Consider the circumstances - The chimp snapped and mauled the woman horribly.
Then it ripped the side mirror off the cop car and opened the door - trapping the cop.
At this point the officer had a very real reason to fear for his safety and life given its actions. He was within his rights to shoot regardless of
if it was a chimp or person attacking him at this point.
Given the circumstances the officer was within his rights and likely saved himself and others from further harm given that it had "snapped".
This kind of reminds me of a Science Fiction episode....maybe the new "Outer Limits" (I am steering away from the Planet of the Apes franchise)
where a child is deformed, but still considered Human....blah, blah, blah.
Look, killing an ape who is intent on killing you, or killing a Human who is intent on killing you, is self-defence.
To me those are questions of the potential of self, something I would see as falling naturally after a being is aware of its existence as an
individual. Because, as I see it, the individual must first recognize itself before wondering where that self fits in with a grander scheme. And
even then by first associating itself in a role within its immediate group and surroundings.
But, I will say, the truth is at this point no one can really prove or disprove self-awareness. I was, in my way, attempting to expand the concept to
a different set of criteria. The only standard of testing now is construed by the only species that claims self-awareness. The others are talking
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.