May 29, 2016

"The boy climbed though a barrier and fell into a moat, where he was grabbed and dragged by the gorilla."

"The zoo said it took action to shoot the 400lb (180kg) gorilla as the situation was 'life-threatening.' The boy is expected to recover."

Video at the link. The gorilla doesn't appear to be attacking the boy.
"We are all devastated that this tragic accident resulted in the death of a critically-endangered gorilla. This is a huge loss for the zoo family and the gorilla population worldwide."

40 comments:

Michael K said...

Where was the parent ?

DanTheMan said...

Gorilla Lives Matter!

What was the race of the zookeeper that shot the gorilla? As we all know, that determines motive.

madAsHell said...

The kid self-identified as a gorilla, and then tried to enter the gorilla compound.

William said...

On Reddit, there is footage showing the gorilla dragging the toddler around like a rag doll. It's scary to watch. I can see why they edited it out, but by doing so they give a false impression of what happened and why it was necessary to kill the gorilla.

Curious George said...

"Michael K said...
Where was the parent ?"

Not in the moat.

Paul said...

I'd have videoed the gorilla tearing the trespasser apart and used it as a warning to other little snots of the consequences of doing such things.

Ann Althouse said...

The boy was only 4.

All opprobrium should be aimed at whatever adult was looking after him and whoever designed the exhibit.

Peggy Coffey said...

I have looked at the video and the gorilla didn't seem to me to be acting aggressively toward the boy. It appeared to be trying to protect him from the screaming crowds of people. Gorillas can be aggressive and if it had wanted to kill the child, it would have killed him right away. The article I read said the mother of the child was distracted with other children she was caring for and the child in question had been whining to go inside the gorilla enclosure. She told him no and turned to take care of another child and that was that. The child wriggled into the enclosure and fell into the moat. I blame the mother who should have taken the child out of the area and told him no more firmly. The gorilla was not to blame, it was humans again.

coupe said...

If they would have missed and shot the boy, I think I could easily forgiven them.

Big Mike said...

In the video I saw the silverback gorilla appeared to be taking a protective stance over the child, and actually helped the little boy to his feet.

I agree with Althouse that the parent should have kept better control of the boy and that the enclosure should have been better designed. The zoo staff focus on keeping the animals in, but they also need to think about keeping the less wise members of H. sapiens out.

Deirdre Mundy said...

We've been to the Cincinatti zoo. I'm confused about how a kid could get into the enclosure, even if mom was distracted. Have they recently changed it in some way? There seems to be a step missing here.....

walter said...

This just after naked guy gets a lion killed and 2 H. sapiens get killed by a walrus who apparently didn't approve of a selfie.

David said...

" Gorillas can be aggressive and if it had wanted to kill the child, it would have killed him right away."

This is based on what? Apes, like humans, have volatile emotions. Also the ape is so strong that it could harm or kill the child inadvertently.

The parents and the designers of the enclosure put the child and the zoo officials in an impossible situation. Not to mention the poor gorilla. Fie on them. But not leaving the child's life and health to further chance was the only option.

rhhardin said...

I favor keeping the animals in on the honor system.

Char Char Binks said...

The barrier was obviously poorly designed.

Anyway, there shouldn't be zoos anymore. We can see plenty of photos and videos of exotic wild animals in their natural habitats, and we can even go on safari fairly cheaply and easily these days. Zoos served a purpose in previous centuries, but we should at least start phasing them out now.

Rae said...

I'm actually surprised and pleased they have live ammo available at the Zoo. I suppose the internet complainers know just how to talk a gorilla down.

mockturtle said...

In King Kong, didn't they use airplanes to distract Kong while he had Fay Wray in his frenzied grasp?

bagoh20 said...

Oh come on! Two gay cowboys with a banana and lasso could have saved him. Why gay cowboys? Why not?, you bigot.

Joe said...

Didn't they have tranquilizers?

JAORE said...

Couldn't they have shot to wound? Or used a taser. Or a tranquilizer dart, Or tried to talk to the gorilla before they shot or....

There I've covered some of this as a favor for the "Why did the police have to use lethal force" tribe.

Fast action required, fast action taken. Sad, but necessary.

But, yeah, review how the kid could have gotten into the area.

Ann Althouse said...

"and we can even go on safari fairly cheaply and easily these days."

Isn't that more or less a zoo?

I've seen American zoos where you ride through a habitat.

Zoos are great for kids, and the families I see at the zoo in Madison don't look like people who would find it easy to go "on safari"... whatever that ridiculous term means.

BillyBob said...

William said... [hush]​[hide comment]

On Reddit, there is footage showing the gorilla dragging the toddler around like a rag doll. It's scary to watch. I can see why they edited it out, but by doing so they give a false impression of what happened and why it was necessary to kill the gorilla.


Yep, gorilla pretty damn strong, lucky the kid did not have his leg ripped off, or drowned,the way he was dragged.

Tranqs do not take effect immediately, and sometimes provoke violent reaction.

As for "where were the parents"? Give me a break ! Always easy in hindsight. Four year olds are faster than a mother fucker !

MayBee said...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the zookeepers know a lot more about gorillas, and are a lot sadder about this, than the people criticizing them.

James Pawlak said...

His parents should/must be charged with the local equivalent of "Felony Endangerment Of A Child" and be forced to pay for the destruction of that animal.

FullMoon said...

Blogger James Pawlak said...

His parents should/must be charged with the local equivalent of "Felony Endangerment Of A Child" and be forced to pay for the destruction of that animal.

Great idea !Felony stupidity for taking kids to the zoo. Everybody knows zoo is not a safe place for kids. Put the parents in prison, lose home and savings to lawyer fees, split kids up and put them in abusive foster care system, Am I right?.

Freeman Hunt said...

A zoo barrier should probably be four year old proof.

ALP said...

I hate zoos. Fucking hate them. I would argue that watching a well filmed segment on the lives of gorillas on Discovery Channel provides a better education, and overall experience, than looking at one in a cage. Nature cinematography has come so far, with macro close up to capture the insect world and super slow motion to capture fast predators - you think looking at a listless cheetah in a cage is better than a super slow motion film that allows one to see the amazing mechanics of the animal as they run at top speed? The last zoo I visited, many years ago, was the San Diego Zoo. The smaller felines there were clearly unhappy - pacing their cages constantly. It was depressing. I haven't been to a zoo since.

Its long past time to close zoos down. They may have their purpose when it was the only way a person could lay eyes on a lion - but digital media provides many opportunities. Let people watch wildlife on video - let the wild stay in the wild and let us observe it from a respectful distance.

Fernandinande said...

At least the gorilla didn't let the kid get into a gorilla cage.

Unknown said...

Should have shot the kid and left the gorilla alone.

Jonathan Graehl said...

"should have shot the kid" @5:22pm: no, you.

a reckless 4 year old may grow up to be a fun, intelligent adult. definitely no anger at the kid.

parent, eh, we don't know. probably watching several other kids.

what a great (+horrifying) memory.

not sure mom yelling "mommy loves you" frantically helped the kid or the huge ape stay cool or not.

also good mom doesn't have a horrible guilty "i should have watched closer" memory (well, she does, i hope, but less in severity than if it were fatal)

Jonathan Graehl said...

harsh comments by people who don't have complete info. well, i guess they're not serious at least.

Gahrie said...

go "on safari"... whatever that ridiculous term means.

"an expedition to observe or hunt animals in their natural habitat, especially in East Africa"

What's ridiculous?

LCB said...

Zoos do good work on breeding endangered animals. But I hate them...depresses me to see the big cats and apes looking bored. And the elephants at Cincinnati turn their backs to the "crowd" whenever they can.

On facebook people in my area (N. of Cincy) are outraged that the animal was killed. They don't understand why a tranq dart wasn't used. If anyone bothers to watch more than 60 minutes of Animal Planet can tell you, the darts hurt and the apes have probably had them used on them before. The zoo keepers probably knew a dart would cause a violent reaction from this ape. Speculation, yes. But I have to believe the zoo would kill an animal only if it felt it was a last resort.

MayBee said...

A zoo barrier should probably be four year old proof.

There's pretty much no barrier that is 4-year old proof. Not the zoo barrier, not the barrier at the sports stadium, not the barrier to a household staircase, not the barrier to your car.
That's pretty much why we have to rely on parents to keep close watch on their kids. Of course, that isn't fool proof either.

Oso Negro said...

#gorillalivesmatter

Anthony said...

Lawsuit filed by the family in 3. . . .2. . . .1.. . ...

I would really like to see the zoo file a countersuit as well, for recovery of the cost of a new gorilla.

alan markus said...

Tranquilizers do not take immediate effect - lot of carnage could have happened before the gorilla would have been out cold.


Jason said...

Safari... whatever that ridiculous term means.

Here is the Maasai Creed, the statement of faith of Christians of the Maasai tribesmen of East Africa:

We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created man and wanted man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the earth. We have known this High God in darkness, and now we know him in the light. God promised in the book of his word, the bible, that he would save the world and all the nations and tribes.

We believe that God made good his promise by sending his son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left his home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He lay buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, he rose from the grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.

We believe that all our sins are forgiven through him. All who have faith in him must be sorry for their sins, be baptized in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love and share the bread together in love, to announce the good news to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.


Jesus was always on safari, doing good.

I don't think the term is ridiculous at all. Indeed, I think when used by people who actually understand what it means, it's beautiful.


Jason said...

I blame the zoo management.

If it wasn't this child, it would have been some other child, sooner or later. If a zoo fence is penetrable by a child, sooner or later, a child will penetrate it.

I don't expect perfection. But I don't think childproofing the entrance to a fecking gorilla pen against a four year old is too goddamned much to ask.

Thorley Winston said...

I can accept that shooting the gorilla was probably the least awful choice under the circumstances but the parents should be made to reimburse the zoo for the cost of the gorilla. It’s no different than if a parent lets their kid wander unsupervised in a store and they break something – the parent is expected to make the shopkeeper whole for the damage their kid caused.