Gorilla story

[ktheodos]

Who's side are you on? Do you think it was wrong to kill it, or right to protect the child?

[Penwoir]

I am on the fence with this question because on the one hand, I was upset and quite angry when I heard that a Gorilla had been shot dead after a child had fallen into it's habitat at a zoo, especially when the footage I saw was of the Gorilla not harming the child, but holding the child steady. Then I got angry at the parents for not keeping a closer eye on the child, especially when the child had apparently already asked if he could go into the habitat to go swimming with the Gorilla. But then I saw a sketched plan of the habitat including the fencing surrounding it and I have to say, I was underwhelmed with the precautions the zoo had taken to protect the visitors to the zoo. The fence was only 3 foot high, then there was a 4 foot ledge before a 12 foot drop to the habitat. So the conclusion I've come to is, if a 4 year old child can climb a 3 foot fence then the enclosure is not nearly well planned out.

[darkxtsuna]

Feel sad for the Gorilla not his fault its the stupid parents of the child's fault in my case.

[lguzman1]

I think like many that the parents were not taking care of the child well.

[pmagalei]

I don't watch the news and ever heard of this story but perhaps there are so many different solution to the problem I don't think that Gorilla was going to harm the child They could have put the animal to sleep. Then the child could be rescued. Or the parents of the kid should be fined for killing the animal.

[reiddb]

Well....I guess I would start off wishing the area it was in wasn't able to be breached. Regardless of whether the parents were negligent or if the child was naughty...if the child couldn't get in...this would've have happened. Unfortunately, I believe human life is ABSOLUTELY above an animals....so the child would win in that situation.

[kjstrukel]

There have been many posts on social media by animal (primate) experts who explain that the male silverback gorilla can be VERY aggressive and that the zoo did the right thing by shooting the gorilla.  Most explained that a  400+ pound gorilla vs. a 40 pound toddler could have  a disastrous outcome for the child. 

As for those who have called out the mother for her parenting skills, I know from having children/grandchildren that even as vigilant as you can be, kids move at the speed of light sometimes and, despite your best efforts, they can get into dangerous situations. 

This was a sad situation for EVERYONE involved.  It made my heart feel good that the parents would not accept $$ from anyone and directed those folks to donate to the zoo.

[Catwomanj10]

June 1, 2016

Hello to everyone out there in Fusion Cash World!

Wow!  I, too, did not see the footage of the "Gorilla story" regarding the gorilla that got shot and killed at the zoo.

I have to agree with the members who said that the parents ought to have been "taking care of and supervising their child a lot more closely" than to have allowed this incident of their child climbing into the gorilla's habitat to have happened.

Any child that young, that is four and under, needs to always be kept on a "close vigil" no matter where one goes, and especially around "animals".  Children are naturally curious and they learn about their environment through "exploration and playing".

It is obvious to me that this young child's curiosity got the better of "him" or "her"  and thus "he" or "she" decided to "Ok let's go climb this fence.........(autonomy and shame vs guilt and doubt) Piaget's theory on "children's development and "let's go and swim with the gorillas."  "And, it's ok to do so, because i have already informed my parents about my intentions to go do so!"

And, thus the child physically was able to go inside the "gorilla's habitat" and "explore his environment" at the zoo!

Is the zoo at fault for this child's decision to go and to explore his environment and go and climb inside the "gorilla's habitat" to explore this part of the zoo?

Or, are the parents to blame because they did not "supervise their child closely enough to have prevented this incident?

Well, (not to sound judgmental or anything), but I think that both parties are at "fault here."

The zoo can be held "liable for any injuries" that occur on their property of showing the "animals" to the public if as one or more members have said in this discussion the "walls of the gorilla's habitat" was not "secure enough" that it allowed a young child of four years of age to be able to "climb over it and into it!"!

And, likewise, the parents are also at "fault" with the fact that this incident even every happened in the first place!
That is, they, obviously, did not supervise their "own child" well enough so that their child would not have "climbed into this dangerous structure in the first place!"

They could have "held onto their child's hand" while walking through the zoo.  This definitely could have prevented this incident from happening!  Unless, of course, the child is stronger than the adult and is able to pull away from them and run away into this structure, which is highly unlikely!

And, finally, as to the "gorilla" getting killed by the "ones who killed it."  this, too, is a "total outrage."!
because as one member pointed out, "the gorilla held the boy or girl steadily in his arms.  And did not harm the child!

And, gorillas from what I have learned are basically "peaceful and loving animals" except, of course, if they get threatened!

So, I have to agree with the other member who said that this situation could have been handled differently and that the gorilla's life could have gotten spared.  The ones who killed it could have just "shot it" and put it "to sleep" while the ones who went into the gorilla's habitat would have taken the child out of the animals's living quarters!

[sherryinutah]

Sad, sad, sad.  I love animals but in that specific situation; the gorilla had to be taken out.  I don't know why they couldn't tranquilize the animal but.....

I know they had to consider the life of another human being.   

[plennis]

The zoo had no choice.  All of the best experts in the country said it would take several minutes for a tranquilizer to work.  In that time the gorilla would have been even more agitated, he already was because of all the yelling etc from the crowd.  The zoo had no choice but to take the gorilla out.  The enclosure had not been breached for 38 years, which would make you think it was a good system.   It was very sad, but you have t do what is best for the child.  The person who had taken the video says it was worse in person than it seemed on the  video.       

[alaskakaren]

I think as bad a situation as it was...they made the right decisions...a child's life is priority. It's just all a shame.. really feeling for the Japanese child and his parents...one instance can change a life...

[Sendmicheck]

This whole gorilla story is sad, sad, and heart broken.

[mrisha]

I hate that the Gorilla was put to death because the Parent did not pay close attention to what their child is doing.  They were neglectful when it came to their children.  Kids are energized to see anything even though it may endanger them.  You know your child then anyone as a parent keeps a close eye on that child.

[ljrjess69]

i dont know but im tierd of hearing bout it,,,,,,,,,,,,

[countrygirl12]

Not really on a side.  That is the problem the media has everyone choosing sides.  I am outraged that the gorilla had to be killed because of the stupidity of an ignorant human.  The gorilla didn't deserve to die.  I understand they could not let the kid be killed so there really was no other choice.  But I do feel the mother should be charged and held responsible.  SHE is the one who was not watching her kid. 

Penwoir, I agree.  I didn't see anything showing the gorilla being aggressive.  I think they killed him too quickly.