The Death of Harambe

People's take on the gorilla death? I don't think anyone was in the wrong but the child who got away from his mother. Witnesses say that they tried to grab the child but he was too fast. The gorilla doesn't appear to be trying to harm the child but he is a wild creature. The zoo did what they thought was best. I wish the gorilla hadn't died but. :)

Last edited on 2016-06-02 at 07:36:35 by Oswin

I think the parents were in the wrong. Maybe watch your child closer so it doesn't get into a wild animal's enclosure...

As far as the zoo and what not. I can understand both sides of it - that a tranq would take too long and he could harm the kid in the time it took him to fall asleep - or possibly land on / drown the kid in the process. I think that they should have attempted something else before just shooting him, but then again, I don't really like children lol

Other than the kid running, the zoo was also in the wrong that they have an opening that a child can get through to even get into the exhibit.

Anyone who has been around children knows that they can be fast, and hard to control. If you're at a zoo then you're expecting that the barriers that keep you from the animals are safe because they have been there for years, and have kept people safe for years. So, obviously you can't blame the parents for what the zoo should have taken care of.

I agree with what Ruki said about agreeing with the zoo's actions. Some have said that he wasn't showing aggressive behavior but was actually protecting the child (most notably, Jane Goodall), but unless you were actually there, it is hard to tell from the video footage that has been going around if he was actually being protective or not.

Overall, it's a hugely unfortunate loss,and I hope that zoos take note and double check their enclosures to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Could the fence have been better? Yeah, probably. But you would think that a 15 foot drop would have most people watching their children a bit better. Zoos have a tough job in that they have to make it look like they're keeping animals in a natural environment, keep the public safe AND still have it so that the public can actually -see- the animals.
In one of the articles I was reading, it said that the zoo had recently been inspected and had passed inspection for safety.

I agree that it was a tragic accident - but I also think that the parents should have been doing a better job looking after their kids. I have a niece and nephew - when they were young I had them by the hand in areas that could have been dangerous for them.

It's up to the parents to keep their kids safe. The zoo is liable to a point but their job is to look after the animals. It's the parent's job to look after their kids.

Last edited on 2016-06-02 at 08:40:25 by Ruki

They're trying to charge the father. Which I think is wrong. The father wasn't there. The mother, absolutely should be charged with child endangerment. Yes. Things happen, yes even the best of parents aren't perfect and lose sight of their child from time to time.

It's a terrible thing that happened, absolutely. I'm dubious to think they could have used tranqs. The gorilla may not have had to die, but I don't know how fast their tranqs would work on the gorilla. They did what they thought was best.

The mother is 100% at fault imo, not the zoo. This is why, if I were a father, at a zoo no less, I would have no shame in putting my child on one of those leashes, in the off chance I need to look away for ONE second. BUT, a 3 foot fence, and a bush....with a 4 year old? C'mon. That's some gross negligence on the parent's behalf.

Last edited on 2016-06-02 at 08:51:12 by -❆-Buck

It's partially the zoo's fault for not having an enclosure absolutely NO GUESTS can get into. They have to be held liable for that as, obviously, it puts both people and animals at risk for harm.

however it's the [censored] mom's fault completely for letting her kid do that. Maybe watch your little gremlins better? Or teach them common sense? It's not even a matter of "4 year olds will be 4 year olds" - make your kids smart enough not to do that crap.

What BOGGLES my mind is that they mention in every article that the boy was hurt by the fall and NOT the gorilla. Harambe is a male gorilla perfectly capable of killing that kid, but he didn't - he was just trying to figure out why this weird pink primate fell into his enclosure. Even if he WAS "agitated" he would have hardly felt a tranq and gotten sleepy enough so someone could go rescue the hellspawn. They're his keepers, he would probably trust them to some degree.

Harambe didn't need to die and it was an over-the-top move on the zoo's part to make up for the fact they didn't have a proper barrier. It's also the mother's fault (MOSTLY her fault) for not being a good mother. She should be arrested for not taking care of her troll.

Additionally, experts who saw the video say the gorillas movements were protective. Gorillas are sensitive to these things and especially take to caring for young animals of any species.

Last edited on 2016-06-02 at 10:16:25 by ©Zellmeme Supreme

I don't really think it's anyone's fault. I think there were issues on all sides, but none of them make me want to blame anyone. The zoo could have made a fence that no one especially children could get into. The mother could have not looked away from her child (though even the greatest parents, at times, can have to look away from their child for thing - it was just a bad time to). The boy could have not run into the exhibit. The could have did something other than shoot him (I wish they didn't have to, but I respect their decision). There are just so many variables and it's a sad ordeal overall, but not one where I feel to point a finger.

@Nittrous - that's where I stand on the whole issue.

I'm just going to throw this out there, that a few videos that have surfaced show him dragging the child through water, at least twice from what I recall. Whether he was actually trying to protect him or not, that's still a dangerous situation for the child.

The story has been beaten senseless from all sides, and is a tragic side all around. Kids get away from parents all the time, but definitely this shouldn't have even been a possibility. But it did, and there's no taking back any of the things that happened.

Unless we were personally there, none of us can say what actually happened and if someone is actually at fault for the tragic accident.

experts who saw the video say the gorillas movements were protective


----
Jack Hanna supports the zoos decision and he is one of your so called "experts", as he is one of the world's most celebrated zookeepers.


Im just over hearing about this story. Its flooding everything. I've now uninstalled fb for the time being until its washed away like everything else is.

I have no issue with Hanna, i like him and corwin and the late irwin. so no im not slandering or disagreeing.

just my insight on that one line there. dont take offense, as im sure someone will, someone always does... some even take offense when they see " lol " in ANY topic, funny, serious, stupid, doesnt matter, someone gets offended.

I'm a mom of a two year old. I can 100% attest to the amount of stuff that can happen in the literal 10 seconds (count out 10-mississippis) you turn to look at something. Maybe even something that has you worried about your child, like another adult taking pictures of your kid. (Yes, this has happened to me, and yes, in those ten seconds my child managed to get injured.) So unless the Mom was over grabbing a beer and some alone time while her kid was running around, no, I don't see how we blame her.

I can't blame an animal for acting like an animal. Nor can I blame a child for acting like a child. Because those two things are equal. We're not talking about an adult or even thrill seeking teenagers, we're talking about a four-year-old who probably thought that he was playing hid and seek. How do you blame him?

Finally, the zoo. Yes, I expect a zoo to be child-proofed. Adults being idiots is one thing, but a child shouldn't be able to enter a ultra security area. I've brought my child to zoos and aquariums, and I've honestly never thought, "If she takes off running she'll likely find a loophole into an enclosure." You expect these places to be safe. You expect the animals to stay on one side, and the people on the other.

As far as the shooting of the gorilla goes, was it good? Obviously not. Was it right? I'm not an expert, but nearly all the zookeepers and actual gorrilla exports have said that it was the right thing to do. I'm not going to argue with them, because my experience with large animals ends with draft horses.

If your argument is that an animal life should be equal to a human one, than the zoo shouldn't exist at all and is obviously at fault for the whole existence of the situation in the first place. ;)

I don't believe the zoo was at fault here. The zoo was and is safe. If it was really unsafe, then this kind of thing would happen more often than just a random freak occurrence. It has only happened once before, and that was 20 years ago. In that event, the gorilla was also protecting the child and was NOT killed. The situations really aren't so different, aside from the fact that people were more panicked and took an inappropriate course of action in the recent event.

Children are often prone to wander off. That is a fact. No parent is ever 100% observant, and nobody has eyes in the back of their head. That is also fact. I'm surprised nothing ridiculous like this ever happened to me when I was little. I should have been leashed and, in my personal opinion, all small children who are taken to potentially crowded areas where there is potential to wander off and become lost, or worse, should be leashed for extra security. If there is actually a need for child leashes to exist in the first place, that says something.

It is stupid to pass blame where there really is none to give. Should the child have stayed with his mother? Yes. Should his mother have kept a closer eye and/or grip on him? Yes. Should the fencing have been more child-proof? Yes. I'm not an expert on gorillas, but it is obvious even to me that the animal's body language in the videos is not aggressive or agitated in any way. If the gorilla wanted to toy with, harm, or kill the child it would have been obvious. His actions were deliberate and careful.

The child is fine. The family is under the delusion that the gorilla was trying to hurt him. An endangered animal that wasn't attempting to harm is dead. The entire event was just unfortunate.

I see things from both sides, and it is a very unfortunate situation.
Although it seems the gorilla was protective at the time, animals are unpredictable, much can happen in a matter of seconds (look at the child finding their way into a gorilla enclosure), and it's too risky a gamble to take with a child's life at stake, NOT to shoot the gorilla. Tranquilizing the gorilla would take time, and in that short time span, a lot can go wrong.

I agree that that gorilla's body language exhibited no aggression at that time, but instead protectiveness over the child. That said, a gorilla's protective behaviour can endanger a child's life, since children are far more delicate than gorillas. The gorilla could have easily severely injured or killed the child without any intention to.

I'm not a mother, but I know without any doubt that if I was, and my child found their way into a gorilla enclosure, no gamble would be worth risking my child's life.

Poor gorilla. I'm glad the kid is safe tho.

Hanna is literally one expert out of many tho...but anyway

I just hope the zoo puts in a fence or something there so it's impossible for a kid to fall in. A few years ago wasn't there a kid who fell into a predator exhibit and died? Shouldn't zoos learn from that?

I don't like zoos to begin with unless they're strictly sanctuaries or rehabs/nonprofit and don't have huge, loud viewing areas. This was a better one because the enclosure was lowered, but still.

Showcase an animal for profit to entertain humans, then kill it because you couldn't keep either side safe? There's gotta be someone to blame there.