Gorilla Probably was Protecting the Kid with Crap for Parents.

[Absentglare]

You live in a fantasy world. Can't help you there. :tink:

You think it's impossible to be partially responsible for your child's behavior ...?

 

[Absentglare]

I don't see very many people lamenting the fact that a child's home is far, far more dangerous than a zoo. Statistically speaking the leading cause of death among children ages 3 and 4 is accident. And the vast majority of those accidents occur in the home. Which leads back to what I said earlier in this thread. It is impossible for a parent to keep a child within sight or arms reach 24/7. Now, that's not to say all of this could have been avoided. But I believe there has been a huge over-reaction to this unfortunate and sad incident.

What ?!?!?

Do you not realize that children spending more time at home than at the zoo factors into the statistics ...? Or are you saying the home is more dangerous because they spend more time there ?

 

[Southern Dad]

If the gorilla was "probably" protecting the child, wouldn't be possible that the gorilla was "probably" fixing to pummel the child? I'm not making excuses but anything is possible.

And for those of you that do not have kids, it is impossible for a parent to constantly every second of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every month, of every year, to keep a kid within arms reach or within sight. It's just not doable.

Killing the animal was the right call. Unfortunate, but the right thing to do. Sad.

Those who choose not to shoot the gorilla, only have to be wrong once.

 

[americanwoman]

Do people get this furious at parents when their children are abducted by strangers? After all, it would be difficult to abduct them if the parents didn't get distracted for a few seconds.

If a witness heard a child said mommy, this weird lady is looking at me and wants me to go with her and I want to and the mom just turned around to take a selfie and the kid gets kidnapped, then yes she'd be put on blast too. Now if this child at the zoo was being watched and when the mom was distracted by another child or whatever and the kid fell in a gorilla compound, then this would probably be excused as an accident.

It's not that accidents happen or parents get distracted, they do, but when it's beyond a distraction and turns negligent, then I can understand the frustration.

 

[Southern Dad]

Two comments I'd make after seeing several views of this incident:

1) Considering the parents and how they've handled this, wouldn't surprise me at all if they've already lined up some shyster who's more than happy to be the lawyer of record as these two try to cash their legal lottery ticket - at least they'll be angling for an out of court settlement against the zoo. Disgusting.

2) Of all the video I've seen, and it's not been mentioned that I've noticed, the young boy doesn't look or seem to be at all upset or scared or agitated - nothing - even when the gorilla drags him by the leg through the moat he just sits up and looks up at the big gorilla in wonder. For that reason, I'm a little less convinced that the child was in any imminent danger. If the child was beating on the gorilla or crying and screaming in terror, that might have agitated the gorilla and put the child in danger - I didn't see any of that. And as for some claiming that a child that age is "fragile" - nonsense - children that age defy death any number of times every day.

All that said, I'm not qualified to second guess the actions of the zoo employees. I'd say that they, above almost all of us here, had the life and safety of the gorilla most dear to their hearts and did what they could and what they felt best weighing that against the possible death of the child.

The child had his bell rung. He had a concussion. That look wasn't fun, it was dazed and confused.

 

[Southern Dad]

"Look Little Johnny, there's alligators in that enclosure.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The child had his bell rung. He had a concussion. That look wasn't fun, it was dazed and confused.

Didn't look that way to me, and I've seen no evidence that the child was as you claim, but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[tres borrachos]

Good point. I was reminded of Adam Walsh disappearing forever after his mother turned her back for only a moment in a department store.

And she has had to live with terrible guilt since that day. But unlike the mother here, she didn't say "Accidents happen" and pretend she didn't make a horrifically bad decision.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I don't see very many people lamenting the fact that a child's home is far, far more dangerous than a zoo. Statistically speaking the leading cause of death among children ages 3 and 4 is accident. And the vast majority of those accidents occur in the home. Which leads back to what I said earlier in this thread. It is impossible for a parent to keep a child within sight or arms reach 24/7. Now, that's not to say all of this could have been avoided. But I believe there has been a huge over-reaction to this unfortunate and sad incident.

Oh yeah! By your rationalization people should stay away from hospitals as more people die there than any other place, including the home!

And don't EVER ride in an ambulance, as there are more fatalities per mile in them than ANY other means of transport, including airplanes.

 

[ARealConservative]

Didn't look that way to me, and I've seen no evidence that the child was as you claim, but you're entitled to your opinion.

it has been widely reported that the boy suffered a concussion

 

[CanadaJohn]

it has been widely reported that the boy suffered a concussion

Yes, after the fact, the child was examined and deemed to have had a mild concussion and a few scrapes - none of which have been definitively attributed to the gorilla and could easily all be attributed to the boy climbing a 3 foot wall, making his way through dense bush, and then falling 15 feet off a cliff into the moat. I still have seen nothing to indicate the child was "dazed and confused" although that's certainly possible.

 

[ARealConservative]

Yes, after the fact, the child was examined and deemed to have had a mild concussion and a few scrapes - none of which have been definitively attributed to the gorilla and could easily all be attributed to the boy climbing a 3 foot wall, making his way through dense bush, and then falling 15 feet off a cliff into the moat. I still have seen nothing to indicate the child was "dazed and confused" although that's certainly possible.

yes, concussions are determined "after the fact". that is how it works. "mild concussion" is not much of a medical term though

 

[CanadaJohn]

yes, concussions are determined "after the fact". that is how it works. "mild concussion" is not much of a medical term though

Well, since we only have that "diagnosis" courtesy of the mother, I'm not sure how much credence you want to put in the statement. As I understand it, the child wasn't even held in the hospital for observation for a short time or overnight, so whether the child even had a concussion is questionable.

 

[Absentglare]

yes, concussions are determined "after the fact". that is how it works. "mild concussion" is not much of a medical term though

I fail to see what this changes about what CJ said ?

I still agree with CJ's initial statement. It didn't really look like the gorilla was threatening the boy. The boy being concussed does not change that, though it might explain why the boy appeared so calm, that doesn't really change the fact that the gorilla seemed to be trying to care for the boy.

 

[cpwill]

Didn't look that way to me, and I've seen no evidence that the child was as you claim, but you're entitled to your opinion.

The actual gorrilla experts have begun to (exasperatedly) come out. What the Gorilla was doing with the boy is (apparently) called "Posturing"; it's an act of intimidation for stronger males. Typically they take a log, or a rock, or (in zoo settings) super-heavy bells or medicine balls, and they swing and smash the around, to show dominance, starting low and then increasing in intensity in order to get others to back off/bow down/show obesiance. The gorilla appeared to be starting that cycle with the boy, in response to the noise from the crowd.

 

[Absentglare]

The actual gorrilla experts have begun to (exasperatedly) come out. What the Gorilla was doing with the boy is (apparently) called "Posturing"; it's an act of intimidation for stronger males. Typically they take a log, or a rock, or (in zoo settings) super-heavy bells or medicine balls, and they swing and smash the around, to show dominance, starting low and then increasing in intensity in order to get others to back off/bow down/show obesiance. The gorilla appeared to be starting that cycle with the boy, in response to the noise from the crowd.

Fair enough.

 

[tres borrachos]

it has been widely reported that the boy suffered a concussion

A mild concussion, and given the fact that he fell into the moat, why is that a surprise?

 

[CanadaJohn]

The actual gorrilla experts have begun to (exasperatedly) come out. What the Gorilla was doing with the boy is (apparently) called "Posturing"; it's an act of intimidation for stronger males. Typically they take a log, or a rock, or (in zoo settings) super-heavy bells or medicine balls, and they swing and smash the around, to show dominance, starting low and then increasing in intensity in order to get others to back off/bow down/show obesiance. The gorilla appeared to be starting that cycle with the boy, in response to the noise from the crowd.

I don't dispute this - as I've said previously, I'm in no position to say the zoo staffs' actions were wrong. What I have said is that I didn't agree that an attempt to tranquilize while still being in position to shoot to kill was a no go. I don't know the length of time the child was in the enclosure, under the control of the gorilla, but I have to assume it was several minutes in order for the zoo officials to first be notified, then to call out the emergency response team, and then to determine what course of action to take. In all that time, the gorilla didn't do any harm to the child and the child did not appear to be terrified, screaming, crying, and/or causing the gorilla any discomfort. That seems to this admittedly unqualified observer to provide opportunity for the situation to be handled differently from simply killing the gorilla.

Perhaps what we haven't heard is that this particular gorilla reacts negatively and aggressively when hit by a tranquilizer. I have to assume that in the 17 or so years this gorilla has been at this zoo he has been tranquilized on several occasions to administer medical examinations and treatments of various kinds so the staff would know the length of time it takes for him to succumb to the drugs and what he does in the interim. If they have knowledge that he reacts badly, that would mitigate in favour of the approach they took - but we haven't seen any evidence of that as yet.

 

[cpwill]

I don't dispute this - as I've said previously, I'm in no position to say the zoo staffs' actions were wrong. What I have said is that I didn't agree that an attempt to tranquilize while still being in position to shoot to kill was a no go. I don't know the length of time the child was in the enclosure, under the control of the gorilla, but I have to assume it was several minutes in order for the zoo officials to first be notified, then to call out the emergency response team, and then to determine what course of action to take. In all that time, the gorilla didn't do any harm to the child and the child did not appear to be terrified, screaming, crying, and/or causing the gorilla any discomfort. That seems to this admittedly unqualified observer to provide opportunity for the situation to be handled differently from simply killing the gorilla.

Perhaps what we haven't heard is that this particular gorilla reacts negatively and aggressively when hit by a tranquilizer. I have to assume that in the 17 or so years this gorilla has been at this zoo he has been tranquilized on several occasions to administer medical examinations and treatments of various kinds so the staff would know the length of time it takes for him to succumb to the drugs and what he does in the interim. If they have knowledge that he reacts badly, that would mitigate in favour of the approach they took - but we haven't seen any evidence of that as yet.

:shrug: the people who do know all the necessary specifics, and who have the most emotional attachment to the gorilla, determined quickly that to try to tranq the animal would be to put the boy in greater danger.

 

[CanadaJohn]

:shrug: the people who do know all the necessary specifics, and who have the most emotional attachment to the gorilla, determined quickly that to try to tranq the animal would be to put the boy in greater danger.

Fair enough, however, I'm not the type of person who simply takes authority as either infallible or beyond question.

 

[calamity]

Fair enough, however, I'm not the type of person who simply takes authority as either infallible or beyond question.

In all fairness, once the kid got into the pit and the male gorilla refused to leave like his two female mates did, shooting it was the only option. No way could the zoo chance letting that gorilla maul that little boy.

That said. I totally, 100% blame the parents for this. If they cannot control their kid, especially control it such that the little idiot does not jump into a gorilla pit, the kid should not be taken to the zoo.

 

[Absentglare]

In all fairness, once the kid got into the pit and the male gorilla refused to leave like his two female mates did, shooting it was the only option. No way could the zoo chance letting that gorilla maul that little boy.

That said. I totally, 100% blame the parents for this. If they cannot control their kid, especially control it such that the little idiot does not jump into a gorilla pit, the kid should not be taken to the zoo.

Pretty much.

I can't find any corroboration for the "posturing" explanation above, but some experts said that gorillas can be unpredictable and the noise from the crowd was further agitating the gorilla. Further, a tranq dart could take multiple shots, take 10-15 minutes to take effect, and could have made the gorilla even more agitated. They simply couldn't jeopardize the boys life to save the gorillas.

So now this parental lapse of judgement got a gorilla killed.

 

[calamity]

Pretty much.

I can't find any corroboration for the "posturing" explanation above, but some experts said that gorillas can be unpredictable and the noise from the crowd was further agitating the gorilla. Further, a tranq dart could take multiple shots, take 10-15 minutes to take effect, and could have made the gorilla even more agitated. They simply couldn't jeopardize the boys life to save the gorillas.

So now this parental lapse of judgement got a gorilla killed.

It appears that the backlash has begun.

Parents of child who fell into Harambe gorilla pit receive death threats | Metro News

 

[ARealConservative]

A mild concussion, and given the fact that he fell into the moat, why is that a surprise?

"mild brain trauma" ~ rolls eyes

I'm not the one doubting the concussion.

 

[tres borrachos]

"mild brain trauma" ~ rolls eyes

I'm not the one doubting the concussion.

I missed the words "mild brain trauma" in my post. I also missed where I doubted he got a concussion. Where were they exactly?

Roll eyes all you want. That may explain why you didn't even comprehend my post.