+1 vote
170 views

4 Answers

+2 votes
by

Tranquilizers would have been too slow.  People who don't understand that try and argue against it, and they just look stupid.

It was the Gorilla's life or the kid's life.  The gorilla was disturbed by all the people screaming and would have flipped out if it was hit by a tranquilizer.  The decision to shoot was the best given the situation.  But I do believe the parents should be charged with destruction of property and maybe even child endangerment.

Just an all around unfortunate situation.


by

You would think that the Zoo would have better precautions and a better safety barrier. Shame it is.

by

The fence is there for a reason,  the run between the fence and the moat is there for a reason, the moat is there for a reason.  

The zoo had a enough safety.  It just isn't "fool-proof" as you can tell because fools get through.  I feel like when there's a fence there,  it's obvious not to jump it.  The kid should have known that no matter his age.  And the time it takes for a little boy that age  to climb over the fence (Short as it was, even still) and then the run through,  the mother should have seen by then.

by

I suppose you're right and I don't know if you have any kids or not but they can be a handful when they get excited at the Zoo. Not sure if the woman had other kids with her or not. It must have taken some time for the boy to climb it. Mother was probably texting!

+1 vote
by

Sadly, yes.

+1 vote
by

If the Zoo officials didn't kill the Gorilla then they are blamed for being racist. The Gorilla didn't try to hurt the child but it doesn't know how to carry the child. According to expects, the Gorilla tried to protect the child from other Gorillas.

0 votes
by

Yes. A human always takes precedence over an animal..

Is this page not working?

Click here to see the recent version of this page

...