What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Gorilla Rescues Toddler at Zoo, Gorilla Euthanized (2 Viewers)

Vote Trump head zookeeper and we'll get a tremendous fence for that enclosure.  And the gorillas will pay for it too, I'll tell you that.

 
Thread title confuses me...even after the spelling correction...

What, exactly...did the gorilla rescue the kid from?

 
BustedKnuckles said:
or '' 3 year old does the impossible and climbs a 3 foot railing and crawls thru a bush to fall into a 15 foot high moat with 400 lb gorillas roaming around''
Click to expand...
Or you could say

or '' 3 year old does the impossible and climbs a 3 foot railing and crawls thru a bush to fall into a 15 foot high moat around the Gloriana enclosure - 400 lb gorilla climbs down and starts dragging kid through the water and gets shot"

but I doubt that would fit in the title box on FBG FFA...

 
Rove! said:
Or you could say

or '' 3 year old does the impossible and climbs a 3 foot railing and crawls thru a bush to fall into a 15 foot high moat around the Gloriana enclosure - 400 lb gorilla climbs down and starts dragging kid through the water and gets shot"

but I doubt that would fit in the title box on FBG FFA...
Click to expand...
or ''Dumb kids who do dumb things and have dumb parents''

 
Gary Coal Man said:
Not sure if pictures of the fence separating the public from the gorilla enclosure have been posted yet, but this is an exceptionally weak barricade to prevent the public from entering the enclosure.  Especially when you know that kids who are not as mature or prone to exercise as good judgment as adults will regularly be involved.

Fence 1

Fence 2

Diagram of barrier and enclosure
Click to expand...
It would take a kid about three seconds to make a dash for the barrier and be in the moat....

terrible

 
Peebles Pet Shop has a gorilla for sale, goes by the name of Magilla.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
eoMMan said:
Hey guys....please don't forget about Cecil too. Keep him in your hearts.
Click to expand...
Too bad this all happened so fast.  The zoo could have made a fortune auctioning off the kill shot to the highest bidder.  I would imagine one of these small penis big game hunters would pay quite a bit more to not have to go all the way to Africa.

 
cincredfan said:
To be honest the kid is a complete fool as well.  None of my kids would have ever been that dumb to have done this.  Dumb parents and dumb kid.
Click to expand...
Disagree -- kids at that age essentially have no agency. Remember you're talking about a three-year-old.

 
Gary Coal Man said:
Not sure if pictures of the fence separating the public from the gorilla enclosure have been posted yet, but this is an exceptionally weak barricade to prevent the public from entering the enclosure.  Especially when you know that kids who are not as mature or prone to exercise as good judgment as adults will regularly be involved.

Fence 1

Fence 2

Diagram of barrier and enclosure
Click to expand...
I went to the Cardinals game last night.  While there, I took these 2 pictures while specifically thinking of the gorilla incident:

Railing at stadium

3 year old girl in front of railing

Reasons why I'm posting this:

1)  Like the zoo, a baseball game is considered a pretty safe event.  Even the foul ball argument wouldn't really apply where we were sitting.  Family event, tons of kids everywhere, not considered a dangerous activity whatsoever.

2)  That railing is no more than 3 feet in height and probably closer to 2 1/2 feet.  Not really any different than the zoo enclosure.

3)  If that girl went over that railing, she would almost certainly die immediately as the fall is probably 30-40 feet (at least) unlike the zoo enclosure with bushes and then a moat.

4)  If that mother sitting next to her didn't watch her "for a second", she could easily stand up and go over that edge in a matter of moments.  In fact, the girl got up at one point to look around and the mother was holding onto her pants to make sure she didn't get too close to the railing.

Kids regularly go to these games.  Kids regularly sit in these seats.  If a kid were to topple over the edge, does that mean that the stadium now needs to put up huge railings and/or plexiglass in front of seats like this to keep it from happening again?  Or, is it just reasonable to expect that there are dangerous places that you need to watch your children a bit more closely?  I've been to the Cincinnati Zoo as well as others, and if you walk up to an exhibit that has that kind of fence, you make sure you watch your children more attentively.  It's as simple as that.  Yes, we've all had moments as parents where things can happen in a second when you turn your head, look at your phone, etc.  But the zoo isn't just 4 hours of dangerous animals and standing next to fences like that.  You walk for several minutes then come up to the exhibit.  When I get up to that exhibit with that kind of fence, I make sure I watch more closely.  When I'm walking the path, I can relax a bit more.  It just isn't complicated. 

I would argue that the seats at the baseball game where that girl was sitting are far more dangerous to her (and anyone else) than that gorilla exhibit.  Yet that exists all the way around the stadium without specific signs saying to "be careful".  It's a 3 hour game where it would be really easy to tune out and not pay attention to your kid.  But if my kid was either looking over the edge or kept getting up or expressed any kind of desire to get near the railing or want to go over it ("Mommy, I'm going to go see the gorillas"), then I'd make sure I had my eyes on her for the entire 3 hours or I'd leave knowing the potential consequences if I didn't watch her for "just a second" and she went over.  Much like crawling through that fence. 

 
Also, I'd actually fault the zoo more if the fence they had up gave some false sense of security that it was meant to definitively keep children out but didn't do so.  But, based on those pictures (and what I remembered), that clearly isn't the case.  That fence is clearly accessible if someone wanted to get through (much like the railing in my picture above) and indicates nothing more than a boundary and general barrier but not a license to let children roam free.  And I don't think the zoo is obligated to put up anything more than that just like I don't expect sidewalks or escalators to have childproof railings or any other number of daily "safe" activities that still require parental supervision when a young child is in tow.  To me, that fence is more than adequate and the fact that 38 years has passed without incident seems to go along with that line of thinking. 

The same way that kids tragically get hit by cars  or fall out of upper story windows or get run over by lawn mowers when their parents "turn away for a second", this kid suffered a similar a fate (and luckily without serious injury or death), but because of it's uniqueness and national notoriety, the blame is being shifted to the zoo when in reality it should still remain with the parent the same way it always has been since people have had children.  Any parents that look at that barrier as they walk up to the gorilla exhibit and are filled with a sense of security that their child will be kept safe need some instruction on what young children can and will do.  I'm not saying the zoo shouldn't have handled the gorilla the way they did once it happened, but those parents bear full responsibility for everything that happened, even though it was a mistake and unintentional.  Not that fence.

 
Gary Coal Man said:
Not sure if pictures of the fence separating the public from the gorilla enclosure have been posted yet, but this is an exceptionally weak barricade to prevent the public from entering the enclosure.  Especially when you know that kids who are not as mature or prone to exercise as good judgment as adults will regularly be involved.

Fence 1

Fence 2

Diagram of barrier and enclosure
Click to expand...
Wtf were the people earlier in this thread that said they frequent this zoo and that the "barrier" is nearly impossible to breach?

 
gianmarco said:
I went to the Cardinals game last night.  While there, I took these 2 pictures while specifically thinking of the gorilla incident:

Railing at stadium

3 year old girl in front of railing

Reasons why I'm posting this:

1)  Like the zoo, a baseball game is considered a pretty safe event.  Even the foul ball argument wouldn't really apply where we were sitting.  Family event, tons of kids everywhere, not considered a dangerous activity whatsoever.

2)  That railing is no more than 3 feet in height and probably closer to 2 1/2 feet.  Not really any different than the zoo enclosure.

3)  If that girl went over that railing, she would almost certainly die immediately as the fall is probably 30-40 feet (at least) unlike the zoo enclosure with bushes and then a moat.

4)  If that mother sitting next to her didn't watch her "for a second", she could easily stand up and go over that edge in a matter of moments.  In fact, the girl got up at one point to look around and the mother was holding onto her pants to make sure she didn't get too close to the railing.

Kids regularly go to these games.  Kids regularly sit in these seats.  If a kid were to topple over the edge, does that mean that the stadium now needs to put up huge railings and/or plexiglass in front of seats like this to keep it from happening again?  Or, is it just reasonable to expect that there are dangerous places that you need to watch your children a bit more closely?  I've been to the Cincinnati Zoo as well as others, and if you walk up to an exhibit that has that kind of fence, you make sure you watch your children more attentively.  It's as simple as that.  Yes, we've all had moments as parents where things can happen in a second when you turn your head, look at your phone, etc.  But the zoo isn't just 4 hours of dangerous animals and standing next to fences like that.  You walk for several minutes then come up to the exhibit.  When I get up to that exhibit with that kind of fence, I make sure I watch more closely.  When I'm walking the path, I can relax a bit more.  It just isn't complicated. 

I would argue that the seats at the baseball game where that girl was sitting are far more dangerous to her (and anyone else) than that gorilla exhibit.  Yet that exists all the way around the stadium without specific signs saying to "be careful".  It's a 3 hour game where it would be really easy to tune out and not pay attention to your kid.  But if my kid was either looking over the edge or kept getting up or expressed any kind of desire to get near the railing or want to go over it ("Mommy, I'm going to go see the gorillas"), then I'd make sure I had my eyes on her for the entire 3 hours or I'd leave knowing the potential consequences if I didn't watch her for "just a second" and she went over.  Much like crawling through that fence. 
Click to expand...
At least the girl would have trouble getting through that fence at the baseball game.  She might be able to climb over it with enough time, but that "fence" at the gorilla exhibit literally may as well not even exist.  It wouldn't slow a kid down for one second.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
At least the girl would have trouble getting through that fence at the baseball game.  She might be able to climb over it with enough time, but that "fence" at the gorilla exhibit literally may as well not even exist.  It wouldn't slow a kid down for one second.
Click to expand...
No, she would have no trouble at all.  That fence is about the height of 2 beer bottles (look at the cup holder in relation to the size of the fence).  The concrete portion below is maybe 8 inches?  It goes to about the height of that guy's socks so look at your own feet to get an idea.  That 3 yr old girl was easily taller than that fence when she stood up.  It takes leaning over to look at something below and she's gone. 

I completely disagree about the zoo fence.  It should exist and it serves the purpose of letting you know which side you need to be on.  If you are with a young child, especially one that has the propensity to go somewhere he/she shouldn't, then you don't just turn the kid loose when approaching an exhibit with that kind of fence.  You hold their hand and look at the exhibit with them.  Yeah, if we just threw a group of 3-4 year olds in that area and left them alone, of course they could get through that fence without difficulty.  Same could happen if you put a group of those kids on a sidewalk next to a street.  But obviously you don't do that as a caregiver. 

Having been at both locales, I would choose the zoo exhibit with their fence even with lions and tigers on the other side over the railing we were by yesterday in terms of "safety".  And it's not even close.  And I don't think the railing at the ballpark is unsafe.  It just requires supervision.

 
Buzzbait said:
What in the world are you talking about? I neither said or suggested ladders on both sides.
Click to expand...
You were complaining the gorillas had a ladder on their side of the moat but the humans didn't have a ladder on their side. If we added a ladder to the human side it would indeed help the hmans who happed to gfall in but could also possible be used by the gorillas. I know I'm drunk but this seems very clear to me.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
You were complaining the gorillas had a ladder on their side of the moat but the humans didn't have a ladder on their side. If we added a ladder to the human side it would indeed help the hmans who happed to gfall in but could also possible be used by the gorillas. I know I'm drunk but this seems very clear to me.
Click to expand...
Completely incorrect. Keep drinking. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
You were complaining the gorillas had a ladder on their side of the moat but the humans didn't have a ladder on their side. If we added a ladder to the human side it would indeed help the hmans who happed to gfall in but could also possible be used by the gorillas. I know I'm drunk but this seems very clear to me.
Click to expand...
Quez was the one that asked about the point of the moat if the gorillas could just go down into it. Buzzbait was just pointing out that there were only ladders back up on the gorilla side in response to that. He was neither complaining nor recommending ladders on the other side. 

It was an enjoyable exchange between you two, though.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Wtf were the people earlier in this thread that said they frequent this zoo and that the "barrier" is nearly impossible to breach?
Click to expand...
I know it wasn't me.  What I said is that I'm amazed a kid got through there without anyone noticing.  That exhibit is one of the most popular and is usually crowded.  

 
Willie Neslon said:
I guess it's because a majestic, helpless animal was kidnapped and jailed for life so dip####s could stare at him and eat popcorn.  Then one day a family wearing burger king t-shirts showed up and took their eye off their 3 year old as he crawled into the gorilla exhibit. Because of that an awesome animal who did nothing wrong except being born on earth got shot between the eyes. That's why people are pissed. It's all good though as the kid is fine and will be able to drink Dr. Pepper for the next 40 years until his diabetes death reunites him with the innocent animal.
Click to expand...
I never stop sliding Willie up my list of people I look forward to reading in this forum. Always lands the plane right down on the issue at hand. 

 
I didn't want to enter this thread when the event happened, I was outraged by the family and the zoo officials. I understand the gorilla could have snapped the kid in two but he didn't. In fact he almost looks like he is protecting the child and wanting folks outside the pen to come get him. He jumped down into the water in all likelihood not chasing a bone like a dog but rather jumping into action. I can't really interpret a gorilla's brain but he seemed to be looking up towards the people for help as if to say how did you all allow this to happen?

I also understand that some feel the gorilla was playing basketball or soon would be with the kid, I get it. But there has to be some sort of risk in entering the zoo, like your kid falls into the entrapment, we'll try to tranquilize the animal but we are not going to euthanize it just because you jump into the enclosure. We could have a mass Peta Jihadist where they go one by one into the animal enclosures because they feel those animals are being mistreated and prefer a forced euthanization over forced captivity for them. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
I didn't want to enter this thread when the event happened, I was outraged by the family and the zoo officials. I understand the gorilla could have snapped the kid in two but he didn't. In fact he almost looks like he is protecting the child and wanting folks outside the pen to come get him. He jumped down into the water in all likelihood not chasing a bone like a dog but rather jumping into action. I can't really interpret a gorilla's brain but he seemed to be looking up towards the people for help as if to say how did you all allow this to happen?

I also understand that some feel the gorilla was playing basketball or soon would be with the kid, I get it. But there has to be some sort of risk in entering the zoo, like your kid falls into the entrapment, we'll try to tranquilize the animal but we are not going to euthanize it just because you jump into the enclosure. We could have a mass Peta Jihadist where they go one by one into the animal enclosures because they feel those animals are being mistreated and prefer a forced euthanization over forced captivity for them. 
Click to expand...
At what point do you decide to just keep typing and double down on your insanity?  Most people would simply stop and delete, but kudos to you for going ahead and finishing it up and sending it.

 
BigJohn said:
No charges for the parents. 
Click to expand...
Link in case someone seeks one. Interesting me that the prosecutor happened to have a totally opposite take than a good number of FFA folks about the following:
 

"By all accounts, this mother did not act in any way where she presented this child to some harm," Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph Deters said.

"She had three other kids with her and turned her back. ... And if anyone doesn't believe a 3-year-old can scamper off very quickly, they've never had kids."
Click to expand...
Is this the kind of thing about which reasonable, earnest people can disagree? Or is the prosecutor just miles off here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad Mommy Zoo cartoon in Boston Globe. Article at HuffPo:
 

[Artist Sage] Stossel told The Huffington Post that she was struck by the public’s response to the tragic incident. “So many people’s first instinct was to criticize and make assumptions about the mother, instead of more empathetically recognizing that it could happen to anyone,” she said.

“Just before I heard about the zoo incident, a friend had been telling me about the nightmare of briefly losing her son at a carnival when she turned to fish something out of her bag for her older child,” she added. “And my own first thought on hearing the Cincinnati news was that it totally sounded like something my 2-year-old might do.”

Observing the extreme criticism the Cincinnati Zoo mom received, Stossel came up with the idea of a zoo where people “gawk at” and condemn different kinds of moms.

“My point isn’t that these are in fact bad mothers but that pretty much any kind of mother, raising her kids in just about any way, can be  — and probably has been or will be at some point! — accused of being a bad mother,” the cartoonist told HuffPost.”And I should note that more than a few of the Bad Mommy categories in the cartoon apply to me ...”
Click to expand...

 
Doug B said:
Link in case someone seeks one. Interesting me that the prosecutor happened to have a totally opposite take than a good number of FFA folks about the following:
 

Is this the kind of thing about which reasonable, earnest people can disagree? Or is the prosecutor just miles off here?
Click to expand...
Earnest people can disagree. The second this hit the news tons of people jumped all over the mother without having a f'ing clue as to what transpired. If she had been ignoring her child, not watching then yeah...she'd have something coming. If what Deters is saying is true (she had other kids, turned her back for just a second and he scampered into the enclosure) then there isn't much anyone can do. Earnest, reasonable people (esp. those with kids) can agree with that statement. Those with pitchforks who insist that someone needs to burn are going to form a lynch mob.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
I didn't want to enter this thread when the event happened, I was outraged by the family and the zoo officials. I understand the gorilla could have snapped the kid in two but he didn't. In fact he almost looks like he is protecting the child and wanting folks outside the pen to come get him. He jumped down into the water in all likelihood not chasing a bone like a dog but rather jumping into action. I can't really interpret a gorilla's brain but he seemed to be looking up towards the people for help as if to say how did you all allow this to happen?

I also understand that some feel the gorilla was playing basketball or soon would be with the kid, I get it. But there has to be some sort of risk in entering the zoo, like your kid falls into the entrapment, we'll try to tranquilize the animal but we are not going to euthanize it just because you jump into the enclosure. We could have a mass Peta Jihadist where they go one by one into the animal enclosures because they feel those animals are being mistreated and prefer a forced euthanization over forced captivity for them. 
Click to expand...
As Jayrod said way to double (triple?) down. This whole post is ridicules (from the being "outraged" without knowing all the facts to the preposterous idea that if a human child is in danger too bad for them).

 
Buzzbait said:
As Jayrod said way to double (triple?) down. This whole post is ridicules (from the being "outraged" without knowing all the facts to the preposterous idea that if a human child is in danger too bad for them).
Click to expand...
What facts have not been presented to the public that all powerful and knowing Buzzby has that we all need to know about? How dare you or anyone else attack me for voicing my opinion. Idiots try and rip people apart rather than engage in actual discussion of ideas. You do that out of fear of your own ideas being torn apart which I in no way was doing. I don't think any of the previous posts go after anyone individually so why am I getting special treatment? 

And this is how you feel you should treat people when engaging in debate? 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
What facts have not been presented to the public that all powerful and knowing Buzzby has that we all need to know about? How dare you or anyone else attack me for voicing my opinion. Idiots try and rip people apart rather than engage in actual discussion of ideas. You do that out of fear of your own ideas being torn apart which I in no way was doing. I don't think any of the previous posts go after anyone individually so why am I getting special treatment? 

And this is how you feel you should treat people when engaging in debate? 
Click to expand...
Settle down Francis. I think you're overreacting. If you're so offended that I called your post "ridicules" (because there was no other "attack") then you may need to grow a second skin.

I'm typically very measured in my responses but when people continue to put forth "opinions" that it's in any way shape or form OK to guess the gorilla's intentions (because that's exactly what it is) and put a child at risk then yeah...I'm going to call that notion ridicules. You know who else agrees with me? Jack Hanna, Julia Gallucci (primatologist for PETA...yeah that's right PETA!!) and Jerry Stones (Harambee's original keeper). They apparently understand that human beings trump a 450lb unpredictable animals who can crush coconut's ease.

You want to question the idea that animals should keep in captivity or that the enclosure wasn't adequate then that's an intelligent discussion to be had. You want to double, triple or quadruple down on what needed to be done to guarantee the safety of a human being then I'm going to call it ridicules (doubling down).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

supermike80
Thread---Marital Advice
2
Replies
70
Views
2K
coopersdad
C
dkp993
Vegas just isn’t fun anymore….
6 7 8
Replies
372
Views
12K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
Joe Bryant
Scottie Sheffler On Defining "Success"
6 7 8
Replies
374
Views
10K
Instinctive
Instinctive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top