Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

how do you as parents feel about the gorilla shot in American zoo ?

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Electric Sex Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Electric Sex Pants


    yqtwqxqm wrote: »
    Like a Gorilla dragging a 4 year old child around in the water?

    Or a gorilla trying to remove the boy from what he thinks is a threat, a bunch of screaming moron humans.


  • Options
    #123
    JJayoo
    Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Can you point to an incident where a human was killed by a gorilla unprovoked? Remembering that hundreds of people a year interact with gorillas.

    You are comparing trained guides bringing tourists to interact with Gorillas with a screaming child falling into a gorillas enclosure. You can't compare both, pointless argument.

    Unless you think 100s of kids fall in to gorillas every year.


  • Options
    #124
    SAMTALK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,329 ✭✭✭SAMTALK


    Anyone who thinks the parents are to blame are going over the top here.

    If I was in a zoo I would fully expect that it would be impossible to get into the enclosures so I think its the zoo who has to take the full blame here to be honest.

    The zoo was also in an impossible position as regards killing the animal.
    If it was my child I wouldnt be thinking about the animal I would be thinking "get my child out of there"

    In not convinced the gorilla was going to harm the child but then again I wouldnt have liked to wait to find out .
    It was actually a very sad story and I dont know if there would have been as much about it only it was seen on video as opposed to reading about it


  • Options
    #125
    Electric Sex Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Electric Sex Pants


    SAMTALK wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks the parents are to blame are going over the top here.

    If I was in a zoo I would fully expect that it would be impossible to get into the enclosures so I think its the zoo who has to take the full blame here to be honest.

    It is the parents job to watch what their kids are doing, not the zoos. The zoo's job is to keep the animals inside. Which is what they did, it was the moron parents who were negligent, not the zoo.


  • Options
    #126
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    It is the parents job to watch what their kids are doing, not the zoos. The zoo's job is to keep the animals inside. Which is what they did, it was the moron parents who were negligent, not the zoo.

    The zoo made a gorilla enclosure that a four year old could fall into. The zoo was negligent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Electric Sex Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Electric Sex Pants


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    The zoo made a gorilla enclosure that a four year old could fall into. The zoo was negligent.

    No it wasnt, if the child was properly looked after then they would never have been able to get in.

    I presume the zoo had some stairs there too, if the child was no being watched and fell down the stairs and hit their head would the zoo have been negligent?
    If the child was being watched properly then there is no way they could have gotten into the pit. The parents saw the type of enclosure it was but apparently still didn't feel the need to keep an eye on their child.


  • Options
    #128
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    No it wasnt, if the child was properly looked after then they would never have been able to get in.

    I presume the zoo had some stairs there too, if the child was no being watched and fell down the stairs and hit their head would the zoo have been negligent?
    If the child was being watched properly then there is no way they could have gotten into the pit. The parents saw the type of enclosure it was but apparently still didn't feel the need to keep an eye on their child.

    If the zoo knew that a child getting into the enclosure could result in the death of either the child or animal and didn't put in place sufficient protection then the zoo was negligent.


  • Options
    #129
    Electric Sex Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Electric Sex Pants


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    If the zoo knew that a child getting into the enclosure could result in the death of either the child or animal and didn't put in place sufficient protection then the zoo was negligent.

    They did provide adequate protection, it would have been impossible for a child to get in without parental negligence.


  • Options
    #130
    mordeith
    Registered Users Posts: 5,278 ✭✭✭mordeith


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    They did provide adequate protection, it would have been impossible for a child to get in without parental negligence.

    While I may not be 100% behind the parents in this case, the above statement is clearly incorrect. A child of that age shouldn't be able to get into any animal enclosure.


  • Options
    #131
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    They did provide adequate protection, it would have been impossible for a child to get in without parental negligence.

    Do you have children? Do you know how easy it is for a child to slip away from you if you take your eye off them for a second? I hate to disillusion you but it's very easy.

    I just love the extent of pitchfork wielding mob mentality here. There are two facts that we know:
    1. The child got into the enclosure
    2. The gorilla had to be shot to save the child's life.

    That's all. Everything else is conjecture and most of it is tabloid-style tat.

    The zoo would not have shot the gorilla if there was any other way to save the child. Yes the gorilla would not see the child as a threat but could very easily killed him inadvertently. They tried to entice the gorilla away but he was having none of it. So they made the very difficult decision to kill the gorilla to save the child. Keepers build up a bond with the animals they look after so don't assume for a second that this was their first option or that it was an easy decision.

    As for the parents - do you honestly think they would deliberately put their child in such a situation? No parent would. We don't know the actual circumstances but based on raising two children myself it would be very easy to assume that the child just slipped away without them noticing. You can't keep your eye on a child every second. Mine were very adept at slipping off leashes or just wandering at a moment's notice. There is no indication of negligence as the Daily Mail readers here are suggesting. It happens.

    Which leads us to the zoo. There has been huge pressure on zoos to make enclosures more accessible for viewing. This has led to removal of bars, fences, etc so as not to impede views for the public. This does not imply negligence either but certainly a review needs to be held of the risk/benefit of having such enclosures as accessible as they are. There should be no way for a child to get in there but it obviously happened. That does not imply negligence on any party - it just happened.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Electric Sex Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Electric Sex Pants


    mordeith wrote: »
    While I may not be 100% behind the parents in this case, the above statement is clearly incorrect. A child of that age shouldn't be able to get into any animal enclosure.

    The statement is not incorrect - if the parents were watching their child like they should have been then the child would have been perfectly safe.


  • Options
    #133
    mordeith
    Registered Users Posts: 5,278 ✭✭✭mordeith


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    The statement is not incorrect - if the parents were watching their child like they should have been then the child would have been perfectly safe.

    That part I agree with to degree, but the fact of the matter is the enclosure was exposed enough to let a very young child get into it, which is simply not good enough.


  • Options
    #134
    Electric Sex Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Electric Sex Pants


    mordeith wrote: »
    That part I agree with to degree, but the fact of the matter is the enclosure was exposed enough to let a very young child get into it, which is simply not good enough.

    Why?? Personally I think its the zoos job to keep the animals from getting out, but its the parents job to stop children from getting in. A there are bridges all over the world that a young child could easily climb over the ledge and fall into the river. Does that mean the city authorities are at fault if the parent isn't watching their child and he/she climbs over the ledge and falls in?


  • Options
    #135
    mordeith
    Registered Users Posts: 5,278 ✭✭✭mordeith


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    Why?? Personally I think its the zoos job to keep the animals from getting out, but its the parents job to stop children from getting in. A there are bridges all over the world that a young child could easily climb over the ledge and fall into the river. Does that mean the city authorities are at fault if the parent isn't watching their child and he/she climbs over the ledge and falls in?

    You're comparing bridges now to a business that charges people an entrance fee to view (in many cases) dangerous animals? I suppose the lion enclosures should only have a few lines of electric fence. That will keep the animals in as you say and then people will just have to be careful not to put their hand too close. Simples!
    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    Personally I think its the zoos job to keep the animals from getting out
    Do you not think that by extension any enclosure designed to keep something in should also work in reverse? Here's a jail that keep prisoners in but anyone can join them in there if they like.


  • Options
    #136
    Electric Sex Pants
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Electric Sex Pants


    mordeith wrote: »
    You're comparing bridges now to a business that charges people an entrance fee to view (in many cases) dangerous animals? I suppose the lion enclosures should only have a few lines of electric fence. That will keep the animals in as you say and then people will just have to be careful not to put their hand too close. Simples!

    Do you not think that by extension any enclosure designed to keep something in should also work in reverse? Here's a jail that keep prisoners in but anyone can join them in there if they like.

    It is a fair comparison. And the fact that the people who enter the business know they are going to see dangerous animals should know to keep an eye on their children at all times, hell whenever you are in a public place keep an eye on them at all times and enough with the excuses.

    and the jail example, if someone is stupid enough to go in there then that on them, adequate protection needs to be in place to stop people getting in without conscious effort but if conscious effort is in place then thats on them. Obviously the above is for an adult. if there are kids then the parents job is to keep them in site at all times.


  • Options
    #137
    mordeith
    Registered Users Posts: 5,278 ✭✭✭mordeith


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    Obviously the above is for an adult. if there are kids then the parents job is to keep them in site at all times.

    Keeping them in sight is of course an onus on the parents. However, I would expect an establishment to have their business in good enough order to prevent a four year old from entering an animal enclosure. It's not as if it was a cat burglar scaled a sheer wall to get in. I've been to pet farms where you can't get access to rabbits in the cages what ever about a gorilla!


  • Options
    #138
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Electric Sex Pants wrote: »
    if there are kids then the parents job is to keep them in site at all times.

    Assuming you mean "sight", it's not even remotely possible, nor is it healthy for a developing child to have parents attached to them constantly. They will be a fairly messed up adult if they are stuck holding the apron strings and not let out of mammy's armreach their entire childhood. What age does this extend to theoretically?

    What do you do if you have two children, and they are not standing next to each other at all times? Pick your favourite and cling to them? Some people even have more than two! Gasp!


  • Options
    #139
    Beanybabog
    Registered Users Posts: 1,455 ✭✭✭Beanybabog


    My opinion is that parents cannot be expected to keep their children in sight 100% of the time. 99% yes but so many accidents happen when parents are distracted for even 20 seconds. The zoo would be aware of this and should have the enclosure made safe. It should be virtually impossible for a small child to get into an enclosure. The zoo has a duty of care to its visitors and are aware a huge amount of visitors are small children. Even if the parents were not watching their child it should be still impossible for the child to get in, for example, I imagine its worse on a school tour when one or two teachers have many kids to watch and despite best efforts they may not be able to.

    I have no problem with them shooting the gorilla. It was too much of a risk to the child. If they want to protect their animals from the risk of being out down they need structures in place to make sure their animals are never in a position to hurt a visitor.


Advertisement