Cincinnati Police to Investigate Parents of Wayward Toddler After Harambe Shooting

“This beautiful gorilla lost his life because the boy’s parents did not keep a closer watch on the child.” That’s the bottom line from the Justice for Harambe petition at change.org, closing-in on 500k e-signatures. The authors’ reasoning: “We the undersigned believe that the child would not have been able to enter the enclosure under proper parental supervision. Witnesses claim that they heard the child state that he wished to go into the enclosure and was actively trying to breach the barriers. This should have prompted the parents to immediately remove the child from the vicinity.” cnn.com reports that the Cincinnati police suspect that the boy’s parents are guilty of something . . .

Cincinnati police said Tuesday that their review will focus on the actions of the boy’s parents and family. It is not related to the operation or safety of the Cincinnati Zoo, authorities said.

“After the review, we will determine if charges need to be brought forward,” police spokeswoman Tiffaney Hardy said.

“If it is determined charges need to be brought forward, we would then discuss it with the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office.” The prosecutor’s office declined to say how long the investigation might take.

Harambe means is Swahili for “come together in unity for a common cause.” That common cause seems to be the vilification of the wayward boy’s mother.

I believe the mother in question had every reason to believe that her boy’s comments about accessing the moat were not prophetic — given the safety barriers in place. Still, not to coin a phrase, kids do the craziest things.

If you think a zoo is a place where a Mom should keep a special eye on a toddler– as is any crowded public space — you’re right. Anyway, TTAG’s Sara Tipton had something to say about this incident over on her Facebook page:

My thoughts on the gorilla? I don’t really care. I mean it’s one animal. But as a mother, I took a swim in the freezing Snake River Sunday to save my daughter’s $10 boot. That was to prevent her from crying because she loves those boots. Now, had she been in that gorilla exhibit for any reason, I’d have busted bones and ripped up skin to get in there and get her out. And I would have put 14 hollow points in that beast myself. That’s a mother’s instinct though. So do I question the mom? You bet.

But honestly, I’m more worried about the 125,000 babies ripped limb from limb since it happened and the 69 people shot in gun free Chicago last weekend. Call me crazy.

comments

  1. avatar gs650g says:

    Sara makes a good point

    1. avatar Ric Allan says:

      Not only are points on target but another question comes up…

      Have we devolved to a society of justice by petition and ignorant knee jerk reaction to punish someone, anyone… just punish.

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        Yes….Yes we have. It is only going to get worse.

      2. avatar Roymond says:

        That’s what happens when you exalt “the rule of law” — people stop mattering, and become sacrifices to the great god of law.

      3. avatar James says:

        It all stars in the K-12 government schools and ends in the due process free safe space universities. While it is normal to feel some sadness or regret that this magnificent animal was destroyed, the legal system can handle it without new laws. In particular, the zoo has a solid tort case against the family for damages. That’s where the zoo and Harambe gets justice.

        1. avatar pyratemime says:

          Agree 100%. The animal was valuable property for the zoo that was destroyed through the actions of a minor. The parents need to be held responsible for that destruction no different than if the kid snuck into a back area of the zoo and destroyed some piece of capital equipment.

          I am curious as well if the family had any liability for the death under laws governing endangered species. Their actions (negligence perhaps) directly led to the death. Is there criminal or civil liability from that direction?

    2. avatar CLarson says:

      +1 for some perspective. Canceled my Facebook account a while back, so thanks for posting them here.
      Whether or not suing these irresponsible parents is practical, the zoo should send a message by banning that family for life. It is on the zoo to proactive eject and/or ban people who are acting in an unsafe manner on their property.

    3. avatar Cleophus says:

      Sarah does make an excellent argument, but she leaves two very important questions unanswered: 1.) When are they going to barbeque the gorilla? 2.) How can we get a seat at the table?

  2. avatar Sian says:

    So are parents criminally liable whenever a child does something stupid? Children can’t be observed and controlled 100% of the time. IMO, an enclosure for a dangerous animal should be secured so that a 4-year old can’t get inside without serious effort. The guy who tried to feed himself to lions the other week at least had to go through some trouble to get in. What I’m saying is, criminal negligence from the parents is possible, maybe even likely, but it is not automatic.

    Alternately, is the city liable when a child wanders into traffic?

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      “Alternately, is the city liable when a child wanders into traffic?”

      No, but you can be almost certain the parents are, which pretty much answers your first question.

    2. avatar Vanbulance says:

      Automatic? Absolutely not. And I think the petition is a bunch of misguided bleeding hearts.

      But there is usually an investigation. If Junior runs away before you can catch him and gets hit by a car/gorilla attack/predator, then that is one thing.

      If you are too engrossed in your phone, or perhaps gorked out (medical term) on pain meds/heroin/meth/bath salts, then yes, I don’t care how fast Junior is, you endangered him.

  3. avatar cjstl says:

    That’s harsh, Sara. But then again, I believe that if humans have souls, animals do too. All it takes is one look from my dog to know that has to be true. I feel sorry for the gorilla. Terrible tragedy that could have been avoided. At the same time, however, I think it’s wrong to vilify the parents. If every one of us who ever had a lax moment with our children had to pay for it, how many would be unscathed?

    1. avatar PeterW says:

      Don’t confuse emotive behavior with the Soul.

      Stupid human child > Stupid ape always. Period. End of discussion.

      1. avatar cgray says:

        Arrogant motherfuckers like you always think they get to end “discussions” whenever they goddamn well feel like it. Fuck you motherfucker. Fuck you.

        1. avatar Wood says:

          Take a long walk off a short pier. Your comment is of absolutely no value whatsoever, you’ve merely shown that you are worthy to receive the bile you spit here.

    2. avatar pyratemime says:

      When my daughter was 4 she managed to change jump houses at our church carnival without me seeing. When I noticed she was not where she was supposed to be there was a concerted effort to find her that took 20 minutes until she was noticed in the gaggle of kids. At the end of this episode no harm was done and my only liabilty was to my wife who did not appreciate me losing track of our daughter in a throng of other 4 year old children. No harm done.

      Contrast that with this case where a 4 year old slips the attention of the parents and leads to the death of a gorilla that was supposed to be part of the next phase of the breeding program for an endangered species.

      No the State should not get involved in every bit of child/parent hijinks. When those hijinks lead to the destruction of capital assets and loss of 20 years of productivity then yes the parents may have some ‘splain’n to do which could involve some hefty checks.

  4. avatar Vanbulance says:

    I agree Sara here. And I don’t believe it is inappropriate for an investigation to occur, provided it isn’t a witch hunt- there’s the sticky wicket.

    Questions do have to be answered when a child is injured. The key is ensuring the process is fair.

  5. avatar Vv ind says:

    Proof read.

  6. avatar Katy says:

    Could you imagine what would happen if Jessica fell down the well today?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      The kids won’t get that reference, Katy, but it’s a damn good point. Jessica’s auntie would be hung out to dry.

      “Baby Jessica’ (now Jessica McClure Morales) was 18 months old when she fell down an exposed well in he aunt’s back yard in (Katy’s new home of) Texas.

      It was at the dawn of 24 hrs news CNN (along with NASA’s Challenger) and was really notable for the coverage it got.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_McClure

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        EDIT –

        Then again, maybe not. Jessica was a white baby, and their just may be a racist angle since the zoo kid was black. All bets are off if the parents test positive on a drug test, tho…

        1. avatar Katy says:

          That’s what had me floored about this. Nobody has raised a single point about going after the mother of black kid. I would have expected Al or Jesse to take up her cause – “they are attacking her fitness as a mother because of race and nothing more. Everybody who has had children knows that they will often try to run off. Had this been a little blond girl, we’d be talking to her about her harrowing experience and call her an expert. Instead, because a mother who witnessed her child being dragged across a poorly secured enclosure and that child are black, we now see fit to blame the victims. “

        2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          the whole thing gave him flashbacks.

  7. avatar Vhyrus says:

    I don’t know how long it took the kid to get into the pen, and that is the million dollar question. If all it took was a few seconds to squeeze through some bars and jump down a slope, then I would be less inclined to condemn the parents. If it turns out that it took the kid a little more time and effort then it starts looking very bad for the mom.

    In either case, I suspect the woman in question won’t be getting a mom of the year award anytime soon. Anyone who isn’t keeping physical contact with a 4 year old at all times in a crowded open public place is going to be calling 911 at least once in their child’s life.

    As far as Sara’s response goes, I’m sorry but what in the blue hell does abortion or the crime rate of Chicago have to do with a gorilla in Ohio? Injecting completely unrelated political talking points is in very bad taste and not at all appreciated. So yes, for turning a story about a dead gorilla into your personal political soapbox, I think I will call you crazy. Stop trolling.

    1. avatar Katy says:

      Thanks for clarifying that. I didn’t catch the abortion thing – I couldn’t figure out where on earth live children, especially that many, are torn limb from limb.

      As far as constant contact, I will say that it can be tough with a 4yo. With the girl, she would hold your hand as long as you wanted her to and never wander off (except that time at Lowes…). With the boy, it’s a constant battle – if holding your hand is a “nice to have” (like an evening stroll), he’ll do it; if it’s an imperative (like a crowded zoo), he’s constantly trying to pull his hand out and run ahead.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        I will be the first to admit I do not have children, so I have no first hand experience. That said, if I knew one of my kids was a loose cannon and we were going to a place like the zoo, he would either be in a stroller or a backpack, or at the very least have one of those kid leash things on. Coincidentally, any one of those three items would have prevented this incident entirely.

        1. avatar Katy says:

          The leash things work, you get some funny looks, but they are really effective. We used one when we were on a houseboat and the girl was 2yo.

        2. avatar Your Real Name says:

          Which is more annoying, the childless children expert or the zero experience firearm expert?

        3. avatar Katy says:

          Probably the one who won’t admit to the gap. So, in this case, Katie Couric.

    2. avatar Tile Floor says:

      I agree with you completely. Abortion had nothing to do with the subject matter, so why is she bringing it up? Make your points on the subject in question, not using the opportunity to spout out your political beliefs on other issues. This is a GUN website after all….

    3. avatar Herb says:

      I think Sarah’s commentary is valid given the over-wrought coverage of this story, the venom of the animal lovers, and the greater importance of the human lives lost compared to the loss of the gorilla. (The loss of the aminal is still tragic.)

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        Sara’s comments were on HER Facebook page. They were “borrowed” with or without permission for the story. Sara can post whatever the Facebook “moderators” allow her (or any of us) to post.

        1. avatar Katy says:

          You have a really good point – that this was taken from a post on Facebook and not prepared for this site. It’s not really fair to expect her to put TTAG at the forefront of how she frames her personal comments.

          Still, I’m not sure that changes nature of her trying to link abortion and Chicago to this story. It just feels like she was trying too hard to cram a political point into an unrelated matter.

        2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          i could easily link abortion and chicago to this story.

    4. avatar AJ187 says:

      Her post is dripping with so much “I’m a special snowflake called a mother” nonsense it’s embarrassing. Get over yourself.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        “special snowflake” is a common (paid)trolling term.

  8. avatar Martin Gomez says:

    Wasn’t the mother distracted by irresponsibly taking her brood of unruly kids to the zoo, as previously described in other media reports? If so, and assuming the zoo meets all safety requirements, then it is her fault.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      The kid got in the enclosure.

      That’s a zoo *FAIL*, full stop.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        Admittedly, it’s called a “gorilla enclosure” and it seemed have done fine enclosing the gorillas. It’s not called a “keep the kids out of the gorillas enclosure.” Common sense and basic parenting are -supposed- to cover that end of the problem.

        So I don’t really see how the Zoo failed. The name of their structure doesn’t imply anything but keeping the gorillas enclosed; and it did, since there weren’t any people attacked by gorillas that escaped.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “So I don’t really see how the Zoo failed.”

          Wow, you’ll make a good Progressive.

          “It wasn’t the zoo’s fault!”

          *gag me*

          The zoo has a LEGAL obligation to provide a reasonably safe experience to the public. They failed to do so. The zoo got bit (so to speak) by complacency.

          A lawyer would *salivate* at the prospect of dragging that zoo in front of a jury for a claim of negligence.

          And likely *win*…

        2. avatar Wood says:

          @Geoff PR- I totally agree. Zoos cater to families. They know children are persistent and unaware of danger. Short of willful destruction committed by customers, they accept that wear and tear and damage through use will occur. It is incumbent on the zoo to maintain a safe venue for their charges and customers.

          Major fail for the zoo.
          Parenting fail by the parents.

          Result: human child lives, animal does not. Unfortunate, but given circumstances it’s the best one could hope for.

  9. avatar TruthTellers says:

    #GorillaLivesMatter

    Dawn of the Planet of the Apes about to begin!

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      “Take your stinking paws off me you damned dirty ape.”

    2. avatar Kevin says:

      “Take your stinking paws off me you damned dirty ape!”

  10. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    Bet this kid won’t try and get closer to any gorilla in the future.
    Unless the cops can prove wrong doing in this case, chalk it up to shitty circumstances for all involved.
    The zoo should make the chances of a kid falling in much harder than they are.
    And parents should get back to parenting…..watch your freaking kids.
    I’ve been to zoo’s with my kids, i don’t exactly trust the giraffes that can come within inches of my little ones…it’s an unpredictable animal afterall.
    I think the chances of an adult pissing off that that gorilla would be high if they entered the space.
    Gorilla would have gone beast mode, based only on the video i was able to see it looked like the gorilla was in protection mode…not harming the kid…..sad it got shot.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Giraffes mainly use their legs as weapons instead of their heads, so you should be safe in a zoo. In the wild… well I just checked youtube and I think I like giraffes just a bit less now.

      1. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

        V……..if i may.
        My giraffe reference was mainly that a large unpredictable animal that wieghs god knows what could easily injure a toddler simply by moving in for snacks or a accidental bump of it’s head. As would a giraffe or any other available zoo animal.
        Again…as a parent of 5 living kids, i urge parents to keep your guard up at all times…i don’t think i need to preach that accidents can kill.
        That’s kinda where i was going with that.

  11. avatar H says:

    Children can be observed and controlled 100%. What else is there? Gun safety rules we do 100% of the time. You accept 80% then when you mess up you’re down to 30%.

    Who else is responsible? Let’s see. The Gorilla? Nope. The Zoo? Possibly. Should it be impossible for a 4 year old to enter that habitat? The child. Hmmmm. Just being a kid. The parents. What do we call them? The parents. Don’t bring more kids than you can guide. If your 4 year old doesn’t do what you say when you say it then they aren’t safe in public. Then they put themselves and others in danger. The 4 year old hasn’t earned the privileges to make all decisions.

    The Gorilla or in other cases Tigers haven’t climbed out and wreaked havoc. Always a human is in their habitat.

    1. avatar kevin says:

      100% with kids? Ha, ha.

      We have multiple, redundant gun safety rules because nobody gets it right 100%. You treat every gun as though loaded, you keep your finger off the trigger, and yet you still point it in a safe direction. Why? Because you are not perfect, you make mistakes. Often. We know you will someday pull the trigger when you didn’t mean to, but if you’re following the other rules, you (hopefully) won’t hurt anyone.

      Of course we expect 100%, but we expect it knowing we won’t get it. Kids will get away from you. Any parent who denies this is a liar, or their kid doesn’t even crawl yet.

  12. avatar David Schuring says:

    Sorry, that gorilla was a huge investment for that zoo. I would have rather seen it live. Those parents should be responsible for the damages at the very least. If your child is voicing that he wants to jump the barriers, hold his hand, or keep an eye on him. Like a safety on a gun, the barriers are there to help prevent a thing like this, but the safety is still the person behind that barrier’s responsibility. I wish the zoo had found an alternative means, but the parents still need to face the responsibilty for the consequences of their negligence and or lapse in their parental guidance. The fact that they won’t admit any of it could be their fault just strengthens my belief that they are at fault, trying to pass the blame any way they can…

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      So you don’t have children….

      1. avatar Chad A says:

        Haha, I’m not sure half the folks on here have kids, or perhaps its been so long they don’t remember half of it… Shit happens, why is someone always to blame? The kid is fine and the zoo and parents each learned a lesson.

        1. avatar pyratemime says:

          Forget blame and look instead at liability. The reason there needs to be an assessment of liability is because there was real and qualifiable damage to the zoo in the loss of an animal that formed the next phase in it breeding program and damage to their reputation.

          Take the animal out of the equation and say the kid snuck into a rear area and destroyed some piece of capital equipment. Are the parents liable to cover the cost to replace equipment destroyed by their child violating the rules and entering a prohibited area?

          If they are then they are also liable for the damages here.

      2. avatar Defens says:

        What difference does it make? Does “child gun violence” trump the rights of gun owners who don’t have kids?

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Pointing out the guy is talking about profits when a kids life was at stake. Yes, your background makes a difference when you are are offering an opinon on a subject.

  13. avatar Annoyed in WA says:

    But honestly, I’m more worried about the 125,000 babies ripped limb from limb since it happened

    I’m assuming you’re speaking about abortion, must we bring that into every single post that involves death on this website? Can’t we objectively look at the issues without bringing that up? Or is that too much to ask?

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      This, a million times this.

      It’s completely and utterly unrelated, and believe it or not some of the readers of this site couldn’t possibly care less about that issue.

    2. avatar Ironhorse says:

      It’s a rule of social conservatives. They have to bring up god, gays, or abortion every chance they get.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Don’t you have Government mandated medical procedures to defend somewhere?

  14. avatar Roymond says:

    When my younger siblings were that young, they were still on leashes in all crowded public areas, and that was before cell phones to increase the distraction factor.

    And any safety standard that allows an enclosure into which a small child can enter is a fail. At the zoo I used to visit as a kid, the only way into the gorilla house would have been to climb a twenty-foot tall fence that a chipmunk just might have been able to pass through — no entry by little kids was possible.
    So they should be thumping on the people for whom access by little kids to large wild animals is obviously acceptable.

  15. avatar William Ashbless says:

    I blame Disney. Most Americans only interaction with wild and dangerous animals comes from cartoons that feature animals that sing, dance, have feelings and human like problems and emotions.

    The sad fact is this: If the child had been ripped limb from limb it would have been LESS of a PR nightmare for them than the killing of the gorilla.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      To be totally honest I think this case will come to be known as the Kobayashi Maru of commercial zoos. Once that kid got in there it was no win from the zoo standpoint.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        And that’s why the so-called safety experts who approved the enclosure’s design should be held liable. They’re no less incompetent than the idiots here in Oregon who approved the construction of a motel on crumbly sedimentary rock lying in a 20-degree slope toward the ocean, overlooking the beach, from which water seeped seasonally (five to six months out of the year).

        1. avatar Defens says:

          Actually, I believe the foundation conditions you describe are a requirement for shoreline building in Oregon and Washington! 🙂

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          LOL

          It seems that way sometimes, but in fact they have learned; after that incident, where the motel started sliding to the beach before it was even finished, coastal counties adopted stricter standards for building on such strata.
          Though they still let them build on dunes with a fifty degree slope right above the beach.

  16. avatar Bernard says:

    One of the most important rules of rescue is “Don’t add another victim.” I’m not sure if 14 rounds of pistol hollow points would stop a gorilla on time.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Knowing what I know about gorillas i don’t think 14 rounds of any traditional handgun caliber would even phase a gorilla on an adrenaline dump. You do not understand strength until you’ve seen one body slam bullet proof glass and break it.

      1. avatar John E> says:

        This is why the response team used a .338 I believe. Good God these were considered big game in the day, use what you would use for a Wilde-beast or a Rhino.

        As for Sara’s tactical hollow-point response…she shoots the Gorilla with 9mm HP, it gets pissed off and goes all Wookie on the kid. Or falls on the kid. Or rips Sara’s arms off. Know your limitations.

        The situation some years ago here in Pittsburgh where the toddler fell in the African Dog compound and got eviscerated…now there I can see 9mm having an impact.

  17. avatar Greg says:

    Not all negligent acts rise to the level of criminal negligence. For instance, most traffic accidents are the result of some type of negligence – speeding, lack of attention, etc. However,criminal charges are rarely pursued in these accidents unless there was a combination of negligent acts or the act was grossly negligent (eg, doing 120 in a residential area). Hopefully, the police will conduct a thorough investigation before deciding whether to file charges against the parents for child endangerment or some similar offense.

  18. avatar pg2 says:

    Perfect, human life has been so devalued that animal life is considered more valuable than human life.

    1. avatar Pro2Ahumanist says:

      Yes. Some animals are more important than a human. Especially when the animal is not at fault but is murdered because “MUH HUMANZ! HUMANZ NUMBAH WHAN!”

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Lol, ok troll.

    2. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Meh. Gorillas are endangered. There’s a massive surplus of humans, and the factory is running overtime making new ones.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        See my post below. You fit the bill.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Ecologically, Stinkeye is correct. How we act on that is another question entirely.

          The first has nothing to do with politics; the second can’t avoid it.

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          Roy, it’s somewhat entertaining watching people trying to justify their self hatred for the human species.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          Some of the human race deserves to be hated — my mom calls them extra terrestrials, terrestrials we could do without. On her current list are ISIS, the Tea Party, and anyone who thinks Hillary would make a great president. She’s on the fence at the moment for a mother who would let her kid fall into a gorilla enclosure.

        4. avatar pg2 says:

          Roy, thanks for sharing your moms beliefs.

        5. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Or, maybe I was joking, since this whole kerfuffle has been comically stupid from start to finish.

          The real burning question here is, was the child who fell into the enclosure vaccinated? Was the gorilla?

    3. avatar Chad A says:

      No kidding! It’s a wild animal that’s stuffed in a cage, what’s the big deal? I’m not for senseless killing of animals, but killing animals for meat (in a sustainable way) or in defense of human life or livestock is fine in my book.

    4. avatar Carl says:

      Value is directly related to rarity.

      Planetary Mountain Gorilla population: less than 1000

      Planetary People population : over 7.5 Billion

      Go figure

      1. avatar Chad A says:

        Or usefulness??? A gorilla isn’t all that useful, other than to be manipulated by man for viewing entertainment (at a zoo) or for meat (like I’m sure many peoples do around the world)…

        1. avatar Defens says:

          I’ve worked in offices where the vast majority of the human population wasn’t very useful either (probably including me.) I’m sure you had a point in there somewhere?

        2. avatar Pro2Ahumanist says:

          Studying primates has given us many insights into our own developemen’s as individuals and our evolution as a species. Something you might know if you educated yourself before forming opinions, but that’s just too much to ask from you, huh? Just knee jerk reaction opinions to everything, based on no knowledge or education.
          YOU are the problem with the world today.

          Why is your life more important?
          Because you say it is?

          You say a lot of shit with out any reason to back it up.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          Wait till some bio-geek figures out how to give gorillas just enough intelligence to let them serve as soldiers, and see how their usefulness is regarded.

        4. avatar Chad A says:

          Pro2AH and Roymond, all the value you are inferring gorillas have is actually human value… In your examples the gorilla is just a tool or reference that humans are extracting value from.

        5. avatar Roymond says:

          Chad, I haven’t said anything about gorillas having value, only commented on human attitudes.

          But they probably do have value utterly apart from human regard; for all we know, they played a critical part in the ecology where they lived, and without them the whole regional ecosystem could collapse — we aren’t smart enough, and/or don’t know enough, to have a clue. Just as it turned out with wolves in Yellowstone, their presence didn’t affect just their prey, but a myriad other things no human ever guessed.

          Besides which, as I view it they are one of God’s creatures, a species He wanted here, a voice (as the Psalms have it) in His great choir, and we have no business being so arrogant as to spit in His face by deciding they’re not useful. What the just penalty for silencing an entire species’ voice in that choir is I don’t know, but I suspect that were it to be implemented, not even eight would be saved this time.

        6. avatar StuckInChicago says:

          Roy, I saw that movie…

        7. avatar Chad A says:

          Roymond, not saying gorillas have no value, just that it pales in comparison to that of a child.

  19. avatar Publius says:

    So now TTAG is promoting irresponsible parenting and then killing those who try to help the kids? Wow. That should be a warning to anyone who might help Rob’s daughter if she’s ever in danger – stay far away or he might kill you for protecting her.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Maybe it’s my reading comprehension but I can’t find the part in this post where anyone is promoting “killing those who try to help the kids.”

      1. avatar Chad A says:

        Your reading comprehension is fine, but the OP is referring to the gorilla as the one trying to help the kid… You know, cause they’re as smart, loving, and caring as us humans if not more so…

        1. avatar David Schuring says:

          It wouldn’t be the first time a gorilla helped a child who fell into it’s pen…

        2. avatar Chad A says:

          Fair enough, but with a different outcome we could be discussing how it wouldn’t be the first time gorillas or other zoo animals have killed people… The vast benefit of doubt should be to protecting a child in this situation.

        3. avatar Publius says:

          Chad, we have 10 minutes of footage of the gorilla taking care of the kid and protecting it. If the gorilla intended it any harm, the kid would have been dead long before the 10 minute mark. Sadly, the gorilla showed more intelligence and nurturing instinct than the kids parents and was rewarded with an execution.

        4. avatar Chad A says:

          10 minutes compared to 4 years of nurturing? And I don’t think the gorilla meant the kid any harm, but its a 400lb animal and the zoo keepers who sure as heck know more about that animal than we do concluded there was no surefire safe way to retrieve the child. I’m around 400+lb cows everyday, I’m never worried about them intentionally running me over, but I’ve seen them get spooked many times and take off running full tilt through a fence.

  20. avatar Pro2Ahumanist says:

    Sara tipton…
    look how cool I am I don’t care.

    One animal here, one animal there, next thing is extinction.

    Way to go, painting pro 2a as heartless bastards.

    That gorilla was an innocent creature and did not deserve to die. Can’t watch your kids long enough for them to not get eaten? Then you don’t deserve to get your genes passed on. Natural selection, oldest law there is…

    Oh wait,but judging from your other views you probably don’t belive in evolution.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Trolling for reaction? Anyway, natural selection goes both ways, maybe these gorillas are endangered because they don’t deserve not to be endangered. Nature is weeding them out. Now who doesn’t believe in evolution?

      1. avatar Chad A says:

        Silly, natural selection only works when we humans lived and behaved like primates living in caves. Of course then we’d be killing gorillas with clubs and sticks to protect our young and for meat… Hmmm tough to understand the thought process of some folks…

        1. avatar Pro2Ahumanist says:

          Your name is chad, that is enough to tell me you are probably legally retarded.

          And no, natural selection doesn’t just stop because of society and technology. Have you ever even opened a book? Taken a biology class? Clearly not.

          Natural selection is the best traits for that moment in time are favored and passed on. Nothing about society or technology in the definition. What is so hard to understand about that? I understand your thought process and it’s a complete LACK THEREOF.

          Once again, you are ignorant and misinformed. But no ammount of facts is gonna make you change your mind because you enjoy being ignorant and misinformed.

          Killing an animal in self defense is entirely different and much more black and white than a situation at a zoo. Where you know there will be dangerous animals and you know you will have to watch your kids. The thought process of some people…

        2. avatar Chad A says:

          Well I’m pretty sure the human race hasn’t gotten to where it is today through natural selection treating animals on par with humans…

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          No, humans have gotten to where we are by getting out of the game of natural selection, and indeed treating it like a useless system that gets in the way. That such arrogance may end up depriving us of the only survivable home we know of is not beyond possibility.

        4. avatar Chad A says:

          Roymond, I’m all for conservation and not trashing our world, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about insuring the life of a child at the expense of a gorilla. I’ll take that exchange any day.

      2. avatar Pro2Ahumanist says:

        Hunting to extinction is not involved in natural selection. Things humans do and are capable of are unlike any other creatures. You would understand this is you actually perused knowledge/education in biology and didn’t rely on pop culture definitions of scientific terms. You are an armchair intellectual.

        Oh I get it, the gorilla isnt white! That’s why you think they should be extinct. Just keep giving the anti 2as more ammo for their arguments.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Gotta laugh watching you try to scramble through your blatant contradiction in your posts! Good stuff.

  21. avatar pg2 says:

    I am going to guess that most posters calling for gorilla justice are either leftist, population control, human hating people who do not have and will never have children, or they are flat out trolls.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      It’s generally the leftists who claim everyone who doesn’t share their opinion is a troll. Whether you have or do not have children does not make you an expert on this particular situation, just as having been shot does not make one an expert on gun control.

      I’d suggest you take your accusations that everyone who expresses an opinion contrary to yours as trolls elsewhere.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        There are no “experts” on this. My opinion remains the same. You are entitled to yours.

    2. avatar Ironhorse says:

      Don’t you have some vaccines to protest?

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        No, there’s plenty of stupidity here to protest. Thanks for asking.

  22. avatar PeterK says:

    I don’t like the “You shouldn’t care about that because I care about this other thing more” game people play. That’s a political nonsense game that people use to shut you down for daring to care about gun rights, too.

    I’m not saying Sara is wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with everything she says except for that, though.

    Sucky situation, for all involved.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I agree. That’s a childish tactic usually used by people who either aren’t smart enough to argue their point effectively, or know the facts don’t back up their argument, and are just trying to shut down anyone who disagrees. I thought Sara was better than that.

      It really is possible to have opinions and thoughts on more than one topic at a time, and mixing unrelated issues together just weakens whatever argument you’re trying to make.

  23. avatar Adam says:

    They made the right call in killing the animal to protect a human life. That being said, if I was the zoo owner, I would sue the family for the cost of the gorilla and other damages. The gorilla is the property of the zoo and the parents negligence caused the destruction of that property as well as the loss of revenue from the blowback of their life saving actions.

  24. avatar Davo says:

    Sara has a point about the abortion issue. Going on to 7+ billion humans now and no end in sight. To abort 125,000 or so indicates that human life is cheap. If one of the 7 billion is worth the life of one in HUNDREDS, what is the next answer? The next question?
    Davo

  25. avatar TXDuallyDog says:

    Spot on Sara ! Robert did say you posted your comments on your Facebook page .

  26. avatar q says:

    The mother should bear some responsibility if she is was truly negligent. If any of my children ever mention climbing into an animal enclosure at the zoo that is a red flag to me to keep him or her close and keep my eye on them. There is no way my 4 year old would even be close enough to the exhibit to fall in without me holding on to them while they were looking at the animals. I dont know all the details because I obviously wasn’t there but at a glance it appears to be a case of irresponsible parenting.

  27. avatar bb says:

    People who are mad aren’t mad becuase they didn’t let the child die, it’s becuase the whole incident could have been prevented. The parents aren’t, and shouldn’t be investigated becuase there’s a dead animal (unless they are being sued by the zoo, which I doubt they would), but rather becuase of their child was put in a very dangerous, and unusual, situation.

    I personally think the death of the gorilla was tragically needless, but that doesn’t mean I would rather the child die. What I do want is to know how the child got in there and if it was an issue with lack of supervision on the parents part, lack or safety measures on the zoo’s part, or just a tragic accident that could not have been prevented since you can’t expect parents to always 100% have eyes on their child or the zoo to foresee every possible safety scenario.

    Sure, there are probably the hardcore PETA type that would want some bizarre honor killing justice, but there is no reason to vilify everyone who wants answers as libtard lefteist who want all babies dead. Just like there is no reason to vilify the parents without knowing anything about the incident. And no need to use this as a soap box for other political stuff (Not that this has anything to do with guns or gun politics either. I don’t really see any rallying calls for banning guns for use on animals)

  28. avatar IdahoPete says:

    All of these gorilla-lover animal rignts fruitcake attacks on the mother (Michelle Gregg) are clearly racist – don’t Black Lives Matter? Would all of the gorilla-huggers be screaming to punish the mother if this had beena white toddler who fell in the moat? I am SHOCKED at the vitriol directed towards this poor black family. Shame, shame.

  29. avatar Priest of the center mass says:

    Wow?
    Social media….the virtual roman colosseum.
    ? ?….you decide the outcome!

  30. avatar Pond Avenue says:

    Sarah, I appreciate your Mother’s perspective on this whole sordid gorilla incident.

    Given your old residence, how do you feel about illegally carrying in California? Do women get off easier than men, as in a speeding ticket? Should a cop let you off or not?

  31. avatar Donimator says:

    The hyper focus on the animal is a bit odd. It’s not that animals are not worthy of focus, even protection. It’s just odd that the tension is between innocent animal and guilty mother. Little sympathy is left over for the child.

    But that’s the way it is in 2016 when one Liberal cause (animal rights) is set against human life.

  32. avatar David says:

    I personally love animals. They are delightful and useful in many ways. And many of them are tasty and delicious. If every mountain gorilla in the world were in that enclosure and it required me shooting every last one of them to save a child, I’d do it and not think twice or have any qualms about it. Having said that, this is a zoo fail. There should be no way that a child that small should be able to access that space, period. If I was the parent and they didn’t leave me alone over this incident I’d sue the zoo and/or the police.

    1. avatar Chad A says:

      +1

  33. avatar Roymond says:

    On another board I saw a suggestion that makes excellent sense: hit the gorilla with tranqs and have the .338 ready in case anything goes wrong.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      The gorilla experts said this was not an option, as tranquilizers take too long to sedate the animal, and they can also further agitate the animal. It would take less than a second for an animal of this strength to kill that child.

  34. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Well I SORTA’ agree with Sara…but this dead gorilla is separate from the daily baby murders and such. No I don’t equate animals with people-but I sure hear the yowling when you run a “cop shoots dog’ missive. The woman has an attitude of “accidents happen”. And not to get all raciss but not 20 minutes ago a black woman stopped traffic on a very busy street to stop people from hitting her and her brood. No cross walk-just an attitude of “how dare you get in my way-I’m entitled” BS. Both my latest sons were prone to run away-I kept tight control on them in public. My youngest turns 21 today-it worked. Bill her…do I think the zoo is culpable? Not really.

  35. avatar Libertarian says:

    I see no atack from the animal so shooting was not okay !
    The media was lying if no other films exist white the gorilla have throw him in air !!

  36. avatar jwm says:

    I would kill every gorilla on earth to protect 1 human being. But that’s just me. The Berkeley types would kill every human being on earth to protect 1 animal. But that’s just them.

    Somewhere out there there must be some middle ground.

    1. avatar Chad A says:

      +1

  37. avatar Ralph says:

    I put the blame on Harambe’s parents. Had they raised him properly, we wouldn’t have hurt that boy. Yeah, I know that Harambe was only 17 and was just turning his life around, but still, he had no business jumping that kid.

  38. avatar michael says:

    I live 5 min from the cincy zoo and have a membership. Was actually planning on going that day, but had to finish a side job. They maintain an awesome facility. That enclosure is very safe, and a child would have to be very aggressive to get in. There is a 3ft. High concrete wall, then a metal cable. Once u passed over that, there is very thick, dense hedges. Then a 10, 15 ft drop into the moat. There is no way in hell one of my kids could get through it without me catching them 1st. Especially if he kept telling me he was going to go in the exhibit. I’d snatch him up immediately. This is a clear case of a parent not paying attention to their add child!

    1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

      Thank you michael! Just as I suspected. That was the best description I’ve seen since this episode. A shi##y mommy. Watch yer kid! Bill her!

  39. avatar O-Hebi says:

    First of all. this has nothing to do with race. This only has to do with stupidity, negligence, and lack of responsibility. If this was a teenager we were talking about, then, I would happily excuse the parents and chalk it up to a poor expression of the genes that were passed on and present a Darwin award post haste. For which, this teenager would have to provide restitution in some way, shape, form, or fashion. Clearly, that is not what we are talking about. That gorilla is dead only because the parent or parents involved DID NOT DO THEIR JOB. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. The gorilla did not jump the barrier the unattended child did. There is a consequence to pay for that especially since the gorilla lost his life expressly due to the inattentiveness of the parents.
    Secondly, I question Sara’s logic over being willing to risk life and limb over a $10 boot all for the sake of not wanting to hear her child cry. If anything, that was a prime moment for the child to learn something about responsibility and the consequences of her actions. I guess even on this side of the line there are parents who want to be the child”s friend and not their guardian. Major faceplant, indeed.

    1. avatar Jean-Claude says:

      No, it has everything to do with race—-because black mothers are OVERWHELMINGLY shitty parents. The vast majority of black households in America are single parent—and that parent is a black single mother.

      12 percent of the population in the US commits 51% of the murders, black people are overrepresented in every violent crime statistic except poisoning. As the black population increases anywhere in the world, anywhere—-crime of all sorts increases, standard of living goes down, property values drop, education levels plummet. The poorest county in America is Owsley County, KY—overwhelmingly white, with an average household income of $12K or so. Still, it outperforms black inner city areas (which spend much more per year on education) in HS graduation rates, SAT scores. It also has a practically nonexistent violent crime rate. Meanwhile, Chicago has a massacre every weekend—and the murderers are the black sons of single black mothers. It is a race thing.

      Every city in America has a “bad part of town”—-and it is ALWAYS the black part of town. Well, except for Southern California—-then there are also Hispanic areas which are no-go. And in Paris the “no go” areas are Muslim(but lots of their miscreants are African Muslims).

      I do not understand why so many people are afraid to even address the fact that one particular racial group underperforms all others in all positive statistics, and outperforms in all negatives.

      It doesn’t make you a racist to recognize facts—and if it does, perhaps being a “racist” isn’t the terrible thing the media has programmed people to believe.

      1. avatar Bill G says:

        Perhaps we should promote the installation of Japanese then. Have you met one? They excel and make whites look second-rate. Replacing whites with their Asian superiors would reduce crime, increase academic performance, and improve the health of this nation.

        1. avatar Jean-Claude says:

          Until 1968, America’s immigration policy was Eurocentric. That worked out well. Docile Japanese? Tell that to the beheaded and cannibalize American soldiers who suffered under them in WWII. Or the Chinese whom they dropped plague rats on. Or the Korean and Filipino women who were turned into “comfort women”, and repeatedly raped by Japanese soldiers.

          But a mass immigration of Japanese would be far preferable to the black underclass we have now. Take over? No, they can be equal and deserving partners.

          Do you live near black people? Do you watch the news? Is anything I stated untrue? Are they not disproportionately violent, underperforming in education, unemployed, and filling our prison system? Are their households not mostly single parent?

          Time to butch up, you SJW. Shouldn’t you be protesting Milo at a university near you?

  40. avatar neiowa says:

    “PARENTS”??? In no news report have I heard ANY mention of a spermdonor/babydaddy. Footnote please.

  41. avatar Jean-Claude says:

    This child was the spawn of a career criminal father and a typical inner-city black mother. These aren’t “parents”—they’re DNA donors. The kid was actively trying to get into the enclosure, and the mother did nothing about it. Now, because of her inaction and negligence, a priceless breeding male for an endangered(endangered because the black people in its native habitat EAT GORILLAS FOR MAGICAL POWERS) species has been removed from the gene pool.

    Yes, the mother should be held accountable.

  42. avatar Bill G says:

    It looks like the gorilla was taking better care of the kid.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email