Cincinnati Zoo kills gorilla after child gets into his cage, May 28, 2016 #2

New Posts

Coldpizza

Coldpizza

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
19,819
Reaction score
1,087
Inside Cincinnati zoo after gorilla killing: Parents cling to kids

Brittney Sparks didn't plan on telling her young daughter what happened to a silverback gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo.

But they were visiting from Kentucky and MacKenzie, 5, saw something on the news and asked about it. This wasn't how Sparks wanted her daughter to learn the lesson of what happens when children wander, but she answered the girl's question the best she could.
"I kind of gave the general, 'the little boy fell in and the gorilla was doing what gorillas do, he wasn't trying to hurt him, but he was so they had to kill the gorilla to save the boy,'" Sparks told CNN.
 
"Letting go of child's hand for one second is not what happened"


​who said it was? my question was a clearly structured hypothetical, can you answer it?
 
I suppose we need to make a law that parents only can have one child, because if you have two, and you're taking care of one, then the other is "unsupervised and neglected," and if they get in an accident, it's your fault for being engaged with the other child. So, yeah, we need a limit of one child so there's no extras. My parents are horrible for having seven of us. I'm the most superfluous as I'm the youngest.

So there you have it. This could have been prevented if there was only child with that mom, so.. the solution is obvious...only only children allowed. You get pregnant with twins? You better pick one!
 
flourish said:
I suppose we need to make a law that parents only can have one child, because if you have two, and you're taking care of one, then the other is "unsupervised and neglected," and if they get in an accident, it's your fault for being engaged with the other child. So, yeah, we need a limit of one child so there's no extras. My parents are horrible for having seven of us. I'm the most superfluous as I'm the youngest.

So there you have it. This could have been prevented if there was only child with that mom, so.. the solution is obvious...only only children allowed. You get pregnant with twins? You better pick one!
Click to expand...

Or perhaps we need to make a law that children must always be physically leashed to their parents, regardless of the situation. I was going to suggest a six-foot leash, but there still seems to be some potential risk in that, so make it a three-foot, or two meter leash. No -- there is still some risk in that, as children are unpredictable. How about this -- children must be handcuffed to their parents. Then we can avoid situations like this, in which distant people can criticize a woman for being an inattentive parent in a situation where all witnesses say she was as attentive as one would expect.
 
Hmmmmm.......

Let's see. Four kids, ages 7, 5, 3, and 1.

It's possible, just possible, that 4 kids of those particular ages, is too much for any one harried mother to adequately supervise in a crowded public place. She works in a preschool/ daycare. She knows kids at that age are rambunctious and unpredictable-- especially in places where they are likely to be excited and active.

So let's brainstorm.

She could have taken the kids one or two at a time for a special day at the zoo.

She could have asked another adult to come along for the day to help with the kids.

She could have required the 3 year old to physically hold onto her pants, or keep a hand on the stroller of the youngest at all times. Many parents do that-- it's just a regular family rule.

She could have asked the 5 and 7 year olds to all hold hands with the 3 year old.

She could have used a child harness on the active 3 year old.

She could have stayed home with the kids until she had more help to take them on a special outing.

The woman, IMO, had no regular management, or even "contingency" plans for managing her 4 very young kids alone in a crowded public place. I know some will think that is "judgmental", but there you have it. There were many, many things she could have done to better manage the situation, IMO. I continue to hold her completely responsible for what happened.

IMO, she has shown that she has less than great judgement in other situations-- and yes, I'm referring to the criminal record of the kids' dad. Choosing to have 4 kids with a man who has such a lengthy criminal record is, at a minimum, very poor judgement, IMO. And I'm not ashamed at all to say that. It says a lot about the kind of person she is, IMO.
 
K_Z said:
Hmmmmm.......

Let's see. Four kids, ages 7, 5, 3, and 1.

It's possible, just possible, that 4 kids of those particular ages, is too much for any one harried mother to adequately supervise in a crowded public place. She works in a preschool/ daycare. She knows kids at that age are rambunctious and unpredictable-- especially in places where they are likely to be excited and active.

So let's brainstorm.

She could have taken the kids one or two at a time for a special day at the zoo.

She could have asked another adult to come along for the day to help with the kids.

She could have required the 3 year old to physically hold onto her pants, or keep a hand on the stroller of the youngest at all times. Many parents do that-- it's just a regular family rule.

She could have asked the 5 and 7 year olds to all hold hands with the 3 year old.

She could have used a child harness on the active 3 year old.

She could have stayed home with the kids until she had more help to take them on a special outing.

The woman, IMO, had no regular management, or even "contingency" plans for managing her 4 very young kids alone in a crowded public place. I know some will think that is "judgmental", but there you have it. There were many, many things she could have done to better manage the situation, IMO. I continue to hold her completely responsible for what happened.

IMO, she has shown that she has less than great judgement in other situations-- and yes, I'm referring to the criminal record of the kids' dad. Choosing to have 4 kids with a man who has such a lengthy criminal record is, at a minimum, very poor judgement, IMO. And I'm not ashamed at all to say that. It says a lot about the kind of person she is, IMO.
Click to expand...
Weird I am certain that we've read several things stating the child did have his hand in her pocket...up until he didn't.


You know, the ratio for preschool class in my area is 10:1. That means the state decided ten preschool children can safely be supervised by one teacher. Now did I ever want to go on a field trip with that ratio? No. But really, it can be done.


This mom, by all accounts, was supervising her children appropriately. This incident was an accident. The people who were there said so. The people who investigated it said so.

Could it have been prevented? Probably. All accidents can be prevented in hindsight's eyes.

This wasn't even negligence on mom's part, imo.
 
drjones said:
"Letting go of child's hand for one second is not what happened"
​who said it was? my question was a clearly structured hypothetical, can you answer it?
Click to expand...

Sorry for any confusion.
Was responding to this part of post 998 "Should a person in this situation [bbm]be convicted of neglect just for not having physical control of their child at all times?" and answering based on info I recall having read/seen/read about Cinn Zoo situation. IIRC.

The clearly structured hypothetical asked about a one second lapse in parenting/supervision (which I perceived as a different issue, "for literallyone second she lets go of her childs hand"). Always enlightening to consider others' viewpoints and the 'one second lapse' question now has my gray cells cranking. Hmmm, seems like that could happen to some parents.

Maybe, as K_Z noted a few posts up, some parents have plans -
- to prevent serious injury w only a one second lapse,
- to prevent a one second lapse where a serious injury coud occur.

As always, JM2cts, could be wrong.
 
I know if I had more than one child and had to take them to the zoo separately, none of us would be going to the zoo. That's crazy cost prohibitive IMO.

IDK. My mom managed to have four children ages 3, 2, 1, and a newborn at the same time and somehow kept them all alive through it. But yeah, I doubt they made it to the zoo often, if ever.

So I guess that doesn't relate.. .I just think about how the heck my mom managed all that.
 
flourish said:
I know if I had more than one child and had to take them to the zoo separately, none of us would be going to the zoo. That's crazy cost prohibitive IMO.

IDK. My mom managed to have four children ages 3, 2, 1, and a newborn at the same time and somehow kept them all alive through it. But yeah, I doubt they made it to the zoo often, if ever.

So I guess that doesn't relate.. .I just think about how the heck my mom managed all that.
Click to expand...

My best friend has four sons, and the two youngest were climbers. She'd turn her back on one to tend to the other and just like that one would be on top of the fridge! I don't know how she did it (I have one girl) yet they had a a big backyard and their favorite activity was camping. Impossible to keep your eyes on four boys 24/7 out in the woods. But they all survived and are now giving her grandbabies. :)
 
K_Z said:
Hmmmmm.......

Let's see. Four kids, ages 7, 5, 3, and 1.

It's possible, just possible, that 4 kids of those particular ages, is too much for any one harried mother to adequately supervise in a crowded public place. She works in a preschool/ daycare. She knows kids at that age are rambunctious and unpredictable-- especially in places where they are likely to be excited and active.

So let's brainstorm.

She could have taken the kids one or two at a time for a special day at the zoo.

She could have asked another adult to come along for the day to help with the kids.

She could have required the 3 year old to physically hold onto her pants, or keep a hand on the stroller of the youngest at all times. Many parents do that-- it's just a regular family rule.

She could have asked the 5 and 7 year olds to all hold hands with the 3 year old.

She could have used a child harness on the active 3 year old.

She could have stayed home with the kids until she had more help to take them on a special outing.

The woman, IMO, had no regular management, or even "contingency" plans for managing her 4 very young kids alone in a crowded public place. I know some will think that is "judgmental", but there you have it. There were many, many things she could have done to better manage the situation, IMO. I continue to hold her completely responsible for what happened.

IMO, she has shown that she has less than great judgement in other situations-- and yes, I'm referring to the criminal record of the kids' dad. Choosing to have 4 kids with a man who has such a lengthy criminal record is, at a minimum, very poor judgement, IMO. And I'm not ashamed at all to say that. It says a lot about the kind of person she is, IMO.
Click to expand...

Good post, I completely agree. And contrary to a previous post I read, the child didn't just "fall" into the gorilla den, he went to a great deal of effort and crawled through a fence / barrier and through dense plantings and shrubs. He intended to go there. His mother knew that. She knows him I would hope, if she thought it was some sort of joke then all I can say is she must be an idiot. She was completely unaware of her child throughout all of these endeavors, even after him stating that was what he was going to do. She alone is responsible, he is HER child, he is not the responsibility of the zoo. If she doesn't have enough sense to realize the inherent dangers involved in situations such as this and that keeping your child under control is required, then she should just stay home. Some parents are parent material, and some just aren't.
 
drjones said:
"She could have required the 3 year old to physically hold onto her pants"

you mean like making/telling him keep his hand in her pocket? something like that?
Click to expand...

Actually, after he made the statements he made, she should have held onto his hand. He's a little toddler, it's a given, and not such a hard thing to do , is it?
 
you cant even engage these people in any sort of meaningful dialogue, they just keep making things up and exaggerating. there is no evidence or argument you can put forth that they will not immediately disagree with and invent evidence to support.

it would be funny if it wasnt so sad and typical.
 
I said this earlier in the thread, but it bares repeating:

Quite often when someone judges another, it says more about the person doing the judging. In other words, any problems you may have with how another person acts or lets say how they parent, says much more about you than that other person. More people need to understand this and heed the lesson. JMO

If only these umbrella parents could see how their perfect children act when they arent around.
 
flourish said:
Well, and that would make it harder to conceive a second child if you're always always watching the first one, right? Tethers connected surgically at birth...? Hmm
Click to expand...

If you did conceive a child while holding the hand of the first one that would definitely be illegal!!
 
CoolJ said:
I said this earlier in the thread, but it bares repeating:

Quite often when someone judges another, it says more about the person doing the judging. In other words, any problems you may have with how another person acts or lets say how they parent, says much more about you than that other person. More people need to understand this and heed the lesson. JMO

If only these umbrella parents could see how their perfect children act when they arent around.
Click to expand...

Put another way, the mindset you mention works like this:

"Aha -- that child entered a gorilla enclosure. That is bad, and the parent(s) must be bad. Myself, I've never had a child fall into a gorilla enclosure. Therefore, they must be bad parents, and I must be a good parent (unlike what everyone else constantly tells me)."
 
Montjoy said:
Put another way, the mindset you mention works like this:

"Aha -- that child entered a gorilla enclosure. That is bad, and the parent(s) must be bad. Myself, I've never had a child fall into a gorilla enclosure. Therefore, they must be bad parents, and I must be a good parent (unlike what everyone else constantly tells me)."
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit like bullying at school. If you're the one out front doing the bulk of the judging and bullying nobody has time to notice how lacking you are in your own life because they're too busy defending themselves from your attacks!

So basically the best way to avoid social judgment is to be the jerk out front judging everyone.

That's how I see it, alternatively some people just get off on judging people because it makes them feel superior.
 
Mrs G Norris said:
I think it's a bit like bullying at school. If you're the one out front doing the bulk of the judging and bullying nobody has time to notice how lacking you are in your own life because they're too busy defending themselves from your attacks!

So basically the best way to avoid social judgment is to be the jerk out front judging everyone.

That's how I see it, alternatively some people just get off on judging people because it makes them feel superior.
Click to expand...

And safe.
 
Or, people who do not have children can make these comments of the perfect parent they would be.

Kudos to the mother for bringing her kids to the zoo instead of sticking them in front of the TV with a video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 4,054 (members: 196, guests: 3,858)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,858
Total visitors
4,054
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,827
Messages
17,959,694
Members
228,620
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top