Edited: (was Oh I'm pissed of now...)

[acroyear]

The original post here was an emotional reaction to a confusing situation, based on incomplete (and certainly incorrect) information and first thoughts. My knowledge of what gorillas normally are like, as reasonably peaceful animals particularly in their native habitats, fell into extreme conflict with the way the situation was described, and so certainly my first reaction was that the "humans" were to blame.

The thread of discussion that follows is pretty educational, both on the situation, and on the different types of counter-arguments to bring rational thought back to correct an emotional impulse.

To whizzrjohn and other police officers, I apologize sincerely for my final comment in the original post. When an officer says in a report or press conference that "there was no other option" (or relatedly, "we did what we were trained to do"), I'll try to be more critical of my own cynicism and skepticism before opening my dumb mouth in being critical of them.

'cause of this example of extreme stupidity and unnecessary violence out of utter ignorance.

Animals just want to be left alone. If its coming your direction, get out of the fucking way. Its that simple. It ain't gonna attack anybody unless you threaten it, or its hungry and you either have, or are, food. If it charged you, its 'cause you intentionally looked threatening to it and you were the stupid one. You don't corner an animal the same way you might corner a person on the run...

I want the SPCA to file a lawsuit against the two cops. Firing 3 shots is signs you panicked, not signs you were being defensive, or asserting that you were "protecting civilians".

Bastards.

Comments

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

As for three shots, my understanding is that when a cop chooses to use their gun, it's always to kill, and it's usually a full set of rounds in case the first shot doesn't do the job. -- That to me (if its true, which I sincerely doubt) is utter garbage. Also, it applies to firing against an individual who has a gun and may/will likely fire back.

It does NOT apply against an unarmed or close-ranged (knife) individual who will fall back on the impact and likely not be in a position to threaten after the first hit. "Aim for the leg" is still a very valid option, particularly with apes who have the largest rear limbs of any of the ape family, including us. For that matter, a good hit to the shoulder will also knock an ape for a loop, as they're also abnormally large.

and "taunting" is relative. the kids weren't *THAT* close to it, from the way the cage/pen is described.

and for that matter, the gorilla was "cornered" when it was shot. WHERE WERE THE TRANQS THEN?

how did two cops get to be in a position that several zookeepers trained in using the tranq guns were unable to be in?

[thewhitedragon.livejournal.com]

I've gotta disagree with you this time. I think that it sucks they had to kill the gorilla, but let's face it: gorillas are much stronger than we are. much. they could back-hand you and snap your neck if they felt the need.

The cops, in my opinion, did not panic. An animal, potentially pissed off and having the strength to seriously injure anyone it came in contact with, was a threat to the police and as such was neutralized the way they cops had been trained.

I personally would have preferred that they tranq the gorilla, but the keepers most likely weren't trained like a cop would have been in as much as firearms. Perhaps the cops could have used the tranq guns, but then perhaps it was feared that the tranq wouldn't take effect soon enough to prevent the primate from say... ripping one of the cops arms off.

I hold any animal's life higher than a humans. I sincerely think that it could have been handled better and let the gorilla alive, but it was a threat to the public who was there. There are already going to be lawsuits from the people injured (count on that...) and if someone had gotten seriously injured, the zoo might have been even more financial hurt and perhaps forced to close.

Most people would choose to put an animal down over a human. I wouldn't, but then I'm a hippy tree-hugger who thinks that animals are smarter than we are.