IMHO the zoo acted sensibly and took the only decision they could. They saved the kid’s life but some people are behaving as if the gorilla not the child should have been the chief concern.
Excessive force? Are these clowns serious? A 400 pound gorilla is tossing a small kid around like a rag doll (not ‘protecting him’ as some have argued), the zoo save the boy and now iidiots are waving around Justice for Harambe signs? This is sheer stupidity. Yes, it’s a shame that the animal had to be put down and yes, the zoo has to take some responsibility for lax security. But let’s keep this in perspective. A child’s life was saved, that’s the important thing here.
Why couldn’t they use a tranquilizer gun? I’m guessing most zoos have those on hand. Or offer to trade some bananas for the kid? I think this was a bad decision. Of course I wasn’t there. I do think gorillas are right up there pretty close to people and their lives should be respected.
I’m in agreement that the parents should be held at least partly responsible. Maybe not criminally. But like perhaps the zoo could sue them for loss of property? IANAL, so I have no idea if that’s even a possibility.
Really? My education on this topic consists entirely of watching nature documentaries and the animals seem to drop like rocks milliseconds after being shot. I still think they should have tried it. If the gorilla wasn’t dropping fast enough THEN they could have shot him.
You’ve got two options with a tranquilizer dart. Either it hits a blood vessel, which is pretty rare, or it hits muscle.
If it hits a blood vessel, it can work pretty quickly. Then you have a 450 pound gorilla falling over unconscious onto a small child.
If it hits muscle, which is much more common, it takes several seconds to several minutes to take effect. Then you have a shocked, angered, and in pain 450 pound gorilla holding a small child.
I can see no way in which either scenario will go well.
The gorilla was tossing the child and dragging him around. You would subject the child to more of that while waiting for a tranquilizer to work? :dubious: He could have been killed in the extra time that would have taken.
It’s unfortunate the gorilla had to be shot. He and the little boy were both innocent victims. I’d have hated to see either of them killed, but I’d rather see the child saved than the gorilla if there were no other choice.
That and as tranqs take effect some animals will react in anger and fear.
From what I am told ---- after the incident at the Pittsburgh Zoo and the resulting publicity and law suits, many zoos changed their policies on arms and how/when to use them. Some zoos are basically keeping marksmen on staff.
Timing is more precise with a bullet. The risks are still there, of course, but there’s one fewer variables, if you have someone on staff who’s a good shot.
There was no perfect way to handle this with no risks.
