[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/30/20/34C62C6700000578-3616453-image-a-55_1464634808881.jpg[/img]


New video footage of Harambe shows the 400-pound gorilla HOLDING HANDS with the boy who fell into exhibition moat as zoo director insists they were right to shoot him and the barriers were safe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616453/New-video-footage-Harambe-shows-400-pound-gorilla-HOLDING-HANDS-four-year-old-boy-fell-zoo-enclosure-witnesses-say-animal-acting-protectively.html

[Cog]

I've watched the video several times. The gorilla was being protective of the kid for the most part. It did drag the child down the moat some distance to get away from the people screaming. But there was really no choice in taking the shot. The gorilla could have killed the kid by accident at any moment. They are very strong animals.

[dolanbaker]

It has happened before, but on this occasion the gorilla protected the child from the other gorillas.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ambo shot to international news stardom overnight on August 31, 1986, when five year old Levan Merritt fell into the gorilla enclosure and lost consciousness. Jambo stood guard over the boy when he was unconscious, placing himself between the boy and other gorillas in what ethologists analyze as a protective gesture. He later stroked the unconscious boy. When the boy regained consciousness and started to cry, Jambo and the other gorillas retreated, and an ambulanceman and two keepers rescued the boy. Most of the drama was shot on home video by Brian Le Lion, and extensively photographed by bystanding zoo visitors

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'I')'ve watched the video several times. The gorilla was being protective of the kid for the most part. It did drag the child down the moat some distance to get away from the people screaming. But there was really no choice in taking the shot. The gorilla could have killed the kid by accident at any moment. They are very strong animals.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')orilla experts weigh in:

Dr Sharon Redrobe, from Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire, told Metro:

"In the footage I have seen the animal was clearly becoming more agitated and zoo officials need to make quick assessments. Tranquillising the gorilla with a dart just simply wouldn’t have worked in this situation.

"It would have taken up to 10 minutes to take affect and the animal may have become violent which would have had catastrophic consequences."

While some animal experts support the decision to kill the gorilla, others are questioning the action, which has sparked public outrage by those who claim the beast was simply trying to protect the child.

University of New England animal behaviour expert Gisela Kaplan, agrees with this, to a point. The Daily Telegraph reports that Kaplan, who is author of Orangutans in Borneo, said she does not believe the child was in any real danger.

“The silverback would’ve understood that it was a defenseless small child. They would not normally attack, they are not an aggressive species (and) in the wild I’m certain the boy wouldn’t have been killed.”
But this is not the wild, zoo experts say. Animals in captivity have a constant level of stress from which they cannot escape.

Internationally famous primatologist Jane Goodall reached out to Cincinnati Zoo on Monday, to let them know she supported the decision to end the animal’s life.

Celebrity animal expert Jack Hanna also agreed with the zoo's decision.

Dr. Sharon Redrobe, chief executive of Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire, England, said in a statement published by the Mirror that zoo officials in Cincinnati did the right thing.

“The zoo keepers had a life and death situation on their hands and they would have known the behavior of that animal better than anyone.

“The fact they left the situation for 10 minutes before firing the final shot shows they would have tried everything they could to get the male gorilla to enter the inside enclosure away from the boy.”
Professor Kaplan said, as leader of his troop, 17-year-old Harambe was doing what he was supposed to do. He was “investigating,” she said, not attacking.

“I can tell you silverbacks are protectors of their group.

“If there’s an unusual thing happening, (Harambe) needs to investigate. The fact that he went over to the child is absolutely natural behaviour but it doesn’t mean he was aggressive.

“If he was going to attack he would’ve warned him first. The first thing they do is charge and beat their chests and as far as I know that didn’t happen.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/3140250/gorilla-experts-weigh-in-did-harambe-have-to-die/

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')utrage Grows After Gorilla Harambe Shot Dead at Cincinnati Zoo to Save Tot
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/outrage-grows-after-gorilla-harambe-shot-dead-cincinnati-zoo-save-n582706

[Tanada]

What is needed is justice for the child. Accidents happen, but this child made it through two barriers and into the moat (the third barrier) due to inattentive parents. That is where the outrage should be focused, not on the zoo which made the best decision they could in the moment. Second guessing and 20/20 hindsight cause more problems than the actions themselves actually cause.

Now for the Harambe part of the story. There has been a big push over the last few decades for Primate personhood standards to be enacted at the international and national level. If Harambe was a "person" under the eyes of the law things become incredibly more complex from a legal POV. In essence the emergency response people shot one "person" dead because they were a potential threat to a small child. If Harambe is just a kept animal that is the correct course of action, but if Harambe is a "person" in the eyes of the law then what happened is vigilante justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n February 28, 2007 the parliament of the Balearic Islands, an autonomous community of Spain, passed the world's first legislation that would effectively grant legal personhood rights to all great apes.[3] The act sent ripples out of the region and across Spain, producing public support for the rights of great apes. On June 25, 2008 a parliamentary committee set forth resolutions urging Spain to grant the primates the rights to life and liberty. If approved "it will ban harmful experiments on apes and make keeping them for circuses, television commercials, or filming illegal under Spain's penal code."[4]

These precedents followed years of European legal efforts. In 1992, Switzerland amended its constitution to recognize animals as beings and not things.[5] However, in 1999 the Swiss constitution was completely rewritten. A decade later, Germany guaranteed rights to animals in a 2002 amendment to its constitution, becoming the first European Union member to do so.[5][6][7]

New Zealand granted strong protections to five great ape species in 1999. Their use is now forbidden in research, testing, or teaching. Some argue that New Zealand's protections amount to a form of weak legal rights.[8]

Several European countries (including Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden) completely banned the use of great apes in animal testings.[9]

Argentina granted a captive orangutan basic human rights, starting from late 2014.[10]

On April 20, 2015, Justice Barbara Jaffe of New York State Supreme Court ordered a writ of habeas corpus to two captive chimpanzees.[11] On April 21, the ruling was amended to strike the words "writ of habeas corpus".[12][13]

Depending on the precise wording of any proposed or adopted declaration, personhood for the Great Apes may raise questions concerning protections and obligations under national and international laws, such as:

Articles 7–29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness regarding nationality and citizenship for persons
Provisions 4 & 5 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child

[GHung]

Simple math, really. The Gorilla can't sue the zoo. The Gorilla's family can't sue the zoo.

[penury]

The murder of the gorilla is just another example of the human disregard for the rights of other species to coexist with man. Everything not "like us" i8s considered to be a threat to the safety of "humans". This ridiculous hubris results in scenes like this,l with the usual cries form the "self appointed experts" that it was necessary to protect a human life. We have a name for that attitude at the stockyards.

[regardingpo]

6th mass extinction is underway, but stupid monkeys only care about a handful of species. Move along, nothing to see here.

[Timo]

7.5 billion humans, increasing at an exponential rate.

100,000 lowland gorillas, decreasing in numbers every single day.

Sorry, but i have no sympathy for the stupid human boy that crawled through areas where he knows he should not have been, resulting in the death of a critically endangered species. Humanity is not remotely endangered. Gorillas are very endangered. Sue the parents of that boy for criminal negligence, and use the proceeds of that lawsuit to help save the few gorillas that are left in the wild. The zookeeper who shot Harambe should be sent to the African lowlands to shoot poachers who kill gorillas. The child should be removed from his negligent parents. The parents should be subjected to a sentence that fits the vulgarity of their crime.

American culture, where wildlife should only be appreciated and valued within the confines and safety of zoos, is the apex of human self-importance over all of life on this planet, and is therefore the most expendable culture on this planet.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', ' ')Sue the parents of that boy for criminal negligence, and use the proceeds of that lawsuit to help save the few gorillas that are left in the wild.

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', ' ')Sue the parents of that boy for criminal negligence, and use the proceeds of that lawsuit to help save the few gorillas that are left in the wild.

[Timo]

Plant, if i was stupid enough to wander off in Denali without a bearbox, and camped with food inside my tent, only to be mauled by a grizzly at night, could i then sue the National Parks Service for not making their facility safe for stupid humans?

[Sixstrings]

In case anyone was wondering what Trump thinks about it:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')onald Trump Weighs in on Killing of Gorilla (Harambe) at Cincinatti Zoo
https://youtu.be/SsTM4Qgsewk

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The freakout over Harambe the gorilla shows the dangers of internet mob justice

But now we are reaching the next — and scary — phase of these kinds of stories, in which an internet mob demands that someone pay for the death. Specifically, people are asking for punishment of the parents of the 4-year-old boy who was able to crawl into Harambe's enclosure. They argue that the gorilla's death is really the parents' fault, because the parents didn't pay attention to their kid, and the zoo only had to kill the gorilla once the child snuck in and was put in danger. ...

But it doesn't end at petitions. There are also reports of online harassment against a woman who shares the name of the 4-year-old's supposed mother (Michelle Gregg). The actual mom also appears to have deactivated her Facebook account. Now that her name is out there, this could be just the first sign of the kind of harassment that's to come.

This should stop before it goes further. While all of us can agree that Harambe's death is tragic, we have no indication that this was more than a tragic one-off accident on the mom's part, and ruining other people's lives or tearing apart families based on a narrow view of one event is not how we're supposed to deal justice.

But sadly, this type of mob justice seems to be turning into the norm every time people find a story to get angry about.

Internet mob justice is becoming the norm for viral stories ...

The most recent example was the death of Cecil the lion, when an American dentist, Walter Palmer, hunted a widely beloved lion. With disregard for how it might impact his employees and family, an internet mob quickly went after all aspects of Palmer's life. ...

Mob justice is not justice

The fundamental problem with mob justice is that it's prone to randomness. As Fisher described it for Vox, "It treats justice as a sort of random lightning bolt from the sky; one is reminded of the vengeful but arbitrary gods of Greek or Roman lore."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818858/harambe-gorilla-michelle-gregg-mob-justice

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', 'P')lant, if i was stupid enough to wander off in Denali without a bearbox, and camped with food inside my tent, only to be mauled by a grizzly at night, could i then sue the National Parks Service for not making their facility safe for stupid humans?

[dissident]

Will they blow up the train when this retarded child gets on the rail tracks? The chances of him getting away from his "could care less" parents and putting himself in harm's way is extremely high. But will the same standard of protection for this "precious life" be applied in every circumstance?

[Cog]

I wondered what caliber rifle round they used. From my limited research the .375 H&H Magnum would be a capable round for just about any animal in a zoo. Although there are more powerful rounds out there, this round has taken down every animal on the planet. It would have been instant lights out for a gorilla.

[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'W')hen it comes to Harambe the gorilla, I could see the family suing because the zoo didn't properly enclose the gorilla cage, allowing their poor child to fall in.