Did you all see this?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/animal-behaviour-...

A young boy "fell" into a zoo exhibit with a 17 year old (endangered) silver back gorilla.

The zoo had to put him down to save the child's life.

Many MANY people are outraged by this. I wonder what they would have said if the boy had been killed instead?

People are saying things like "it was not necessary" and "the mom should be criminally charged"...

Not many people are talking about the health safety and wellbeing of the child who just experienced something likely very traumatic. No one is talking about the child. They are talking about the gorilla.

What do you think? Did the zoo do the right thing? Should they have done something different?

I think they saved the boy's life. You don't need to be an animal expert to know that while he was "protecting" the boy, his mere strength could have injured him if not killed him.

Is our society just going crazy? Why is everyone up in a frenzy about the gorilla instead of thanking them for saving the boy's life?

Views: 1163

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Chances are..." means you're willing to accept odds on saving the boy rather than certainty. Not good enough.

Don't you think they took a moment to consider the tranq? According to your "logic", they shouldn't have taken that moment because, in that second the boy could have been killed. They should have quickly grabbed the nearest gun and come out blazing without a second's thought.

Remind us: What are your credentials?

You first.

rather than certainty

MYYY crystal ball? You're ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN nothing could possibly go wrong firing a high-powered rifle at a target within inches of a baby. (The same certainty you shovel into this forum with your every post.)

So I guess you're one of these "human-life-is-sacred" types, right? In comparison, this RARE, majestic primate had ZERO value - not worth literally half a second's consideration. THAT is not good enough!

All things considered, my solution would have had an EXCELLENT chance of success if it had been considered which, to my knowledge, it had not.

I'm not criticizing what they did. You are. I'm accepting their credentials. You seem to be questioning them by questioning their decision.

Also left out of your blabbering is any consideration whatsoever of the legal responsibility in the situation, not to mention the legal risks by not getting it over with quickly.

Looked at that way, the gorilla is hardly a consideration at all.

Remind us: What are your credentials?

Why are there NO actual experts who think the zoo handled it the wrong way?

Find us one or two, ...please. 

You're ignoring the fact that even if there is one or are two experts who feel they would have handed it a different way, they are way way way in the minority.

Also, you're ignoring the legal responsibilities of the zoo as well as the liabilities they were facing in case the boy was significantly injured (I think we can assume a number of cuts and scrapes).

And why would you be willing to bet the life of the boy that your crystal ball is accurately not just predicting the future but accurately taking into account every possible way things could have gone wrong with that approach?

I thought of that too Mike. But then again I don't own a gun and the times I've tried to shoot one I've sucked at it.

I have lots of friends who do own guns. One of them is pretty damn good with his rifles. I just asked him about your scenario. He says that with the gorilla standing still a head shot is a sure thing, assuming the person shooting can hit dead center on a target from about 10 to 20 yards. Not that far right? But, my friend said, you shoot target practice with your brain calm, your heart not racing, no sweating, etc. The size of the apes head shrinks under pressure. Now it's harder to hit his head even when he's not moving. But put a dart in him? He's not standing still. His behavior leads me to assume, and I ain't no Jane Goodall, that he's going to drag that "toy", "stick" around with him even after the dart. He had not let the kid try to crawl away before; kept on pulling him back by the ankle. So now he's got a dart in him and he's dragging the kid by the ankle doing who knows what. 

Putting him down was the right thing to do. All the yahoo's that blame the mother have never had kids. If they do have a kid then he/she must be really, really sheltered.

When I was in bootcamp we needed to learn how to use gas masks. We were taught but the DI wanted us to have a really deep appreciation for how the gas mask's work so he made us go into an air sealed chamber, dropped a pellet of tear gas, and ordered us to remove the masks. Yep they worked really well those gas mask. I never really got a deep appreciation of fire until i put my hand over a stove. Kids, sponges, think they are invincible. What happen to that woman and that child could happen to anyone. 

+1

hit dead center on a target from about 10 to 20 yards. Not that far right? But, my friend said, you shoot target practice with your brain calm, your heart not racing, no sweating,

Don't know about the Army (just kidding), but in the Marine Corps we were trained to shoot accurately when people are shooting back. BTW 10 - 20 yards is child's play. I qualified "Expert" at 500 yards with an M14.

You went off topic first, so I'll follow. :-) I did the tear gas exercise, too. I got a promotion while in boot camp and I think part of the reason was this tear gas exercise. I learned at the '68 Convention in Chicago that tear gas wants to make you cough, but, if you cough, it's all over. In the MC quonset hut, after the platoon removed their masks, one by one everyone started coughing and panicking, but I breathed slowly and continued to follow the DI's orders (from behind his gas mask) - marching in place and singing the Marine Corps Hymn. I managed to get though the whole thing without coughing.

You're a good shot! Above average too. Average person is good to go at around 40! 500 yards! Five football fields. Wonder if the guy that got that gorilla was that good. Not too many homo sapiens can shoot like that. 

And you can breath tear gas too!!! Impressive!

Guess this is why you think that shooting the ape was a bad choice. 

But, I'm probably not alone here when I say, if it was my kid in that moat with that gorilla I'd want him put down too...

Clearly a couple people here don't think like parents.

500 yards!

I don't understand. You were in the Army (right?) and you didn't take the standard rifleman proficiency test. From what you say, you probably failed to attain any qualification. But I guess you must have forgotten the test entirely.

And you can breath tear gas too!!! 

As can anyone. It doesn't suffocate or poison - just incapacitates (most). What I can do that most can't is not cough. I'm not alone, either. You will have seen protesters on TV picking up tear gas canisters and hurling them back at police while MOST of the crown disperses in panic.

I never said I was in the army Mike. I'm a squid. The only things I ever fired in the Navy were a 45 and an M-14. Didn't have to be proficient at target shooting because you really don't need an M-16 on the flight deck of a carrier.

BTW: Couldn't hit the side of a barn if it was 10 yards away. Could load Nukes onto A-7 Corsair II's though. I was an Aviation Ordinancemen.

Gorillas are insanely strong. So what?

Now if the kid had fallen in with chimps his life was perhaps in jeopardy. Chimps are badasses.

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service