Fury Over Harambe, Cincinnati Zoo Gorilla Shot Dead In ‘Senseless’ Act

A petition has been launched urging police and zoo authorities to hold the parents of the child who entered a gorilla’s enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo - leading to its shooting - responsible for the “senseless death”. Zoo officials shot Harambe, a critically-endangered 17-year-old gorilla, on Saturday after the 4-year-old climbed through a public barrier and fell into the Gorilla World moat. Zoo officials said they shot the 400lb animal when the situation became “life-threatening” for the child. Harambe had picked the child up and had stayed with him for about 10 minutes.

YouTube
A petition has been launching calling on authorities to hold the parent’s of the child seen above to be held responsible for the subsequent shooting of the gorilla 
A petition was launched around 5pm Sunday and within an hour had almost 2,000 signatures. A Facebook page, Justice for Harambe, was also started and has over 3,000 Likes. The petition detailed what led to the shooting, before laying the blame on the child’s parents. It reads: “This beautiful gorrila lost his life because the boy’s parents did not keep their eye on him. If they would of he would have not been able to get inside the enclosure. These parents should be held accountable for their actions of not surpervising their child. Please sign this petition to encourage the Cincinnati Zoo and police department hold them responsible.”



Justice for Harambe
A Facebook page called Justice for Harambe has been started
Anger has been building online since Harambe’s shooting. 
“How dare anyone defend the murdering of this innocent animal. It’s already out of its own habitat,” Jodi Nadeau wrote on the Justice for Harambe Facebook page in a comment echoed by dozens of other animal lovers. She continued: “The parents are wrong for not watching the child. And I’m upset about the innocent murdering of the animal. The parents should be charged with neglect and animal cruelty.” Patrish Dehler wrote: “I’m angry too. What a waste to kill this beautiful creature. How about the parents or ‘watchers’ of this kid get a big fine to be paid to the zoo. If you can’t control your kids then how about not having any!”
Cincinnati Zoo director Thane Maynard said in a statement: “The zoo security team’s quick response saved the child’s life.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fury-over-harambe-cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot-dead-over-senseless-killing_uk_574b2081e4b03e9b9ed5deb5?utm_hp_ref=uk



What i do not understand, is do not these zoo's have tranquilizer guns?
Or would that take took long and place the child in danger?
I think people are being over the top here in their attacks of the family.
Its a trajedy that the animal had to be shot, but I fail to see what other choice they had.
What do others think?

STATING a bullshit official stance that "human life and safety.." must be paramount, even when it's idiotic and irresponsible human action that produce these debacles -- as I heard a zoo official claiming on a TV news interview only about an hour or so ago -- is all so typical of that human-centric sophist man-against-nature "growth"-at-all-costs mindset that is responsible for so many chronic problems these days...

MADE EVEN WORSE when police and local authorities over there in Cincinatti declared today that they have no intention of charging the parents of that boy; and despite growing public pressure that somebody(s) should be brought to account over what still looks like yet another unnecessary killing of innocent zoo animals around the world in recent years..

AND AS LONG as a mass media only interested in headlines and pandering to the lowest common denominator, keeps on giving a voice to the "kill all wild animals, cut down all trees !" crowd, that minority of eco-vandal/man reigns supreme loons will continue to be encouraged in their world-destroying madness.

IF ONLY the mother of that boy had been shot instead, that would have been a definite improvement for the human gene pool..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

STATING a bullshit official stance that "human life and safety.." must be paramount, even when it's idiotic and irresponsible human action that produce these debacles  --  as I heard a zoo official claiming on a TV news interview only about an hour or so ago -- is all so typical of that human-centric sophist man-against-nature "growth"-at-all-costs mindset that is responsible for so many chronic problems these days...

MADE EVEN WORSE when police and local authorities over there in Cincinatti declared today that they have no intention of charging the parents of that boy; and despite growing public pressure that somebody(s) should be brought to account over what still looks like yet another unnecessary killing of innocent zoo animals around the world in recent years..

AND AS LONG as a mass media only interested in headlines and pandering to the lowest common denominator, keeps on giving a voice to the "kill all wild animals, cut down all trees !" crowd, that minority of eco-vandal/man reigns supreme loons will continue to be encouraged in their world-destroying madness.

IF ONLY the mother of that boy had been shot instead, that would have been a definite improvement for the human gene pool..      

Human life is always going to be more than another species.
Its the zoo's responsibility to protect life and to blamne the parents is disgusting.
Children always get up to mischief and unless youhave eyes in the back of your head, they can do things before you have time to react.
What you should be questioning is instead the root cause of the problem.
How the child was able to get through the public barrier.
That is where the fault is in this situation, a if they had an effective barrier, this never would of happened.
Like I said and questioned the use of tranquilizer guns, if this was not a possibility, they were left with little choice to shoot after the Gorrila had picked up the child.
The child may not have come to any harm, but then again he could have been killed by the animal
The fact you value human life of less worth than another species is appalling, as this was a child and now you want ther mother murdered, when the responsibility and fault is with ther zoo and its safety measures.

In the last few days two beautiful lions and now this magnificent gorilla have been slaughtered because of human error.....it's so incredibly sad.
Yes, the parents should have had control of their child, I have taken youngsters to the zoo enough to know they can be very curious and if they can get nearer to the animals than is allowed they will. So you watch them like hawks.
However...the greater blame must go to the zoo....the cages and arenas where the animals are kept should be impossible for anyone unauthorised to get in....the two cases recently show what can happen when they are not.

Harambe would have probably done nothing more than try to protect the child, other gorillas in past situations have shielded young kids from the rest of the group, but we will never know because he was shot dead.

Tranquilisers would have taken too long to have an effect, so sadly that wasn't an option.

I have you a green for that post Didge as I feel the same as you.
Yes, it's a bloody great shame that the gorilla lost its life but...hounding the parents..? Not sure it's fully justified tbh.

Also your point about the tranquillisers was a good one (though I see Syl has refuted it and correctly, I presume).

Zoos are pretty cruel places, though hypocritically, I have taken my children to them and enjoyed them myself.

Facebook pages for dead gorillas? Seems a bit OTT to me.

I know that the 2 other mothers interviewed after this event had stated: 'this 4yr old boy had been telling his mother quite adamantly [I want to get in there], and the mother kept being firm in her reply - "NO"'  So it does make me wonder about his mental condition, if the boy wasn't autistic? 
But to crawl under one pipe retainer, and up and over several other obstacles and over a vine covered fence to fall 15' into that gorilla enclosure - someone missed the 'PROOF' this to keep humans out hand book! 
Hopefully now all ZOO's will take a closer look at their exhibits from a child's POV and approach any and all obstacles to prove that they are INDEED child proof and no one can slip past barriers to intrude into the animals habitat.
This is such a sad lesson and indeed something that just should never have happened.
Makes my heart bleed for that beautiful gorilla but even if they'd been able to hit their target with a tranquilizer - even if he hadn't gotten angry at that hit - he might very well have fallen over on the child he had in his grasp and that would have caused the little boy more harm too.  
That's my 2¢ worth.

Good post 4ever

Stark choice, try to save the boy by killing the gorilla with one bullet.

Try to tranquillise the gorilla who may take a while for it to work and harm the boy.

Do nowt.

If it be your own boy, which method would you sanction?

I would bullet the gorilla PDQ.

eddie wrote:I have you a green for that post Didge as I feel the same as you.
Yes, it's a bloody great shame that the gorilla lost its life but...hounding the parents..? Not sure it's fully justified tbh.

Also your point about the tranquillisers was a good one (though I see Syl has refuted it and correctly, I presume).

Zoos are pretty cruel places, though hypocritically, I have taken my children to them and enjoyed them myself.

Facebook pages for dead gorillas? Seems a bit OTT to me.

Thanks Eddie


They have now on the website also posted up this, which I was unaware of.




The shooting of Harambe the gorilla after a boy fell into his enclosure at a zoo in the US on Saturday has caused many to remember two similar incidents that had very different outcomes. The death of the 17-year-old critically-endangered animal sparked a fierce backlash, with many people saying he should not have been shot dead as he did not intend to hurt the child. Others are calling for the parents to be held responsible for not watching their child closely enough, thereby allowing him to climb through a public barrier and fall into the exhibit’s moat.

Many have also drawn comparisons with two other exceptional circumstances, whereby gorillas have saved children who have fallen into their enclosures at zoos.
On August 31, 1986, five-year-old Levan Merritt fell into the gorilla enclosure at Jersey Zoo and lost consciousness.
Jambo the ‘Gentle Giant’ stood guard over the child, protecting him against other gorillas in the enclosure.





Ten years later, on August 19, 1996, a three-year-old boy fell nearly 20ft into the Western Lowland Gorilla Pit at the Brookfield Zoo.
The boy was knocked unconscious and all spectators could do was watch. 

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Binti Jua, an 8-year-old female gorilla, carries an injured three-year-old boy to a service gate after the child fell into her enclosure.
As a female gorilla named Binti Jua approached the child, people began to scream, thinking that she would hurt him.
Instead, she picked the child up, cradled him and carried him to to an access entrance where staff could get to him.



Authorities said the child, who has not been identified, fell 10 to 12 feet.
He was taken to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Centre, where he is expected to recover.
Maynard said the gorilla did not appear to be attacking the child, but he said the animal was “extremely strong” and in an agitated situation.
He said tranquilising the gorilla would not have knocked him out immediately, leaving the boy in danger.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/gorilla-killing-cincinnati-zoo-remember-jambo-binti-jua-saved-two-children-lives_uk_574bee90e4b0ebf6a329ce8c?utm_hp_ref=uk

Interesting videos.

Why though, I have to ask, didn't one adult jump down to rescue the boy in the first clip? Not one adult???

eddie wrote:Interesting videos.

Why though, I have to ask, didn't one adult jump down to rescue the boy in the first clip? Not one adult???

INSTANT SUICIDE ~~~~Eddie, no rational thinking adult would want to die in that manner; jumping into a contained area of the alpha gorilla - when his females are still in the enclosure - the little human wasn't a threat to that big gorilla - a large male human would very much have been a direct threat to his domain!

The parents are to blame - they should have controlled the child.

Raggamuffin wrote:The parents are to blame - they should have controlled the child.

Really, being as this is not the first time this has happened in zoo's where you completely exonerate the Zoo for its failings here.
Again, if the area was properly enclosed, this never would have happened.
The root cause is fundmentally the Zoo and its safety measures.
Unless of course you think all children should be held in harnesses and reins?
The parents are blameless, because they have come to a place where this never should even happen.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The parents are to blame - they should have controlled the child.

Really, being as this is not the first time this has happened in zoo's where you completely exonerate the Zoo for its failings here.
Again, if the area was properly enclosed, this never would have happened.
The root cause is fundmentally the Zoo and its safety measures.
Unless of course you think all children should be held in harnesses and reins?
The parents are blameless, because they have come to a place where this never should even happen.

If you take your kid to a place where there are large animals, you should control the kid.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Really, being as this is not the first time this has happened in zoo's where you completely exonerate the Zoo for its failings here.
Again, if the area was properly enclosed, this never would have happened.
The root cause is fundmentally the Zoo and its safety measures.
Unless of course you think all children should be held in harnesses and reins?
The parents are blameless, because they have come to a place where this never should even happen.

If you take your kid to a place where there are large animals, you should control the kid.

Why?
There in enclosures.
You should not have to have them under control because the place is meant to be safe.
Tell me, if you invite friends over with children and have children yourself and one of them fails to secure the stair gate, which then allows one of your friends babies to then open the gate and fail down the stairs.
Who is at fault here?

The babies parents, for placing their trust in their hosts or the hosts who failed to secure the dangers?

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you take your kid to a place where there are large animals, you should control the kid.

Why?
There in enclosures.
You should not have to have them under control because the place is meant to be safe.
Tell me, if you invite friends over with children and have children yourself and one of them fails to secure the stair gate, which then allows one of your friends babies to then open the gat and fail down the stairs.
Who is at fault here?

The babies parents, for placing their trust in their hosts or the hosts who failed to secure the dangers?

I wouldn't invite babies over in the first place.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Why?
There in enclosures.
You should not have to have them under control because the place is meant to be safe.
Tell me, if you invite friends over with children and have children yourself and one of them fails to secure the stair gate, which then allows one of your friends babies to then open the gat and fail down the stairs.
Who is at fault here?

The babies parents, for placing their trust in their hosts or the hosts who failed to secure the dangers?

I wouldn't invite babies over in the first place.

Then you have no reason to blame the parents.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Why?
There in enclosures.
You should not have to have them under control because the place is meant to be safe.
Tell me, if you invite friends over with children and have children yourself and one of them fails to secure the stair gate, which then allows one of your friends babies to then open the gat and fail down the stairs.
Who is at fault here?

The babies parents, for placing their trust in their hosts or the hosts who failed to secure the dangers?

I wouldn't invite babies over in the first place.

Well try using empathic intelligence and try to place yourself in such a position

4EVER2 wrote:

eddie wrote:Interesting videos.

Why though, I have to ask, didn't one adult jump down to rescue the boy in the first clip? Not one adult???

INSTANT SUICIDE ~~~~Eddie, no rational thinking adult would want to die in that manner; jumping into a contained area of the alpha gorilla - when his females are still in the enclosure - the little human wasn't a threat to that big gorilla - a large male human would very much have been a direct threat to his domain!

I can tell you now I know a couple of people who'd not think and just jump in there out of instinct.
For a start, the parents of the any kid should be in that enclosure rescuing their child.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wouldn't invite babies over in the first place.

Well try using empathic intelligence and try to place yourself in such a position

I have no empathic imagination.

It's been reported that the mother {Michelle Gregg} manages a day care; this outing was with included some of her day care children ...perhaps that's why her persistent child was able to slip away from her distracted attention.

Mother Of Toddler In Gorilla Incident Claims ‘God Protected My Child’
May 30, 2016 by Michael Stone
Mom claims God kept her son safe after he fell into a gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo. Michelle Gregg, the mother of the unattended four-year-old who managed to crawl through a series of barriers at the Gorilla World enclosure before falling an estimated 10 to 12 feet into the moat surrounding the habitat denies she did anything wrong. As a result of the boy slipping away from his mother and entering the enclosure a 17-year-old male Western Lowland Gorilla named Harambe was shot dead by zoo staff, who feared for the boy’s life. In a Facebook post Gregg refused to take responsibility for her negligence as a parent, dismissing the incident by saying “accidents happen.” Instead of taking responsibility for her failure to adequately supervise her child, Gregg invoked God, declaring: God protected my child until the authorities were able to get to him.

The following is the full text of Gregg’s now-deleted Facebook post:
I want to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers today. What started off as a wonderful day turned into a scary one. For those of you that have seen the news or been on social media that was my son that fell in the gorilla exhibit at the zoo. God protected my child until the authorities were able to get to him. My son is safe and was able to walk away with a concussion and a few scrapes… no broken bones or internal injuries.
As a society we are quick to judge how a parent could take their eyes off of their child and if anyone knows me I keep a tight watch on my kids. Accidents happen but I am thankful that the right people were in the right place today. Thank you to everyone that helped me and my son today and most importantly God for being the awsome [sic] God that He is.

In her post Gregg refuses to take responsibility for any role her negligence played in this tragic episode, and perhaps even more stunning, expresses no remorse for the death of Harambe.
In short, Gregg’s post is callous, self-serving, and lacking any empathy or appreciation for Harambe and the tragic loss his death represents.
Time reports many animal rights activists on social media have criticized Gregg in the wake of the gorilla’s death, arguing that the she should have prevented her son from falling into the enclosure.
A petition at chage.org seeking “Justice for Harambe” is asking that Gregg be held responsible for her part in the tragic episode. The petition has received over 150,000 signatures, and reads, in part:

We the undersigned actively encourage an investigation of the child’s home environment in the interests of protecting the child and his siblings from further incidents of parental negligence that may result in serious bodily harm or even death.

Bottom line: While it is wonderful that the little boy is safe, it is tragic that such a magnificent animal was killed.  And if Gregg’s imaginary God did exist, He would deserve no credit for such a senseless tragedy.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/05/mother-of-toddler-in-gorilla-incident-claims-god-protected-my-child/#sthash.eh4Mi8zx.dpuf

And I 'GET' your initial 'motherly instinct' to want to jump in that enclosure Eddie; but your self-preservation would've left you as all of those other better thinking adults standing along the sidelines praying that this accident ended as the other's cases had in those other zoo's - jumping into that enclosure would have only gotten you or any other adult killed. 
Do you not understand the reasons that the ZOO PERSONNEL didn't do that either?    Harambe, wouldn't even give him up to go to the feeding gate like the females did --- he'd have just killed you and that would have added to the chaos and the little boy would have been injured in the process!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you take your kid to a place where there are large animals, you should control the kid.

Why?
There in enclosures.
You should not have to have them under control because the place is meant to be safe.
Tell me, if you invite friends over with children and have children yourself and one of them fails to secure the stair gate, which then allows one of your friends babies to then open the gat and fail down the stairs.
Who is at fault here?

The babies parents, for placing their trust in their hosts or the hosts who failed to secure the dangers?

I wouldn't invite babies over in the first place.

agree with Raggs, this is they way evolution is supposed to work. Children of bad parents don't survive as sad as it may be.
this isn't a set of stairs it is a gorilla.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wouldn't invite babies over in the first place.

Well try using empathic intelligence and try to place yourself in such a position

I have no empathic imagination.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wouldn't invite babies over in the first place.

agree with Raggs, this is they way evolution is supposed to work. Children of bad parents don't survive as sad as it may be.
this isn't a set of stairs it is a gorilla.

You can agree all you like, that does not make your reason in anway correct
Again if you come to a place that is supposed to be safe, and hence the example of the house also, its the responsibility of others to ensure safety.
This would be different if they could not ensure safety, but the point is zoo's do
The zoo is at fault because they failed to secure the enclosure.
You cannot keep children on a leash, espcially in a place where you should never even have to as this is supposed to be a safe polace. So to blame the parents in a place where this never happens is not only viewing humans as less than a Gorrila, which is appalling, is placing blame on the parents, when the blame is with the zoo.

I have watcheda little girl, holding the hand of her mother at the top of the Broadway shopping centre, pull away from her mother and run straight out into the street into an oncoming lorry. I watched in horror unable to react in time, nobody could. You knew instantly she was dead from such an impact. The mother was not to blame, neither was the driver. For people to pay blame opn the parants are doing so out of their love of animals and the dipise they have for some humans. Showing it has nothing to do with reasons here but emotions

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have no empathic imagination.

eddie wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
INSTANT SUICIDE ~~~~Eddie, no rational thinking adult would want to die in that manner; jumping into a contained area of the alpha gorilla - when his females are still in the enclosure - the little human wasn't a threat to that big gorilla - a large male human would very much have been a direct threat to his domain!

I can tell you now I know a couple of people who'd not think and just jump in there out of instinct.
For a start, the parents of the any kid should be in that enclosure rescuing their child.

POUND for pound,  apes (Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzees..) have  four times the muscle strength of a strong and fit human male..

GOOD LUCK to anyone prepared to take on a male gorilla in hand to hand combat   !

Criminal filings against Dickerson stretch over a decade and include burglary, firearms offences, drug trafficking, criminal trespass, disorderly conduct and kidnap.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617016/EXCLUSIVE-PICTURES-parents-four-son-fell-zoo-enclosure-sparking-controversial-killing-Harambe-gorilla-emerges-father-lengthy-criminal-history.html#ixzz4ADRqNBxM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Saw this on Facebook:

Edit: I would like to use this comment fame to plug communism ☭ it is literally the only sustainable future we have as people. Power to the people. Down with the government. You're welcome.

Can't wait for no one to give a shit about the Gorilla in 2 days. Everyone acting like "experts" haha. Kills me.

So many people calling her a "worthless mother" and other bullshit. Obviously you don't have kids, the only thing less predictable than a child is a bouncing football. Sure, it's a shame the gorilla had to die but I promise you I would have shot the gorilla myself if it was my child in there and I wouldn't have lost a second of sleep over it.

The fault is 100% the zoos. Zoos are designed to get you close to the animal and they don't seem to give a shit about the safety of the people or the animals involved. Why the fuck should it be possible for a child to even get into the enclosure in the first place? The zoo should have known better.

Zoos are great from an educational and a conservational standpoint but allowing kids to slam glass, climb into enclosures, or scream at animals is the real problem.

If you blame the mom for all of this then you are just a straight asshole.

Nothing like an anonymous FB post, for wasting space...


Her comment is worth about as much as her non-existent signature..


Zero.

There's way too much responsibility shifting by people these days, it's never their fault, and we live in a compensation society where you get big bucks if you successfully sue. That child should have been under control, not allowed to run around or wriggle under fences. Kids put their fingers in light sockets and poke their eyes with sticks all the time, it teaches them not to do it again, and as a parent you ensure they don't do it in the first place.

This is a tragedy. For all concerned. That animal died because feckless parents should have had their child safe and in hand. They are as much to blame as any dodgy fencing, if it was dodgy.

HoratioTarr wrote:There's way too much responsibility shifting by people these days, it's never their fault, and we live in a compensation society where you get big bucks if you successfully sue.   That child should have been under control, not allowed to run around or wriggle under fences.   Kids put their fingers in light sockets and poke their eyes with sticks all the time, it teaches them not to do it again, and as a parent you ensure they don't do it in the first place.  

This is a tragedy.   For all concerned.   That animal died because feckless parents should have had their child safe and in hand.  They are as much to blame as any dodgy fencing, if it was dodgy.

Easy to say that in hindsight after such a tragedy, when not one single partent in the world has ever been able to keep two eyes permenantly on a child ever.
They never can and we have to put and place faith in nothing happening to them when we sleep, go to the bathroom or place their trust in others etc. If you enter a place where it is meant to be safe, in order that you should never have to keep two eyes on your child and that child should never be able to enter through a public barrier, then how on earth can you lay blame on the parents. Kids are inquisitive, curious, at times very mischievous and most of all unpredicable. I am sure many have been to amusement parks or zoo's themselves and have never had two eyes fixed permenantly on their children, as its impossible. Now unless you believe all your children should be placed on leashes, then you simply are being unjust to the parents of this child

HoratioTarr wrote:There's way too much responsibility shifting by people these days, it's never their fault, and we live in a compensation society where you get big bucks if you successfully sue.   That child should have been under control, not allowed to run around or wriggle under fences.   Kids put their fingers in light sockets and poke their eyes with sticks all the time, it teaches them not to do it again, and as a parent you ensure they don't do it in the first place.  

This is a tragedy.   For all concerned.   That animal died because feckless parents should have had their child safe and in hand.  They are as much to blame as any dodgy fencing, if it was dodgy.

Don't often agree with you on thise kind of things, but I certainly do this time.   The child was 4 years old.  Going round a zoo, mine would have been in a pushchair or on reins and I don't care how old fashioned that is.  There are many cases in a zoo where they is a low outer wall, which people for their own safety are asked not to go over.  I've seen adults doing just that and I certainly wouldn't trust a child in my care not to do the same.   I don't like zoos per say, but children do and it is the responsibility of the the adult taking the child to keep them out of areas they are not supposed to be in.

sassy wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:There's way too much responsibility shifting by people these days, it's never their fault, and we live in a compensation society where you get big bucks if you successfully sue.   That child should have been under control, not allowed to run around or wriggle under fences.   Kids put their fingers in light sockets and poke their eyes with sticks all the time, it teaches them not to do it again, and as a parent you ensure they don't do it in the first place.  

This is a tragedy.   For all concerned.   That animal died because feckless parents should have had their child safe and in hand.  They are as much to blame as any dodgy fencing, if it was dodgy.

Don't often agree with you on thise kind of things, but I certainly do this time.   The child was 4 years old.  Going round a zoo, mine would have been in a pushchair or on reins and I don't care how old fashioned that is.  There are many cases in a zoo where they is a low outer wall, which people for their own safety are asked not to go over.  I've seen adults doing just that and I certainly wouldn't trust a child in my care not to do the same.   I don't like zoos per say, but children do and it is the responsibility of the the adult taking the child to keep them out of areas they are not supposed to be in.

A 4 year old in a pushchair?
Wow, so basically making redundent the whole purpose of the child being there thus being so restricted in hardly being able to see anything.
Its the responsibilty of the Zoo to make it a safe, where parents not need ever worry, because no child should ever be able to ever obtain entry into any enclosure.
Again what we are seeing here is a case of simple hindsight where again no parent has ever been able to prevent their children  having accidents, which to then lay blame here on the parents is hypocritical as again:


Easy to say that in hindsight after such a tragedy, when not one single partent in the world has ever been able to keep two eyes permenantly on a child ever.
They never can and we have to put and place faith in nothing happening to them when we sleep, go to the bathroom or place their trust in others etc. If you enter a place where it is meant to be safe, in order that you should never have to keep two eyes on your child and that child should never be able to enter through a public barrier, then how on earth can you lay blame on the parents. Kids are inquisitive, curious, at times very mischievous and most of all unpredicable. I am sure many have been to amusement parks or zoo's themselves and have never had two eyes fixed permenantly on their children, as its impossible. Now unless you believe all your children should be placed on leashes, then you simply are being unjust to the parents of this child

A child in a pushchair can't see anything?    Don't talk rubbish.   I thought you were supposed to be a father, 4 year olds go in pushchairs all the time, especially if you are walking around a large area and their legs are going to get tired.

It is restricted by the fact they are sat in the chair and is limited to the height of the chair.
That is simple science for even some one like you .

Again you avoided all points.
So have your children never had any accidents?
I am sure they have and for the reasons I gave which you avoided



Easy to say that in hindsight after such a tragedy, when not one single partent in the world has ever been able to keep two eyes permenantly on a child ever.
They never can and we have to put and place faith in nothing happening to them when we sleep, go to the bathroom or place their trust in others etc. If you enter a place where it is meant to be safe, in order that you should never have to keep two eyes on your child and that child should never be able to enter through a public barrier, then how on earth can you lay blame on the parents. Kids are inquisitive, curious, at times very mischievous and most of all unpredicable. I am sure many have been to amusement parks or zoo's themselves and have never had two eyes fixed permenantly on their children, as its impossible. Now unless you believe all your children should be placed on leashes, then you simply are being unjust to the parents of this child

OFGS!   Do you not have the slightest idea about dealing with children?   If they need to see more, THEY SIT ON YOUR SHOULDERS.

sassy wrote:OFGS!   Do you not have the slightest idea about dealing with children?   If they need to see more, THEY SIT ON YOUR SHOULDERS.

So you have just contradicted your last point how you said you would keep them on a leash or in a chiar, when they should never have need to when the place is meant to be safe for the animals and people.

sassy wrote: Going round a zoo, mine would have been in a pushchair or on reins and I don't care how old fashioned that is..

So now you have changed your story and you would have them on your shoulders and how many parents do this Sassy at a zoo?
A few, but not the majoirity because many have no need or fear to do so because they simply would not believe their child would be able to gain entry into an enclosure. Again your poor weak argument is based off you thinking you are some how the best parent in the world trying yet again to big yourself up and that no accidents have ever happened to your children as you are unique in the world. Who have since the day they were born able to keep eyes permenantly fixed on them for 24 hours every single day.
In other words you are talking nonsense.
The blame lies with the zoo

A leash goes around the neck, reins are designed to keep children safe.   Calling reins 'a leash' is your not so sublte way of trying to make something nasty out of nothing again.   And there is no contradiction, if on the ground they would be on reins or in a pushchair.   It's called good parenting, not allowing them to run wild, put themselves and others in danger and make a nuisance in a place other people are trying to enjoy themselves as well.  

Now I'll leave you to rabbit on, because parenting obviously isn't a skill of yours.

 Sassy stated > Going round a zoo, mine would have been in a pushchair or on reins and I don't care how old fashioned that is.

Interesting how Didgy has those horrific stories about darting children smashed in traffic and yet had the parent been atoned to that willful little one's ability they'd been a better responsible parent to have chose this >>>






Instead of mourning a dreadful loss of a child. 
ZOO's are not play grounds for children; they are habitats for the animals to be viewed by us humans ...to be seen as naturally as possible for the paying public!  There's a shared equal liability IMO of who needs to be culpable in these matters. 

I've seen stupid humans disregard ALL of the posted signs 'DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS' - 'DO NOT THROW ITEMS INTO THEIR AREA' and yet they still do it, but will bitch and moan about not being able to: see/hear/touch those WILD BEASTS like some 'Petting Zoo' for toddlers! 

BTW, anyone can be a 'SPERM DONOR' ...does not a father or a good parent make - same applies to this incident and this mother!

sassy wrote:A leash goes around the neck, reins are designed to keep children safe.   Calling reins 'a leash' is your not so sublte way of trying to make something nasty out of nothing again.   And there is no contradiction, if on the ground they would be on reins or in a pushchair.   It's called good parenting, not allowing them to run wild, put themselves and others in danger and make a nuisance in a place other people are trying to enjoy themselves as well.  

Now I'll leave you to rabbit on, because parenting obviously isn't a skill of yours.

Reins are a form of leash, which shows how very little you understand again.
I suggest you look this up before you make such a poor error.
Its a disgusting form of control, because simpley the parents are normally paranoid, which based on what you believe I am not surprised as countless parents have no need to use them.
You are contradticting yourself as seen, because you stated excatly what you would do going to a zoo and when i showed this to be flawed, you moved the goalposts
What is evidence is you avoid the whole time the real issue, that being of the zoo and its safety measures, where if they were right, no child would ever be able to enter such an enclosure. Again this is more about you trying to look good as a parant when as seen you exposed yourself as a very paranoid one

4EVER2 wrote:

 Sassy stated > Going round a zoo, mine would have been in a pushchair or on reins and I don't care how old fashioned that is.

Interesting how Didgy has those horrific stories about darting children smashed in traffic and yet had the parent been atoned to that willful little one's ability they'd been a better responsible parent to have chose this >>>


nstead of mourning a dreadful loss of a child. 
ZOO's are not play grounds for children; they are habitats for the animals to be viewed by us humans ...to be seen as naturally as possible for the paying public!  There's a shared equal liability IMO of who needs to be culpable in these matters. 

I've seen stupid humans disregard ALL of the posted signs 'DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS' - 'DO NOT THROW ITEMS INTO THEIR AREA' and yet they still do it, but will bitch and moan about not being able to: see/hear/touch those WILD BEASTS like some 'Petting Zoo' for toddlers! 

Since when did anyone say it was a playground?
Do you have your child on a leash in the shopping mall?
Again absurd reasoning as the area is meant to be safe and to claim this based on no point anyone has made is utterly poor.
Again a child should be able to go up to the fence/barrier with no fear they are goping to fall through or be able to get through the barrier.,
In this case the child weas able to, the point you glarringly miss

4EVER2 wrote:

 Sassy stated > Going round a zoo, mine would have been in a pushchair or on reins and I don't care how old fashioned that is.

Interesting how Didgy has those horrific stories about darting children smashed in traffic and yet had the parent been atoned to that willful little one's ability they'd been a better responsible parent to have chose this >>>






Instead of mourning a dreadful loss of a child. 
ZOO's are not play grounds for children; they are habitats for the animals to be viewed by us humans ...to be seen as naturally as possible for the paying public!  There's a shared equal liability IMO of who needs to be culpable in these matters. 

I've seen stupid humans disregard ALL of the posted signs 'DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS' - 'DO NOT THROW ITEMS INTO THEIR AREA' and yet they still do it, but will bitch and moan about not being able to: see/hear/touch those WILD BEASTS like some 'Petting Zoo' for toddlers! 

BTW, anyone can be a 'SPERM DONOR' ...does not a father or a good parent make - same applies to this incident and this mother!

Mine used to be on reins or in a pushchair whenever we were going to be in crowds, near main roads or other situations when it would only take a second for them to let go of your hand and slip away.   Years ago, we had a young boy, Jamie Bulger, do just that in a shopping mall, was picked up and killed by two other boys.   How that poor mother suffered, my heart bled for her and it made me very thankful that I had stuck to the reins and mine were never able to slip away.   It takes one second for them to do it and I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I had three under 4 at one point, so a double buggy and a set of reins was a must and the only way to keep them safe.

Like i say paranoid, as how many other parents do so?
Hardly any, there is such a thing as allowing your child to learn to crawl and walk and learn from mistakes, but when in places where accidents should not happen, being that such enclosures should be child proof. What you are making and claiming is absurd that you would keep them on a leash in a zoo, when you should never even have to. Like i say this is amore about bigging yourself up as some kind of warped leftist regressive form of Mary Poppins, the likes of which no children would ever be able to watch as it would classed as a horror film

4EVER2 wrote:

 Sassy stated > Going round a zoo, mine would have been in a pushchair or on reins and I don't care how old fashioned that is.

Interesting how Didgy has those horrific stories about darting children smashed in traffic and yet had the parent been atoned to that willful little one's ability they'd been a better responsible parent to have chose this >>>

         
Instead of mourning a dreadful loss of a child. 
ZOO's are not play grounds for children; they are habitats for the animals to be viewed by us humans ...to be seen as naturally as possible for the paying public!  There's a shared equal liability IMO of who needs to be culpable in these matters. 

I've seen stupid humans disregard ALL of the posted signs 'DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS' - 'DO NOT THROW ITEMS INTO THEIR AREA' and yet they still do it, but will bitch and moan about not being able to: see/hear/touch those WILD BEASTS like some 'Petting Zoo' for toddlers! 

BTW, anyone can be a 'SPERM DONOR' ...does not a father or a good parent make - same applies to this incident and this mother!

WOW, there is some intended English in this mental dribble somewhere >

Didgey-dooer's posted reply >
Since when did anyone say it was a playground?
Do you have your child on a leash in the shopping mall?
Again absurd reasoning as the area is meant to be safe and to claim this based on no point anyone has made is utterly poor.
Again a child should be able to go up to the fence/barrier with no fear they are goping to fall through or be able to get through the barrier.,
In this case the child weas able to, the point you glarringly miss

Since your mental capacities preclude you from understanding the complexities of child care and how toddlers will become unruly --- especially children with 'special needs' ...the concept of being a RESPONSIBLE ADULT will be beyond your thought process! 
You GLARINGLY miss a lot of adult valued discussion due to your consistent ignorant/bullying BS and piss-poor attitude!  So I'll allow someone of your equal to draw you the connecting dots ---
Say, Tommykins ...are you available to help the little Didgey with his comprehension problems in here

[quote="4EVER2"]

4EVER2 wrote:
Since your mental capacities preclude you from understanding the complexities of child care and how toddlers will become unruly --- especially children with 'special needs' ...the concept of being a RESPONSIBLE ADULT will be beyond your thought process! 
You GLARINGLY miss a lot of adult valued discussion due to your consistent ignorant/bullying BS and piss-poor attitude!  So I'll allow someone of your equal to draw you the connecting dots ---
Say, Tommykins ...are you available to help the little Didgey with his comprehension problems in here

Gibberish, this again is a zoo, where the enclosures should be child proof and anyone that h as gone to the zoo, would expect this to be the case.
You have changed your tune now since sassy is arguing against which is hilarious.
The point you keep missing is that the child should have never have been able to gain entry as they did.
Now that you shown double standards on this very thread its hilarious as you change your position dependent on a poster lol

My post, repeated just for you fuck-wit > Instead of mourning a dreadful loss of a child. 
ZOO's are not play grounds for children; they are habitats for the animals to be viewed by us humans ...to be seen as naturally as possible for the paying public!  There's a shared equal liability IMO of who needs to be culpable in these matters.

Noooo, Didgey-dooer; you and your twin bro-poster Tommykins have comprehension problems and love to TWIST what people post into nothing more then babble BS and then argue about what 'YOU' think we said! 
But go back to your 'NORMAL ' entertainment and your #1 skill set; I don't want you to get all stress out and fail your daily objective! 

4EVER2 wrote:

My post, repeated just for you fuck-wit > Instead of mourning a dreadful loss of a child. 
ZOO's are not play grounds for children; they are habitats for the animals to be viewed by us humans ...to be seen as naturally as possible for the paying public!  There's a shared equal liability IMO of who needs to be culpable in these matters.

Noooo, Didgey-dooer; you and your twin bro-poster Tommykins have comprehension problems and love to TWIST what people post into nothing more then babble BS and then argue about what 'YOU' think we said! 
But go back to your 'NORMAL ' entertainment and your #1 skill set; I don't want you to get all stress out and fail your daily objective! 

Is that why you posted up defending the mother then in your later post lol?
Listen 4everclueless, I know your head is so far up sassy backside, people think she has four legs.
Get on with the debate and answer the many points you evaded and the simple fact you are excusing the failures of the Zoo, who should have full proof enclosures.
The simple fact is they did not and people going to a Zoo expect them to be child proof.
Its no wonder with your limited intelligence that you fail to see this and like I said early its emotions that drive people here based on their love on animals to wrongly blame the parents

4EVER2 wrote:I know that the 2 other mothers interviewed after this event had stated: 'this 4yr old boy had been telling his mother quite adamantly [I want to get in there], and the mother kept being firm in her reply - "NO"'  So it does make me wonder about his mental condition, if the boy wasn't autistic? 
But to crawl under one pipe retainer, and up and over several other obstacles and over a vine covered fence to fall 15' into that gorilla enclosure - someone missed the 'PROOF' this to keep humans out hand book! 
Hopefully now all ZOO's will take a closer look at their exhibits from a child's POV and approach any and all obstacles to prove that they are INDEED child proof and no one can slip past barriers to intrude into the animals habitat.
This is such a sad lesson and indeed something that just should never have happened.
Makes my heart bleed for that beautiful gorilla but even if they'd been able to hit their target with a tranquilizer - even if he hadn't gotten angry at that hit - he might very well have fallen over on the child he had in his grasp and that would have caused the little boy more harm too.  
That's my 2¢ worth.

Here - FUCK-WIT...perhaps getting yo momma to read it to you might aide in your comprehension skills; but you'd need to get your nasty hands out of that pocket with the hole in it first! 

BITCH & MOAN and can't read the dam posts or understand WTF the adults are saying ...too much of this   seems to lock your thinking skills up!

4EVER2 wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:I know that the 2 other mothers interviewed after this event had stated: 'this 4yr old boy had been telling his mother quite adamantly [I want to get in there], and the mother kept being firm in her reply - "NO"'  So it does make me wonder about his mental condition, if the boy wasn't autistic? 
But to crawl under one pipe retainer, and up and over several other obstacles and over a vine covered fence to fall 15' into that gorilla enclosure - someone missed the 'PROOF' this to keep humans out hand book! 
Hopefully now all ZOO's will take a closer look at their exhibits from a child's POV and approach any and all obstacles to prove that they are INDEED child proof and no one can slip past barriers to intrude into the animals habitat.
This is such a sad lesson and indeed something that just should never have happened.
Makes my heart bleed for that beautiful gorilla but even if they'd been able to hit their target with a tranquilizer - even if he hadn't gotten angry at that hit - he might very well have fallen over on the child he had in his grasp and that would have caused the little boy more harm too.  
That's my 2¢ worth.

Here - FUCK-WIT...perhaps getting yo momma to read it to you might aide in your comprehension skills; but you'd need to get your nasty hands out of that pocket with the hole in it first! 
BITCH & MOAN and can't read the dam posts or understand WTF the adults are saying ...too much of this   seems to lock your thinking skills up!

That is not the post I am speaking of Potty mouth

You posted up how the mother was looking after multiple children

Again if the fault is with the Zoo on its facilities, you cannot hold the parents resposnible and no court of law would either, as they would place full blame with the Zoo. As the Zoo is meant to have child proof enclosures.
Like I say because you love animals more than you do humans, you look to blame the parents because you are not led by reason but emotions

Look, some people think it's the zoo's fault, and some people think it's the parents' fault. I'm not going to change my mind, but maybe someone else will be convinced