blah the Prussian Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Disclaimer: a gorilla died. Yeah, that sucks. What I want to know is this: why is it that human beings of all races are dying every day, and yet this one gorilla gets more outrage? The same thing was essentially repeated with Cecil the Lion; people were more outraged over the death of some lion in Zimbabwe than they were over the countless people murdered by the Mugabe regime every day. Yeah, animals are cute. But the thing is that it's emblematic of an outright dangerous apathy that we can muster more grief for a gorilla and a lion than we can for human beings, and a lot of them too. Shit, people are actually saying that the zoo made the wrong decision in shooting the gorilla to save a child. "The gorilla was protecting him!" sounds to me like something right out of George Zimmerman's defense. The apathy of the human race towards the problems we face is bordering on suicidal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) FUCKING. LINK. Anyway, what's the point of this discussion? EDIT: Because it sounds like you're using this as a soapbox to complain about humanity. Edited May 30, 2016 by eclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I've seen a lot of rush to blame the mother. I don't know the details, but as a parent, I always have this base layer of worry that my son will get loose and get himself hurt. Kids can and will bolt without notice and even if it's just for a second, they can be ten feet away before you realize it. At the park, I turn to pick up the diaper bag, and my son's already started running back to the jungle gym. Kids can be unpredictable. Nothing serious has ever happened with my son, but any time something like this happens, I think "That could have been me". The zoo didn't really have a choice, the life of a child is more important than an animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) This sounds like a case of "I can't entirely blame everyone and it just seems like a really tragic set of circumstances". Kids are great at getting into places you don't want them to be, the zoo probably couldn't risk just using a tranq due to the kid literally hanging in the balance (takes time, and if I recall correctly they were in shallow water? i forget), and the gorilla probably didn't mean to actually harm the kid by what I remember of his mannerisms (seemed more confused and wondering why everyone was shouting at them - not hostile). Now with Cecil I can understand it because I hate recreational hunting and that shit was unnecessary. Edited May 30, 2016 by Crysta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 FUCKING. LINK. Anyway, what's the point of this discussion? EDIT: Because it sounds like you're using this as a soapbox to complain about humanity. CNN I haven't managed to get too invested in this particular piece of news, but I perused it a little bit when it cropped up on my twitter feed yesterday evening. I feel like there are a few details we're not being told, but I guess that's the case with most news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapbar Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) here's the story OP didn't provide for those who want it (which I assume is everyone): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/30/shooting-an-endangered-animal-is-worse-than-murder-grief-over-gorillas-death-turns-to-outrage/ two links actually: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/05/29/it-could-have-been-very-bad-gorilla-killed-after-boy-falls-into-cincinnati-zoo-exhibit/ anyways this seems very stupid and very dumb. It's people looking for someone to blame for the death of 1 gorilla (I get it, it's endangered but it's 1 gorilla not say, 100) and blaming the wrong things. Kids can bolt off unexpectedly and without warning, the parents are fine. The employees were just doing their jobs. If anything I'd blame the zoo. There's no reason anybody but staff, 4-year old or otherwise, should've been able to get into that enclosure. Edited May 30, 2016 by Soapbar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 My take on this is: Why? There were only two possible outcomes, and trying to place blame is silly. It was a bad situation, and dead gorillas can't sue the zoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardin Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I would also say the moms attitude rubbed some people the wrong way, fueling their displeasure with the situation. It was an unfortunate incident, but the zoo had no choice but to kill it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 If anything I'd blame the zoo. There's no reason anybody but staff, 4-year old or otherwise, should've been able to get into that enclosure.Playing devil's advocate here, but what more could the zoo have done? The boy "went under a rail, through wires and over a moat wall to get into the enclosure". It's not like he just jumped in, there were a lot of barriers in the way. I mean, he probably still managed to do it in a couple dozen seconds, because kids can be fast as everything, but short of keeping all exhibits completely sealed behind glass, how could the zoo have further improved the situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I would also say the moms attitude rubbed some people the wrong way, fueling their displeasure with the situation. It was an unfortunate incident, but the zoo had no choice but to kill it. I don't see anything particularly inflammatory from that post. Playing devil's advocate here, but what more could the zoo have done? The boy "went under a rail, through wires and over a moat wall to get into the enclosure". It's not like he just jumped in, there were a lot of barriers in the way. I mean, he probably still managed to do it in a couple dozen seconds, because kids can be fast as everything, but short of keeping all exhibits completely sealed behind glass, how could the zoo have further improved the situation? I don't know what it looks like, but I guess putting the bars or whatnot closer together or putting some chicken wire in between the pen and the visitors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junk Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Pretty unfortunate situation. Believe the zoo made the right decision in the end though. Not happy with people's reactions for a bunch of other reasons as well but that's for another topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Yeah that Facebook post of hers doesn't seem bad at all. It's not over-defensive or placing blame on anyone and it sounds like she came to the same conclusion I did. And I highly doubt the zoo didn't take plenty of precautions to ensure the enclosures weren't easily breached because... it's a bloody zoo and kids will be there all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 These things should be designed so that a kid couldn't have gotten in in the first place. If something like this can happen it's already bad design and the zoo can be liable for that. "if you make something idiot-proof, someone will build a better idiot" The mother says the kid fell into the enclosure, the zoo says he climbed over various barriers to get into the enclosure. It also says it's the first time the exhibit has been breached in 38 years. Unless the zoo gives zero fucks about OHS and got insanely lucky, I'd believe the zoo's story. At best, she doesn't know what happened, at worst she's lying to cover herself. It's a fine case study for mandatory parent licenses IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 If a four year old can get in, it's got some room for improvement. I think the term liable without fault would apply to the zoo here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Some people have more attachment to animals precisely because humans can be so terrible with a conscience. I don't really, but I don't blame them. I don't see anything particularly inflammatory from that post.Not really, but that sort of religious speak does rub people the wrong way, especially with "God protected my child", when it's likely no more than a case of parental ineptitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I think the conflicting account of how the child got into the enclosure is a little more damning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardin Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 The problem with her post is that it suggests a serious lack of reflection on her part and makes her seem flippant about the whole thing. As a parent she is the one primarily responsible for the safety and well being of her child, and a little humility on her part would show that she at least learned something from the incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 "if you make something idiot-proof, someone will build a better idiot" The mother says the kid fell into the enclosure, the zoo says he climbed over various barriers to get into the enclosure. It also says it's the first time the exhibit has been breached in 38 years. Unless the zoo gives zero fucks about OHS and got insanely lucky, I'd believe the zoo's story. At best, she doesn't know what happened, at worst she's lying to cover herself. It's a fine case study for mandatory parent licenses IMO. So even if he climbed over a bunch of shit to get in, the zoo didn't have someone on hand to drag him down? It shouldn't be the job of the parent to protect their kids in most cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 It shouldn't be the job of the parent to protect their kids in most cases. lol what Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 lol what Not if the kid has reached the point where they're midway through the enclosure. That involves the parent putting themselves in danger, and they shouldn't have to do that. This is what security exists for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Not if the kid has reached the point where they're midway through the enclosure. That involves the parent putting themselves in danger, and they shouldn't have to do that. This is what security exists for. If I did anything close to this stupid, you better believe my dad would jump the fence Mexican style to gmtfo. A child's first and last line of defense is always the parent. I don't like putting the killing of animals over people either, but mistakes were made on both sides. When designing around a dangerous animal, you need to consider that children are determined to do something dangerous simply because they can. I would put trackers a la house arrest on children of a certain age that goes off when they get into a restricted area, keepers can react quickly enough so that the child isn't hurt. In addition, security is a failsafe, not a preventative measure, so don't think that a security guard will magically stop someone from doing something stupid or illegal. That isn't how authority works, regardless of what said authority tells you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 If I did anything close to this stupid, you better believe my dad would jump the fence Mexican style to gmtfo. A child's first and last line of defense is always the parent. I don't like putting the killing of animals over people either, but mistakes were made on both sides. When designing around a dangerous animal, you need to consider that children are determined to do something dangerous simply because they can. I would put trackers a la house arrest on children of a certain age that goes off when they get into a restricted area, keepers can react quickly enough so that the child isn't hurt. In addition, security is a failsafe, not a preventative measure, so don't think that a security guard will magically stop someone from doing something stupid or illegal. That isn't how authority works, regardless of what said authority tells you. Yes, but that shouldn't be the case. When a parent needs to defend their child, security didn't do its job. All of these measures are good ideas, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elieson Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Houston zoo safety measures are not this bad, in the sense that a child left unattended in a super busy environment could not have performed such acrobatics to get through something like what this 4 year old did. Plastic sheets behind the fence bars and rails are absolute, especially with the scenario of the layout of the fencing to begin with, and why the fences are three feet high and not four or five feet (please, five feet would be more than fine as far as height goes, and plastic in-between could prevent small children from throwing things at the gorillas' pen or the gorillas themselves. Whatever the case is with the mom, I'm with her on this one. The zoo's safety measures are clearly minimal and if a four year old can slip through during a crowded day, then the zoo is lucky that this didn't happen sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) Yes, it's always the fault of the establishments, just like the people who sue McDonalds for being addictive. Blame the health and safety of everything instead of taking responsibility in people not to be stupid. The zoo owners responded in the way necessary, but only because someone couldn't be bothered in actually being a parent. They should be ashamed of themselves, but instead "god protected my child". Get the fuck out of here with that. Edited May 31, 2016 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moblin Major General Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Yes, it's always the fault of the establishments, just like the people who sue McDonalds for being addictive. Blame the health and safety of everything instead of taking responsibility in people not to be stupid. The zoo owners responded in the way necessary, but only because someone couldn't be bothered in actually being a parent. They should be ashamed of themselves, but instead "god protected my child". Get the fuck out of here with that. Let me reiterate something: this isn't a situation in which to lay blame. All parties involved (except the Gorilla) made mistakes, miscalculations, were negligent, or all of the previous. Given that this situation went down in a matter of seconds according to the chart, I would be praying to God that my child wasn't killed. If she truly feels that she did nothing wrong, let her. What I mean by that is that if DCS looks at this and sees she was actually negligent, we won't have to learn about her parenting style because of what DCS entails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.