Humans behaving badly means zoo animals die

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The people who are actually saying "bad, bad gorilla!" are insane.

Not the gorilla's fault. But no crazier than the people who are saying "bad child should have been left in the cage." Even if the 4 year old knew better, which he probably did, there is NO WAY he could have understood the magnitude of his actions.

It is ridiculous for people to suggest the kid should have been left in the cage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are unlikely to be charged. Much more likely is they'll sue and get a settlement from the zoo for their child's injury. The zoo may also be fined. It doesn't really matter for the purpose of charges/fines if the parents were paying attention or not, the zoo is supposed to have their enclosures designed in a way to make this impossible to just fall through.

In the Pittsburgh incident a few years ago where the child died, they decided it was the parents fault but they still got $$ and the zoo was fined c

The brat wasn't hurt.

Stop commenting if you haven't even read about the incident. The child was hospitalized with serious injuries after being violently thrown around by the gorilla.

Actually, none of the articles I've read indicated that. In fact, they all indicate the child was checked out at the hospital and then was sent home same day. I also read an article where one witness said very clearly that the gorilla wasn't violently throwing the child around. Rather, there were a ton of people screaming, and the person thought the gorilla grabbed the child and moved him in part out of being rattled by all of the screaming.

ALL of the initial articles said he was serious injured. I think they've since been updated to reflect he was not. The witnesses have no real way to know what his "intentions" are, though, and even with good intentions, the gorilla could have hurt or killed the child. The ones who deserve blame here are the parents, and maybe the zoo, depending on the safety measures in place.

I'm responding to the PP who said the gorilla was violently throwing the kid around. The witnesses were clear that that wasn't the case. No, they couldn't know the gorilla's intention, but their description was that it appeared as if the gorilla was trying to protect him, not violently throwing him around.

Well, if the articles are updated, then why is it a problem for me to update the thread? I don't understand your hostility.

I agree the parents deserve blame. But let's be clear: If the 400 pound gorilla wanted to do harm to the child, the child would probably be dead. The fact that the child was in there for 10 minutes and the gorilla moved the child WITHOUT seriously injuring him should suggest to people that the gorilla was being decent to the kid.

I think that is important to note. It's one thing the gorilla had to die, but do we also have to act like it beat a child? Can't we at least honor the gorilla by suggesting that it actually behaved pretty decently to a child who invaded its space?

I get that it was dangerous because the gorilla could have hurt the child even if he didn't intend to. But it is pretty remarkable that the kid was in there for 10 minutes and wasn't seriously injured.

I think you're projecting. Pointing out the original articles (and police report) said the kid was seriously injured by a violent gorilla isn't being hostile. I'm only guessing the articles were updated, I haven't been checking them a hundred times a day and I'm sure a lot of the other posters haven't either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read one article where a witness said she heard the kid telling the mother that he wanted to go into the moat. And the mother kept saying no.

So it isn't like the kid fell in. He was *trying* to get in, and the mother knew he wanted to go in.

Yeah, it probably looked like fun. For everyone who says the a 4 year old "should have known better," or "should have minded," keep in mind that this is a little kid. He's not the equivalent of a 36 year old man who wanted to get a selfie with a rattle snake while in Yellowstone.

He's also not the first kid to get into a gorilla habitat, although the one he got into took more effort than some:

Jersey Zoo in the UK 1986

Brookfield Zoo in Chicago 1996

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one article where a witness said she heard the kid telling the mother that he wanted to go into the moat. And the mother kept saying no.

So it isn't like the kid fell in. He was *trying* to get in, and the mother knew he wanted to go in.

Yeah, it probably looked like fun. For everyone who says the a 4 year old "should have known better," or "should have minded," keep in mind that this is a little kid. He's not the equivalent of a 36 year old man who wanted to get a selfie with a rattle snake while in Yellowstone.

He's also not the first kid to get into a gorilla habitat, although the one he got into took more effort than some:

Jersey Zoo in the UK 1986

Brookfield Zoo in Chicago 1996

+1 A 4 year old literally cannot understand the danger. And 4 year olds do not have adequate impulse control. It's why a 4 year old still generally can't be trusted to cross a road alone. The parent should have been paying more attention or holding the child's hand if the enclosure was not secure c

[Anonymous]

How many of you have been to this exact zoo? Because the only person on this thread who says they have also says it would be easy to happen very quickly based on the set up they saw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of you have been to this exact zoo? Because the only person on this thread who says they have also says it would be easy to happen very quickly based on the set up they saw.

Sure, especially when the kid says he wants to go in and the mother does nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of you have been to this exact zoo? Because the only person on this thread who says they have also says it would be easy to happen very quickly based on the set up they saw.

And yet... there have not been other cases. Because nothing is fool-proof, and having a modicum of responsibility and common sense is critical even in the most secure enclosure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you have been to this exact zoo? Because the only person on this thread who says they have also says it would be easy to happen very quickly based on the set up they saw.

Sure, especially when the kid says he wants to go in and the mother does nothing.

So says one witness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you have been to this exact zoo? Because the only person on this thread who says they have also says it would be easy to happen very quickly based on the set up they saw.

Sure, especially when the kid says he wants to go in and the mother does nothing.

So says one witness.

Is there a witness saying that he said nothing and just got in there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of you have been to this exact zoo? Because the only person on this thread who says they have also says it would be easy to happen very quickly based on the set up they saw.

I grew up in Cincinnati and have been to the zoo many times and have subsequently returned over the years and have taken my kids there. I'm having a hard time imagining how a kid could get in - it's very secure. I place blame with the parent(s) and the child. A four year old
is old enough to know better.

[Anonymous]

Another witness saw him, tried to grab him, and instructed the boy to come back. The brat didn't listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously the child should have been saved, but those parents are responsible for the death of the gorilla and should be held responsible.

+1. the parents should be fined or have to do community service.

+1

+1000

The mother was 100% negligent to bring 4 very young children without assistance.

Hope he didn't suffer.

And most zoos are just terrible. This enclosure looked terrible. Humans suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one article where a witness said she heard the kid telling the mother that he wanted to go into the moat. And the mother kept saying no.

So it isn't like the kid fell in. He was *trying* to get in, and the mother knew he wanted to go in.

Yeah, it probably looked like fun. For everyone who says the a 4 year old "should have known better," or "should have minded," keep in mind that this is a little kid. He's not the equivalent of a 36 year old man who wanted to get a selfie with a rattle snake while in Yellowstone.

He's also not the first kid to get into a gorilla habitat, although the one he got into took more effort than some:

Jersey Zoo in the UK 1986

Brookfield Zoo in Chicago 1996

+1 A 4 year old literally cannot understand the danger. And 4 year olds do not have adequate impulse control. It's why a 4 year old still generally can't be trusted to cross a road alone. The parent should have been paying more attention or holding the child's hand if the enclosure was not secure c

Horse hockey. When my children were 4 yrs old they knew that when I said "no" it meant no. Kid was a damn brat and an animal is dead because of him. They should have shot the kid with a tranquilizer and the gorilla trainer could have gone in and taken him out. I won't say rescued because the gorilla was more civilized than the 4 he old brat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read one article where a witness said she heard the kid telling the mother that he wanted to go into the moat. And the mother kept saying no.

So it isn't like the kid fell in. He was *trying* to get in, and the mother knew he wanted to go in.

Yeah, it probably looked like fun. For everyone who says the a 4 year old "should have known better," or "should have minded," keep in mind that this is a little kid. He's not the equivalent of a 36 year old man who wanted to get a selfie with a rattle snake while in Yellowstone.

He's also not the first kid to get into a gorilla habitat, although the one he got into took more effort than some:

Jersey Zoo in the UK 1986

Brookfield Zoo in Chicago 1996

+1 A 4 year old literally cannot understand the danger. And 4 year olds do not have adequate impulse control. It's why a 4 year old still generally can't be trusted to cross a road alone. The parent should have been paying more attention or holding the child's hand if the enclosure was not secure c

Horse hockey. When my children were 4 yrs old they knew that when I said "no" it meant no. Kid was a damn brat and an animal is dead because of him. They should have shot the kid with a tranquilizer and the gorilla trainer could have gone in and taken him out. I won't say rescued because the gorilla was more civilized than the 4 he old brat.

When you sober up, I hope you have the good grace to regret writing this horrible post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate zoos - animals should not be put on display for our amusement. Maybe the poor gorilla is better off dead. Maybe. I don't know.

Would you be better off dead?

Possibly, if I were in a zoo like environment.