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

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO the ideal solution (which would never happen because zoos are so tourist/money hungry) would be clear waivers/rules for those that trespass into the animal enclosures.

If an animal is loose the zoo will put visitor safety first. If a visitor illegally enters an animal's enclosure for any reason the zoo will put the safety and well being of the animal ahead of that of the trespasser.

I get that in the case of a "suicide by..." Or even just dumb person thinking it would be fun or cool or whatever. You make a decision like that and it's a natural consequence (not that efforts shouldn't be made to save them but I can see not at the expense of the animal). But to put that burden on a small child who can't be expected to have known better... I'm not ok with that.
 
With horses, sometimes we use an electrified fence or tape to keep horses from chewing (cribbing) or rubbing on the fence. It is not a "shock" per se, but serves as a reminder to back away. Could something like that be implemented in the bushes? It would most likely stop a child who wasn't prepared for it should they get close. It would not be an eyesore or anything like that. Just wondering.
 
IMO the ideal solution (which would never happen because zoos are so tourist/money hungry) would be clear waivers/rules for those that trespass into the animal enclosures.

If an animal is loose the zoo will put visitor safety first. If a visitor illegally enters an animal's enclosure for any reason the zoo will put the safety and well being of the animal ahead of that of the trespasser.

I’m not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that would be impossible to enforce. For one thing a police SWAT team would intervene and shoot the animal. They would pay no attention to the waver.

Anyway it seems like a very poor solution compared to just putting a glass shield between the humans and the animals.
 
The new rope barrier in the gorilla exhibit seems perfect for kids to climb(their feet fit right into the rope holes). So, zoo sniper team, better get ready.
"And as this video shows, children are still able to scale the protective barrier to climb, or fall into, the area."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/harambe-gorilla-shooting-dont-jump-8134784

Those pictures are a testimonial to the arrogance of zoos.:mad: All they care about is charging visitors as much money as possible, and spending as little as possible on the safety of their guests or animals.

19Taduc.jpg
 
Those pictures are a testimonial to the arrogance of zoos.:mad: All they care about is charging visitors as much money as possible, and spending as little as possible on the safety of their guests or animals.

19Taduc.jpg
And why are the 2 adults glancing away from the children perched on the fence? sigh... One looks like she's picking up something (possibly a child) but why are they allowed to stand on and climb the barrier? :doh:
I mean there has to be dual responsibility. A parent that sees an obvious danger must be hyper-vigilant.
 
And why are the 2 adults glancing away from the children perched on the fence? sigh... One looks like she's picking up something (possibly a child) but why are they allowed to stand on and climb the barrier? :doh:
I mean there has to be dual responsibility. A parent that sees an obvious danger must be hyper-vigilant.

Well, IMO, there is currently a social climate in the U.S. to deny any and all personal responsibility for bad outcomes-- it's always someone or something else's "fault" when there is a bad outcome.

The overwhelming attitude, IMO, is that parents are not responsible for parenting anymore. And neither is "the village" of other parents, who will be sued if they try to step in or interfere in any way to help or save a child. If there is a bad outcome, the early and persistent parental goal, IMO, is to sue the deep pockets to win a bunch of money. It's far, far easier (and more socially acceptable lately) to do things like blame the zoo and sue them, than to admit that parents need to closely supervise their active kids.

I realize that no criminal charges were recommended against this mother, and I didn't expect charges in light of the case with the toddler in the African painted dogs exhibit. But IMO, she is still 100% responsible for what happened, even if it's not a criminal case. If 4 kids were too many for her to properly supervise, then she should not have taken 4 kids all at once.

I think the zoo should sue her for negligent supervision of her child, which lead to the shooting of the endangered gorilla, and the loss of their property, and future gorilla breeding of Harambe. Among other losses and expenses the zoo has experienced due to her negligence, IMO.

At a minimum, she should be banned from ever setting foot in that zoo again, IMO. None of this is the fault of the zoo, IMO.
 
K-Z I love reading your posts! You bring such intelligent insights and alternative ways of seeing things that truly enlighten me to many cases I follow here.

:tyou:
 
And why are the 2 adults glancing away from the children perched on the fence? sigh... One looks like she's picking up something (possibly a child) but why are they allowed to stand on and climb the barrier? :doh:
I mean there has to be dual responsibility. A parent that sees an obvious danger must be hyper-vigilant.

Can you believe that??? Especially when one of the children appears to have already made a trip to the ER!!! :rolleyes:
 
Well, IMO, there is currently a social climate in the U.S. to deny any and all personal responsibility for bad outcomes-- it's always someone or something else's "fault" when there is a bad outcome.

Please, thats exactly the opposite of the social climate in the US. The social climate in the US is personal responsibility 100%, corporate responsibility 0%. Thats the problem, and this case proves it. That’s why a half a million people signed a petition to arrest the child’s mother :facepalm:, and nobody signed any petition to make the zoo comply with federal regulations and place barriers between the animals and the general viewing public so as to assure the safety of animals and the public. Which just empowers the zoo to continue to ignore the regulations.

It’s corporate responsibility that is being denied here, not personal responsibility. The laws are clear, it is the zoo’s responsibility to keep the viewing public and the animals separate from each other. They are not doing that with a stupid playground net.
 
I realize that no criminal charges were recommended against this mother, and I didn't expect charges in light of the case with the toddler in the African painted dogs exhibit. But IMO, she is still 100% responsible for what happened, even if it's not a criminal case.

Are you talking about the painted dog exhibit, or the Cincinnati gorilla exhibit? In the last sentence, it seems to me that you're talking about the latter.
 
Are you talking about the painted dog exhibit, or the Cincinnati gorilla exhibit? In the last sentence, it seems to me that you're talking about the latter.

Sorry I wasn't clear in my comparison.

Yes, I believe the mother in the Cincinnati gorilla exhibit is 100% responsible for not properly supervising her rambunctious 4 year old. The prosecutor does not feel her negligence rose to the level of criminal charges, but IMO, she is still completely responsible for what her son did breaching the barriers, and for the response of the zoo authorities in shooting the gorilla. That level of responsibility could properly be addressed with a civil suit filed by the zoo as plaintiffs against the mother as a negligent defendant, IMO. But that will never happen.

Something like 35 million visitors have attended this exhibit over the years. This is the first time a child has intentionally breached the multiple barriers, and gotten into the exhibit. That's not an "accident", nor is it the sign of a faulty barrier system.

It would be a completely different situation if, for example, a child was leaning against a barrier, and it collapsed, and the child fell into the exhibit-- then I would hold the zoo accountable for the faulty condition of the barriers. In this particular situation, the multiple barriers were in compliance with a lot of zoo standards-- it was the unsupervised child who breached the barriers. That's not the zoo's "fault". It's the mother's fault-- period. IMO.

Like I said, her negligence may not rise to criminal charges, but she's completely responsible for what happened, nonetheless. IMO.

The mom who dangled her child in the African dog exhibit should have been charged criminally, IMO. But they SUED the Pittsburgh zoo, and were rewarded for their complete incompetence and stupidity with a big confidential $ettlement. More absurdity in the world, IMO. That mother belongs in prison, IMO.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...suit-pittsburgh-zoo-mauling-article-1.1814515

ETA: By the way, I completely expect this mother to sue the Cincy Zoo in a few weeks or months, when the hoopla has died down a bit. There are probably dozens of attorneys offering to represent her for a cut of the cashpile they think she will win. However, the public is mightily angry with this mom for Harambe's sake, so they will have to keep any potential lawsuits as quiet as possible. If they do file a civil suit, I hope the zoo files a counter suit.
 
child was 3 not 4 (slight but important distinction imo), no evidence he was "rambunctious" other than the incomplete reporting around this single incident.

if the zoo sued this mother they would be hit with a counter-suit and they would lose imo. im glad nobody is suing.
 
Nobody is suing....YET. Wait for it.

IMO, the mother WILL sue. It's just a matter of time.

But if/ when that happens, I'm hopeful there will be a jury that recognizes that this was clearly all her fault, and she doesn't deserve any money damages. I hope the zoo doesn't settle out of court.
 
Sorry I wasn't clear in my comparison.

Yes, I believe the mother in the Cincinnati gorilla exhibit is 100% responsible for not properly supervising her rambunctious 4 year old. The prosecutor does not feel her negligence rose to the level of criminal charges, but IMO, she is still completely responsible for what her son did breaching the barriers, and for the response of the zoo authorities in shooting the gorilla. That level of responsibility could properly be addressed with a civil suit filed by the zoo as plaintiffs against the mother as a negligent defendant, IMO. But that will never happen.
rsbm

That's remarkable. Even though LE's investigation refutes what you say, and none of the witnesses support your position, you are still able to hold the mother 100% responsible.

I think that this is a clear example of how prejudgement and assumptions trump evidence for many people. And I predicted that this would happen.
 
Nobody is suing....YET. Wait for it.

IMO, the mother WILL sue. It's just a matter of time.

But if/ when that happens, I'm hopeful there will be a jury that recognizes that this was clearly all her fault, and she doesn't deserve any money damages. I hope the zoo doesn't settle out of court.

what are you basing this opinion on? what makes you so sure the mother will sue?
 
It’s corporate responsibility that is being denied here, not personal responsibility. The laws are clear, it is the zoo’s responsibility to keep the viewing public and the animals separate from each other. They are not doing that with a stupid playground net.

Snipped for focus.

I think there is a "reasonable" and common sense factor here that seems to escape the consideration of some apologists who desperately want the zoo to be at fault. Like every zoo, this zoo has numerous signs advising not to touch, feed, harass, or interact with the animals, and numerous redundant barriers to allow viewing, but prevent casual, or even determined entry into the exhibits. This woman knew it was a zoo with animals, she speaks English fluently, and presumably is able to read English.

So let me give a comparable example from a highly developed nation (not a 3rd world country). I have spent a lot of time in Germany. I can speak and read a few words of German, but I am far, far from even basic conversational skills, and I am certainly not fluent. But I still retain my intelligence, despite the language barrier, right? I don't lose my adult reasoning abilities, or lose my common sense, or become stupid about dangerous things just because I don't speak the language fluently of whatever country I'm currently in.

So, I have taken my kids several times to Freizeit-Land in central Germany, which is a standard amusement ride park, with a zoo.

Here it is:

http://www.freizeitlandgeiselwind.de/attraktionen

Several of the rides for small kids there are unattended by park staff, with just signs (in German) advising adults how to put the kids on the rides, and dangers to watch out for. One ride is a slow-ish swan boat ride that goes in a circle in the water. You walk up and pace the ride, and sort of fling your kids into the swan boat, then haul them out when they've gone around enough times. Another is like a hot air balloon thing that goes in an elliptical circle. That one simply has a red line painted on the ground ("risk of death or head injury if hit"-- in German), and no rails or fences, you strap your kid in, and then push the button on the same post for it to go. (Then run like he77 so you don't get whacked in the head by the ride.) There isn't a lot of "suing" or complaining going on by Germans because there aren't 18 redundant safety barriers-- it's expected that adults will have enough sense to evaluate the situation.

My point here is that even with my limited language skills, I'm able to determine what is safe for my kid (and me, lol!), and what isn't, and when I should be closely supervising them. Or I'm aware I should leave the park if it appears to be too much danger for me to properly supervise my kids. I have options, just like this mom did. She chose to allow her attention to be so distracted and removed from supervising her child (in a crowded public place!!) that he took advantage and intentionally breached all of the barriers. He's a very young, active child with no judgement or appreciation of consequences-- not his fault-- fault of the adult in charge. She owns a daycare-- surely she should understand close supervision of little kids better than many parents, right?

This woman is not so stupid she didn't know she was at a zoo with potentially dangerous animals in enclosures with barriers. Her child wanted to breach the barriers, and told her so. Then she diverted her attention away from him (instead of watching him even more closely), and he did exactly that. That's not the fault of the zoo for not having armed guards patrolling the barriers to keep active children from sneaking in. That's a lapse in adult supervision and attention to the child. IMO. She failed, not the zoo. IMO. 35 million people did NOT breach the gorilla barriers. But this child did, intentionally. It wasn't an accident. He didn't fall in from the public sidewalk. He was not being watched and supervised closely enough. If an adult had been continuously interacting with him, or holding his hand, admiring the gorillas, he never would have had the CHANCE to crawl thru the bushes and the barriers. He needed continuous supervision during that experience, and he didn't get it from any adult. And we're all glad and relieved he lived thru the experience-- heck, his mom joked about it.

She's very, very lucky her child is ok.
 
I think it is just a matter of time before this mother sues the zoo. She is waiting for all the media frenzy to cool down IMO.

This is the family's cash cow that dropped out of the sky! There is no way they are going to let this incident go by without a suit. Just wait, you will see.

Some people cannot look at the fact that their son was very fortunate not to have been hurt. They need to count their blessings and not be greedy. Had he been hurt, sure, there would have been a big law suit! But, he wasn't hurt, so what's the lawsuit for?

I have been to Cincy zoo many times. So have millions of other people. Why is it that this one child breaks thru the barriers and gets into the animal compound? There have been many children at the zoo with parents who are inattentive or barely watching their children. IIRC, the zoo does have attendants that walk around the large dangerous animals to make sure visitors are behaving. As we all know, a child is fast and small at this age and in a split second can do something unimaginable if not being watched.

My personal opinion is that if this mother cannot say a simple "Thank You" to the zoo for protecting her son, she is showing us a side I do not admire or respect. This also leads me strongly to believe that she will be suing.

My opinions only.
 
1. The family has said they aren't going to sue.

2. The family asked for donations to go to the zoo.

3. The mother DID thank the zoo, multiple times.

representatives for the boy’s family told WCPO-TV on Wednesday afternoon that they don't plan to file any lawsuits against the zoo. The family released a statement asking anyone who has considered donating money toward his medical expenses to give the money to the zoo instead.

...[snip]...

"We continue to praise God for His grace and mercy, and to be thankful to the Cincinnati Zoo for their actions taken to protect our child.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-911-call-cincinnati-zoo-released-article-1.2657551

ETA

“We extend our heartfelt thanks for the quick action by the Cincinnati Zoo staff,” the statement said.

http://time.com/4351781/mother-of-toddler-in-cincinnati-gorilla-incident-defends-herself/

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
<snipped>

I remembered your post when I heard about this local drowning case. Two young children left the house while their parents slept. One child drowned. :(

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...6/04/dearborn-toddler-swimming-pool/85405732/

I responded to an earlier post on this thread about a child leaving the house while parent/s slept. In this local drowning case, the parents have been charged with second degree murder in the death of their little girl.

Parents charged in 2-year-old's drowning in Dearborn

Both charged with second-degree murder, other charges


By John Steckroth - Digital news editor

Posted: 10:48 AM, June 10, 2016
Updated: 10:55 AM, June 10, 2016

DEARBORN, Mich. - The parents of a 2-year-old girl who died after falling into a neighbor’s pool in Dearborn were charged with second-degree murder and are expected to be arraigned Friday.

The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office authorized charges for the parents on Thursday.

Both parents are charged with second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter and second-degree child abuse.

The parents were taken into custody without incident.

Their arraignment is scheduled for Friday at 2:15 p.m...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...gn=Breaking News Alert&utm_term=wdiv_breaking

ETA: Additional link
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne.../06/10/parents-drowned-pool-charged/85694436/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
2,874
Total visitors
3,001

Forum statistics

Threads
593,767
Messages
17,992,246
Members
229,235
Latest member
Sweetkittykat
Back
Top