I'll be honest, the Gorilla could have ripped him apart at any point but didn't. I don't think the Gorilla was going to harm him, but didn't know what to do with him either, not sure why tranquilizers weren't tried and if needed shoot him if they didn't work. I don't have an issue with their killing the Gorilla, but do think they could have tried non-lethal force first.

(05-30-2016 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I'll be honest, the Gorilla could have ripped him apart at any point but didn't. I don't think the Gorilla was going to harm him, but didn't know what to do with him either, not sure why tranquilizers weren't tried and if needed shoot him if they didn't work. I don't have an issue with their killing the Gorilla, but do think they could have tried non-lethal force first.

This has been my contention all along. Why not try the tranquilizer on Harambe to see if the situation could be resolved without the loss of his life? Could they not have tried that with regular guns on him such that they could've taken him out if need be IF the tranquilizer didn't work fast enough? I know gorillas are not human and the child needed to be saved over the gorilla but I fail to understand why they didn't pull out all of the stops to save both.

(05-30-2016 06:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I'll be honest, the Gorilla could have ripped him apart at any point but didn't. I don't think the Gorilla was going to harm him, but didn't know what to do with him either, not sure why tranquilizers weren't tried and if needed shoot him if they didn't work. I don't have an issue with their killing the Gorilla, but do think they could have tried non-lethal force first.

This has been my contention all along. Why not try the tranquilizer on Harambe to see if the situation could be resolved without the loss of his life? Could they not have tried that with regular guns on him such that they could've taken him out if need be IF the tranquilizer didn't work fast enough? I know gorillas are not human and the child needed to be saved over the gorilla but I fail to understand why they didn't pull out all of the stops to save both.

Tranqulizers take time.... the gorilla could of ripped the boy in two before they could have shot him...

They made the right decision. Your talking about a decision that had to be made in just a few seconds.

Its a sad situation, but in the end they did what they felt they needed to do.

Even though it was the stupid woman's fault it is still a human life and you're not going to debate who and what was the wrong scenario. They did right to kill the gorilla and screw the animal rights people. We know a lot of their nonsense so to us they are like the boy who cried wolf not too many people give them any credence anymore. I know in a situation like this I would have done the same thing to preserve that little boys life. He's a little kid and didn't know better and the mom is an idiot for not watching him but the kid went in and he had to be saved.

She should be charged with negligence and fined.

(05-30-2016 07:21 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Even though it was the stupid woman's fault it is still a human life and you're not going to debate who and what was the wrong scenario. They did right to kill the gorilla and screw the animal rights people. We know a lot of their nonsense so to us they are like the boy who cried wolf not too many people give them any credence anymore. I know in a situation like this I would have done the same thing to preserve that little boys life. He's a little kid and didn't know better and the mom is an idiot for not watching him but the kid went in and he had to be saved.

She should be charged with negligence and fined.

Charged with negligence?

What?

(05-30-2016 07:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 07:21 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Even though it was the stupid woman's fault it is still a human life and you're not going to debate who and what was the wrong scenario. They did right to kill the gorilla and screw the animal rights people. We know a lot of their nonsense so to us they are like the boy who cried wolf not too many people give them any credence anymore. I know in a situation like this I would have done the same thing to preserve that little boys life. He's a little kid and didn't know better and the mom is an idiot for not watching him but the kid went in and he had to be saved.

She should be charged with negligence and fined.

Charged with negligence?

What?

Based on the three barriers that this child had to traverse, he didn't just slip away quickly. He was out of her sight and care for minutes not seconds and she didn't notice because she was on her phone.

Imagine instead of the zoo, if he had left their home and was roaming the streets for 5-10 minutes and was hit by a car, she would likely be investigated and charged with negligence or endangering.

(05-30-2016 06:57 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I'll be honest, the Gorilla could have ripped him apart at any point but didn't. I don't think the Gorilla was going to harm him, but didn't know what to do with him either, not sure why tranquilizers weren't tried and if needed shoot him if they didn't work. I don't have an issue with their killing the Gorilla, but do think they could have tried non-lethal force first.

This has been my contention all along. Why not try the tranquilizer on Harambe to see if the situation could be resolved without the loss of his life? Could they not have tried that with regular guns on him such that they could've taken him out if need be IF the tranquilizer didn't work fast enough? I know gorillas are not human and the child needed to be saved over the gorilla but I fail to understand why they didn't pull out all of the stops to save both.

Tranqulizers take time.... the gorilla could of ripped the boy in two before they could have shot him...

They made the right decision. Your talking about a decision that had to be made in just a few seconds.

Its a sad situation, but in the end they did what they felt they needed to do.

Especially if the pain of being shot with the dart triggered the gorilla.

It was a difficult decision to make, especially in the compressed time-frame they had to make it. As is often the case in decisions like this the right choice still sucks.

I have no idea what animal protectionists think but the parents were idiots, the zoo did what they could despite the ridiculous circumstances, which were unfortunate enough.

(05-30-2016 07:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:57 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I'll be honest, the Gorilla could have ripped him apart at any point but didn't. I don't think the Gorilla was going to harm him, but didn't know what to do with him either, not sure why tranquilizers weren't tried and if needed shoot him if they didn't work. I don't have an issue with their killing the Gorilla, but do think they could have tried non-lethal force first.

This has been my contention all along. Why not try the tranquilizer on Harambe to see if the situation could be resolved without the loss of his life? Could they not have tried that with regular guns on him such that they could've taken him out if need be IF the tranquilizer didn't work fast enough? I know gorillas are not human and the child needed to be saved over the gorilla but I fail to understand why they didn't pull out all of the stops to save both.

Tranqulizers take time.... the gorilla could of ripped the boy in two before they could have shot him...

They made the right decision. Your talking about a decision that had to be made in just a few seconds.

Its a sad situation, but in the end they did what they felt they needed to do.

Especially if the pain of being shot with the dart triggered the gorilla.

It was a difficult decision to make, especially in the compressed time-frame they had to make it. As is often the case in decisions like this the right choice still sucks.

That kind of mirrors a scene from the sitcom Malcom in the Middle where a couple of characters end up in a Tiger enclosure. The zookeepers tell those trapped they're going to use tranquilizers to control the tigers, but it will take five minutes to work. The reply from Malcom is "So your plan is to shoot them and piss them off long enough to take it out on us?"

(05-30-2016 08:11 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 07:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:57 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I'll be honest, the Gorilla could have ripped him apart at any point but didn't. I don't think the Gorilla was going to harm him, but didn't know what to do with him either, not sure why tranquilizers weren't tried and if needed shoot him if they didn't work. I don't have an issue with their killing the Gorilla, but do think they could have tried non-lethal force first.

This has been my contention all along. Why not try the tranquilizer on Harambe to see if the situation could be resolved without the loss of his life? Could they not have tried that with regular guns on him such that they could've taken him out if need be IF the tranquilizer didn't work fast enough? I know gorillas are not human and the child needed to be saved over the gorilla but I fail to understand why they didn't pull out all of the stops to save both.

Tranqulizers take time.... the gorilla could of ripped the boy in two before they could have shot him...

They made the right decision. Your talking about a decision that had to be made in just a few seconds.

Its a sad situation, but in the end they did what they felt they needed to do.

Especially if the pain of being shot with the dart triggered the gorilla.

It was a difficult decision to make, especially in the compressed time-frame they had to make it. As is often the case in decisions like this the right choice still sucks.

That kind of mirrors a scene from the sitcom Malcom in the Middle where a couple of characters end up in a Tiger enclosure. The zookeepers tell those trapped they're going to use tranquilizers to control the tigers, but it will take five minutes to work. The reply from Malcom is "So your plan is to shoot them and piss them off long enough to take it out on us?"

(05-30-2016 06:38 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  I'll be honest, the Gorilla could have ripped him apart at any point but didn't. I don't think the Gorilla was going to harm him, but didn't know what to do with him either, not sure why tranquilizers weren't tried and if needed shoot him if they didn't work. I don't have an issue with their killing the Gorilla, but do think they could have tried non-lethal force first.

But honestly, you don't know whether the Gorilla was going to harm the boy or not, right? The zoo unfortunately was put into a no win situation. They took the only sensible action they could given the circumstances. My take is that the enclosure should have been made more secure. If it can be breached by a 4 year old boy, what does that tell you?

(05-29-2016 11:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Why are we still putting Gorillas in zoo's in the first place?

They are endangered and one of the things zoos do is try to establish breeding programs to help restock the population.

(05-31-2016 01:26 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-29-2016 11:58 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Why are we still putting Gorillas in zoo's in the first place?

They are endangered and one of the things zoos do is try to establish breeding programs to help restock the population.

let's skip all the bs....

why do they need to exist?

answer: they don't other than amusement....or did one not catch that planet of the apes thingy????

they serve no purpose for human survival.....

what A fk'n waste of time it is in entirety.....

but I'm that scary atheist guy...

(05-30-2016 08:15 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 08:11 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 07:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:57 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 06:45 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  This has been my contention all along. Why not try the tranquilizer on Harambe to see if the situation could be resolved without the loss of his life? Could they not have tried that with regular guns on him such that they could've taken him out if need be IF the tranquilizer didn't work fast enough? I know gorillas are not human and the child needed to be saved over the gorilla but I fail to understand why they didn't pull out all of the stops to save both.

Tranqulizers take time.... the gorilla could of ripped the boy in two before they could have shot him...

They made the right decision. Your talking about a decision that had to be made in just a few seconds.

Its a sad situation, but in the end they did what they felt they needed to do.

Especially if the pain of being shot with the dart triggered the gorilla.

It was a difficult decision to make, especially in the compressed time-frame they had to make it. As is often the case in decisions like this the right choice still sucks.

That kind of mirrors a scene from the sitcom Malcom in the Middle where a couple of characters end up in a Tiger enclosure. The zookeepers tell those trapped they're going to use tranquilizers to control the tigers, but it will take five minutes to work. The reply from Malcom is "So your plan is to shoot them and piss them off long enough to take it out on us?"

now, that is scary in scope if one cares about humans....

however, when the gibbons are trained in front of the boob tube......no other expectation should be expected....

I just read about this today. Sad story all around. Parents screwed up big time and it cost that gorilla's its life. I think the zoo unfortunately did the right thing. Some folks are saying the gorilla was protecting the child but that's just a guess and I understand why a tranquilizer was not an option.

(05-31-2016 08:38 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I just read about this today. Sad story all around. Parents screwed up big time and it cost that gorilla's its life. I think the zoo unfortunately did the right thing. Some folks are saying the gorilla was protecting the child but that's just a guess and I understand why a tranquilizer was not an option.

Gorilla also grabbed the boy and took him up a ladder and dragged him around. It just wasn't on these videos. Witnesses said the boy got over the rail and through the bushes really fast. Dad was not there so parents is probably not appropriate. The fencing is to low.

The zoo should be partly responsible however. How in the world does a 4 year old get in there?

The mother should have neen shot too.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(05-31-2016 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The zoo should be partly responsible however. How in the world does a 4 year old get in there?

There had not been a Gorilla World barrier breach since the zoo opened in 1978 so it's safe to suggest the zoo had proper security in place. Now, it's hard to protect against stupid, so if that's what you want, the whole zoo would be shut down.

(05-31-2016 10:00 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The zoo should be partly responsible however. How in the world does a 4 year old get in there?

That 4 year old could have hacked Hillary's server.