I work late shift and 3 times a week I workout after I get done from work. Anyways, while I was on the treadmill, I was watching CNN about 3:30 a.m. and a segment came on where a wildlife expert and an attorney were both giving their opinions on the Cincinnati Zoo incident. The wildlife expert was rambling on about how a tranquilizer dart would take a long time to incapacitate Harambe, and then, as if to add even more emphasis, he said (quoted as I remember it) ".... and a lot of people don't stop to realize and think that something as potent as a tranquilizer dart could have even missed Harambe and hit the child ..." So, bullets are less lethal I gather I did not know that.
A tranquilizer dart is a LOT less accurate than a bullet from a rifle. I have seen a good marksman miss a 3 foot dia target from 50 feet with a bolt gun firing a standard dart. Think about accuracy along the lines of a Brown Bess musket and you will be close.
Also, some of the drugs they use are really potent, as in death from a drop in your eye. So potentially, a non center mass hit on the child would be more deadly, depending on the drug.
So, there was no chance of missing the gorilla and hitting the child with a bullet? All the Gorilla Behaviour experts have stated Harambe was not threatening the child. I watched the video and yes, he may have been a little rough - I've watched 5 years old play rougher than that. But Harambe picked the child up, and held his hand. I don't know why they killed him. Fear?
Because he could have squashed that kids head at any time, and a human life is more important than a gorilla. Yes it is sad, but it was necessary.
Everyone is missing the point. We need to ban high capacity animal sanctuaries. No zoo needs more than two of any animal. This would allow them to be in smaller pens and access more easily controlled.
I agree that the enclosure should have been child proof - however they had no incidences like this for over 17 years so I don't think the zoo is liable, I think the parents of the child are 100% liable. I also do not believe that the gorilla had to be killed, that was absolutely unnecessary. I did not see from the video any immediate threat to the child. If you watch carefully you can see that the gorilla was looking the child over to see if he may have been hurt. Saying that it could have killed the child at any second is attributing human characteristics to a wild gorilla. Gorillas do not randomly kill a defenseless creature, humans do that. There was an Australian Gorilla behavior specialist that claimed if Harambe felt threatened and was going to attack, he would not have protected the child (when he stood over the child after the fall) and then inspected to see if the child was hurt. If he was going to kill the child, he would have charged him and beat his chest, to show intimidation. In other words, he showed no signs of malicious aggression. My opinion is he was killed based on over reacting to fear.
Do you recall a Binti Jua? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...osure-20-years-ago-he-was-saved-by-a-gorilla/
If that was my kid in there, please shoot me for being a negligent parent. from watching the video, you can see Harambe peeking around the corner like "Y'all are cray cray ... throwing away a little boy like that!"
Read the longer more detailed articles. They knew he was protecting the child. However he was agitated and frightened. As such he would not have yielded the child. Further attempts to retrieve the child could have caused him to run away holding the child's hand. The child would not have been able to keep up like a gorilla child and would have been dragged at a high rate of speed, causing serious head, neck, and back injuries. Plus, if the gorilla was successful in making it to a rock outcropping it would have made retrieval exponentially more difficult. The facts in this case are very simple. The child was in imminent danger of great bodily harm. In that situation you skip the entire force continuum and go to lethal measures in order to end the situation as quickly as possible. All that said that said, am I the only one wondering which weapon was used and what the shot placement was?
No need to pick at a person's religion (of which you disapprove) in another thread unrelated to that issue and in a post unrelated to that issue.
My guess is 7 mm Remington Mag. To add to the "what if" scenarios, no attempt was made to retrieve the child, so we do not know how the Gorilla would have reacted to someone it has a daily interaction with. Harambe was not a wild Gorilla, he was raised by humans.
i'm picking at his reasoning techniques, which are now evident in other aspects of his life. i think it's a fine demonstration of how using faith as a decision making process can have very real detrimental effects, unlike what is advertised. if he went by it here, his child would be dead. i think that's why he's avoiding answering the question, here.
Doesn't mean much with some animals. Bulls raised from a bottle and handled regularly by people are more prone to challenging/attacking people than those left alone. Dairy bulls get a bad rep because of this, but it has nothing to do with any inherent quality of the breed. It's the fact they had so much human interaction. I don't know if this is the case with gorillas.
Let's take a look at your reasoning abilities and how they effect your life choices. I'd like to scrutinize them a little bit if you don't mind. You say you need empirical evidence in order to believe anything to be true. So where is the empirical evidence this child would be dead in your hypothetical? The way I see it, the empirical evidence suggests he was safer with Harambe than he was with his mother. At least Harambe was keeping his eye on the boy.