Yeah, but you'll never find Stella Artois in my refrigerator.####ty work, OP.
You mean besides sitting on his ### all day and living off the government teet? Probably has a few bastards running around in multiple states too.Should have euthanized the kid. Gorilla did not do anything wrong.
You can see some of the scarier parts here where it drags the kid through the water.I didn't see the gorilla doing anything violent to the baby. It looked more like curiously picking it up. However, most of the interaction was not on camera. They did say the kid went to the hospital with minor injuries, but is out already. Odds are the Gorilla wasn't doing much harm.
Protecting the kid from all the crazy people screaming at him.You can see some of the scarier parts here where it drags the kid through the water.
https://youtu.be/x7xOTVGyHPQ
And pretty badly from what I understandBetter the gorilla than the boy, no matter where the responsibility lies. The gorilla was apparently playing basketball with the boy.
Kid didn't do anything wrong eitherShould have euthanized the kid. Gorilla did not do anything wrong.
One of them was in a place they did not belong. Trespassing is a gateway crime.Kid didn't do anything wrong either
Seriously.Protecting the kid from all the crazy people screaming at him.
I wonder if there are any videos with a gunshot, or the kill? That would be a difficult shot. You have to drop the animal with like a 50cal head shot immediately, and hope the body doesn't smash the kid.You can see some of the scarier parts here where it drags the kid through the water.
https://youtu.be/x7xOTVGyHPQ
i heard they tried negotiating an exchange ...bananas for the kid ....that didnt workQuez said:I wonder if there are any videos with a gunshot, or the kill? That would be a difficult shot. You have to drop the animal with like a 50cal head shot immediately, and hope the body doesn't smash the kid.
Despite the words of the article, this is OBVIOUSLY FALSE. The article also said the gorilla and child were together for 10 minutes. Later, it's said the child was checked out at the hospital and released the SAME DAY.FreeBaGeL said:No-win situation, but holy misleading headlines batman. You made it sound like he carried the kid out of the pen and then was later executed for it. The gorilla was violently dragging and throwing the child and was shot while still in possession of it as part of the rescue.
I guess it's because a majestic, helpless animal was kidnapped and jailed for life so dip####s could stare at him and eat popcorn. Then one day a family wearing burger king t-shirts showed up and took their eye off their 3 year old as he crawled into the gorilla exhibit. Because of that an awesome animal who did nothing wrong except being born on earth got shot between the eyes. That's why people are pissed. It's all good though as the kid is fine and will be able to drink Dr. Pepper for the next 40 years until his diabetes death reunites him with the innocent animal.What's even more scary to me about this whole situation is that there are people who actually believe that the gorilla's life was more valuable than the boy's. Euthanized the boy, and spare the gorilla? WTF? ####ttt parenting? Absolutely!!! But the kids was just being a kid.
The fear using the tranquilizer is that it can agitate it more. He was hovering over the kid and could have taken his rage out on him. True no-win situation for the zoo.
Yeah, pretty much this.People are losing their minds over this. Comments sections of articles are truly where logic goes to die, but I don't think I've seen a bigger collection of insane people like this. The whole situation sucked for all involved. But sometimes, #### happens.
Didn't you see the gorilla drag the kid through the water? That could have drowned the kid, or caused him to hit his head or something. How did zoo officials know the kid didn't have broken ribs, or internal bleeding? Kid checked out ok, but your talking about a split decision that had to be made by zoo officials. Yes, the gorilla could have killed the kid at any second, and yes it may have been protecting the kid, but they didn't know that. They made the correct decision to take down the Gorilla.Despite the words of the article, this is OBVIOUSLY FALSE. The article also said the gorilla and child were together for 10 minutes. Later, it's said the child was checked out at the hospital and released the SAME DAY.
Now...it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to put these facts together and come to the conclusion that the FOUR HUNDRED POUND GORILLA could NOT possibly have been "violently dragging and throwing the child", (who had just fallen 15 feet into a foot of water) for ten minutes. If he had, the child would be dead or in the ICU still
Didn't you see the gorilla drag the kid through the water? That could have drowned the kid, or caused him to hit his head or something. How did zoo officials know the kid didn't have broken ribs, or internal bleeding? Kid checked out ok, but your talking about a split decision that had to be made by zoo officials. Yes, the gorilla could have killed the kid at any second, and yes it may have been protecting the kid, but they didn't know that. They made the correct decision to take down the Gorilla.
Yeah, unfortunately this is going to be the classic "ruined it for everyone" case. That's a great zoo...been there many, many times because of good views and a great layout. I expect that to change very quickly.Everyone is blaming the mother, but the zoo is responsible for this. I just can't comprehend how there is anyway a toddler can get into any exhibit. It's not like an 8yo who can climb a tree. The entire zoo should be closed, and every square inch examined.