Gorilla Shot Dead At Cincinnati Zoo After Child Falls Into E
Discussion
[quote=Pan Pan Pan]Even when I was around four, or five, I clearly remember having an inbuilt healthy respect for high drop offs, deep water, deep moats,quote]
But did you learn that through playing on building sites when young and learning by the occasional minor accident?
Sad case but balanced against the consequences of a bad move by the gorilla it was inevitable.
But did you learn that through playing on building sites when young and learning by the occasional minor accident?
Sad case but balanced against the consequences of a bad move by the gorilla it was inevitable.
Mr GrimNasty said:
But the zoo has a duty to make sure its enclosures are entirely child-proof!
Honestly, if your 4 yo kid said I'm going to get in the Gorilla cage, would you take them seriously and restrain them - it simply shouldn't have been possible!
In another thread you were bemoaning the states over-interference?Honestly, if your 4 yo kid said I'm going to get in the Gorilla cage, would you take them seriously and restrain them - it simply shouldn't have been possible!
Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 30th May 13:09
What planet do you live on, exactly? I bet it's a fking riot up there.
The parents must not be blame whatsoever. The zoo is completely at fault, a child should be able to run off out of sight of its parents in a zoo without the parent worrying it will fall into a dangerous animal enclosure. A zoo is a place that should be TOTALLY child safe. The gorilla should have been shot, a tranquilizer would not have been an option because of the time it takes to take effect. Best outcome for a sad event.
Lordbenny said:
The parents must not be blame whatsoever. The zoo is completely at fault, a child should be able to run off out of sight of its parents in a zoo without the parent worrying it will fall into a dangerous animal enclosure. A zoo is a place that should be TOTALLY child safe. The gorilla should have been shot, a tranquilizer would not have been an option because of the time it takes to take effect. Best outcome for a sad event.
The parent was there the child was telling her he was going to go in the water. It didn't run out of sight. However I agree
Lordbenny said:
The parents must not be blame whatsoever. The zoo is completely at fault, a child should be able to run off out of sight of its parents in a zoo without the parent worrying it will fall into a dangerous animal enclosure. A zoo is a place that should be TOTALLY child safe. The gorilla should have been shot, a tranquilizer would not have been an option because of the time it takes to take effect. Best outcome for a sad event.
100% agree. Sad event, but the zoo were at fault. There should be no way for a 4 year old into an enclosure except with a key. nellyleelephant said:
Lordbenny said:
The parents must not be blame whatsoever. The zoo is completely at fault, a child should be able to run off out of sight of its parents in a zoo without the parent worrying it will fall into a dangerous animal enclosure. A zoo is a place that should be TOTALLY child safe. The gorilla should have been shot, a tranquilizer would not have been an option because of the time it takes to take effect. Best outcome for a sad event.
100% agree. Sad event, but the zoo were at fault. There should be no way for a 4 year old into an enclosure except with a key. The Zoo has to use its best efforts to prevent anyone getting into the enclosure, but we know human ingenuity. If someone does get in who has greater priority the thing youre trying to protect in the zoo or the trespasser?
If it was Buckingham Palace whose side would you be on?
saaby93 said:
ave to completely disagree of course
The Zoo has to use its best efforts to prevent anyone getting into the enclosure, but we know human ingenuity. If someone does get in who has greater priority the thing youre trying to protect in the zoo or the trespasser?
If it was Buckingham Palace whose side would you be on?
I would still be on the side of the 4 year old!The Zoo has to use its best efforts to prevent anyone getting into the enclosure, but we know human ingenuity. If someone does get in who has greater priority the thing youre trying to protect in the zoo or the trespasser?
If it was Buckingham Palace whose side would you be on?
How hard is it to work that out, the kid was 4. When you were 4 did you always stick to the marked path? Probably not. To think otherwise, frankly, shows you up to be fking stupid.
nellyleelephant said:
saaby93 said:
ave to completely disagree of course
The Zoo has to use its best efforts to prevent anyone getting into the enclosure, but we know human ingenuity. If someone does get in who has greater priority the thing youre trying to protect in the zoo or the trespasser?
If it was Buckingham Palace whose side would you be on?
I would still be on the side of the 4 year old!The Zoo has to use its best efforts to prevent anyone getting into the enclosure, but we know human ingenuity. If someone does get in who has greater priority the thing youre trying to protect in the zoo or the trespasser?
If it was Buckingham Palace whose side would you be on?
How hard is it to work that out, the kid was 4. When you were 4 did you always stick to the marked path? Probably not. To think otherwise, frankly, shows you up to be fking stupid.
Kid age 4 walking along pavement with parent
Kid breaks free and runs across road
Do you ban all cars (or bikes for that matter) from the road in case this happens
or accept that on the odd occasion Darwin comes into play - it's a risk but on a percentage basis an acceptable risk.
Lets hope no-one proposes banning all air travel on the basis that a plane has fallen into the med.
We have to decide which thing is normal behaviour that we're trying to protect and which is an abnormal.
In this case surely the Gorilla was behaving normally, it didnt try to break out of its pound or anything - the kid was the abnormal
saaby93 said:
ame argument applies
Kid age 4 walking along pavement with parent
Kid breaks free and runs across road
Do you ban all cars (or bikes for that matter) from the road in case this happens
or accept that on the odd occasion Darwin comes into play - it's a risk but on a percentage basis an acceptable risk.
Lets hope no-one proposes banning all air travel on the basis that a plane has fallen into the med.
We have to decide which thing is normal behaviour that we're trying to protect and which is an abnormal.
In this case surely the Gorilla was behaving normally, it didnt try to break out of its pound or anything - the kid was the abnormal
Surely normal behaviour in this case is that the enclosure is designed in such a way that a 4 year old can't get in?Kid age 4 walking along pavement with parent
Kid breaks free and runs across road
Do you ban all cars (or bikes for that matter) from the road in case this happens
or accept that on the odd occasion Darwin comes into play - it's a risk but on a percentage basis an acceptable risk.
Lets hope no-one proposes banning all air travel on the basis that a plane has fallen into the med.
We have to decide which thing is normal behaviour that we're trying to protect and which is an abnormal.
In this case surely the Gorilla was behaving normally, it didnt try to break out of its pound or anything - the kid was the abnormal
Surely you should be able to take a 4 year old somewhere designed to appeal to 4 year olds that is 4 year old proof?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff