There appears to be a sort of hysterical backlash that is rearing its ugly head here. It is utterly, utterly tragic that the gorilla, Harambe, had to die, it is unanswerably questionable that Cinci Zoo did not ensure it's security measures (ie, you keep dangerous animals, allow people in to view, ergo, it is your responsibility to keep the two apart. ( And I am all in favour of zoos, if they have good enclosures and a good breeding programme in place to help endangered species). It is probably sensible that the poor gorilla was shot, as the little lad was in danger, no matter what 'lay-experts' may say. They weren't there at the time, they are not experts in ape behaviour. I am pretty sure the experts knew what they were doing, with heavy hearts. Although, I still stand by my opinion that it should never have been allowed to happen, and I hope they review their enclosures. (and that's another thing - silly, hysterical people saying about the gorilla being kept in a cage - he wasn't, it was a wonderful enclosure, with plentiful food, trees, shrubs, rocks and running water, like a river - as they would be used to in the wild).
Putting that scenario on the same level as either eating meat (some animals are meant to be eaten, and are therefore bred for purpose) and the fact that other animals are being killed wilfully (as in the case of the tiger cubs in a freezer - I couldn't find the original post from the poster who posted, but imagine it was for some totally illegal act, given that the tiger is a highly endangered animal) is actually quite ridiculous. I would eat a chicken, pig or cow, reared and killed humanely, as long as it is not an endangered breed. I would not eat a gorilla, tiger or elephant, as they are endangered and not generally intended for human consumption (in this, the 21st Century)
The two comparisons are, quite frankly, incomparable.