This brings up a good point. Think of all the tigers, rhinos, and other animals who are killed so guys in parts of Asia can believe that their pee-pee will work better and yet we're up in arms over a gorilla who was killed to prevent the death of a child.
I 2nd this point! I'm trying to think of an animal endangered or not that some Asian culture DOESN'T eat, grind to powder, make into a pill or salve, turn into an aphrodisiac, or use as a decoration.
I'm not "up in arms" because a rare animal who's life was entrusted to the public was destroyed because some parent neglected their first and foremost responsibility - which is to keep their children out of harm's way. I'm a tad upset for two reasons: Zoos as "depositories" for animal entertainment and the state's/locality's response to negligence leading to destruction of state/public property(the gorilla).
Due to the negligence of this individual a valuable public trust was lost. Accident or not the law stands clear - accidental action by an individual is still action and if the action in question is injurious or destructive of or to another individual or property it's an offense. You slip and break your neck in my store it may certainly be an accident but that doesn't divorce me from liability. If I accidentally hit a street pole knocking it down I'm responsible for the cost of that street pole. (A young woman here in town just learned that the hard way.) The gorilla is no street pole. I would have NO idea what that animal is worth or how much money the public spent to raise him and provide for his care until the point where it was destroyed. I'm betting it's a LOT of money. The parent should be held responsible. Period. That's no taking the
high ground - That's good ol' fashion "sea level" common sense!
