Although it’s probably naive of me, I’m surprised that the Cincinnati Zoo’s decision to kill Harambe the gorilla is at all controversial [“Zoo chief defends kill shot on gorilla,” News, May 31].
As special as the gorilla might have been, does anyone really think that saving him was worth the life of a young child? Yes, it would have been better if he could have been tranquilized, but the zoo correctly determined that this was too risky.
Now, there are some calls that the mother should be held legally responsible. Was she not as vigilant as she should have been? Of course. But should she face legal consequences? Not in a sane world.
Izzy Lewin, Oceanside