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 (1 Viewer)

Heard on the radio that the exhibit is scheduled to reopen Saturday with some changes to the rail.

 
How about a sign that reads:  Unsupervised kids who break into any exhibit will be left to fend for their own.  Parents of said kids will be shot.  

 
This Zoo has a long way to go before being safe. 

They have trash cans that people could dive into and not get out of and suffocate. So they need to remove all of them. 

 They have plastic forks at the snack bar that if you jabbed into your eye,  you could seriously be injured. We need to get warning labels printed on those forks right away.

 They have trees that peole could climb on and if you fell from one of them, it would be all over. So they need to either put fences around those trees or better yet just cut them all down.

This zoo is just a freaking death trap. 

 
Daywalker said:
The subway nor standing on the side of a freeway is an amusement park.  Different expectations of safety.  
Click to expand...
Wait, wat?  You don't expect to be safe in a subway station?

maybe they don't let kids ride the subway?  Or maybe nobody has ever been injured in the last 38 years on a subway platform?

 
Courtjester said:
This Zoo has a long way to go before being safe. 

They have trash cans that people could dive into and not get out of and suffocate. So they need to remove all of them. 

 They have plastic forks at the snack bar that if you jabbed into your eye,  you could seriously be injured. We need to get warning labels printed on those forks right away.

 They have trees that peole could climb on and if you fell from one of them, it would be all over. So they need to either put fences around those trees or better yet just cut them all down.

This zoo is just a freaking death trap. 
Click to expand...
They also have animals that can kill children by accident just by picking them up like a rag doll or biting them once.

 
Sinn Fein said:
And there was nothing "broken" with the exterior barriers.  Kid climbed a fence, went through 4 feet of bushes, and fell.  Everything was where it was supposed to be.  
Click to expand...
Up until today, accounts seemed to be split about whether the child scaled the fence or went underneath it. Most of what I'm looking at today seems to be converging on "he went over it", so OK.

Consider, though: if "everything was as it was supposed to be", then the exhibit should be re-opening with no changes. But it seems there will be changes to the railing. So ... ?

 
Doug B said:
Up until today, accounts seemed to be split about whether the child scaled the fence or went underneath it. Most of what I'm looking at today seems to be converging on "he went over it", so OK.

Consider, though: if "everything was as it was supposed to be", then the exhibit should be re-opening with no changes. But it seems there will be changes to the railing. So ... ?
Click to expand...
So?  It does not make the zoo negligent, nor liable here...

 
General Malaise said:
How about a sign that reads:  Unsupervised kids who break into any exhibit will be left to fend for their own.  Parents of said kids will be shot.  
Click to expand...
I think I may be O.K. with a rule that says animals making it to people walkways and facilities will be shot, and people making it to animal habitats will be shot, discretion  to be used in boundary areas between worlds.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
So in a subway I have to parent nonstop, but at a zoo or amusement park my parenting can be a little more lax?
Click to expand...
I would feel the need to hold the hand of a 3-year-old on a subway platform or standing next to traffic.  I would be a bit more lax walking around an amusement park or the mall.

 
Daywalker said:
I would feel the need to hold the hand of a 3-year-old on a subway platform or standing next to traffic.  I would be a bit more lax walking around an amusement park or the mall.
Click to expand...
Both of those places can be dangerous as well. In fact, taking your eyes off of your 4 year old for (and I've seen quotes of anywhere from 10 seconds and up to a minute) a short period of time could lead to tragedy at either :shrug:

Same as a zoo.

 
Sinn Fein said:
So?  It does not make the zoo negligent, nor liable here...
Click to expand...
Not my point.

Zoo director expresses confidence that everything in place was correct, up to code, etc. If you're right, you're right. So any changes made to the exhibit before re-opening ... what are those changes for? 38 years without an incident -- what are the changes for? Zoo's not getting sued, nothing's at stake here -- what are the changes for?

Why isn't the zoo director digging in and asserting in plain language that "nothing needs to be changed"?

 
Doug B said:
Not my point.

Zoo director expresses confidence that everything in place was correct, up to code, etc. If you're right, you're right. So any changes made to the exhibit before re-opening ... what are those changes for? 38 years without an incident -- what are the changes for? Zoo's not getting sued, nothing's at stake here -- what are the changes for?

Why isn't the zoo director digging in and asserting in plain language that "nothing needs to be changed"?
Click to expand...
The zoo director apparently has too much faith in people not being morons and a 15 foot drop into a moat behind a fence being sufficient. Unfortunately, people are gigantic morons and anything short of a bulletproof glass enclosed dome won't be good enough.

 
Doug B said:
Not a lawyer, but I feel safe in saying that the bolded wouldn't matter at all in court. Seems that "a four-year old got in" is auto-negligence, regardless of any and all facts -- and regardless of any parental actions** short of purposefully throwing their child into the enclosure.

No word about how, specifically, the child got in, huh?

** I definitely agree that the parents dropped the ball all over the place. It's just that a zoo has to be safe-ish even for negligent families. Maybe that's an unfair standard, dunno.
Click to expand...
This is kind of how the whole conversation started...so, back to my point.  Any changes they make now do not establish that the zoo was somehow negligent prior to the changes...

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
Different incident.  W/O going back and rereading I believe the arm thing came about when two polar bears got into an accessway they were not meant to access.
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks, thought I missed a big part of the incident.

Limp Ditka said:
are you suggesting that they'd refrain from shooting an animal after it removes a body part?
Click to expand...
Nope, solely suggesting that I couldn't believe I missed that part of the story and couldn't figure out how someone lost an arm when they shot the ape. I was wondering if they sent in the junior zookeeper and then went with plan B and shot the ape.

 
Sinn Fein said:
This is kind of how the whole conversation started...so, back to my point.  Any changes they make now do not establish that the zoo was somehow negligent prior to the changes...
Click to expand...
As it's unfolding, it's looking like you're right about this and the zoo will not be taken to court.

Still, it's highly likely enclosure standards will change in response to this incident -- so the standard of negligence isn't going to be the same going forward.

Opinion only: if the family were inclined to take this to court, and get this in front of a non-expert jury, the zoo could well be found negligent. Maybe not in a real-world sense, but in that courtroom on that day ... the zoo would face a steep uphill climb.

 
Doug B said:
As it's unfolding, it's looking like you're right about this and the zoo will not be taken to court.

Still, it's highly likely enclosure standards will change in response to this incident -- so the standard of negligence isn't going to be the same going forward.

Opinion only: if the family were inclined to take this to court, and get this in front of a non-expert jury, the zoo could well be found negligent. Maybe not in a real-world sense, but in that courtroom on that day ... the zoo would face a steep uphill climb.
Click to expand...
Zoo would never let it get to court.  This would settle - 100Kish.  No significant injuries to the kid, Mom can't sue for her own emotional distress, and she has her own liability issues here.  Zoo does not want a suit in the news, and the insurer (assuming its not self-insured) would likely settle this for a nuisance amount with or without the Zoos approval.

Zoos, like Cincinnati, are striving to find that balance between having the animals locked up in boxes/cages and providing them with a more natural environment.   The more open the environment - the better for the animal's health and welfare, but the greater risk to the public.  The key is finding that appropriate amount of risk.  If it ever gets to the point where the public will not accept any risk greater than a cage/box - its time to shut down the zoos to the public.

 
Rush Limbaugh's commentary:

A lot of people think that all of us used to be apes. Don’t doubt me on this. A lot of people think that all of us used to be gorillas.

If we were the original apes, then how come Harambe is still an ape?  And how come he didn’t become one of us?
Click to expand...
:shock:

 
Interesting article about Harambe's original caretaker.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/31/harambes-caretaker-he-like-one-my-sons/85216356/
 

A few excerpts:

While Stones remembered Harambe as peaceful and playful, he said gorillas possess tremendous strength and can be very dangerous. “I could go in the cage with him and he would not attack me, but he might accidentally kill me just by playing,” said Stones.

“Ninety-nine percent of people, on both sides of the fence, pro or con, don’t have a clue what they’re talking about and I’m not going to comment on it. I wasn’t there and they weren’t either” 

Most people I've read commenting on the fact that Harambe had to be put down have been logical and reasonable. A few however are obtuse and keep going back to "it looked like he was saving the child" and "we don't know for sure that he would have harmed the child." The above from the caretaker pretty much sums it up. The life of a human being is in the balance and it's an unpredictable 450 gorilla. I don't know that any more needs to be said to justify the kill.

 
Cincinnati police don't recommend criminal charges in gorilla case

Police have wrapped up their investigation without recommending charges against the mother of a 3-year-old boy who witnesses said fell into the gorilla exhibit at the Cincinnati Zoo, according to a source close to the investigation.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said in an interview that the Cincinnati Police Department asked his office to look at the investigation, and he agreed. He expects that review will happen Thursday, with a possible determination made by Friday.
 
Click to expand...


Deters appears to have the power to override the police and press charges on his own. But the child's mother has at least cleared the first potential legal hurdle.

 
Doug B said:
Cincinnati police don't recommend criminal charges in gorilla case

Deters appears to have the power to override the police and press charges on his own. But the child's mother has at least cleared the first potential legal hurdle.
Click to expand...
I don't know that override is the right phrase. If they determined that charges shouldn't be pressed then I don't know that Deters would volunteer to get involved. In this case it seems the police asked for Deters input. Almost seems like they aren't 100% sure and want validation.

 
I keep thinking that I can't loose any more faith in humanity.  

Congrats, Internet, you've done the unthinkable.  You've made me have even less respect for my fellow humans.

I'm just speechless.  Really.  People are such freaking ridiculous outrageous idiots.  It would be funny, if it weren't horrible. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Any changes [the Cincinnati Zoo makes] now do not establish that the zoo was somehow negligent prior to the changes.
Click to expand...
Another perspective, though your point about "prior to changes" still holds up in this view:
 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 2, 2016): Putting aside who might bring such a law suit, it is likely that the Cincinnati Zoo would be found negligent, and therefore legally liable, for failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent young children and perhaps others from getting into the Harambe gorilla enclosure, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who has helped provide the legal theories behind many successful torts cases.

In any event, the key legal issue would be whether what happened was foreseeable enough that the zoo should have taken additional precautions, beyond a 3-foot high fence and some brush, to guard against what in fact occurred, says Banzhaf.

However, what is now very clear is that, since the event did occur, all zoos with similar layouts are now on legal notice that it can happen again, and because the law imposes additional duties once what may in the past have been unthinkable has in fact occurred, they will all have to rethink their current systems.

...

For example, prior to 1982, virtually all over-the-counter drugs were sold in drug stores without any tamper-resistant containers because it was not reasonably foreseeable that a deranged person would open them, and surreptitiously replace the legitimate capsules with ones laced with potassium cyanide.

But once it did occur in Chicago, all drug companies were on notice – i.e. such an event became foreseeable – and they were under a new clear legal duty to take reasonable steps, such as using tamper-resistant packaging, to prevent any re-occurrence.
Click to expand...
Banzhaf  goes on to make a few other comparisons to events that changed the perceived reasonableness of certain public precautions. A few other assertions, with which I know not everyone here will agree:
 

Whether or not the child’s mother was also negligent for failing to supervise her son is legally irrelevant, since any such parental neglect is of course foreseeable, especially given the large number of young children who visit the zoo annually.

In other words, institutions must generally anticipate – foresee – that at least a few of their many visitors will be careless, says Banzhaf. Indeed, very young children all too often get separated from parents – in many public places including zoos – when the latter are distracted.

...

One thing, however, is clear: all zoos are now on notice that situations such as this can occur where similar low fences are being used. This is true even if federal standards do not require more, since juries are free to impose liability even if all government-mandated requirements are met.

If zoos fail to modify their systems so as to prevent a re-occurrence, they can be held liable in court for negligence, and in the court of public opinion for not learning from the Harambe’s tragic death.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
shuke said:
Heard on the radio that the exhibit is scheduled to reopen Saturday with some changes to the rail.
Click to expand...
We're going to build a wall. It's going to be a big wall, a great wall. And we're going to make the gorillas pay for it.  

 
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

 




on 6/2/16 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.Quote
This web site has gone FUBAR with quoting......unreal.

Anyway.....I see nothing wrong with those pictures....what I see is a parent who could not control their 3 year old. Sorry.....but letting a 3 year old out of your sight around 600 pound gorilla's long enough to climb up and fall down into the preserve is a moron. Pretty simple.

How many years without a single incident? Yeah blame the fence. No I blame the parents. Period. You don't allow a toddler/little kid loose in a Zoo. When you're looking at a gorilla, or lion or any wild animal exhibit and you see it can be pretty easy for a kid to jump or climb over a fence or slip through.....you hold them/watch them, talk to them and PARENT them. Otherwise you might as well shut all Zoo's down or just put fences so high up....you can't even enjoy watching them in their enclaves. Forget whether you agree with animals in captivity or whatever....people want to be able to enjoy seeing the animals without giant walls or fences taking up the entire view. Parents need to have control of their kids. And yes I am a father. I have taken my kids to plenty of wild animal exhibits etc I never let them out of my sight for a second. I was always watching them like a hawk. Talking to them about how to observe them, not climbing or running around like it is a play ground.....because it is not.

Seriously.

I think this whole idea that the Zoo provided inadequate fencing is absurd. Sorry I do. But the fact is they are going to make some modifications because a parent was unable to watch their child like they are supposed to. This does not happen if either parent is paying any attention to their child/children.

It was the parents fault. All day....everyday. Control your kids.

And this thread title is pure baby back BS.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
I understand this and in principle agree with it.

Here is where it is flawed - you will never rid the world of irresponsible morons, never going to happen, not even close. It isn't a child's fault his parents are ####### idiots, at 3 years old you really have a limited concept on just about everything. 

Knowing this, these enclosures just need to be 100% moron-proof, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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...
Graphics catching up with modern America as instead of a stick figure they made the cartoon mom chunky.

-QG

 
Todem said:
on 6/2/16 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.Quote
This web site has gone FUBAR with quoting......unreal.

Anyway.....I see nothing wrong with those pictures....what I see is a parent who could not control their 3 year old. Sorry.....but letting a 3 year old out of your sight around 600 pound gorilla's long enough to climb up and fall down into the preserve is a moron. Pretty simple.

How many years without a single incident? Yeah blame the fence. No I blame the parents. Period. You don't allow a toddler/little kid loose in a Zoo. When you're looking at a gorilla, or lion or any wild animal exhibit and you see it can be pretty easy for a kid to jump or climb over a fence or slip through.....you hold them/watch them, talk to them and PARENT them. Otherwise you might as well shut all Zoo's down or just put fences so high up....you can't even enjoy watching them in their enclaves. Forget whether you agree with animals in captivity or whatever....people want to be able to enjoy seeing the animals without giant walls or fences taking up the entire view. Parents need to have control of their kids. And yes I am a father. I have taken my kids to plenty of wild animal exhibits etc I never let them out of my sight for a second. I was always watching them like a hawk. Talking to them about how to observe them, not climbing or running around like it is a play ground.....because it is not.

Seriously.

I think this whole idea that the Zoo provided inadequate fencing is absurd. Sorry I do. But the fact is they are going to make some modifications because a parent was unable to watch their child like they are supposed to. This does not happen if either parent is paying any attention to their child/children.

It was the parents fault. All day....everyday. Control your kids.

And this thread title is pure baby back BS.
Click to expand...
while i agree with everything you said about the mother and the kid i also think that expecting only reasonable people to visit zoos like  this is absurd...the world is full of idiots ...and having such a weak barrier is a terrible judgment call. The only innocent victim in all of this is the Gorilla 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Have enjoyed some of the memes.  My favorite was posted on FB by an esteemed member of the FBG community:  A picture of Bill Cosby with the caption "I could have tranquilized the gorilla."

 
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
369
Views
11K
zander_s
zander_s
Joe Bryant
Scottie Sheffler On Defining "Success"
Replies
42
Views
819
dickey moe
dickey moe

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top