Tranquilizers take a LONG time to work, and the animal knows it's been attacked. That's why they are generally administered from far away. In this case, there was a human quite definitely in reach of what would have been a very enraged gorilla the instant the dart hit. Said enraged gorilla would have been a rapidly moving target, and so would the human.
There's a reason snipers in hostage situations wait for a clear shot on a momentarily stationary target if they possibly can.
Sorry, Mike, but Unseen isn't full of shit here, you are.
How do you know the gorilla would have known he had been attacked? There is no guarantee he would have even seen the shooter. What we do know is that shooting him made him very dead. And again there is no precedent for a gorilla killing a child who falls into the gorilla exhibit. Instead we know that on at least two occasions gorillas protected vulnerable children. And in this instance the gorilla was quiet with the boy until the hullabaloo.
You have simply speculated on how the gorilla would react to being shot with tranquilizer. I speculate that gorilla would have been shocked and moved away from the boy. I think the first move by zoo employees...get the onlookers to hush...then tranquilizer followed by gun if necessary
Agree on every point. But some here are always black and white. Either the boy dies or the gorilla dies. No middle ground. Despite the history of such events, a "considered" solution where both live is just ridiculous to such people.
Unseen is right about one thing, though. What REALLY drove the final decision was NOT the child's safety - it was America's litigious mind set. That gorilla is not going to sue!
What a sad measure of ethics.
Jake, long ago I stopped expecting you to be even basically rational. Nonetheless...
A gorilla is so strong it could fling that boy like a frisbee. It's so strong it could kill the boy without even acting in anger, just by dragging the kid around, for example.
I know you have a "thing" about championing ridiculous views with ridiculous arguments, but you are topping yourself here.
Betting on the CHANCE that the gorilla wouldn't kill the boy is by any rational standard...irrational.
Suppose you were in charge and you had a sharpshooter by your side with two rifles, one with a tranquilizer and one with a bullet sufficient to turn the gorilla's brain into mush and you said "Let's see if the gorilla saves the boy first" or "Let's tranquilize the gorilla, then get the boy," and someone asked, "What right have you to risk the boy's life?" what would your answer be? "I'm in charge here"? "A couple other times gorillas didn't kill boys"? What?
Unseen, I stopped respecting your acumen after a bit but was surprised to find your thinking about free will mirrors mine. And that is a pisser.
And a full grown man can do to an infant what a gorilla can do to a small boy. So what? Any time there is a disparity in strength between the more powerful and the more vulnerable we ought to kill the more powerful? We ought to play to our darkest fears and irrational thinking and shoot first? (I could picture you in the 18th century as a slave owner who catches a black slave glancing at a white woman and deciding to beat or murder the slave cuz you can't take a chance that an innocent white woman is going to be raped by a semi-human.) In other words you adopt stereotypical LCD thinking while making unjustifiable assumptions. You for one would not bet on the CHANCE that the darkey will not rape an innocent woman. I, on the other hand would have been an abolitionist.
Ideally, the zoo workers should have gotten the onlookers to be quiet. The gorilla reacted to the voices. That was the first step. The second step is what is proposed by Mike Long.
On the one hand you come off as though the gorilla's life is worthless. On the other you credit the gorilla with quick thinking. How da heck does the gorilla know he is being attacked if he does not see the shooter?
He knows he just felt a stinging pain, suddenly out of the blue. He will certainly move, which makes the backup shooter MikeLong suggested problematic (remember there's something there you do NOT want to hit). He will be very upset, more so than he just was. Is there a chance he'll take it out on the rag doll he's dragging around?
Agree about the pain but without knowing the cause of the pain I doubt he will conclude he is under attack. Movement seems likely although not always. At least with humans a sudden pain can cause more of a catatonic response then a flight. But it would certainly be no surprise if the gorilla busted a move.
Yeah ya want to use the tranquilizer if but only if there is separation between kid and gorilla. Same can be said about the move involving murder of the gorilla. As you say there is something there you do NOT want to hit. So if worse comes to worse the gorilla can be shot.
Jake, your views on this topic border on sociopathic and psychotic, so I'm going to ignore anything else you say here.
Nice one, Jake. You're calm, polite, and pertinent discourse has done what no one else has managed - mute Unseen.
MODS! Should we have a discussion about a potential new descriptive name for the site? I suggest:
"Unseen Posts -- AGAIN"
I regularly wonder why so many intelligent, informative, and articulate posters seem to have fled TA.
I lied. I don't wonder.