Gorilla Shot Dead At Cincinnati Zoo After Child Falls Into E

[Murph7355]

Jockman said:

dudleybloke said:

Where's Clarence Beaks when you need him?

Google makes your comment so memorable.....

Or for the younger amongst us, just a good old fashioned memory

[Pesty]

There certainly were a couple of memorable things

[ATG]

J4CKO said:

They should have convicted Peados handy, in such a circumstance they get dressed in a sexy lady Gorilla costume and launched as a decoy.

On the scale of this thread, your suggestion only scores 3 out of 10 for daftness, unfortunately.

I take the view that the situation could have been avoided if more people had guns. If the four year old had come equipped with a 50 cal elephant gun, available at Wall Mart, it probably wouldn't have managed to climb the wall in the first place. If people at least knew there was a chance that the Gorilla was packing heat, they'd think twice before climbing into its enclosure.

[bitchstewie]

ash73 said:

bhstewie said:

What would you do if it was your child and you had a tranquiliser gun and a real gun to hand?

People make that argument all the time with capital punishment etc and it's very silly; as soon as you're emotionally involved you can't make a rational decision.

Fair point, but I think something like capital punishment is very much an emotional thing whilst to me this is a pretty simply one even if it's a bit unsavory.

Reminds me a lot of the "couldn't they shoot him in the leg" comments you see when people freak out and take people hostage etc.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The Spruce goose said:

I have studied Chimps and there are clear signs of aggression and agitation in body language and sounds, which any qualified person could understand.

I think in this case the ape wasn't being aggressive, signs of distress but didn't deserve to die. They should have used distraction techniques first.

You say you have studied chimps. Do you think there is a slight possibility that the gorilla keepers at the zoo who made the decision to shoot it have studied gorillas? Perhaps know a bit about them?

People have mixed feelings about zoos, but I think it's highly unlikely that the people who make a career working in zoos are secretly trigger happy bounty hunters who spend their lives working with endangered animals in the hope that one day a kid might wander into the enclosure, thus giving them the long awaited opportunity to dispatch the endangered animal in a hail of gunfire!

[SilverSpur]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You say you have studied chimps. Do you think there is a slight possibility that the gorilla keepers at the zoo who made the decision to shoot it have studied gorillas? Perhaps know a bit about them?

People have mixed feelings about zoos, but I think it's highly unlikely that the people who make a career working in zoos are secretly trigger happy bounty hunters who spend their lives working with endangered animals in the hope that one day a kid might wander into the enclosure, thus giving them the long awaited opportunity to dispatch the endangered animal in a hail of gunfire!

Damn it my careers advisor could have let me know about these opportunities....

[Pan Pan Pan]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Can a parent seriously take very young children to a potentially dangerous place, and not have a heightened sense of awareness of where they are, and what they are doing?
If they did not, what sort of parent would they be considered to be? It seems that some are all to ready to shove the responsibility and accountability for their children's safety onto others.
If I go to a zoo, I know it will contain some dangerous animals, and that humans have not yet built anything, that cannot be circumvented by some human stupidity, therefore I would be on the lookout for hazards on behalf of the child, and not assume it will be safe, just because it is `supposed' to be safe.

It has never occurred to me, whilst strolling around London Zoo, that it's a dangerous place. I don't expect the animals to able to get out to the public, and I don't my children to be able to get in to the wild animals.

I would expect an adult to maybe be able to get in with the animals, but with great difficulty, and that would be their own stupid fault.

But a 4 yr old...no way. Supposing he was there with just mum or dad, and the sole parent had a heart attack. Are we then saying "parent collapsed and couldn't look after kid, kid wonders off into gorillas, nothing that could be done to stop it?

Utterly ridiculous.

No it is your analogy which is ridiculous. If you are one of those who go around expecting others to take responsibility for the safety of your children wherever you go, I don't hold out much hope for the children to safely reach old age. IF they are your children, YOU must take responsibility for their safety.

[greygoose]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No it is your analogy which is ridiculous. If you are one of those who go around expecting others to take responsibility for the safety of your children wherever you go, I don't hold out much hope for the children to safely reach old age. IF they are your children, YOU must take responsibility for their safety.

Indeed, sadly I suspect there will be a lawsuit against the zoo by the careless parents.

[SilverSpur]

Pan Pan Pan said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Can a parent seriously take very young children to a potentially dangerous place, and not have a heightened sense of awareness of where they are, and what they are doing?
If they did not, what sort of parent would they be considered to be? It seems that some are all to ready to shove the responsibility and accountability for their children's safety onto others.
If I go to a zoo, I know it will contain some dangerous animals, and that humans have not yet built anything, that cannot be circumvented by some human stupidity, therefore I would be on the lookout for hazards on behalf of the child, and not assume it will be safe, just because it is `supposed' to be safe.

It has never occurred to me, whilst strolling around London Zoo, that it's a dangerous place. I don't expect the animals to able to get out to the public, and I don't my children to be able to get in to the wild animals.

I would expect an adult to maybe be able to get in with the animals, but with great difficulty, and that would be their own stupid fault.

But a 4 yr old...no way. Supposing he was there with just mum or dad, and the sole parent had a heart attack. Are we then saying "parent collapsed and couldn't look after kid, kid wonders off into gorillas, nothing that could be done to stop it?

Utterly ridiculous.

No it is your analogy which is ridiculous. If you are one of those who go around expecting others to take responsibility for the safety of your children wherever you go, I don't hold out much hope for the children to safely reach old age. IF they are your children, YOU must take responsibility for their safety.

Parents are ultimately responsible for their children's health and safety in this world.

However, when you are a paying customer the organisation of an attraction/business such as this, all health and safety decisions and responsibilities are owned by the business.

You wouldn't go around inspecting all the cages for their level of security would you? you'd trust that the organisation, and the government department that oversee it, provides an acceptable level of security and safety commensurate with the possible dangers.


The PARENt should have kept her kid under control, and this is a fact. However, the Zoo are utimatly responsible for the attraction, and maintaining a safe 'gap' between paying customers and the potentially dangerous exhibits they are showing.

Edited by SilverSpur on Wednesday 1st June 10:34

[Murph7355]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No it is your analogy which is ridiculous. If you are one of those who go around expecting others to take responsibility for the safety of your children wherever you go, I don't hold out much hope for the children to safely reach old age. IF they are your children, YOU must take responsibility for their safety.

TtW's analogy (the heart attack one) is a bit out there, but the general view is IMO correct.

There's a duty of care on the zoo as a paying attraction that's designed to attract kids.

This does not absolve parents of responsibility. If it could be genetically sorted I'd happily support people having to take tests before being allowed to have kids, seeing some the fkwittery some "parents" indulge in. But that doesn't alter the fact that this zoo's measures were quite obviously not sufficient in this instance. And the gorilla paid the price - the zoo failed in its duty of care of the gorilla as much as the visitor.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pan Pan Pan said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Can a parent seriously take very young children to a potentially dangerous place, and not have a heightened sense of awareness of where they are, and what they are doing?
If they did not, what sort of parent would they be considered to be? It seems that some are all to ready to shove the responsibility and accountability for their children's safety onto others.
If I go to a zoo, I know it will contain some dangerous animals, and that humans have not yet built anything, that cannot be circumvented by some human stupidity, therefore I would be on the lookout for hazards on behalf of the child, and not assume it will be safe, just because it is `supposed' to be safe.

It has never occurred to me, whilst strolling around London Zoo, that it's a dangerous place. I don't expect the animals to able to get out to the public, and I don't my children to be able to get in to the wild animals.

I would expect an adult to maybe be able to get in with the animals, but with great difficulty, and that would be their own stupid fault.

But a 4 yr old...no way. Supposing he was there with just mum or dad, and the sole parent had a heart attack. Are we then saying "parent collapsed and couldn't look after kid, kid wonders off into gorillas, nothing that could be done to stop it?

Utterly ridiculous.

No it is your analogy which is ridiculous. If you are one of those who go around expecting others to take responsibility for the safety of your children wherever you go, I don't hold out much hope for the children to safely reach old age. IF they are your children, YOU must take responsibility for their safety.

OK, so just to clarify your view. You take your 4 y/o kid to the zoo, and you faint/collapse etc. You come round and you're told "glad you're ok, but a bit of bad news. Your son, when you were out of it, wandered into the tiger enclosure and has been eaten alive. Sorry about that, but obviously you were out of it, so that's life. Nothing that could be done?"

You'd just trot on home to explain the situation to your wife. You don't expect the zoo to have tiger enclosure that kids of feckless or unconscious parents cannot enter?

[SilverSpur]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No it is your analogy which is ridiculous. If you are one of those who go around expecting others to take responsibility for the safety of your children wherever you go, I don't hold out much hope for the children to safely reach old age. IF they are your children, YOU must take responsibility for their safety.

Do you have Kids Pan?

Do you ever let them go to Theme Parks?

Do they ever go on those fast rides, with or without you?

[Oakey]

SilverSpur said:

Do you have Kids Pan?

Do you ever let them go to Theme Parks?

Do they ever go on those fast rides, with or without you?

Those kids injured on Smiler at Alton Towers only have themselves to blame, obviously. They knew the inherent risks involved in going on such a ride, rollercoaster accidents are fairly well publicised. If, after knowing all the facts, they still chose to ride on such things knowing there's an element of danger then they're ultimately responsible for losing their legs.

[SilverSpur]

Oakey said:

SilverSpur said:

Do you have Kids Pan?

Do you ever let them go to Theme Parks?

Do they ever go on those fast rides, with or without you?

Those kids injured on Smiler at Alton Towers only have themselves to blame, obviously. They knew the inherent risks involved in going on such a ride, rollercoaster accidents are fairly well publicised. If, after knowing all the facts, they still chose to ride on such things knowing there's an element of danger then they're ultimately responsible for losing their legs.

There are children on those rides every day. Their parents must be terrible people, knowing that there's obvious risks.

Took our kids the Caribbean, went swimming. there were sharks out there, could have been eaten.

We let our 1o year old walk to school too. damn.

[Ken Figenus]

Many of these 'terrible parents' comments must be coming from 20 something lads!

Is it the curious kid's fault that he was actually able to get through the barriers quite easily - or maybe the zoo could have created less penetrable barriers as part of their duty of care in their specialist and commercial field? Or is it best to just blame the parents for not having 100% eyes on the child 100% of the time in what they though must be a designed, assessed and pretty safe environment?

[SilverSpur]

Ken Figenus said:

Many of these 'terrible parents' comments must be coming from 20 something lads!

Is it the curious kid's fault that he was actually able to get through the barriers quite easily - or maybe the zoo could have created less penetrable barriers as part of their duty of care in their specialist and commercial field? Or is it best to just blame the parents for not having 100% eyes on the child 100% of the time in what they though must be a designed, assessed and pretty safe environment?

Its an odd case. In this instance, I feel sorry for the Zoo, as they sold entrance tickets to a family of morons and criminals. But yes, the Zoo is entirely responsible for ensuring separation between morons and dangerous animals that could eat morons.

[J4CKO]

I remember my youngest wanting to cuddle a Rhino at some park or other, Cotswold one, here is a photo of the area,

[IMG]https://dogtravels.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/cotswold-wildlife-park-180.jpg [/IMG]

Conceivably he could have got in fairly easily, that is how I remembered it and based on that photo off the web, he could have, but I find it is better to keep toddlers apart from aggressive horned two tonne beasts.

I think the barriers prevent 99.999999999999999% percent of stupidity and we cant legislate for someone wilfully trying to get in whilst probably being ignored, otherwise every experience we can have is watered down to the complete lowest common denominator.

I was at Six Flags over Georgia a few years back and some pillock had, a few days earlier managed to get decapitated by a roller coaster,

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25431893/ns/us_news-life...

There was a kid that jumped off the Golden gate bridge and survived,

What about all those Russians that love nothing more than doing a video of them trotting round atop a massive building, doing tricks, hanging off cranes ? so many billion people, a percentage are going to be extremely dumb, and those that arent can get things wrong.

I suppose the problem with this is that a Gorilla paid for the stupid, there are seven billion humans on this planet and apparently only 175,000 Gorillas of all types, I am not one of those people who beomans humans being on the planet, that is stupid but its such a shame that something so rare was risked by something so plentiful.

I would imagine with this and the various suicide by big toothy beast attempts, Zoos will be stepping up their prevention, mainly to protect whatever is in the cage as really if someomne if going to do themselves in, best that they dont take a rare animal with them, perhaps they should go into the Rockies and annoy some bears if they want to do that, then the bear might not get shot, and have a good meal.

[vkcs22]

Oakey said:

Those kids injured on Smiler at Alton Towers only have themselves to blame, obviously. They knew the inherent risks involved in going on such a ride, rollercoaster accidents are fairly well publicised. If, after knowing all the facts, they still chose to ride on such things knowing there's an element of danger then they're ultimately responsible for losing their legs.

What a load of rubbish. So you blame the kids from the Alton Towers incident?????

Are you right in the head?

[J4CKO]

vkcs22 said:

Oakey said:

Those kids injured on Smiler at Alton Towers only have themselves to blame, obviously. They knew the inherent risks involved in going on such a ride, rollercoaster accidents are fairly well publicised. If, after knowing all the facts, they still chose to ride on such things knowing there's an element of danger then they're ultimately responsible for losing their legs.

What a load of rubbish. So you blame the kids from the Alton Towers incident?????

Are you right in the head?

I think there was an element of irony inherent in Oakeys post.....

But, every single thing we do is by and large subject to weighing up the risks, we all know that rollercoasters have problems but for every problem, there are millions of incident free rides, so the risk is small, but at the end of the day hurtling round in a small vehicle rolling down a metal track producing high g forces will always have some risk, but the journey there is statistically more dangerous, I go on Roller Coasters and accept that risk for the reward, I pay money to the company who operate it to do so safely but I accept that risk, if I go on one and it goes wrong, I made that choice, to put my safety in the hands of the company, same with airlines or pretty much anything. If you dont take any risks, you dont do anything, then get to die anyway.

[Ken Figenus]

It is interesting Jacko - I discourage my kids from thrill rides based on the risk/reward whilst others wouldn't bat an eyelid to push them on a thrill ride that is maintained by exactly whom (esp outside the corporate parks)? Then a toddler falling into a Gorilla enclosure would also have been lower down on my list of one things in a million to avoid mind.