit.
• Conclusions:
  • Neither the child nor the gorilla is guilty of anything.
  • The woman is minimally guilty of negligence. She should be charged/sued for at least five things:
    • Reckless endangerment (or something of that ilk..) of a child.
    • Child neglect.
    • Negligently causing the loss of zoo property.
    • Negligently contributing to the death of an endangered animal.
    • Negligently contributing to the demise of an animal species.
  • The zoo is minimally guilty of negligence, but as it was their property that was damaged, they should not be civilly or criminally charged.

Green:
The zoo's barrier should have been "toddler proof" at the very least. There's no question in my mind about that. To that end, I think the zoo is in part an unwitting cause of the tragedy. After all, the moat's design intent is to keep the animals from getting out. The barriers are for preventing zoo visitors from getting into the enclosures.

What could possibly justify this decision of yours? Are you serious that an endangered gorilla is worth more than a child? Any child?

Red:
I'm not so much trying to justify my stance as to explain it. I don't necessarily or optimistically expect others to espouse my position. As I've noted in other threads, I have a set of general principles that I try very hard to apply consistently, even though doing so may result in unfortunate outcomes for myself. I'm okay with having to accept the good and the bad that accompanies my views because I know there's almost never a perfect solution.

I don't think anyone, myself included, deserves to "have their cake and eat it too," and I think in all matters one has an obligation to "look before you leap." Among the implications of that principle is that one must strive equitably given the "rules of the game and the cards one has been dealt," to make the most of what one has to survive and thrive. Part of that includes doing what's fair to prevent misfortune from befalling oneself and one's family.

Now that's all well and good, but the flip side of that "coin" is that when "sh*t happens" to oneself, one must take whatever action one can to ameliorate the situation, but taking actions that make some other being pay for one's own failure (willful or negligent) to have been better prepared isn't among the actions one should take or want taken on one's behalf. Rather, it then becomes one's burden to accept responsibility for one's own shortcoming(s). In nearly all respects, my mistakes should never become the source of another's downfall, unless those others voluntarily agree to letting that be so, such as when you or I would have put our own safety at risk by jumping into the pen to distract the gorilla, or possibly put up whatever fight we could, to save our child.

Blue:
I don't see the matter as being one of which is worth more. I don't generally put value on life. I see it as one of responsibility. I espouse the "own your sh*t" ideal, not the "is X worth more or less than Y" ideal. It's not about worth to me; it's about worthiness. They're not the same.

 

[JimBowie1958]

IMO, the zoo holds the majority of responsibility here. Their enclosures should be impossible for anything to exit or enter other than staff.

I guess if a gorilla got out of the cage and crushed a man it would be the dudes fault for being too close? We do tend to assume that these enclosures are idiot and child proof or else we dont take you kids or in-laws to them, correct?

 

[I amso IR]

Either way, one thing is certain. One less mouth to feed. Both, the Circus and the Zoo are past their time. Close them all! Next problem? Oh, Hi 320, how's things going? Still stirring the pot I see. I am on your side in this matter. The kid went to the ape, not the other way around. If blame is to be placed, that is my assessment and I stand by it. Hillary wrote a book about it, "It Takes a Village". What were the remainder of the people present doing to assure the welfare of the Village? Not a heck of a lot. Humans, a miserable lot!

 

[I amso IR]

JB1958; yep, close the zoo. Use the money to hire more Cops.

 

[320 Years of History]

Either way, one thing is certain. One less mouth to feed. Both, the Circus and the Zoo are past their time. Close them all! Next problem? Oh, Hi 320, how's things going? Still stirring the pot I see. I am on your side in this matter. The kid went to the ape, not the other way around. If blame is to be placed, that is my assessment and I stand by it. Hillary wrote a book about it, "It Takes a Village". What were the remainder of the people present doing to assure the welfare of the Village? Not a heck of a lot. Humans, a miserable lot!

Howdy. Nice to see you around again.

Red:
I don't think I would quite go that far...I'm all for "one less mouth to feed," but I'd never want to see it come about as it did with the gorilla, or as it might have were the boy to have perished. I don't think you would either.

Blue:
That's somewhat reasonable.

Zoos do, however, play an important role in furthering our knowledge of part of the natural world. I think the science they do is worth doing. I get that making the animals available for public viewing is a way to offset the cost of doing that science.

I'm not aware of circuses contributing in quite as palpable a way to the advancement of knowledge that zoos do, but I'm sure they play some part in it. IMO, at least right now, circuses' role is likely more about building anecdotal awareness and I'm not aware of there being much rigorous and scholarly thought development about the natural world coming out of animal acts in circuses. I am aware that Cirque du Soleil is thoroughly entertaining without non-human animals.

 

[Unkotare]

It's a shame, but shoot the gorilla, no question.

 

[Two Thumbs]

No need to insult op, sad tale, hope the zoo secures there fences.

I didn't insult him.

I made it clear to him that he's evil and that he made it clear to all of us.

anyone that chooses an animals life over a humans is, w/o doubt, evil.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I got sick of reading your subhuman op as you made it very very clear that the kid should have died a slow horrible agonizing death, while the parents watched.



So I would like to note, that if that was your kid in there, your own opinion would be that your kid should die.

And I just love how you think you know better than the pros that work with them everyday.

fucking arrogant subhuman pile of shit

Red:
What I made patently clear isn't that the child should have died, but that the gorilla should not have. I realize there's a subtle difference between those two things. Do you?

Blue:
If frogs had wings,
among other things,
on landing from a jump,
the ground and their rump
would not bump.

As I wrote in my OP, I'm unabashedly a Social Darwinist of sorts. The loss of a child is a terrible thing that nobody wishes for themselves or others. I would, no more or less than anyone else, have not wanted my child to perish in the situation. At the same time, I realize that if I or my child didn't exhibit the "fittest" behavior that would have kept the situation from happening in the first place, neither I nor my kid would have to deal with the pitiable potential outcomes. I live my life that way. I've raised my now grown kids that way.

• My children all had better sense than to attempt to crawl through the barrier to a gorilla cage.
• On those occasions when my children attempted to prove that they thought God said "trains" instead of "brains," thus why they asked for a slow one, I or their mother did our jobs as "conductors," and made sure they at least didn't "get on board."

This is what good parents do with their small children at the zoo. They do it not only so their kids can see the animals, but also to protect against their kids falling prey to nefarious humans and other potential hazards that they can't be sure won't manifest themselves.

See, doesn't that look like fun for the kids and the parents? That's part of a parent's job...to make learning and safety fun.

Green:
I don't think I know better than the keepers who daily work with the beasts about what specifically to have done. I merely had a few ideas about what action plans the zoo might have had at their disposal. But whether those precise ideas be among the viable alternatives the zoo might have had isn't what I am "on about." What I'm "on about" is that the zoo left themselves in a position of having the fatal option as their only viable contingency plan.
So, while I'm not certain just what actionable alternatives the zoo should have had, and I'm not sure what it might have been done re: the barrier to the exhibit, I am, however, certain that had the zoo's contingency planning been better, it would have had some viable alternative other than shooting the creature, a beast the zoo considered valuable. I have no doubt the zoo didn't desire to shoot the animal, but, if the zoo's statements thus far are to be believed (see the remarks from Ian Redmond at the end of the linked article), they also created for themselves a situation that left no alternative.

Having said what I have above and in my OP, the person whom I hold most at fault is the child's parent(s). If you leave your kid in a car, you get prosecuted. If you wantonly abandon your child, you get prosecuted. Frankly, I think the zoo ought to sue the bejesus out of the child's parent(s) and I think Cincinnati should prosecute the parent for child abuse/neglect or something...perhaps "parenting while stupid as all get out."

And even, if circumstances required, a contingency plan for his contingency plan's contingency plan.
-- Frank Beddor​

you simply reinforced that you are one vile subhuman.

thanks for making it more clear. fyi, you are so vile, I couldn't finish reading.

 

[320 Years of History]

I got sick of reading your subhuman op as you made it very very clear that the kid should have died a slow horrible agonizing death, while the parents watched.



So I would like to note, that if that was your kid in there, your own opinion would be that your kid should die.

And I just love how you think you know better than the pros that work with them everyday.

fucking arrogant subhuman pile of shit

Red:
What I made patently clear isn't that the child should have died, but that the gorilla should not have. I realize there's a subtle difference between those two things. Do you?

Blue:
If frogs had wings,
among other things,
on landing from a jump,
the ground and their rump
would not bump.

As I wrote in my OP, I'm unabashedly a Social Darwinist of sorts. The loss of a child is a terrible thing that nobody wishes for themselves or others. I would, no more or less than anyone else, have not wanted my child to perish in the situation. At the same time, I realize that if I or my child didn't exhibit the "fittest" behavior that would have kept the situation from happening in the first place, neither I nor my kid would have to deal with the pitiable potential outcomes. I live my life that way. I've raised my now grown kids that way.

• My children all had better sense than to attempt to crawl through the barrier to a gorilla cage.
• On those occasions when my children attempted to prove that they thought God said "trains" instead of "brains," thus why they asked for a slow one, I or their mother did our jobs as "conductors," and made sure they at least didn't "get on board."

This is what good parents do with their small children at the zoo. They do it not only so their kids can see the animals, but also to protect against their kids falling prey to nefarious humans and other potential hazards that they can't be sure won't manifest themselves.

See, doesn't that look like fun for the kids and the parents? That's part of a parent's job...to make learning and safety fun.

Green:
I don't think I know better than the keepers who daily work with the beasts about what specifically to have done. I merely had a few ideas about what action plans the zoo might have had at their disposal. But whether those precise ideas be among the viable alternatives the zoo might have had isn't what I am "on about." What I'm "on about" is that the zoo left themselves in a position of having the fatal option as their only viable contingency plan.
So, while I'm not certain just what actionable alternatives the zoo should have had, and I'm not sure what it might have been done re: the barrier to the exhibit, I am, however, certain that had the zoo's contingency planning been better, it would have had some viable alternative other than shooting the creature, a beast the zoo considered valuable. I have no doubt the zoo didn't desire to shoot the animal, but, if the zoo's statements thus far are to be believed (see the remarks from Ian Redmond at the end of the linked article), they also created for themselves a situation that left no alternative.

Having said what I have above and in my OP, the person whom I hold most at fault is the child's parent(s). If you leave your kid in a car, you get prosecuted. If you wantonly abandon your child, you get prosecuted. Frankly, I think the zoo ought to sue the bejesus out of the child's parent(s) and I think Cincinnati should prosecute the parent for child abuse/neglect or something...perhaps "parenting while stupid as all get out."

And even, if circumstances required, a contingency plan for his contingency plan's contingency plan.
-- Frank Beddor​

you simply reinforced that you are one vile subhuman.

thanks for making it more clear. fyi, you are so vile, I couldn't finish reading.

Okay....

 

[Gracie]

Watching the news and they announced that law enforcement has no plans to press charges against the idiot mother.

 

[FA_Q2]

IMO, the zoo holds the majority of responsibility here. Their enclosures should be impossible for anything to exit or enter other than staff.

I guess if a gorilla got out of the cage and crushed a man it would be the dudes fault for being too close? We do tend to assume that these enclosures are idiot and child proof or else we dont take you kids or in-laws to them, correct?

They should be. Incidents like this cost the zoo dearly as well so they do tend to be very safe.

Every now and then there is a tragedy though - something not designed properly coupled with idiots that do not watch their children coupled with children that have no discipline make things like this happen.