rimbaud, that would have been the ideal solution, and I'm sure they had them, but no one did anything of the sort during the chaos, evidently, and the police arrived first. If I were there, I would have been damned glad. As for zoos, yes, they depress me as well. I take my kids to them, but seeing all those creatures confined doesn't make it a pleasant experience for me. I know exactly where you're coming from.
There apparently were only so many tranq guns to go around. And those who had them could not get a shot off at any point. When the gorilla charged some officers helping who did not have tranquilizer guns, they apparently felt they were forced to use their service weapons to protect themselves.
If no one had been hurt, that would have made a completely different situation for everyone there to deal with. It's very sad that the gorilla was violent after it escaped, and that the zoo personel were slow in reacting, or didn't have handy what they should have. There will be a huge investigation of the zoo's procedures, I would imagine.
Hey, whaddya want, they were cops! The gorilla was lucky he wasn't Mexican and got shot 17 times in the back.
They had less lethal means available, but weren't afforded an opportunity to use them by the circumstance. Why would anyone think this was an issue of blame. A gorilla was running loose, hurt people and was looking to hurt more people. They weren't looking to punish the gorilla, just keep people from getting hurt.
I agree the situation was dangerous. I just think zoos should be well prepared for such events and, as such, should have a better variety of non-lethal controls. The cops had no choice but to shoot so I can't fault them.
That poor animal must have been so scared.... You have to feel sorry for everyone involved. I hate hearing stories like this.
I haven't been to a zoo in 15 years, my wife hates them and refuses to go (that includes the circus too). I don't totally agree or totally disagree with her. What about using television, etc. to educate people about the plight of animals? It works fine for me.
I saw an interview with the mother of the young child on TV yesterday. She said that there were some severe lacerations on the child's head, but that he would be okay. He apparently is doing well enough to talk and he told his mother that "the monkey tried to eat my head." Good lord, that experience must have been scarier for him than anything Hollywood can put up on the silver screen. Were I him, I don't think I would ever go to a zoo again.
Please. It's a gorilla. It was probably as scarred as the child. What is the intelligence level of a gorilla? On par with a 4 year old? Didn't someone invent tranquilizer guns a long time ago???
And they had them at the zoo, but could not use them in time. Chances are, you don't just let the gorilla go thinking you can catch up to him later when you've gotten the tranq guns ready and can get a proper shot (and once the people are out of the way, since you can't risk killing a person while trying to save the life of the gorilla). Perhaps the officers should've allowed themselves to be attacked and injured (and who knows who else) while those with the tranq guns got into a place where they could use the tranq guns. One question that zoo officials sought in particular to answer was why bullets and not tranquilizer darts ended Thursday's melee. "Our trained weapons team was being sent in to get the injured," Mr. Buickerood said. "We were not going to worry about darting him until the injured were out of the way. ... It happened so fast that we didn't have time to do that, although our veterinarian was preparing to dart him." The animal was loose in a part of the park meant to mimic an African wilderness, complete with heavy foliage cut through by a nature trail. Officers and zookeepers could manage only fleeting glimpses of the ape; there was no clear line of sight. The tranquilizer darts, calibrated for felling a 300-pound gorilla, could have easily killed a human target, so proper trajectory was crucial, zoo officials said. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/032004dnmetzooreaction.2e56d.html
Perhaps the officers should've allowed themselves to be attacked and injured (and who knows who else) while those with the tranq guns got into a place where they could use the tranq guns. The point being if you are running a zoo, you should have a definitive fool proof plan of action for this type of event. Why weren't the tranquilizer guns ready earlier...why aren't they always ready? How did the cops get there before the people with the tranquilizer guns? If they are "zoo cops", why don't they carry tranquilizer guns with them. The animal was loose in a part of the park meant to mimic an African wilderness, complete with heavy foliage cut through by a nature trail. Officers and zookeepers could manage only fleeting glimpses of the ape; there was no clear line of sight. The tranquilizer darts, calibrated for felling a 300-pound gorilla, could have easily killed a human target, so proper trajectory was crucial, zoo officials said. I guess this answers the question to why they didn't shoot the gorilla in the leg or something. But it only makes it more suspect that they used a real gun instead of a tranquilizer gun..."could have easily killed a human target"??? Um, isn't that exactly what guns do?
JayZ, I really wasn't trying to single you out... I just knew that reaction would come up and I guess you were it. Clearly, the zoo's procedures on many levels need an overhaul. This gorilla, in a "state of the art" facility, should never have been able to escape. Equipment for tranquilizing him, or any other potentially dangerous critter, should have been easier to get to and more quickly used. Please, however, think about trying to shoot a 300 pound gorilla in the leg or something in the middle of people being injured or possibly killed. Cops don't try to do that, in general, to people. If the people are carrying deadly force and don't respond to a demand to drop their weapon, then the police are trained to shoot to kill. How could they do any less here? That gorilla was as deadly in that situation as a person holding a 9mm. pistol. You shoot him in the leg, and he can very easily keep on coming and take you out or someone else. Just think about it. I blame the zoo for it's mistakes. I think it's very tragic that people got seriously hurt and that it easily could have been worse. The gorilla, in a sense, was a victim of the zoo screwing up as well. But I can't see any fault in the actions of those who killed him. At that point, they did what they had to do, imo.
I know zoos always try to raise money and get donations etc.. it's going to take a lot of money to pay for this potential lawsuit i'd think
According to the Zoo officials (as quoted in the Dallas Morning News), they had a plan, and part of that plan was equipping DPD officers with rifles, as well as having people with tranq guns. Now, you may not have liked their plan, but they feel their plan worked.
Of course I'm not blaming the cops. They did all they could. I'm blaming the zoo...and pointing out that the article was poorly written. You can't have it both too crowded and potential threating to try and use a tranquilizer gun yet ok in the exact same situation to use a real gun, which, obviously, is much more powerful - unless the argument is that a tranquilizer gun may nto have worked - in which case, again, you're a zoo, you hsould have contingency plans for these types of events - (i.e. a tranq. gun that works upon impact).
