The death of Harambe the gorilla

yqtwqxqm · 04-06-2016 06:09AM

I watched the video and couldnt help thinking what the hulk did to Loki.

Very sad situation at the zoo, but the right decision.
Zoo is at fault for allowing anyone to be able to get into an enclosure

crazygeryy · 04-06-2016 06:27AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

They went a little ape shiit if you ask me, it was banana's to shoot to kill. They could of
offer it nuts in exchange for the kid, if it fails to agree increase the amount of nuts. If it still fails to do a deal shoot it.

What if the ape wanted a few females and a steak dinner?

04-06-2016 06:58AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

It should also be noted that humans are killed to preserve gorilla species i.e pochers executed.

Executed in the sense of trial and execution?

That's just...completely insane!

bnt · 04-06-2016 01:01PM

How long has it been - a week? Harambe's hairy squeeze has already moved on (vid is a bit Discovery Channel NSFW):

https://twitter.com/iKeepItTooReal/status/738148058207129601

Galwayguy35 · 04-06-2016 05:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Executed in the sense of trial and execution?

That's just...completely insane!

They have guns and are fully prepared to use them on the park rangers, anyway who cares if a poacher gets shot.

04-06-2016 07:44PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

They have guns and are fully prepared to use them on the park rangers, anyway who cares if a poacher gets shot.

Dead?

For poaching?

I'd care. We don't dispense with justice and move to summary execution in the case of people who kill other people, I don't think it's a good idea where people kill animals.

If you mean killed in the course of an exchange of fire, of course that's different. But that's far from execution, that may happen where anyone who is committing a crime draws a gun.

Wailin · 05-06-2016 12:44AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Dead?

For poaching?

I'd care. We don't dispense with justice and move to summary execution in the case of people who kill other people, I don't think it's a good idea where people kill animals.

If you mean killed in the course of an exchange of fire, of course that's different. But that's far from execution, that may happen where anyone who is committing a crime draws a gun.

They're not poaching deer. These are endangered animals on the critical list.....facing fcuking extinction. So if execution doesn't deter them then let them off, they know the outcome.

Galwayguy35 · 05-06-2016 07:52AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Dead?

For poaching?

I'd care. We don't dispense with justice and move to summary execution in the case of people who kill other people, I don't think it's a good idea where people kill animals.

If you mean killed in the course of an exchange of fire, of course that's different. But that's far from execution, that may happen where anyone who is committing a crime draws a gun.

Well the cases I read about were in an exchange of gunfire between the Rangers and the poachers but TBH if I heard of a case of a dirty poacher getting a bullet it wouldn't bother me.

These animals are facing extinction, take the rhino for example, having it's horn hacked off often while still alive and left to suffer a slow painful death under the African sun.

Maybe you care if someone who does that gets a bullet but I won't.

05-06-2016 09:47AM

Wailin wrote: »

They're not poaching deer. These are endangered animals on the critical list.....facing fcuking extinction. So if execution doesn't deter them then let them off, they know the outcome.

Um...why is the life of a deer so cheap?

Surely the animal hardly knows if it's endangered.

Know of fellows who poach deer. I'd be all for catching and prosecuting, but not execution. I find the idea that we should execute people for poaching any animal to be just...insane.

Wailin · 05-06-2016 02:03PM

Poaching deer? Couldn't care less. There's thousands of them and they need culling, no natural predator since extinction of the wolf in Ireland. Poaching an endangered animal, on the other hand is a different story. 8 billion humans on the planet and rising......600(or so) wild mountain gorillas....

As i said, If a bullet doesn't deter poaching then let them off.

05-06-2016 04:44PM

Wasn't one thread enough?
Bigger outcry over a Gorilla being killed by necessity than an innocent man shot over mistaken identity!

Galwayguy35 · 05-06-2016 07:03PM

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

Wasn't one thread enough?
Bigger outcry over a Gorilla being killed by necessity than an innocent man shot over mistaken identity!

Why don't you start a thread about that then.

And maybe tell us who exactly you are talking about.

kleefarr · 05-06-2016 07:10PM

I think the crowd panicking and screaming made the gorilla nervous.
From the video I saw, the gorilla was initial very cool and genuinely intrigued by the child but when the screaming started it panicked and then took off with the child. This was when it all started to go pear shaped.
Unfortunate.

Pac1Man · 05-06-2016 11:32PM

After the dust has kinda settled and the general consensus is 'sad but necessary', let's take a moment to give a silent nod of approval to size of the shooter's balls.

What a pressure shot to take, regardless of distance. Had he missed the shot, who knows what the consequences would have been.

06-06-2016 03:59AM

Wailin wrote: »

Poaching deer? Couldn't care less. There's thousands of them and they need culling, no natural predator since extinction of the wolf in Ireland. Poaching an endangered animal, on the other hand is a different story. 8 billion humans on the planet and rising......600(or so) wild mountain gorillas....

As i said, If a bullet doesn't deter poaching then let them off.

Well, good that it wasn't a mountain gorilla so.

And while I appreciate you may not care less about deer and poaching them is fine, I disagree. I think poachers should be prosecuted. There are, for example, only 1,000 or so red deer, the only native species.

Not sure I understand the last line about letting them off.

mansize · 06-06-2016 04:25AM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkPMCmnWYAQKFt3.jpg:large

SEPT 23 1989 · 06-06-2016 10:10AM

Pac1Man wrote: »

After the dust has kinda settled and the general consensus is 'sad but necessary', let's take a moment to give a silent nod of approval to size of the shooter's balls.

What a pressure shot to take, regardless of distance. Had he missed the shot, who knows what the consequences would have been.

He was hardly a fast moving small target

MadDog76 · 06-06-2016 12:46PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious if the parents of the child face any consequences on this? Neglect of their child? Replacement costs of the gorilla? Anything?

If anybody is at risk of being sued it's the Zoo, they'd be paying compensation to the child's family.

There's a few questions raised by this incident ...........

Should Gorilla's (or any wild animals) be kept in a Zoo? It's a separate topic but there are both positives and negatives to keeping endangered species in Zoos.

Was the Mother to blame for this incident? No .......... it's difficult enough trying keep an eye on a toddler (especially if you have more than one child) which is one of the reasons Zoos are so popular with parents.
When you enter a Zoo with your child you feel a sense of security, ie. "even if my child does wander off and get lost at least he/she will be lost in the Zoo with very little chance of him/her being able to find his/her way out before being found."
And the thought of your child being able to access the animals (or vice versa) would seem an impossibility.

Was the Zoo to blame? To a certain extent, yes, obviously ......... but I'm sure the Zoo felt that the enclosures were completely impenetrable and would never intentionally leave a gap ......... it was a design fault caused by human error, it happens and we learn from our mistakes.
The Zoo redeemed itself by taking decisive action resulting in the child being secured without any major injuries and should be applauded, in my opinion.

It's very easy to criticise in hindsight.

The off-topic discussion about "should the Gorilla have even been in the Zoo!?!!" is just the usual suspects jumping on an easy target in this case ......... it's a valid discussion but a bit redundant to bring it up in this situation.

Samaris · 06-06-2016 01:21PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

He was hardly a fast moving small target

Nooo, but I wouldn't like to have the responsibility of shooting a gorilla in front of a crowd with a small child in the shot as well and knowing if I didn't get the kill on the first shot, things could get very nasty indeed.

Especially if I was a worker there, probably was acquainted with the gorilla and really didn't want to kill it anyway under normal circumstances.

steddyeddy · 06-06-2016 04:57PM

Is the default position now to shoot every gorilla that happens to be in an enclosure when someone falls in? Should we have executed the apes in the last two cases where a human entered it's cage?

MadDog76 · 06-06-2016 05:15PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is the default position now to shoot every gorilla that happens to be in an enclosure when someone falls in? Should we have executed the apes in the last two cases where a human entered it's cage?

I think it should be dealt with case by case ......... in the most recent case, the right decision was made.

deandean · 06-06-2016 05:22PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is the default position now to shoot every gorilla that happens to be in an enclosure when someone falls in?

Wasn't there a 'suicide by lion' a few weeks back where a guy entered a lion enclosure?

It'd be very unfair to shoot the lions in that case.

Galwayguy35 · 06-06-2016 05:34PM

deandean wrote: »

Wasn't there a 'suicide by lion' a few weeks back where a guy entered a lion enclosure?

It'd be very unfair to shoot the lions in that case.

They did shoot the lions.

Discodog · 06-06-2016 08:07PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think it should be dealt with case by case ......... in the most recent case, the right decision was made.

Wow we agree on something !

I would of thought that you would want at least two marksmen. Even a headshot might not render it instantly unconscious.

As for the fences etc zoos probable assume, wrongly, that people will use common sense. A child had it's arm ripped off at the shoulder by a chimp in an English zoo years ago. The parents had lifted the child onto the safety barrier so that it could hand the chimp a banana.

This is why many zoos use glass rather than bars.

Wailin · 06-06-2016 10:05PM

Discodog wrote: »

Wow we agree on something !

I would of thought that you would want at least two marksmen. Even a headshot might not render it instantly unconscious.

As for the fences etc zoos probable assume, wrongly, that people will use common sense. A child had it's arm ripped off at the shoulder by a chimp in an English zoo years ago. The parents had lifted the child onto the safety barrier so that it could hand the chimp a banana.

This is why many zoos use glass rather than bars.

In fairness chimps are malicious and deadly dangerous animals compared to a gorilla. I would rather be in a cage with 3 gorillas rather than 1 chimp.

steddyeddy · 06-06-2016 10:47PM

Chimps are a very very different story to gorillas. I have spent time near the former and it's not something I'd rush to do again.

06-06-2016 11:10PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Chimps are a very very different story to gorillas. I have spent time near the former and it's not something I'd rush to do again.

For me it's pretty simple, we shouldn't ponder too long about the sensitivities of the ape, if there is any chance it will harm a child then ape gets bullet...then analyse the incident.

steddyeddy · 06-06-2016 11:37PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For me it's pretty simple, we shouldn't ponder too long about the sensitivities of the ape, if there is any chance it will harm a child then ape gets bullet...then analyse the incident.

Not with a endangered ape. In fact human lives are often put second to endangered apes.

MadDog76 · 06-06-2016 11:42PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not with a endangered ape. In fact human lives are often put second to endangered apes.

In my view, an endangered ape becomes even more endangered if a human life is at risk, ie. ape dies so human can live, just as it should be ........ there is no justification for the reverse, that's just a warped way of seeing things.

07-06-2016 12:07AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not with a endangered ape. In fact human lives are often put second to endangered apes.

The ape was born in captivity and was not going to leave captivity, contributing nothing to the species' endangered status. What real use is a captive ape's life? Is this zoo involved in breeding programs to increase wild populations?

I think the worst comment I've heard about this event is "three year old boys aren't endangered". If the child is deemed replaceable, so is the captive bred ape.

The death of Harambe the gorilla

Comments