Who's to blame for Harambe the Gorilla death?

[elmarko]

The blame is shared tbh.

1. A child of that age should not be able to circumvent the security - a basic few foot transparent plastic guard to prevent anybody young/falling into the enclosure would all that would have been required to prevent this.

After this only adults would be able to who are responsible for themselves.

2. The parents obviously were not paying sufficient attention at the time being.

The choice the shoot the animal was out of need & self-preservation - had they not acted in that way & the animal decided to kill the child they would all the out of a job.

Had the two preventative measures been taken above there would have been no need.

 

[wilber]

yet said people probably eat beef, which is responsible for vast swathes of the rain forest being destroyed.

The beef cattle at home are curios as to how they are responsible for vast swathes of the rain forest being destroyed?

 

[Rroff]

I thought they said nobody had ever been in the enclosure with the Gorilla's.

Still makes me giggle, the zoo keeper with a 1/2 meter bit of stick facing up to that charging Silver back.

Personally I would have bricked it and flown back up that wall. Not stand my ground and tap him on the shoulder as he thundered past.

No one had been in the enclosure with the Gorillas (they are correct when saying that he hadn't encountered a human being within his domain) - but unlike the other Gorillas in that case Jambo it appears had been reared with close human contact and was more adjusted to it compared to the others - which also meant they had a better idea as to his temperament and personality.

 

[Sankari]

Did the kid have any injuries unrelated to the fall? The way the gorilla dragged him around didn't seem gentle.

The gorilla was not gentle at all. Harambe grabbed that kid by the leg and dragged him through a pool of water, twice.

On both occasions the kid's head was almost entirely submerged, and bouncing against the concrete. He was crying after the first time this happened, and doubtless even more distraught after the second. Harambe didn't seem to notice, and sure as hell didn't care.

Harambe did not respond to handlers, which is another major concern.

It's important to remember that this gorilla was a wild animal, not a domesticated pet. Wild animals are unpredictable. That kid could have been ripped to shreds within seconds.

Sandra Herold owned a 200lb chimpanzee called Travis for 13 years. She treated him like a son, and he was not only completely accustomed to human social behaviour, but emulated it in almost every way.

In February 2009, this seemingly domesticated chimp attacked Charla Nash (Sandra's friend) for no apparent reason, and tore her apart. She lost both her hands, her nose, her eyes, her lips, and the bone structure in the middle of her face. She also suffered traumatic brain injuries. Facial reconstruction was successful thanks to a face transplant, but she was left permanently blind.

A powerful animal is a dangerous animal, particularly when it's a primate. They don't experience remorse. They'll kill you without a second thought, and casually chew a blade of grass 5 minutes later.

Just ask St James Davis.

 

[Omaeka]

Don't worry there's only 7 billion of us, quick shoot it before we become extinct. Gorillas are far from an endangered species.

Oh wait.

The whole situation is caused by humans, from the animal being caged up in the first place to the awful parents letting their child fall in the enclosure to the gorilla being killed. The outcome just confirms we by nature are scum, that'll never change.

 

[George Hincapie]

The death of an innocent and endangered animal is not irrelevant.
The fact that from the looks of it poor parenting could have led to the death of a child is not irrelevant.

Nonsense.

It's an animal. It doesn't matter whether it's dead or not. Had meat to eat today have you? Why is the life of a gorilla more important than that of whatever is now in your stomach?

I'd argue poor enclosure design is far more of a contributing factor to the incident than poor parenting. The child should never have been able to get in there in the first place.

 

[George Hincapie]

Don't worry there's only 7 billion of us, quick shoot it before we become extinct. Gorillas are far from an endangered species.

Oh wait.

The whole situation is caused by humans, from the animal being caged up in the first place to the awful parents letting their child fall in the enclosure to the gorilla being killed. The outcome just confirms we by nature are scum, that'll never change.

Jesus! Drama Queen much? Get over yourself

 

[Tosno]

Because Gorillas are the ape master race! And if you believe some strange people, your great x1000 grandmother was a Gorilla too!

And George, if you learnt a thing or two from that Alpha silverback, people wont walk into you in lifts!

 

[Yaayuh!]

The whole situation is caused by humans, from the animal being caged up in the first place to the awful parents letting their child fall in the enclosure to the gorilla being killed. The outcome just confirms we by nature are scum, that'll never change.

Indeed. We are the best and the worst thing that's happened on this planet. Humans are *****.

Ho-hum.

 

[wordy]

Jesus! Drama Queen much? Get over yourself

What has he said that is incorrect?

 

[wingman]

What has he said that is incorrect?

Agreed.

 

[Dis86]

Nonsense.

It's an animal. It doesn't matter whether it's dead or not. Had meat to eat today have you? Why is the life of a gorilla more important than that of whatever is now in your stomach?

I'd argue poor enclosure design is far more of a contributing factor to the incident than poor parenting. The child should never have been able to get in there in the first place.

You're an animal. Your family are animals. Your friends are animals. Do your and their deaths not matter?

Yes, the majority of us here eat meat but killing a farmed animal for sustenance is completely different to shooting a highly intelligent, highly endangered animal due to human stupidity and negligence.

 

[Spacedeck]

Nonsense.I'd argue poor enclosure design is far more of a contributing factor to the incident than poor parenting. The child should never have been able to get in there in the first place.

Exactly. When families take day trips out, they aren't expecting or thinking about the what if's. Every meassure should already have been taken to properly secure the animals before allowing the public in.

 

[esoteric]

I understand the danger of the unpredictability of an animal, but I can't ignore how docile this Gorilla was. Tricky situation.

 

[dowie]

I'd argue poor enclosure design is far more of a contributing factor to the incident than poor parenting. The child should never have been able to get in there in the first place.

so the kid tells his mum in advance that he wants to get in the water then proceeds to climb over the fence, go through the bushes and jump down into a 15 ft moat

but it is the Zoo's fault?

 

[adolf hamster]

so once the zoo had their marksman with his high powered rifle set up and ready to take the shot- kudos to them for actually being that prepared.

but why did they then not send in a keeper to try and grab the kid? worst that could happen is they have to shoot the gorilla anyway but at least they could now say they tried to save him.

shooting him may very well have been the right course of action, and the only guy who will know the truth of that was the eye behind the scope, but it does seem a bit 'merica to jump straight to lethal force without trying something else.

its not like that itself wasnt risky, after all a hit could have lead to the gorilla falling on the kid, and a miss would have at best hit the child, and at worst got the gorrilla riled and in a head ripping mood.

 

[JoJay]

" Who's to blame for Harambe the Gorilla death? "

The person who pulled the trigger on the gun.

 

[thenewoc]

so once the zoo had their marksman with his high powered rifle set up and ready to take the shot- kudos to them for actually being that prepared.

but why did they then not send in a keeper to try and grab the kid? worst that could happen is they have to shoot the gorilla anyway but at least they could now say they tried to save him.

shooting him may very well have been the right course of action, and the only guy who will know the truth of that was the eye behind the scope, but it does seem a bit 'merica to jump straight to lethal force without trying something else.

its not like that itself wasnt risky, after all a hit could have lead to the gorilla falling on the kid, and a miss would have at best hit the child, and at worst got the gorrilla riled and in a head ripping mood.

I don't suppose the keeper would want to risk their life with an unpredictable animal. Any further agitation of the gorillas territory seemingly being invaded might have caused the gorilla to attack or run around unpredictably. I imagine when they had a clear shot it was now or never kind of thing so that they weren't faced with trying to hit a moving target and wanting the first shot to be a fatal one.

It's a shame in these situations that there isn't a bit more in the way of crowd control to get bystanders out of the way, reduce the screams and shouting they probably pick up on the atmosphere and are already spooked by an odd situations that they find themselves in.

 

[Haggisman]

Exactly. When families take day trips out, they aren't expecting or thinking about the what if's.

And therein lies the problem, a lack of personal responsibility.

so the kid tells his mum in advance that he wants to get in the water then proceeds to climb over the fence, go through the bushes and jump down into a 15 ft moat

but it is the Zoo's fault?

Of course it is! In exactly the same way as when an unsupervised child runs across a dual carriageway and gets hit by a HGV it's the council's fault for not erecting an impenetrable 6ft wall along its length

 

[Rroff]

so once the zoo had their marksman with his high powered rifle set up and ready to take the shot- kudos to them for actually being that prepared.

but why did they then not send in a keeper to try and grab the kid? worst that could happen is they have to shoot the gorilla anyway but at least they could now say they tried to save him.

shooting him may very well have been the right course of action, and the only guy who will know the truth of that was the eye behind the scope, but it does seem a bit 'merica to jump straight to lethal force without trying something else.

its not like that itself wasnt risky, after all a hit could have lead to the gorilla falling on the kid, and a miss would have at best hit the child, and at worst got the gorrilla riled and in a head ripping mood.

As the women on the BBC said - one concern is that the animal may have been investigating and potentially protecting the rest of the group from a new entity in their environment which could have changed dramatically at any moment if the Gorilla had come to the conclusion it was a threat to the group or started experimenting to try and figure it out - with a potential risk to life its better to end the situation as quickly and cleanly as possible.