To shoot or not to shoot? Rich Lowry explains at National Review Online why he supports the Cincinnati Zoo’s controversial decision to kill a gorilla.
Invariably, the adjective used to describe Harambe is “magnificent,” and rightly so. Gorillas are physically imposing and highly intelligent, with sophisticated social structures. In a better world, they probably wouldn’t be confined for our viewing pleasure, but that’s another issue.
The question is: What should the Cincinnati Zoo have done when forced to choose between the welfare of a prodigious animal and a small human?
This wasn’t a case of a hunter who went out of his way at great expense and trouble to shoot a lion or some other glorious creature for the triumphant photo with the carcass and the trophy on the wall back home. This wasn’t a poacher who killed for tawdry profit. This wasn’t a fly-by-night roadside attraction abusing the poor creatures in its clutches.
This was a serious, responsible institution confronted with a life-and-death crisis, in real time and not of its devising.
When the little boy somehow crawled through the fencing outside the enclosure and splashed into water with Harambe — and yes, the boy’s mother should have been paying closer attention — the child’s life was potentially in danger. This was self-evident to the shocked and dismayed witnesses, who watched Harambe drag the kid around by the ankle like a proverbial rag doll.
Everything that people lamenting the shooting say about Harambe may be true: He wanted to help. He didn’t mean the child any harm. He was merely confused. None of this means he wasn’t a danger.
