Gorilla Shot Dead At Cincinnati Zoo After Child Falls Into E
Discussion
5ohmustang said:
No i'd just say he is a dumb ass. Total innocence? Are you a liberal?
The parents should have been watching their kid, dumb asses. The zoo should review their enclosure, no spectator should be able to get in. Ultimately it was the child's bad decision making. He nearly failed in life and it would be prudent for him to learn from his mistakes.
Unfortunately since this story has gained so much attention more than Hiliaries failed presidential campaign, I am sure the family will be on every day time liberal douche bag talk show hosted by a bunch of butch dykes. Sympathy will be poured on the family and it will be somehow turned into another race issue. Somehow as they have done with everything else, they will jump on the band wagon and link the Gorilla, the child into some "lets all be ashamed to be white crap" "the animals in the zoos are slaves." People have lost their minds.
GorillasLivesMatters
Its almost like you have an agenda here. The parents should have been watching their kid, dumb asses. The zoo should review their enclosure, no spectator should be able to get in. Ultimately it was the child's bad decision making. He nearly failed in life and it would be prudent for him to learn from his mistakes.
Unfortunately since this story has gained so much attention more than Hiliaries failed presidential campaign, I am sure the family will be on every day time liberal douche bag talk show hosted by a bunch of butch dykes. Sympathy will be poured on the family and it will be somehow turned into another race issue. Somehow as they have done with everything else, they will jump on the band wagon and link the Gorilla, the child into some "lets all be ashamed to be white crap" "the animals in the zoos are slaves." People have lost their minds.
GorillasLivesMatters
Edited by 5ohmustang on Tuesday 31st May 07:02
Patrick Bateman said:
It's so easy to fire pot shots in hindsight. Too right the director of the zoo should stick by his decision when he says he'd do the same again.
As I said before, let's say the kid was killed, why didn't you do more to stop it happening?!!! etc.
You'll always get some of that when someone diesAs I said before, let's say the kid was killed, why didn't you do more to stop it happening?!!! etc.
If the gorilla hadnt been shot two things could have happened
a) both the gorilla and the child live happily ever after
b) the gorilla injures the child, who recovers and puts down to experience
c) the gorilla kills the child.
In case of (c) the director will have to defend just as strongly as hes just been doing that it's a zoo, theyre trying to preserve animals, they've made it as secure as they reasonably can, they'll look into making it more secure , but theres a limit to what you can do, if someone breaks into the pound, their prime concern is the safety of the animals
If you dont put the animals first whats the point of running a zoo?
Patrick Bateman said:
A toddler gets into an enclosure like that and the animals are secondary.
Well yes we can see that!What's being asked in this thread is - is that right?
Or do you ban all kids from zoos because of what one has managed to do?
Same of the guy who broke into the lions in the other zoo in the link
Ban all adults too?
How do Zoos survive?
Rule making shouldn't be based on what one person can do in extreme.
It's based on what an ordinary Joe would do
If the ordinary Joe was regularly accidentally getting in the pound - there'd be something to resolve
saaby93 said:
nellyleelephant said:
Lordbenny said:
The parents must not be blame whatsoever. The zoo is completely at fault, a child should be able to run off out of sight of its parents in a zoo without the parent worrying it will fall into a dangerous animal enclosure. A zoo is a place that should be TOTALLY child safe. The gorilla should have been shot, a tranquilizer would not have been an option because of the time it takes to take effect. Best outcome for a sad event.
100% agree. Sad event, but the zoo were at fault. There should be no way for a 4 year old into an enclosure except with a key. The Zoo has to use its best efforts to prevent anyone getting into the enclosure, but we know human ingenuity. If someone does get in who has greater priority the thing youre trying to protect in the zoo or the trespasser?
If it was Buckingham Palace whose side would you be on?
How many 4 y/o kids have managed to break into Buckingham Palace of late?
I love this thread, It's amazing how many people are willing to risk the child's life on their extensive animal psychology skills.
All the claims of the Gorilla "looking after" the boy are ridiculous. Even if you take those claims to be true, then what? You let the gorillas raise the boy for the next 10 years before he assumes natural leadership of the group and walks out of his own accord?
All the claims of the Gorilla "looking after" the boy are ridiculous. Even if you take those claims to be true, then what? You let the gorillas raise the boy for the next 10 years before he assumes natural leadership of the group and walks out of his own accord?
Apparently the zoo has very low enclosures in or to keep it looking as natural as possible for the animals I read today
Reminds me of the film Congo where captain Monroe says something like "humans first gorillas second we agree " to the gorilla owner
Of ourse they had to shoot it. Shouldn't have got to that position but it did and they did the right thing
Reminds me of the film Congo where captain Monroe says something like "humans first gorillas second we agree " to the gorilla owner
Of ourse they had to shoot it. Shouldn't have got to that position but it did and they did the right thing
saaby93 said:
You'll always get some of that when someone dies
If the gorilla hadnt been shot two things could have happened
a) both the gorilla and the child live happily ever after
b) the gorilla injures the child, who recovers and puts down to experience
c) the gorilla kills the child.
In case of (c) the director will have to defend just as strongly as hes just been doing that it's a zoo, theyre trying to preserve animals, they've made it as secure as they reasonably can, they'll look into making it more secure , but theres a limit to what you can do, if someone breaks into the pound, their prime concern is the safety of the animals
If you dont put the animals first whats the point of running a zoo?
Why are you always such a contrarian? In what world are they ever going to put the animals before the life of a 4yr old child?If the gorilla hadnt been shot two things could have happened
a) both the gorilla and the child live happily ever after
b) the gorilla injures the child, who recovers and puts down to experience
c) the gorilla kills the child.
In case of (c) the director will have to defend just as strongly as hes just been doing that it's a zoo, theyre trying to preserve animals, they've made it as secure as they reasonably can, they'll look into making it more secure , but theres a limit to what you can do, if someone breaks into the pound, their prime concern is the safety of the animals
If you dont put the animals first whats the point of running a zoo?
They clearly didn't make it as secure as they could, because a 4yr old managed to circumvent their security.
Langweilig said:
Having seen the pictures of this incident, the gorilla had the intelligence to know that a four-year old child was no threat to it. Reading the gorilla's body language, I saw help, care and compassion. Therefore, the gorilla should NOT have been shot dead.
Rather than looking at photos, have you actually watched the video where the gorilla is dragging the boy around at speed?http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/05/30/gorilla-holdin...
ofcorsa said:
I love this thread, It's amazing how many people are willing to risk the child's life on their extensive animal psychology skills.
All the claims of the Gorilla "looking after" the boy are ridiculous. Even if you take those claims to be true, then what? You let the gorillas raise the boy for the next 10 years before he assumes natural leadership of the group and walks out of his own accord?
Exactly, I came to this thread after reading crap on facebook thinking PH will be different. Nope!All the claims of the Gorilla "looking after" the boy are ridiculous. Even if you take those claims to be true, then what? You let the gorillas raise the boy for the next 10 years before he assumes natural leadership of the group and walks out of his own accord?
Also didn't realise there were so many nature psychology experts around here
Langweilig said:
Having seen the pictures of this incident, the gorilla had the intelligence to know that a four-year old child was no threat to it. Reading the gorilla's body language, I saw help, care and compassion. Therefore, the gorilla should NOT have been shot dead.
Dr Dolittle, I presume?What a lot of b
ks....The Mail are doing a hatchet job on the parents, citing the dad's past criminal record including burglary, firearms offences, drug trafficking, criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and kidnap.
The parents do report that the boy appears to be doing ok despite the mild concussion and a few scratches.
The parents do report that the boy appears to be doing ok despite the mild concussion and a few scratches.
Tragic for all involved. Blame lies with both the parents and the zoo.
Neglectful parenting to let their 4 year old kid get into the enclosure. Surely the zoo will cop some flack for having an enclosure design that can't keep out a determined 4 year old.
Unfortunately the gorilla had to be killed, worst case scenario for the zoo and watching public is that under the stress of the situation he dismembers the kid in front of his parents. This would almost certainly result in a major legal battle, subsequent closure of the zoo and recommendations to ban enclosures which can be accessed by dropping down a steep bank or through a moat etc. This might still all come around anyway.
I'm sure that whoever had to chamber the round and pull the trigger killing the poor bugger also had a fairly sleepless night.
Neglectful parenting to let their 4 year old kid get into the enclosure. Surely the zoo will cop some flack for having an enclosure design that can't keep out a determined 4 year old.
Unfortunately the gorilla had to be killed, worst case scenario for the zoo and watching public is that under the stress of the situation he dismembers the kid in front of his parents. This would almost certainly result in a major legal battle, subsequent closure of the zoo and recommendations to ban enclosures which can be accessed by dropping down a steep bank or through a moat etc. This might still all come around anyway.
I'm sure that whoever had to chamber the round and pull the trigger killing the poor bugger also had a fairly sleepless night.
Most modern zoos and wildlife ecology centres no longer have designs that stop humans getting into enclosures.
Gone are the days that animals are kept in cages or behind bars. Zoo visitors demand to see the animals in natural looking environments without their view being obscured by bars and fencing.
Most of the modern experiences use large/wide/deep dry moat arrangements so that the animals can be observed by the paying guests from a 'safe' high vantage point that the 'dangerous' animals cant scale/climb/jump to get out of. This allows the paying observer (the punters) to have an unobstructed view of the animals whilst remaining safely out of their reach.
The zoo visitor usually observes from behind a modest wall on top of such high wall/moat arrangements.
Do a google image search and you'll see that most modern zoos use this kind of arrangement now. They rely on the good sense of the zoo visitor to stay out of the animal enclosures, and they perhaps unwisely believe that the parents of children will stop them from trying to enter the enclosure.
examples:
Gone are the days that animals are kept in cages or behind bars. Zoo visitors demand to see the animals in natural looking environments without their view being obscured by bars and fencing.
Most of the modern experiences use large/wide/deep dry moat arrangements so that the animals can be observed by the paying guests from a 'safe' high vantage point that the 'dangerous' animals cant scale/climb/jump to get out of. This allows the paying observer (the punters) to have an unobstructed view of the animals whilst remaining safely out of their reach.
The zoo visitor usually observes from behind a modest wall on top of such high wall/moat arrangements.
Do a google image search and you'll see that most modern zoos use this kind of arrangement now. They rely on the good sense of the zoo visitor to stay out of the animal enclosures, and they perhaps unwisely believe that the parents of children will stop them from trying to enter the enclosure.
examples:
Based on this incident perhaps zoo`s should be designed to keep thick stupid or willful humans away from the animals, rather than just being designed at keeping the animals contained? If that means the peoples view of the animals in such places is curtailed, then that is the price of ensuring the safety of both the public and the animals.
Not really a fan of zoo`s, but they have a `certain advantage of allowing some species to be preserved, that would otherwise have gone extinct long ago in the wild. Whether the environment the animals must live in, in a zoo, is any good for the animals would to some extent be a function of how the zoo is designed.
Not really a fan of zoo`s, but they have a `certain advantage of allowing some species to be preserved, that would otherwise have gone extinct long ago in the wild. Whether the environment the animals must live in, in a zoo, is any good for the animals would to some extent be a function of how the zoo is designed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff