4 yr old falls into gorilla enclosure at zoo


This was at the zoo by my house, it seems everyone is blaming the mother for not watching what her son was doing better, plus for not jumping in after him. It doesnt look like the gorilla was going to harm him, just tossed him around a little bit.

It is a shame they felt the need to kill the gorilla though, a lot of people are upset about this.

It’s a shame the animal was killed, but that outcome is preferable to a living gorilla and a dead child. Only seconds likely separated one outcome from the other. At least the human life was prioritized.


I don’t know anything about working at a zoo or having to be in a situation wherein I need to determine whether a gorilla needs to be killed in order to save the life of a boy.

But when it comes down to a choice between a human and an animal, the obvious choice is to preserve the life of the human.

“…they felt the need…”?
I could not believe the comments on the internet about how the killing of the gorilla is almost as great a tragedy as the (potential) death or serious injury of the child.

I was shocked the zoo personnel waited 10 minutes before resorting to deadly force.
If they could not get the child away right away, that should have been the next step.

Sadly, there are some online commenters who felt the child should have died to save the gorilla. I don’t understand how someone can think that animal life supercedes human life in priority. :nope:

The human life v’s gorilla life question is one thing, the irresponsibility of the child’s mother quite another.

No surprise there. This sort of -]nonsense/-] rot has been brewing for years. Consider the flop over Cecil the Lion a year ago.



Those situations are not at all comparable. The lion shooting involved killing for sport in a protected environment, not a trade-off with a child’s life.

The only parallel lies in the hordes who value an animal life over a human life.

I was aghast at the remarks on the internet too. I posted stating that maybe they should remember what happened to the woman and the chimp that went nuts.

The lady’s friend owned the chimp but couldn’t get it inside so she called her friend. The friend arrived and was attacked by the animal. She lost her face, both eyes, had her fingers bit off. That was a chimp. The gorilla was a male 400 pounder. No human has a chance much less a child.

Yes, the remarks were a disgrace. Some wanted the parents fined or jailed. Others thought it was murder to kill the animal. Others couldn’t understand why it wasn’t tranquilized. Well, maybe it would have gotten irate and totally out of control.

If the handlers hadn’t killed it, many may have been witnesses to a child being mutilated and then killed.

I think it all says a lot of where our values are. What can you expect when we abort babies, discuss euthanasia, etc.

The safety measures surrounding the gorilla we’re NOT child proof. But as for shooting the gorilla, would you want a gorilla just "tossing around’ your 4 year old??? You never know what a gorilla will do to a child. You better believe I wouldn’t want them to take a chance with my 4 year old, or any child!! God Bless, Memaw

What is the nature of a gorilla with regard to young children who are not their own offspring: to kill them or protect them?

“Just tossed him around a little bit”? That does not sound too good to me.

The problem is there are gorillas in general, and there is this particular gorilla. True, the zoo staff may have had some experience with this particular animal, but they never observed this animal with a human child before. Animals act different from one day to the next.

It appalls me we even have to dwell on this…as if it were a choice between 2 comparable benefits/risks.

Gorillas are physically larger than human beings, and have several times the muscular strength of a human being.

So even if it were only “tossing the kid around,” that could easily lead in seconds to a dead child.

Tranquilizing the animal might have taken too long. Killing was the way to go.

No doubt the zoo was loath to eliminate a valuable animal; but having a dead child at its foot would have been infinitely worse. They made the right call.


yes I agree.

yes. sadly the life of the gorilla had to be sacrificed to protect the life of the child.

This particular gorilla was part of a breeding plan to protect this endangered species. A lot of time, effort, and money goes into finding an animal suitable for breeding. From what I understand, fourteen years of planning had gone into the project at this zoo.

Of course, that still doesn’t mean that the animal’s life should have been spared at the cost of the child’s, but it does make the situation even more tragic.

Well then, the zoo should have anticipated such an emergency and made it physically impossible for a child to fall in there and necessitate the killing of the animal.


On Facebook a lot of people seem to be angry that they killed the gorilla. I think it is sad that they killed the gorilla as well but the child’;s life is far more important. A human being’s life is always more important than an animal’s life because we are created in the image of God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.