OK I see your points they were not bad at all but let me break some things down for you. What you said was true humans are animals as well but isn't it then in an animals nature to protect one of there own kind? Also you said the gorilla did not harm the child (on purpose) but given another 5 to 10 mins would the gorilla have? In the end they made good judgement call to save the kids life. Also another point unlike you or me gorillas don't have a sense of themselves meaning they don't know how powerful or what damage they can cause. They can be up to 10 times stronger then a human and as easy as it would be for you to squash a bug they could 'accidentally' have killed that little boy. Also this is the real world sometimes things happen they might not have something to easily put it to sleep at all times. It was a panicked situation and they could not stop the gorilla in time to get everything together. Like I said in the end it was the boy or the gorilla they made a good call when the time came for it.
There was still a better way to deal with the gorilla. They could have used tranquilizer guns instead of killing the poor thing, whose species is actually endangered, I'm pretty sure. Most zoos bring in animals to save their species. Also, gorillas do indeed have sense of themselves. There have been multiple studies done proving that animals (including gorillas) are smarter than we thought and do have feelings. You also said it is in one's nature to protect their own kind, and that is true, but most species don't jump right to the decision to kill the threat, so why should we? Again, there are better ways to save both the child and the gorilla.
To start my rebuttal I would like to say you are right as you stated im sure there were plenty of different ways to handle the gorilla for example tranquilizers. However I believe a child falling into a gorilla enclosure is quite rare (thanks Happyfaceemoji for a good point) probably by the time they got the tranquilizer gun and returned who is to say the child would no already be dead? Gorillas are indeed endangered you are correct, however its the child's life we are talking about which as well as the parents the zoo would have been also held even more liable had the kid died. Think about the headline 'Boy killed in zoo by dangerous gorilla zoo shut down' then the gorilla would be called dangerous and put down afterwards probably. The way I see it its the boys life and the gorillas or just the boy. Also that may be true gorillas are indeed smarter then we thought but it doesn't mean they know there own strength hell even some humans have a though time controlling there own strength. One final point I need to address you stated that animals do not jump to save one of there own? Pretty sure anyone can agree a pack of lions are not going to wait and see there cub get torn to shreds they will pounce on the second the baby gets a scratch packs are tight laced. To conclude the zoo was protecting the child and stopping themselves from full getting full liability and potential lawsuits.
I think what you are missing is that the gorilla wasn't trying to hurt the child. It was described that he seemed to be protecting the child, and he was dragging the child away from the loud screaming crowds. The baby is a primate just like the gorilla, and because of that he has an instinct to protect the child. It would be stupid to put the gorilla down for protecting a kid who just happened to fall into his enclosure. Though the gorilla may seem dangerous at first, I don't think he really posed a threat. Also, it's not the gorilla's fault, which is another reason that it would be stupid to call the gorilla dangerous. He didn't drag the baby down and beat him up, he hardly even hurt him at all, let alone showed signs of aggression. You also made an example that a pack of lions won't wait to attack a predator who is hurting their cub, and that is true. But that doesn't match the situation. The gorilla didn't try to rip the baby to shreds. So I still think killing the gorilla wasn't the best choice.
To finish I would like to say you are right the gorilla seemed like it was not hurting the child intentionally but even if it wasn't trying to hurt the child its actions have consequences. If you also know the boy was said to have been rushed to the hospital shortly afterward the boy could of easily gotten worse then a concussion and a few scrapes. He could of hit his head hard enough to cause serious brain damage or worse eventual death. You also say he was protecting the child that's fair enough but what most people see can be chalked up to aggressive actions. Even if that fact is not true which we can't tell the gorillas true intentions from clips alone I don't think it matters in the end the child was getting hurt by the gorilla. He was a 400 pound silver back gorilla who has the strength of 10 men I am sure he posed a threat. I do agree on one point it was not the gorillas fault it was the parents they should be responsible for the child, but regardless I still stand by my stance and say shooting the gorilla was justified. Also as a closing statement to defend my example I did say that if a baby cub got even a scratch the lion would destroy what ever touched it, the gorilla was threatening the baby's safety so I think its also animal instinct to protect are own kind and kill the gorilla. Thank you for your time and quick responses
You said if a lion's cub got even a scratch the mother would destroy whatever caused it. That's not true. The lion would probably just growl at the "enemy" and maybe give a few warning swipes, but they wouldn't automatically kill them. And I think the gorilla was very aware of his actions and he still was being careful not to seriously injure the child, even though he may have caused minor injuries. If he had been tranquilized he wouldn't go into a fit of rage and throw the child around or anything. The drugs work faster than you think, they could knock out an elephant in a rather short amount of time, so I think they would easily take out the gorilla. So I still don't think it was a good decision to jump to the conclusion to kill the gorilla and I think they should try to solve the problem in better ways, especially when dealing with an endangered species. Thanks for debating with me though.