In recent news, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, was shot and killed at the Cincinnati Zoo after a young child had fallen into the exhibit and in turn found himself in a threatening situation. Animal activists and other critics argue that there was no reason for the zoo to take such drastic measures and the the gorilla was simply protecting the boy from the yells of strangers. It is possible that the gorilla saw the yelling crowd and the fall of the boy as threatening and could have been trying to protect the boy in the best way he could, hiding and removing him from the situation. The videos show the gorilla grab the boy by the leg and begin running through the water, causing the child's head to be under water. The speed at which the gorilla moved was also fast enough to cause harm to a child that size. So the question that should be asked after all of the arguing is "Whose life is more important, the gorilla's or the child's?"

I understand that this species of gorilla is critically endangered, but how far are activists willing to go to save an endangered species? Would they have been OK with the death of a small child if it meant that Harambe would have lived? There are many aspects that not many people fully know about this story. How did the boy fall in? Where were his parents? What other options were there?

It is appropriate to be concerned with the parents. Why was he able to fall in with his parents there? Were they neglecting him? Nobody really knows that part of the story. Here's what we do know:

1. The boy fell in.

According to an article on CNN, "Cincinnati Zoo Director Thane Maynard said it appeared the boy went under the rail, through wires and over the moat wall" (CNN).

2. The zoo considered the situation life threatening.

"Harambe carried the boy around its habitat for about 10 minutes in what the zoo's dangerous animal response team considered a life-threatening situation" (CNN).

3. The child was not under attack at the moment.

"The child was not under attack but all sorts of things could happen," Thane said. "He certainly was at risk" (CNN).

4. The child was treated for minor injuries

"The child was taken to Cincinnati Children's Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries" (CNN).

5. Tranquilizers are not immediate.

"Shooting the gorilla with a tranquilizer, which might not take effect for several minutes, would only have caused panic in the animal" (NBCNews).

6. Animals can be unpredictable.

"You can't take a risk with a silverback gorilla" (NBCNews).

7. According to an article on NBCNews, first responders saw the gorilla dragging and throwing the child.

Here is a brief excerpt from the NBCNews article listed above:

During a news conference Monday, Cincinnati Zoo Director Thane Maynard said that Harambe was "clearly disoriented" and "acting erratically." Once zookeepers realized that the boy was in the exhibit, he said, they used special calls to clear the area of gorillas; all of them responded except Harambe. "He was stimulated and excited," Maynard said, adding that shooting the gorilla with a tranquilizer, which might not take effect for several minutes, would only have caused panic in the animal. "You can't take a risk with a silverback gorilla," he said. "We're talking about animal that with one hand can take a coconut and crush it." Maynard described the gorilla's killing as "a big loss," but he said the boy's safety was paramount. He called critics of the zoo's decision "Monday morning quarterbacks" who "don't understand primate biology."

I stand with the zoo. Shooting the gorilla was the best option in the moment. It is unfortunate that it came down to the decision, but considering the unpredictability of the event, nobody could be sure that any other option would have worked. I do not believe that people are considering alternate endings to this event when they fight for Harambe's justice.