[Sixstrings]

New video footage of Harambe shows the 400-pound gorilla HOLDING HANDS with the boy who fell into exhibition moat as zoo director insists they were right to shoot him and the barriers were safe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616453/New-video-footage-Harambe-shows-400-pound-gorilla-HOLDING-HANDS-four-year-old-boy-fell-zoo-enclosure-witnesses-say-animal-acting-protectively.html

The media's been obsessing on this thing..

What I find strange is that people aren't realizing *there was a 4 year old human being* in danger.

Zoo officials did the RIGHT thing -- that's a human life, a 4 year old.

Imagine the liability and lawsuit to the zoo, if they had NOT shot the gorilla and recovered the child as fast as possible? Not to mention the MORAL liability, of putting a gorilla ahead of a 4 year old human being.

There's just something screwy about this story, that nobody is thinking about the child, and it's all about the gorilla.

It's SAD, yes. But a human life is a human life.. according to news reports, they first tried a technique meant to get the gorillas to return to the holding area, but the one holding the child wouldn't return.

They could have used tranquilizers, but they made a snap judgement that the dart could have agitated the gorilla and the toddler hurt (and it takes ten minutes to work).

Even a chimpanzee is extremely strong.. a 400 pound gorilla is a whole magnitude more than that.

It's SAD.. they are liable for that fence that's obviously not right.. but they did the RIGHT thing, in saving the child.

[Cog]

I've watched the video several times. The gorilla was being protective of the kid for the most part. It did drag the child down the moat some distance to get away from the people screaming. But there was really no choice in taking the shot. The gorilla could have killed the kid by accident at any moment. They are very strong animals.

[dolanbaker]

It has happened before, but on this occasion the gorilla protected the child from the other gorillas.

Jambo shot to international news stardom overnight on August 31, 1986, when five year old Levan Merritt fell into the gorilla enclosure and lost consciousness. Jambo stood guard over the boy when he was unconscious, placing himself between the boy and other gorillas in what ethologists analyze as a protective gesture. He later stroked the unconscious boy. When the boy regained consciousness and started to cry, Jambo and the other gorillas retreated, and an ambulanceman and two keepers rescued the boy. Most of the drama was shot on home video by Brian Le Lion, and extensively photographed by bystanding zoo visitors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-cC5llCN8

[Sixstrings]

I've watched the video several times. The gorilla was being protective of the kid for the most part. It did drag the child down the moat some distance to get away from the people screaming. But there was really no choice in taking the shot. The gorilla could have killed the kid by accident at any moment. They are very strong animals.

Right, that's how it seemed to me too, watching it. The gorilla dragged the child though, very fast it looked like (not malicious per se, but still it's a 400 pound gorilla), and that alone could cause injury.

It's SAD, yes. One can guess that maybe it would have worked out, people can watch the video and say "it's being protective" but that's a wild animal and they don't really know what it's going to do or why it does it.

That chance can't be taken when there's a human being toddler at risk (and he already had a concussion from the fall).

The zoo director's on CNN now, he says people are being "monday morning quarterbacks" and they do not understand how dangerous the silverback gorilla can be, and that child was in danger.

They did the right thing. They tried to lure him out at first, that didn't work, then they didn't let it go on longer and they saved the life of the child.

I know you agree, I'm just saying. The overall point of this thread by the way, is that PEOPLE come before animals -- especially a human toddler.

P.S. from the video, it SEEMS like maybe it would have been okay -- *but not even an animal expert knows that for sure*. And that's a risk they couldn't take, with a toddler.

They did the right thing. Those zookeepers, THEIR main thought was "oh my God we have to save that child." Everyone else's thoughts are about the gorilla now, but the zoo did the right thing.

[Sixstrings]

Gorilla experts weigh in:

Dr Sharon Redrobe, from Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire, told Metro:

"In the footage I have seen the animal was clearly becoming more agitated and zoo officials need to make quick assessments. Tranquillising the gorilla with a dart just simply wouldn’t have worked in this situation.

"It would have taken up to 10 minutes to take affect and the animal may have become violent which would have had catastrophic consequences."

While some animal experts support the decision to kill the gorilla, others are questioning the action, which has sparked public outrage by those who claim the beast was simply trying to protect the child.

University of New England animal behaviour expert Gisela Kaplan, agrees with this, to a point. The Daily Telegraph reports that Kaplan, who is author of Orangutans in Borneo, said she does not believe the child was in any real danger.

“The silverback would’ve understood that it was a defenseless small child. They would not normally attack, they are not an aggressive species (and) in the wild I’m certain the boy wouldn’t have been killed.”
But this is not the wild, zoo experts say. Animals in captivity have a constant level of stress from which they cannot escape.

Internationally famous primatologist Jane Goodall reached out to Cincinnati Zoo on Monday, to let them know she supported the decision to end the animal’s life.

Celebrity animal expert Jack Hanna also agreed with the zoo's decision.

Dr. Sharon Redrobe, chief executive of Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire, England, said in a statement published by the Mirror that zoo officials in Cincinnati did the right thing.

“The zoo keepers had a life and death situation on their hands and they would have known the behavior of that animal better than anyone.

“The fact they left the situation for 10 minutes before firing the final shot shows they would have tried everything they could to get the male gorilla to enter the inside enclosure away from the boy.”
Professor Kaplan said, as leader of his troop, 17-year-old Harambe was doing what he was supposed to do. He was “investigating,” she said, not attacking.

“I can tell you silverbacks are protectors of their group.

“If there’s an unusual thing happening, (Harambe) needs to investigate. The fact that he went over to the child is absolutely natural behaviour but it doesn’t mean he was aggressive.

“If he was going to attack he would’ve warned him first. The first thing they do is charge and beat their chests and as far as I know that didn’t happen.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/3140250/gorilla-experts-weigh-in-did-harambe-have-to-die/

Jane Goodall agrees with the zoo's decision, so that should settle it.

It's SAD this happened -- but I'm just saying the reaction to this is quirky, there's even a petition to criminally charge the parents.

THAT part is the zoo's fault -- they had a bit of wire fence next to the regular barrier. A zoo should be built in such a way *that it's not possible* for a small kid to get through and then fall in.

The thing is turning into an animal rights issue, but people should be thankful the child was saved.

[Sixstrings]

Outrage Grows After Gorilla Harambe Shot Dead at Cincinnati Zoo to Save Tot
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/outrage-grows-after-gorilla-harambe-shot-dead-cincinnati-zoo-save-n582706

Petitioning Thayne Maynard Zoo Director Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, Hamilton County Child Protection Services,

Justice for Harambe

We believe that this negligence may be reflective of the child's home situation. We the undersigned actively encourage an investigation of the child's home environment in the interests of protecting the child and his siblings from further incidents of parental negligence that may result in serious bodily harm or even death.
https://www.change.org/p/cincinnati-zoo-justice-for-harambe

[Tanada]

What is needed is justice for the child. Accidents happen, but this child made it through two barriers and into the moat (the third barrier) due to inattentive parents. That is where the outrage should be focused, not on the zoo which made the best decision they could in the moment. Second guessing and 20/20 hindsight cause more problems than the actions themselves actually cause.

Now for the Harambe part of the story. There has been a big push over the last few decades for Primate personhood standards to be enacted at the international and national level. If Harambe was a "person" under the eyes of the law things become incredibly more complex from a legal POV. In essence the emergency response people shot one "person" dead because they were a potential threat to a small child. If Harambe is just a kept animal that is the correct course of action, but if Harambe is a "person" in the eyes of the law then what happened is vigilante justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood

On February 28, 2007 the parliament of the Balearic Islands, an autonomous community of Spain, passed the world's first legislation that would effectively grant legal personhood rights to all great apes.[3] The act sent ripples out of the region and across Spain, producing public support for the rights of great apes. On June 25, 2008 a parliamentary committee set forth resolutions urging Spain to grant the primates the rights to life and liberty. If approved "it will ban harmful experiments on apes and make keeping them for circuses, television commercials, or filming illegal under Spain's penal code."[4]

These precedents followed years of European legal efforts. In 1992, Switzerland amended its constitution to recognize animals as beings and not things.[5] However, in 1999 the Swiss constitution was completely rewritten. A decade later, Germany guaranteed rights to animals in a 2002 amendment to its constitution, becoming the first European Union member to do so.[5][6][7]

New Zealand granted strong protections to five great ape species in 1999. Their use is now forbidden in research, testing, or teaching. Some argue that New Zealand's protections amount to a form of weak legal rights.[8]

Several European countries (including Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden) completely banned the use of great apes in animal testings.[9]

Argentina granted a captive orangutan basic human rights, starting from late 2014.[10]

On April 20, 2015, Justice Barbara Jaffe of New York State Supreme Court ordered a writ of habeas corpus to two captive chimpanzees.[11] On April 21, the ruling was amended to strike the words "writ of habeas corpus".[12][13]

Depending on the precise wording of any proposed or adopted declaration, personhood for the Great Apes may raise questions concerning protections and obligations under national and international laws, such as:

Articles 7–29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness regarding nationality and citizenship for persons
Provisions 4 & 5 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child

[GHung]

Simple math, really. The Gorilla can't sue the zoo. The Gorilla's family can't sue the zoo.

[penury]

The murder of the gorilla is just another example of the human disregard for the rights of other species to coexist with man. Everything not "like us" i8s considered to be a threat to the safety of "humans". This ridiculous hubris results in scenes like this,l with the usual cries form the "self appointed experts" that it was necessary to protect a human life. We have a name for that attitude at the stockyards.

[regardingpo]

6th mass extinction is underway, but stupid monkeys only care about a handful of species. Move along, nothing to see here.

[Timo]

7.5 billion humans, increasing at an exponential rate.

100,000 lowland gorillas, decreasing in numbers every single day.

Sorry, but i have no sympathy for the stupid human boy that crawled through areas where he knows he should not have been, resulting in the death of a critically endangered species. Humanity is not remotely endangered. Gorillas are very endangered. Sue the parents of that boy for criminal negligence, and use the proceeds of that lawsuit to help save the few gorillas that are left in the wild. The zookeeper who shot Harambe should be sent to the African lowlands to shoot poachers who kill gorillas. The child should be removed from his negligent parents. The parents should be subjected to a sentence that fits the vulgarity of their crime.

American culture, where wildlife should only be appreciated and valued within the confines and safety of zoos, is the apex of human self-importance over all of life on this planet, and is therefore the most expendable culture on this planet.

[Plantagenet]

Sue the parents of that boy for criminal negligence, and use the proceeds of that lawsuit to help save the few gorillas that are left in the wild.

????

That isn't how our legal system works.

The parents are far more likely to sue the zoo for their negligence in building an unsafe facility, and causing their child to be traumatized by a gorilla. A sympathetic jury will likely award the parents and the child millions, driving the zoo into bankruptcy and ending their conservations efforts to save gorillas forever.

cheers!

[Timo]

Sue the parents of that boy for criminal negligence, and use the proceeds of that lawsuit to help save the few gorillas that are left in the wild.

????

That isn't how our legal system works.

The parents are far more likely to sue the zoo for their negligence in building an unsafe facility, and causing their child to be traumatized by a gorilla. A sympathetic jury will likely award the parents and the child millions, driving the zoo into bankruptcy and ending their conservations efforts to save gorillas forever.

cheers!

The child's action caused the death of an endangered species. Millions of other children have been to that same zoo, and did not do what that child did. HIS actions are to blame for a tragic loss. It is not the other way around. The zoo did nothing to lure that child into harm's way. That child's parents are inadequate to teach their children the rules that exist in every damned public place in this nation. That child's parents are responsible for their child's actions, which resulted in the death of a beloved member of an endangered species. The zoo panicked, shot first, and analyzed the situation after the fact to cover their own asses.

I can't sue the local government for not telling me not to cross the street in front of a bus. The responsibility for my own well-being lies with me. When my stupidity results in the death of someone else, that's my fault. I can, and should be sued, and held accountable.

[Timo]

Plant, if i was stupid enough to wander off in Denali without a bearbox, and camped with food inside my tent, only to be mauled by a grizzly at night, could i then sue the National Parks Service for not making their facility safe for stupid humans?

[Sixstrings]

In case anyone was wondering what Trump thinks about it:

Donald Trump Weighs in on Killing of Gorilla (Harambe) at Cincinatti Zoo
https://youtu.be/SsTM4Qgsewk

Per CNN, the child was actually THREE years old.. not four.

First the gorilla knocked the child against the wall, and at a later point threw him ten feet in the air:

Witness: 'There was nobody getting that baby back from that gorilla'

The sound attracted Harambe, who barreled over to the moat, saw the child and then knocked the boy against a wall, O'Connor said.

O'Connor, who recorded much of the scene on her phone, said the gorilla didn't seem intent on harming the boy at first.

"He dragged the child a little further down into the moat and he ... almost looked like he was helping him, pulled his pants up, stood him up, and then all of the sudden everybody started screaming again, and he pulled him completely out," she said.

Another witness, Tangie Hollifield, told CNN affiliate WCPO that she hugged a member of the child's family and assured him the boy would be saved.

"He was just flipping out -- just scared," she said. "The scream from that gorilla, that I have never heard. I don't think that he was hurting him. He was just protecting him."

'It was a mess'

The screaming seemed to agitate the 450-pound primate, witnesses said, and the scene quickly deteriorated. The gorilla became more aggressive and was seemingly determined not to free the child, witnesses said.

"From what we saw [the child] could have been killed at any second," Bruce Davis, who was with Hollifield, told WCPO. "He threw him 10 feet in the air, and I saw him land on his back. It was a mess."

O'Connor said the boy tried to free himself on at least one occasion. "[Harambe] pulled the boy back in, tucked him underneath and really wasn't going to let him get away," she said.

Harambe had the boy between his legs and was hovering over him, she said.
"I saw him when he was on top of the habitat, dragging the boy, pulling him underneath him. It was not a good scene," O'Connor said. "He literally picked the boy up by his calf and dragged him toward another cave to basically get him out of the view of this crowd that hadn't yet dispersed."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/30/us/gorilla-shot-cincinnati-witnesses/

Animal expert Jack Hanna says that a gorilla can crush a coconut, "like a marshmallow." They're six times stronger than a man.

Hanna says that the gorilla's expression was very dangerous, when he was dragging the baby around, and "you don't want to ever see that expression on a silverback gorilla."

https://youtu.be/Xn90xkVoO3g

Bottom line about it.. BEFORE the cameras started rolling, the gorilla THREW the baby up in the air ten feet and also knocked him against the wall. So as usual, people see a video on youtube and then conclude things and then later it comes out there's other facts not caught on tape.

So anyhow, it seems like this is what happened.. the gorilla was AGGRESSIVE at first, about an intruder. And THEN, once it realized the human baby was no threat, the gorilla eased up a bit. But fact remains, the gorilla threw the baby against the wall and threw him up ten feet in the air.. and was rapidly dragging the baby through the water.

For crying out loud, people -- it's a three year old baby.. first responders aren't going to just stand there and watch a three year old baby be in danger, in favor of rights of the animal.

Jack Hanna had it right in the above interview -- Hanna said the decision the zoo made was the only one to be made, when it's human life vs. animal life.

(and he also pointed out that if they had used tranquilizers, the gorilla may have thought it was the BABY attacking him)

[Sixstrings]

The freakout over Harambe the gorilla shows the dangers of internet mob justice

But now we are reaching the next — and scary — phase of these kinds of stories, in which an internet mob demands that someone pay for the death. Specifically, people are asking for punishment of the parents of the 4-year-old boy who was able to crawl into Harambe's enclosure. They argue that the gorilla's death is really the parents' fault, because the parents didn't pay attention to their kid, and the zoo only had to kill the gorilla once the child snuck in and was put in danger. ...

But it doesn't end at petitions. There are also reports of online harassment against a woman who shares the name of the 4-year-old's supposed mother (Michelle Gregg). The actual mom also appears to have deactivated her Facebook account. Now that her name is out there, this could be just the first sign of the kind of harassment that's to come.

This should stop before it goes further. While all of us can agree that Harambe's death is tragic, we have no indication that this was more than a tragic one-off accident on the mom's part, and ruining other people's lives or tearing apart families based on a narrow view of one event is not how we're supposed to deal justice.

But sadly, this type of mob justice seems to be turning into the norm every time people find a story to get angry about.

Internet mob justice is becoming the norm for viral stories ...

The most recent example was the death of Cecil the lion, when an American dentist, Walter Palmer, hunted a widely beloved lion. With disregard for how it might impact his employees and family, an internet mob quickly went after all aspects of Palmer's life. ...

Mob justice is not justice

The fundamental problem with mob justice is that it's prone to randomness. As Fisher described it for Vox, "It treats justice as a sort of random lightning bolt from the sky; one is reminded of the vengeful but arbitrary gods of Greek or Roman lore."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818858/harambe-gorilla-michelle-gregg-mob-justice

[Plantagenet]

Plant, if i was stupid enough to wander off in Denali without a bearbox, and camped with food inside my tent, only to be mauled by a grizzly at night, could i then sue the National Parks Service for not making their facility safe for stupid humans?

Possibly.

A family in Utah just won a lawsuit for millions after their son was dragged off from a campsite and killed by a bear.

family-of-utah-boy-killed-by-bear-wins-settlement

These days Park Rangers commonly remove bears and even kill bears around campgrounds to avoid potential lawsuits by people who have unpleasant interaction with bears. You could argue the NPS had been negligent by failing to kill the bear that mauled you.

officials-kill-grizzly-bears-to-head-off-lawsuits

When it comes to Harambe the gorilla, I could see the family suing because the zoo didn't properly enclose the gorilla cage, allowing their poor child to fall in. I'm not saying its right, but I'm sure there are lawyers out there right now trying to contact that family in order to file a lawsuit for them.

[dissident]

Will they blow up the train when this retarded child gets on the rail tracks? The chances of him getting away from his "could care less" parents and putting himself in harm's way is extremely high. But will the same standard of protection for this "precious life" be applied in every circumstance?

[Cog]

I wondered what caliber rifle round they used. From my limited research the .375 H&H Magnum would be a capable round for just about any animal in a zoo. Although there are more powerful rounds out there, this round has taken down every animal on the planet. It would have been instant lights out for a gorilla.

[Sixstrings]

When it comes to Harambe the gorilla, I could see the family suing because the zoo didn't properly enclose the gorilla cage, allowing their poor child to fall in.

Well, I think they definitely have a case. It's a good thing the zoo saved the child -- they'd have had massive liability if they had not taken appropriate measures because of not wanting to hurt the animal, and then the animal hurt the child, or worse.

They did great on that. They saved the kid.

So now, they are just liable for his injuries from the fall -- due to the faulty design and / or maintenance of the exhibit, with that gap next to the barrier and then they had a bit of loose chain link / wire fence and that's what the kid got through.

Businesses definitely have liability for their customers' safety.

Whether it's a store and wet mopped floor.. or, a mechanic is responsible to keep customers away from the pit thing where they raise the cars up, and keep customers out of the garage..

Customers are stupid, sometimes. That's just how it is.

The BUSINESS has to "kid proof" their business. In the case of the zoo, it WAS a kid -- three years old, that's not his fault.

If the cable company guy comes out to your house and puts a box in, and let's say you want it on the other side of the room with a cable or cord running across your floor -- he's going to tell you no, he won't do that. Because of liability, in case you wind up tripping on that cord.

A zoo is like a theme park -- *one cannot count on tourists to have good sense*. It's the PARK's responsibility, to be as safe as possible.

Swimming pools have lifeguards. And tall fences too. Why? Because of liability. So that nobody can drown and sue the owner, and no kids can wander in, without a fence, and fall into the pool.

Was this gorilla exhibit as safely set up as even an a common hotel swimming pool? Doesn't sound like it.. of course they're liable.

If you go to to Disney World, and fall through some hole that's due to poor design -- of course the park is liable, if it's reasonably their fault, if they could have reasonably designed it better.

If a swimming pool must have a lifeguard, then why doesn't a 400 pound gorilla exhibit have an attendant? To make sure nobody falls or gets into the pit?

If a carnival ride must have an attendant -- then why don't these zoo exhibits? Apparently, to keep labor down and maximize profit.. well, that's on them. They're liable, now there's a lawsuit.. in the future they should hire some employees to watch over it.

Swimming pools have lifeguards. Carnival rides have attendants. So should 400 pound gorilla exhibits, and lions and tigers and elephants and such too.