Boy versus Gorilla

In this case the boy won and the gorilla died. I am sure you have heard about this sad story out of the Cincinnati Zoo.  

Somehow a little boy aged 3-4 climbed a 3’ fence, went through some bushes and then fell 15’ into a shallow moat where the silver back gorillas lived. The male gorilla took charge of the boy, dragged him through the water a couple of times, but did harm him physically. The zoo trained experts chose to shoot and kill the gorilla rather than risking a tranquilizer that would take 5 – 10 minutes to take effect. During those minutes the gorilla could grow agitated at being shot. This might endanger the child, and the gorilla had more than enough power to kill that child in any second.

Both support and opposition to this decision has been expressed both to the family and the zoo itself.

Personally I agree with the decision to save the child, but is that the end of it? As a Christian, the Bible ought to be my guide, so then what might the Bible have to offer as guidance in a situation like this?  

There isn’t much on zoos in the Bible, but Exodus 21:33 might offer a principle to help us:  

"If a man opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it over, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make restitution; he shall give money to its owner, and the dead animal shall become his.
 
Points to consider:

1. Normal Activity: Opening or digging a pit was normal.
2. Unintended Result: An animal (ox or donkey here) falls in and dies because it was left uncovered, with no ill intent in mind.    
3. Conclusion: Owner of the pit, must pay for the loss, even though it was an accident.

 
Application:

1. Normal Activity: Families with little children visiting a zoo is normal. Little children can wander away very quickly in less than 30 seconds.
2. Unintended Result: The parents did not intend on their child joining the gorilla. Nor do I doubt the child meant to fall 15 feet to join the gorilla (even if he thought the gorilla was “cute”).
3. Conclusion: If we applied the same principle, the family would need to pay the zoo for the loss of the gorilla, because it was an accident. We do not yet know the outcome of any investigation into this whole situation.  

 
I know things are different today, but the principle here might help in this situation, esp. since the family “thanked the Lord” for their child being rescued.  It is great that the boy is ok.  But should there be some fine or restitution that the parents pay because of the loss of the animal? 

Just something to think about …     

---