To those equating value as to Harambe vs. human; Rather than viewing the shooting/killing of Harambe as proof positive that a human life was more valuable than his, I'd suggest it be put in a different - and more accurate - perspective. Put aside for a moment that Harambe was an ape and instead imagine if he had been a male human whom a child had an encounter with. The "man" begins to act aggressively toward the child, swing and dragging him about... Onlookers and police are unable to advance and apprehend the child because their efforts only increase the "man's" aggression, thereby further risking the child's life. In order to prevent the "man" from seriously harming/killing the child, police have no alternative but to shoot the "man." They cannot risk tasing him for fear that the taser probes may not attach deeply enough to be effective and could then cause the man to become even more enraged. The "man" is shot and killed and the child is recovered. The choice was made on the merit of eliminating the one causing danger and harm.
So for those who continue to want to equate equality to this... imagine if a 3-year-old child, out walking with his Mom & siblings, slipped away and entered the gate to your yard. Do you view him as an intruder and begin dragging/tossing him around? Of course not, BUT if you did and the police were called and could not safely approach to recover the child from you, you'd likely be shot as well. Would anyone then be arguing about your value vs. the child? No.
JMO ~
