Zoo’s Killing of Gorilla Holding a Boy Prompts Outrage

was one a boy? and if one is was the boy a curious cat, or just a lump on the log?

 

Yes, one is a boy, and has been very active from day 1.

 

In light of this kind of thing can anyone tell me WHY it's considered so totally awful to put a harness and leash on your toddler? Mind, I'm not talking about a chokechain here, but a padded thing that couldn't hurt. I've seen people do it but lots of people are ready to call CPS as soon as you even suggest the idea.

And yes, I'm not sure it would have made any difference here at all, but I'm just saying. It seems we expect people to take a lot of care for their children (rightfully) but then take away tools and methods that could aid them in doing so.

And yes, I'm aware that even toddlers could take it off. I'm not suggesting you put it on teenagers and it shouldn't be the only thing you have, but it might work on a 4 year old.

 

This. People are stupid and they want to see caged animals, sometimes they even end up wounded because they are careless. If they want to see exotic animals, go to a safari in africa where you can see them in their natural habitat.

 

It isn't criticism, it's a call for her home to be invaded and inspected by CPS. Basically every parent's nightmare.

"On her" meaning what, the zoo officials should have said tough luck lady you're down one kid? Or meaning she owes the zoo a gorilla now? Or meaning you want to send her to prison because she doesn't meet your unwritten parenting standards? These "criticisms" serve no purpose.

 

I mean she should be held legally responsible for her negligence. Probably does not mean jail time, but certainly should include restitutions to the zoo (I can think of absolutely no reason why she should not be responsible for that). And CPS should be involved, because her p1ss-poor parenting decisions put that child in an unnecessary and very dangerous situation.

But hey, it was just a mistake and only a gorilla, so let's just cut her some slack. She has been inconvenienced enough.

 

Vegetation, a fence, a one-story drop and a moat full of water was the zoo doing its job. You make it sound like this kid ducked under a rope and magically was face to face with a gorilla. What else should they do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No but is it the department of transportation's fault you get a speeding ticket? It's no one but your own right? There are speed limits, signs, laws and fines to encourage compliance but at the end of the day it's your personal responsibility. Parent's fault, not the zoo's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

see post #112

so in a nut shell what percentage was it the mothers fault 50%?

 

I totally agree, it is hard. But is that a business' problem? They had safety precautions in place. Is it their responsibility to control for every possible incident involving 4 year olds? To me they had reasonable safety measures in place, a loose kid went through, over and down them because the parent wasn't watching at that exact moment. Once it was discovered and evaluated the zoo made the decision to shoot the gorilla and save the child. The zoo is totally not at fault, the personal responsibility rests with the four year old's chaperone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

percentages plz it can't be 100% nothing is absolute so plz what percentage?

 

What percentage? I'm confused by your question. I'm saying the zoo has implemented safety standards that are approved by the accrediting organization AZA and the reason the kid fell in the exhibit is chaperone negligence. I agree the gorilla needed to be shot to save the child, but at the end of the day if this family sues the zoo they are 1) ridiculous and 2) definitely going to lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

out of control emotions can only come up with a 100% conclusion btw

 

heres what yah said:

totally and rests is a 100% word thus leaves not any wiggle~ room or random actions at all, that is a total paradox conclusion.

 

heres a picture i try to explain with it
as you see the wave~ is life random events play of our actions, now if you take
a word like totally it become meaningless and a void of meaning or matter of any fact its of a non meaning a straight line of nothing

 

If a kid that age can get into the exhibit that easily, there is a problem. I've been to half a dozen zoos with my boys. I've never see one that had a dangerous animal exhibit that could easily be entered. I don't know the particulars, but from what I've read, the kid managed to just zip over the barriers quickly. That said, I think this was a tragic accident. I don't see the zoo or the parents as necessarily being negligent.

 

Totally unbelievable, I have heard some say, "why didn't they tranquilize him?", because the kid may have ended up dead before it took effect.

 

How many of your kids were boys?

- - - Updated - - -

Anybody that chooses any animal over a human, IMHO, is a misanthrope. BTW, is that your real name, or are you a William S. Burroughs fan?

 

The boy in question (that hugged Snow White) is the calmest kid you will ever see, even as a toddler. However, when he saw Snow White, he (and we) lost control. That is why I'm not going to judge an incident that I didn't see or parents that I don't know. Not all kids are perfect, and even attentive parents can mess up. This was a tragic accident, not negligence, unless I see proof of it. The only eyewitness account that mentioned the parents that I've read, said that the parent was being attentive in general, but took a picture, and while doing that the kid ran off.

 

A) killing the gorilla was the right call
B) This woman should lose custody of her child until it can be determined if she is a danger to her child. "I was at the zoo and my kid wound up in the gorilla cage" SAID NO RESPONSIBLE PARENT EVER!
C) Leftist gun grabbers where are you? A firearm was discharged in a public area. It saved a life, if there was no gun there the boy would be dead right now.

 

As I said, i believe both sides are at fault and should share the blame, but I also realize, I don't have all the facts. It came out today that this particular Zoo has a history of security issues with animals escaping and endangering the patrons. They also stated in this report that the Zoo was not going after the mother. I agree, the Zoo is the biggest loser here, but so far, they seem reluctant to place blame on the mother.

I also heard that the mother was planning to sue the Zoo. In any case, it's going to get interesting. That's why I say, let the court's hash it out. We simply don't have enough info to make a proper determination.

 

Parents MUST be completely responsible for their children in ALL public places or else the irresponsible morons shouldn't even be allowed to take them out in public in the first place!

Here, according to The Daily Mail website, is a picture of the parents:


Mom and dad: Deonne Dickerson and Michelle Gregg are the parents of the four-year-old boy who fell into the gorilla enclosure housing Harambe on Saturday at Cincinnati Zoo

​

Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-emerges-father-lengthy-criminal-history.html

The whole disgusting, nauseating story is also at that website.

I've got a very clear idea now of what happened, and why, and I'll be quiet now before I blow up and say too much. Suffice to say, NOTHING about this tragedy surprises me, at all....

 

Oh dear, did a captive, contained-for-human-amusement animal become dangerous?

Maybe if 100 kids got ripped to pieces people might decide to leave gorillas (and any other wild animals) where they're (*)(*)(*)(*)ing meant to be.

So bring on the zoo carnage, I say.

My money ain't on the bloated little (*)(*)(*)(*)s wandering around free who gawp and giggle at better beings than they.

 

Driving and taking a selfie.

That kid needs a helmet and full body armor.

 

I dunno, a mountain lion can't do any worse than the gangstas roaming about Chicago. Heck, if it had taken out a couple superintendents, it might have improved all the schools in the general area.

I'm thinking it was likely shot because Rahm's constituents hate competition.

Should we be surprised that a gorilla knows better than a typical teenager, much less younger kids?



Man. Some people really have a lot of extra time on their hands.