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

First topic message reminder :

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?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Well unless you are able to find a solution to the poachers, then such places are needed in order to keep such animals alive and able to reproduce without fear and loss of their numbers.
It does not mean they have to be cage but in large enclsoures

There's no need for most of those animals to be in a zoo.  Very few are endangered.   Zoos were created for humans to gawp at animals.  Just another example of man's inhumanity to his fellow creatures.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory?direction=desc&sort=extinction_status

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

There's no need for most of those animals to be in a zoo.  Very few are endangered.   Zoos were created for humans to gawp at animals.  Just another example of man's inhumanity to his fellow creatures.

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory?direction=desc&sort=extinction_status

How many of those have you actually seen in a zoo? Out of all those listed? Along with the dozens of other animals that don't need to be there. Many zoos are desperate places, not the nice caring animal welfare orientated places most of us wish they were.


From an animal rights standpoint, we do not have a right to breed, capture and confine other animals, even if they are endangered. Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals have fewer rights.
Animals in captivity suffer from stress, boredom and confinement. Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals get sold or traded to other zoos, and no pen or even drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild.

Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new baby animals leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold not only to other zoos, but also to circuses, canned hunting facilities, and even for slaughter.
Some zoos just kill their surplus animal outright.

The vast majority of captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild. The offspring are forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, petting zoos, and exotic pet trade that buy, sell and barter animals among themselves and exploit animals. Ned the Asian elephant was born at an accredited zoo, but later confiscated from an abusive circus trainer and finally sent to a sanctuary.
Removing individuals from the wild will further endanger the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and will have more difficulty finding mates.

If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary. A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.

If zoos are teaching children anything, it's that imprisoning animals for our own entertainment is acceptable.
The argument that children will have more compassion animals they can see live does not hold water. Not one of today's children has ever seen a dinosaur, yet kids are crazy about them.

At least one study has shown that elephants kept in zoos do not live as long as elephants in the wild.
The federal Animal Welfare Act establishes only the most minimal standards for cage size, shelter, health care, ventilation, fencing, food and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, will not free the animals.
Sanctuaries also rehabilitate wildlife and take in unwanted exotic pets, without breeding, buying and selling animals like zoos do.

Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. There have even been incidents of zoo animals eating other zoo animals.

In the case of zoos, both sides will argue that their side saves animals. Where there is money to be made by the exploitation of animals, zoo proponents conveniently do not believe in animal rights, so many of the arguments against zoos are not persuasive to them, while other arguments may seem to apply only to inferior zoos, such as roadside zoos and petting zoos.

Doris Lin, Esq. is an animal rights attorney and Director of Legal Affairs for the Animal Protection League of NJ.

Let me repeat

I am against Zoo's but believe we need sanctuaries and on the list is many you will see in Zoo's
I against Zoo's as public places
I am for sanctuaries, where animals are from the public eye that have freedom, like reserves

Obviously there are kind ways to protect and restore species, and when we're the reason they're in decline I think it's our responsibility. There's a right way to run a zoo, and when zoos are run right I think they're great -- and I would certainly not bar the public from coming into them, because they can teach people that these animals aren't just on TV and in books, and that we ought to help them thrive.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Obviously there are kind ways to protect and restore species, and when we're the reason they're in decline I think it's our responsibility. There's a right way to run a zoo, and when zoos are run right I think they're great -- and I would certainly not bar the public from coming into them, because they can teach people that these animals aren't just on TV and in books, and that we ought to help them thrive.

All very well it can teach and I agree but at what cost to the mental health of the animal?
Zoo's or as I sanctuaries should be open spaces

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Obviously there are kind ways to protect and restore species, and when we're the reason they're in decline I think it's our responsibility. There's a right way to run a zoo, and when zoos are run right I think they're great -- and I would certainly not bar the public from coming into them, because they can teach people that these animals aren't just on TV and in books, and that we ought to help them thrive.

All very well it can teach and I agree but at what cost to the mental health of the animal?
Zoo's or as I sanctuaries should be open spaces

My ideal zoo would be a bit impractical -- a sanctuary in which animals would have very little notion that they were surrounded by people, where perhaps visitors could either drive close enough to see them, or view them through hidden perches throughout the landscape accessed through tunnels.

Barriers and shelters would be cleverly engineered to seem like they were naturally occurring -- and they'd magically always have food

It would take a lot of land, money and work, but I'd love to see a place like that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:



All very well it can teach and I agree but at what cost to the mental health of the animal?
Zoo's or as I sanctuaries should be open spaces

My ideal zoo would be a bit impractical -- a sanctuary in which animals would have very little notion that they were surrounded by people, where perhaps visitors could either drive close enough to see them, or view them through hidden perches throughout the landscape accessed through tunnels.

Barriers and shelters would be cleverly engineered to seem like they were naturally occurring -- and they'd magically always have food

It would take a lot of land, money and work, but I'd love to see a place like that.

That is very inventive and creative.

Good points though I think it would be a hell of a lot of money

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:
All very well it can teach and I agree but at what cost to the mental health of the animal?
Zoo's or as I sanctuaries should be open spaces

My ideal zoo would be a bit impractical -- a sanctuary in which animals would have very little notion that they were surrounded by people, where perhaps visitors could either drive close enough to see them, or view them through hidden perches throughout the landscape accessed through tunnels.
Barriers and shelters would be cleverly engineered to seem like they were naturally occurring -- and they'd magically always have food
It would take a lot of land, money and work, but I'd love to see a place like that.

Hmmm ...ya, doing an those annual - well fare animal / primate check up/obtaining blood samples; well just about any Vet checkup might be a huge problem in your 'JURASSIC' type of zoo.  But  I enjoy your thought process.  
Have you ever gone through one of those safari type 'DRIVE THU IN YOUR CAR' type of parks?
I've watched the baboons strip the: trim/window wipers/steal peoples eye glasses right off of their vehicles while we're stuck in traffic due to a couple of zebra's lounging on the roadway --- loads of warning signs telling people to 'STAY IN YOUR VEHICLE AT ALLTIMES - KEEP YOUR WINDOW'S ROLLED UP AT ALL TIMES - WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR VEHICLE WHILE IN THIS DRIVE THRU PARK!  And people get bitten by: the emu's/zebra's/camel's/burro's/mule's etc., etc., etc.,   It's very amusing watching other vehiches up ahead of yours getting attacked by the hungry hoard until they turn to look at your vehicle and come your way to see what you've got to offer in the way of 'FOOD'

Paul Ettinger wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:HT's post sounds about right. I bet we have all seen stupid parents who don't take care of their kids at the expense of their own and others safety.

When we go to Wales the harbour wall has a steep drop to the rocks below when the tide is out. The number of parents who let their kids sit on it, when the only thing that would stop them plunging down is a low bar ...is unbelievable.
Kids as young as 3 or 4 swing on the bar, it gives me vertigo just seing them..and the parents are oblivious.

Would anyone let a four year old run amok on the cliffs at Beachy Head?    I've seen young kids do things that make my hair stand on end.    How well I remember going to a 'family' get together with my ex's inlaws once and this four year old was going round the room with  a fucking air rifle, holding it  to the head of the younger kids and pulling the trigger.  Of course, it wasnt' loaded, but to me that was beside the point.   I horrified and disgusted that a parent would allow that to even happen.

Sorry now you are being absurd
Again this is a place where its meant to be safe for people to walk freely around.
How many attractions do you know of that allow you to walk to the edge of a cliff, one that is at present having major works on.
So much so they are bringing in boulders from holland to build a platform to straucture the cliffs, as they are now afraid of the railways lines leading from Folkstone and Dover. The cliffs, maybe an attraction, but if its an attraction that people pay to go to see, there is barriers to prevent any harm coming to people. But your point on the cliffs, is absurd as again cliffs are dangerous areas full stop, as the ground can crumble beneath your feet making them unsafe to stand near to. This is not the case with the Zoo, what is happenning is Zoo's are sacrificing safety, to gain more of a better view of the animals and they are failing to warn the public in doing so.
They are thus creating risks, so the blame still is with the zoo

the don't let you walk in to the enclosure either

All I have to say is the concept of 'safety' is unrealistic. the zoo is safe if you follow the rules, the kid did not and it is the adult’s responsibility to make sure the kid follows the rules for their own safety.

If you ignore the fence at the cliff it is the same deal.

I don't think there is any sort of criminal negligence on either side.

veya_victaous wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Sorry now you are being absurd
Again this is a place where its meant to be safe for people to walk freely around.
How many attractions do you know of that allow you to walk to the edge of a cliff, one that is at present having major works on.
So much so they are bringing in boulders from holland to build a platform to straucture the cliffs, as they are now afraid of the railways lines leading from Folkstone and Dover. The cliffs, maybe an attraction, but if its an attraction that people pay to go to see, there is barriers to prevent any harm coming to people. But your point on the cliffs, is absurd as again cliffs are dangerous areas full stop, as the ground can crumble beneath your feet making them unsafe to stand near to. This is not the case with the Zoo, what is happenning is Zoo's are sacrificing safety, to gain more of a better view of the animals and they are failing to warn the public in doing so.
They are thus creating risks, so the blame still is with the zoo

the don't let you walk in to the enclosure either

All I have to say is the concept of 'safety' is unrealistic. the zoo is safe if you follow the rules, the kid did not and it is the adult’s responsibility to make sure the kid follows the rules for their own safety.

If you ignore the fence at the cliff it is the same deal.

I don't think there is any sort of criminal negligence on either side.

And you are basing the claim on safety based on what expert experince from designing safety enclosures?
There was no rules for kids, that is again absurd, and you arre just making things up
If there was rules stating the barrier was not chil proof, how many parents do you think would allow their children to even go near the enclosure?
Its not the adults responsibility if the zoo is meant to proect both animals and humans.
You are just making things up which are wrong.
There was no warning signs and the enclosure was not child proof
Zoo 100% in the wrong

Yeah You are one of those Idiots...
that want a signs to make up for your lack of common sense
and i bet there are signs they say don’t feed the animals etc.

The world is not safe Little Buttercup
No Fence or Barrier is unbreachable, it was child proof to a reaosnable person (which you are not) , kid got through 3 barriers and jumped from a hieght.

It should not have to be child proof anyway, people are supposed to be smart enough to Know NOT TO try and get in the enclosure with the animals.
Literally black and white case of evolution in action. Kid too dumb through nature or nurture to understand basic self-preservation.

And basing it on the fact that apparently you and all your offspring would get yourself killed through idiocy within a few hours of being in the bush cause there is no sign to tell you not to.

People like you are the reason we have to have idiot disclaimers and cant have nice things because an idiot can always find a way to use improperly and hurt themsleves.

And so we are back to insults
Yes its legal to have signs if something is not safe or child proof
To say its idiotic well I will leave people to see what you wrote yourself.
As the safety of children superscedes all when in such a place and if parents are unaware its not safe, they will have no reason to fear that it is.
Again the point on the barriers are meant to be child proof seems to elude you and what that concept means.
If something is not and people knew it was not then the zoo should then have measure that child are not allowed up to the enclosure unless with one adult and child at a time.
That then reduces risks and the parents are then aware of the dangers.

Can you grow up as I really do not care what you think of me, you are just some immature insiginifcant keyboard warrier who is not that intlligent which I would never employ to ensure health and safety

I’m going to be vulnerable with you.
And ultimately, I am writing it because I genuinely hope you read it.
I hope you’re not too afraid to open it.
Lord knows you probably are. I know that after scrolling through hundreds of articles, re-shares of the news story, and thousands of comments, all I have seen is hate directed at you. And I will probably ensue my own hate mail, but I believe this is worth writing to you.



So I want to extend an invitation of mercy to you.
Do I love animals and do I feel incredibly saddened by the death of Harambe? Yes. A million times yes. He was a beautiful and majestic creature and an animal on the endangered species list. And truth be told, you know that. And you probably are just as saddened as so many others are that his life was taken. But that was not your choice. And that is not on you.


I also know that as a mother of two and now almost 3 kids, they can slip away in a single instant. They dart between clothing racks, climb to the tops of trees, and seemingly disappear even when we’re trying to pay attention and juggle life in general.


I have seen death threats and horrible things said about you. But I know that even the best parents have lost their children. They have lost them in public and it could have been any one of those people calling “neglect” to have had the exact same thing happen to them. It’s just, they lose their kids in the supermarket, at parades, at crowded malls, and even airports.

And in every one of those instances it’s about saving the child.
Your child’s life was worth saving just like theirs and the full reality of the situation is that you cannot change how it happened or where it happened.
And ultimately there was a failure from every angle.

I, and the rest of the world, will never fully understand why death trumped tranquilization. And your child should never have been able to get inside to begin with! The fact that a child under the age of five could effectively breach an enclosure meant to keep a 400 pound gorilla and ourselves separate completely baffles me.

And I am sure it was a horrifying reality to turn and in a split second realize that your child was now on the other side of the looking glass.
Of course if you would have leashed your kid like some people suggested (probably the same people that would find it abhorrent that children would ever be treated like animals, but that’s beside the point) or if you would have kept a closer eye on him, it would not have happened. But accidents happen and you’re human, just like the rest of us.

---

http://karacarrero.com/open-letter-mother-boy-fell-gorilla-enclosure/

Paul Ettinger wrote:And so we are back to insults
Yes its legal to have signs if something is not safe or child proof
To say its idiotic well I will leave people to see what you wrote yourself.
As the safety of children superscedes all when in such a place and if parents are unaware its not safe, they will have no reason to fear that it is.
Again the point on the barriers are meant to be child proof seemsto elude you and what that concept means.
If something is not and people knew it was not then the zoo should then have measure that child are not allowed up to the enclosure unless with one adult and child at a time.
That then reduces risks and the parents are then aware of the dangers.

Can you grow up as I really do not care what you think of me, you are just some immature insiginifcant keyboard warrier who is not that intlligent which I would never employ to ensure health and safety

And you are deluded as to what soemthing 'proof' means
it does not mean in any legal sense that it is 100% inpenaterable it is suffienct to prevent access based on the 'reasobable person' judgement
3 barriers and a 15 foot drop is sufficent to any reaosnable person.

a single Barrier is Suffienct legally, the kid didn't accidently fall he purposely crossed the safety barrier.

So Like i said you ignorance would get you or your offspring killed cause you have an unreasonable expection that you are ever not responsible for your own self presevation.

As i said you are 'one of those people' and i am sure Victor knows exactly what i mean. want to keep reducing risks to the point where we cant have anything. the risk was acceptable the Child's behaviour of crossing a barrier was not, if the parent cant teach their kid not to do that then again EVOLUTION literally black and white case, went up to a dangerous animal, evolution says he is meant to be eaten definitly not meant to make it to adulthood. That is nature, any other outcome is unnatural.

Like I said until you learn some manners and research health and safety and understand what it is you are on ignore as a poster

Enjoy the silence as you do this everytime with your constant abuse and i am bored trying to reason with someone so utterly cluelss as you are on such a subject

I do not want their to be Zoo's were animals are gaged at all

i think animals should be free

But then you simply again keep wanting to talk about me and not the points at hand

When it comes to dangeroeus animals, safety must take a priority and for you to think it should not shows how absurd you are being, yet again.

You still fail to grasp the concept of child proof and if its not that is necessary to inform people of the risks. That is not restricting anything but making people very aware of the dangers. People go to Zoo's believeing they are child proof, the point you miss and the Zoo's portray that they are.

This is a 4 year old child and the fact you cannot understand that the purpose of the palce is to attrract people to view the animals and that then their attention is then taken awy more than it would be means the Zoo has a responsibility to ensure the safety for all

The fact also eludes you that a child should never ever be able to gain access to such an area and it would place that Zoo as a risk
Now the Zoo and others are looking at their safety measures and rightly so as they are there to protect the people as much as they are the animals

Like I said earlier there should be glass enclosures, which would not restrict any view for the people to see the animals

Now do not expect any further replies, youa re on ignore as a poster as I am bored with the fact you happened to be the dumbest poster on here

Even stormee is more intelligent than you

Paul Ettinger wrote:I’m going to be vulnerable with you.
And ultimately, I am writing it because I genuinely hope you read it.
I hope you’re not too afraid to open it.
Lord knows you probably are. I know that after scrolling through hundreds of articles, re-shares of the news story, and thousands of comments, all I have seen is hate directed at you. And I will probably ensue my own hate mail, but I believe this is worth writing to you.



So I want to extend an invitation of mercy to you.
Do I love animals and do I feel incredibly saddened by the death of Harambe? Yes. A million times yes. He was a beautiful and majestic creature and an animal on the endangered species list. And truth be told, you know that. And you probably are just as saddened as so many others are that his life was taken. But that was not your choice. And that is not on you.


I also know that as a mother of two and now almost 3 kids, they can slip away in a single instant. They dart between clothing racks, climb to the tops of trees, and seemingly disappear even when we’re trying to pay attention and juggle life in general.


I have seen death threats and horrible things said about you. But I know that even the best parents have lost their children. They have lost them in public and it could have been any one of those people calling “neglect” to have had the exact same thing happen to them. It’s just, they lose their kids in the supermarket, at parades, at crowded malls, and even airports.

And in every one of those instances it’s about saving the child.
Your child’s life was worth saving just like theirs and the full reality of the situation is that you cannot change how it happened or where it happened.
And ultimately there was a failure from every angle.

I, and the rest of the world, will never fully understand why death trumped tranquilization. And your child should never have been able to get inside to begin with! The fact that a child under the age of five could effectively breach an enclosure meant to keep a 400 pound gorilla and ourselves separate completely baffles me.

And I am sure it was a horrifying reality to turn and in a split second realize that your child was now on the other side of the looking glass.
Of course if you would have leashed your kid like some people suggested (probably the same people that would find it abhorrent that children would ever be treated like animals, but that’s beside the point) or if you would have kept a closer eye on him, it would not have happened. But accidents happen and you’re human, just like the rest of us.

It’s easy to point fingers from behind a keyboard.

It’s easy to attack you because the mob mentality is that someone must pay and someone must be to blame. 

And it’s easy to forget that, again, you are not the only party involved.

It’s also easy to forget that you’re human, that you’re imperfect, and that you’re a mom just trying to do the best for your kids like the rest of us.

In days and weeks, many will forget. They will forget your story and move on to the next sensationalized news article. They think they’re gorilla activists, but they’re just part of a mob. An angry mob that wants justice for a beautiful animal that unnecessarily died.

I hope that you can rise above the comments. That you can become an activist for creating safer zoo environments for both our children and for the animals and that you can raise awareness of the need to respect the space of animals and wildlife. That you can even speak to local schools about zoo safety before their next field trip.

Because I believe good and great can come from tragic. 

So I weep the death of Harambe, but I also celebrate the life of your son. And I know that few have said that in the wake of the chaos. We fight for kids and their lives worldwide and just because a gorilla was involved in your story, doesn’t make him less worthy to fight for.

I wish there were easy answers for you and for your family and I know this incident will haunt you for the rest of your life. But I pray you find peace, that you rise above the hate and don’t fall victim to the world’s sharp tongue, and that your family will survive the weeks that seem like you are in the spotlight.

And I only wish you the best,

Kara

---

http://karacarrero.com/open-letter-mother-boy-fell-gorilla-enclosure/

Bumped up for others to see and read and understand

That was bang on the money

Paul Ettinger wrote:Like I said until you learn some manners and research health and safety and understand what it is you are on ignore as a poster

Enjoy the silence as you do this everytime with your constant abuse and i am bored trying to reason with someone so utterly cluelss as you are on such a subject

I do not want their to be Zoo's were animals are gaged at all

i think animals should be free

But then you simply again keep wanting to talk about me and not the points at hand

When it comes to dangeroeus animals, safety must take a priority and for you to think it should not shows how absurd you are being, yet again.

You still fail to grasp the concept of child proof and if its not that is necessary to inform people of the risks. That is not restricting anything but making people very aware of the dangers. People go to Zoo's believeing they are child proof, the point you miss and the Zoo's portray that they are.

This is a 4 year old child and the fact you cannot understand that the purpose of the palce is to attrract people to view the animals and that then their attention is then taken awy more than it would be means the Zoo has a responsibility to ensure the safety for all

The fact also eludes you that a child should never ever be able to gain access to such an area and it would place that Zoo as a risk
Now the Zoo and others are looking at their safety measures and rightly so as they are there to protect the people as much as they are the animals

Like I said earlier there should be glass enclosures, which would not restrict any view for the people to see the animals

Now do not expect any further replies, youa re on ignore as a poster as I am bored with the fact you happened to be the dumbest poster on here

Even stormee is more intelligent than you

Yeah Still evolution.

the fact you cannot grasp that people that are not 'like you' take far bigger risks and understand those risk and that the ZOO is not the blame as you SAID you just want to close it for completely unrelated reasons.

Kara Carrero wrote:I also know that as a mother of two and now almost 3 kids, they can slip away in a single instant. They dart between clothing racks, climb to the tops of trees, and seemingly disappear even when we’re trying to pay attention and juggle life in general.

Kara Carrero, author and host of the podcast "Extremely Good Parenting," writes this in an open letter on her blog to "extend an invitation of mercy" to the mother.

There's an old philosophy in the aerospace industry: zero defects. You know, if you overlook a defect, someone is going to crash and burn. It's guaranteed.

Zero defects in parenting means if you know of a problem and you don't take measures to prevent it, you are going to jeopardize a child's life. If a child can "slip away" and "seemingly disappear even when we're trying to pay attention and juggle life in general," then you are forewarned not to bring that child to places where danger can happen. For example...oh, say, don't walk out in the middle of a freeway or an airport runway...and don't try to disassemble a live hand grenade...and don't leave a child loose around a dangerous wild animal.

No place and nothing is safe. And when you know danger is lurking, and you deliberately went there, my god, how stupid are you to lose the child? Frankly--and I'm sorry to put it this way--thankfully it wasn't the child who lost his life. Next time it will be.

AFTER hearing about the mother posting a couple of arrogant "don't blame me;  blame the gorilla/blame someone else/just don't blame me ! " style comments on her FaceBook page over the last couple of days...

ALL the more, I reckon it's still a shame those 'keepers didn't shoot her as well..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

AFTER hearing about the mother posting a couple of arrogant "don't blame me;  blame the gorilla/blame someone else/just don't blame me ! " style comments on her FaceBook page over the last couple of days...

ALL the more, I reckon it's still a shame those 'keepers didn't shoot her as well..

I'm disappointed by better thinking professional humans that are seeing just a few quick snippets of someone's video and making judgement calls about whether or not that sliver back gorilla was having a stressful moment and had a natural intent to either harm that human child or protect him --- WTF???  Oh, yes - let us not forget about those few instances where a 'FEMALE' gorilla has picked up an injured child and turned it over to the zoo handlers in exchange for 'food'; this 'alpha male' was not so inclined to do that - DUHHHH

And then to top that insanity off - the pleas being heard from 'absent minded mommy' ...'stay calm baby - just stay calm'  
As if his ignoring her in the first place hadn't gotten her little darling in that chaos situation because he was so in tuned to do 'as mommy says' and 'hell, ya - momma, I'm down here being drug around by a 500# silver backed male gorilla - I'm gonna hear you over all those people screaming and my crying!'

FB has been quite the remedy book for what we need to do in such situations and here has been one of the best todate > Just a little levity into this ongoing chaotic issue >

The mother of a child who entered a Cincinnati Zoo enclosure will not face criminal charges, the Hamilton County prosecutor’s office in Ohio said on Monday.

Harambe the gorilla was shot dead by zoo staff after a three-year-old child entered his enclosure on May 28.

The killing of the critically-endangered animal sparked international outrage, with many calling for the child’s parents to face criminal charges.

But after days of speculation, Hamilton County prosecutor Joseph Deters said that the child’s parents would not face criminal charges.

“I am very sorry about the loss of this gorilla but nothing about this situation rises to the level of a criminal charge,” Deters said in a statement.

“Had she been in the bathroom smoking crack and let her kids run around the zoo that’ll be a different story.

“She was attending to her children by all witness accounts and the three-year-old just scampered off,” he told reporters on Monday, Reuters reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/parents-of-child-entered-harambe-gorillas-zoo-enclosure-wont-be-charged-prosecutor-says_uk_5755ade2e4b040e3e819f4fd?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk