Harambe, The Gorilla Was Shot Dead While Protecting And Holding The 3 Year Old's Hand
03 Jun 2016
| by |
The male western lowland gorilla named
Harambe was killed on Saturday (May 29) by a special zoo response team that feared the boy's life was in danger. This news has been around for a few days now and the debate still continues.
To be very honest, Harambe did not deserve this death. After being in the Zoo captivated and deprived of the lush green forests, the zoo could've atleast made sure they had another plan of extracting a human out of the enclosure than killing the endangered animal itself. There shouldn't even have been a way a visitor could enter in the first place. How I see it, we can blame the boy's crawl on the parents or on the zoo, but its really sad how poor Harambe had to pay the cost. And the cost was not cheap. It was his very own life.
Anthony Seta, an animal-rights activist in Cincinnati, called the death "
a senseless tragedy". Video taken by zoo visitors showed the gorilla at times appeared to be protective of the boy but also dragged him through the shallow moat.
This special Gorilla turned 17 just the day before he was shot.
"People can shout at the parents and people can shout at the zoo," Seta said. "The fact is that a gorilla that just celebrated his birthday has been killed."
Eyewitnesses to the incident on Saturday have claimed the gorilla was showing no aggressive behaviour towards the boy. It is claimed that screams from those watching the unfolding situation panicked Harambe, causing him to drag Isaiah, the three year old at a quick speed across the water. But was that to harm the boy? Or indeed to protect him from the other gorillas there.
Was it to kill the boy? Because if that really was Harambe's intention he would have done it or given signs of doing so. If we see the video very carefully, there is clear indication of how the gorilla was only 'INTERESTED' in the little boy, but not in any way to harm him.
How can we every single time favour a human over an animal and be righteous? As a strong animal lover, I not only fail to draw this conclusion of humans being superior above all, but I also feel sick about the way we stand by and let others take lives of animals very casually. At least two animal rights groups were holding the zoo responsible for the death of the gorilla, charging that the barrier made up of a fence, bushes and a moat wasn't adequate.
The zoo doesn't think that what they did was in any way senseless. The zoo's director, Thane Maynard, said its dangerous-animal response team, consisting of full-time animal keepers, veterinarians and security staff, made the right call to kill the gorilla. He noted that the 400-pound-plus gorilla didn't appear to be attacking the child but was in an "agitated situation" and was "extremely strong." A tranquilliser wouldn't have immediately felled the gorilla, leaving the child in danger, Maynard said.
Police said the investigation will look at the parents' actions - not the operation of the zoo, which is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Police then would discuss with prosecutors whether charges should be filed.
A child endangering charge would be difficult to prove, several legal experts said. Such a charge is typically reserved for parents leaving children unattended for long periods or trapped in hot cars. But there is definitely pressure from people all across the globe to take an action against the ignorance of the mother which cost this entire tragic incident.