The shooting of a gorilla inside his enclosure by zoo authorities in the United States has triggered an uproar that can only be rivalled by the brouhaha generated after Donald Trump makes an inflammatory speech. The mother of the 4-year-old boy whose life was saved by a squad that shot the ape, has become the most hated mum in the social media sphere. She has been reviled in posts that berate her for being a careless mother who let her child get into the enclosure. The woman has been blamed for the killing of the gorilla, with one person saying the kid should have been sacrificed for keeping the gorilla alive.
Animal rights have been part of modern movements in the United States and Europe since the late twentieth century. Such rights should be, however, weighed in the context of the situation. The resentment and anger directed at the distraught mother is an overreach.
The woman was certainly taking care of the kid who crossed the barrier during a momentary lapse of attention. He swiftly crawled down deep enough into the enclosure to come into contact with the beast. Animal rights groups contend that the gorilla seemed to take care of the boy and wouldn’t have harmed him. Zoo authorities say shooting dead the ape was justified as he was agitated and would have most likely put the life of the boy in danger due to panic. The director of the zoo revealed that the ape once crushed a coconut with his hand — a proof of his physical strength.
It was clear from the video footage that the agitated gorilla would have posed a threat to the life of the kid whose shocked mother watched in dismay as the animal dragged him roughly through the moat. It is an open-and-shut case of exercising reasonable judgment which the zoo authorities did by killing the gorilla and rescuing the boy. However, an animal rights group has filed a negligence complaint with the US State Department of Agriculture against the zoo seeking the maximum penalty of $10,000.
The brouhaha over the killing is completely unwarranted and reinforces the impression of US as a litigious state. Instead of hauling zoo authorities over the coals, society should have praised the prompt action that saved the life of a child. The drama after the incident casts the zoo’s response in a poor light and doesn’t do justice to its role.
The shooting of a gorilla inside his enclosure by zoo authorities in the United States has triggered an uproar that can only be rivalled by the brouhaha generated after Donald Trump makes an inflammatory speech. The mother of the 4-year-old boy whose life was saved by a squad that shot the ape, has become the most hated mum in the social media sphere. She has been reviled in posts that berate her for being a careless mother who let her child get into the enclosure. The woman has been blamed for the killing of the gorilla, with one person saying the kid should have been sacrificed for keeping the gorilla alive.
Animal rights have been part of modern movements in the United States and Europe since the late twentieth century. Such rights should be, however, weighed in the context of the situation. The resentment and anger directed at the distraught mother is an overreach.
The woman was certainly taking care of the kid who crossed the barrier during a momentary lapse of attention. He swiftly crawled down deep enough into the enclosure to come into contact with the beast. Animal rights groups contend that the gorilla seemed to take care of the boy and wouldn’t have harmed him. Zoo authorities say shooting dead the ape was justified as he was agitated and would have most likely put the life of the boy in danger due to panic. The director of the zoo revealed that the ape once crushed a coconut with his hand — a proof of his physical strength.
It was clear from the video footage that the agitated gorilla would have posed a threat to the life of the kid whose shocked mother watched in dismay as the animal dragged him roughly through the moat. It is an open-and-shut case of exercising reasonable judgment which the zoo authorities did by killing the gorilla and rescuing the boy. However, an animal rights group has filed a negligence complaint with the US State Department of Agriculture against the zoo seeking the maximum penalty of $10,000.
The brouhaha over the killing is completely unwarranted and reinforces the impression of US as a litigious state. Instead of hauling zoo authorities over the coals, society should have praised the prompt action that saved the life of a child. The drama after the incident casts the zoo’s response in a poor light and doesn’t do justice to its role.
