U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 05-30-2016, 10:08 AM
5,607 posts, read 4,163,577 times
Reputation: 12348


Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
Wrong, it would rightly have been born by her for not doing as she was told. Once I'd clearly instructed her to leave the dog alone, my job was done. It's not my job to hold her to where she can't keep on poking when she knows how to do it herself. It is my job to discipline her for not obeying my orders, and sometimes that means letting nature take its course, especially if it doesn't result in a mauling as I correctly guessed.

I like what John Rosemond said once in one of his parenting books. A parent asked for advice on how to get her son to tie his shoes vs running around with his shoes untied, she'd tell him "tie your shoes" but he kept on running around with loose shoestrings. His response--let him keep on as is and when he falls and faceplants, perhaps on concrete, then he'll get the message. Exactly.

You parent YOUR kids your way, I'll parent MY kids MY way.
Correctly guessed. Luck in other words. You accomplished nothing but to possibly instill a fear of dogs in your daughter. What you should have done is remove her from a potentially dangerous situation. You need to read up on brain development in children. You're asking your kids to use higher order thinking they are years away from acquiring just to test your so called "parenting" philosophy.

Old 05-30-2016, 10:12 AM
Location: The analog world
15,645 posts, read 8,764,064 times
Reputation: 20969
One of my children had a mind of his own, and it was completely crazy-making to take him places like the museum or zoo when he was between the ages of two and four. It can be very difficult to parent a non-compliant, fearless young child, and I'm so sorry the gorilla had to be put down to protect the boy's safety. What a nightmare.
Old 05-30-2016, 10:13 AM
12,608 posts, read 14,621,137 times
Reputation: 14105
I think no one is to blame.

Anyone who has kids knows if you look away for a second, they can be into something. Yes, the mom maybe should have him in a stroller or on a leash, but she had other kids with her too. Yes, maybe she should have had more help to handle multiple kids. But she probably didn't think for a second that her kid was going to get into a gorilla enclosure. Hindsight is 20/20.

The zoo is not to blame for shooting the gorilla. The first responders said the gorilla was dragging and throwing the child. If that were YOUR child, you'd want the gorilla killed before the gorilla hurt or killed him. The zoo officials didn't want to kill the gorilla; they did it because the kid was in imminent danger.

Sometimes things just happen. Everyone is so quick to assign blame, but sometimes there is a series of events where if one thing had been different, the outcome would have been better, but it was not different and you can't do anything about it. IF the mother had had the kid in a stroller or on a leash, IF the kid hadn't managed to get into the enclosure, IF the gorilla hadn't dragged and thrown the child, IF a tranquilizer could have worked instead of shooting the gorilla, etc.

Can you imagine the outrage if the zoo had done nothing and the gorilla killed the child?

Last edited by luzianne; 05-30-2016 at 11:20 AM..
Old 05-30-2016, 10:16 AM
Location: Rutherfordton,NC
12,131 posts, read 8,112,434 times
Reputation: 8609
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
Because they don't exist. There's no all-purpose "" which will drop any species instantly without killing it. Safe medications and safe dosages used can vary hugely between different species, and none of the drugs act instantly. It can take as long as ten minutes or more for a tranquilizer dart to work.

Unfortunately, when an animal has to be dropped RIGHT NOW in order to protect human life, tranquilizer darts are not an option. The only option left in that scenario is a bullet.

(Oh, and BTW, animals can and sometimes do kill "just for the hell of it." They are more like humans in that respect than many people realize. Angelic innocents they are definitely NOT.)

IN all honesty it depends where you shoot them & what drugs you shot them with.

Show me where wild animal's kill for the hell of it.
Old 05-30-2016, 10:17 AM
12,099 posts, read 5,605,613 times
Reputation: 13596
Originally Posted by shyguylh View Post
In extreme situations, no, however, in many other instances, absolutely YES. There also should be a bit of latitude in that, I don't care what anybody says, even a reasonably vigilant parent can have a child they are actually trying to watch nonetheless slip away from them. It happens--again, I DON'T CARE who says "it never happened to me," I call bologna. It happens, even when parents are trying their best.

But yes, I think even a 3 year-old, except in the most extreme situations, SHOULD be held responsible for not doing as they were told and the consequences of their actions. I did this to my children on many occasions, including that I'd leave candy on my wife's desk well within their reach but STILL expect them to not touch it, I WOULD NOT put it up where they couldn't get to it, I'd leave it right there and discipline them if they touched it without permission. No, I didn't leave medicine there, I did draw the line there (and weapons were kept in another room in a locked drawer).

One incident similar to this happened to us years ago. My daughter at age 2 or so kept bugging this dog at a pet store, this dog was out in the open and sleeping, minding its own business, and she kept poking at its face and such. I told her "leave the dog alone," and for a short bit she would (so don't tell me she didn't understand), but then she went right back to it again. Finally after 2-3 times of this I just decided that ON PURPOSE I would do NOTHING and let the chips fall where they may. The dog proceeded to bark at her but not bite her, but it startled her, and she started crying, and I told her "serves you right, it's YOUR FAULT, maybe next time you'll do what I tell you to do and stop being so stubborn." She never did it again.

My son age 3 kept taking his shoes off in the car, I'd tell him over and over "stop taking your shoes off in the car." He'd put them back on, only to then take them off again. One day I decided to just say nothing, he took them off, got out of the car, stepping onto hot pavement (it was probably 95'F and sunny). He lunged to the car to get his shoes, I flat-out locked the doors with the remote making him stand right there for 10-15 seconds while I got on him "did I give you MY PERMISSION to take your shoes off? I don't care what you want, this is what will happen to you unless you do what I TELL YOU TO DO." He never did it again.

So don't tell me that a 3 year old doesn't understand what he's doing. Of course he does. He's just being a stubborn bull-headed brat who needs to learn to control his/her impulses.

No, I don't think this child deserved to be mauled to death as a "consequence of their actions," they did what they had to do because yes a child is more important than an animal and because yes there is a limit as to how far a parent should let a child experience the consequences of their choices. HOWEVER, to the extent that maybe he got a good scare put in him, I say GOOD that it happened the way it did. Maybe next time when someone tells him to not do whatever, maybe he'll freaking LISTEN and OBEY. (No, I would not have let it get this far, but I can promise you that upon seeing him try I'd taken him to the little boy's room, checked to see there were no cameras, and tore his butt up good).

I would hold the parents responsible IF it were found that they did just let him go in there to learn the consequences of his actions, because even I think that would be taking it too far, and I'd also hold them responsible if they weren't the type to discipline their child for not obeying them and that such made him feel like he could just waltz in there. However, I would NOT hold them responsible if they make reasonable efforts to control the situation but he managed to slip in there anyway on account of his own stubbornness.
Some people should not be allowed to breed.
Old 05-30-2016, 10:21 AM
8,020 posts, read 3,889,408 times
Reputation: 27503
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
They didn't have to kill the Gorilla they could of tranquilized him there are darts that would of put him just as quickly as a bullet would of. IF the Gorilla wanted to hurt the boy he would of done so within seconds of getting close to the child. Animals don't kill for the hell of it they kill to survive the Gorilla knew the little boy wasn't a threat.
You need to stop getting your knowledge from the cartoons you watch.

You might also want to give proper grammar a shot.
Old 05-30-2016, 10:26 AM
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,385 posts, read 6,798,249 times
Reputation: 14453
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
I don't. Do you?

And why don't they have them? Do you know how much money a zoo makes?
And in the words above lies a large part of the problem; only the tourist traps are privately operated and, even those don't make a large "profit" (and "profit" is automatically an obscene word in the minds of many of the animal-rights crowd and their touchy-feely clientele.



Most of our better zoos are either publicly-owned, or managed by a non-profit organization, which still has to raise money to keep operating and fund new exhibits. And many of those in smaller and/or declining cities struggle with an eroding population and/or tax base. When budget cuts force austerity, the zoo is then open to further criticism from sheltered suburbanites often far-removed from the real world.

I often wonder how Detroit's zoo, which used to be among the healthiest, makes ends meet.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-30-2016 at 10:57 AM..
Old 05-30-2016, 10:32 AM
6,075 posts, read 3,635,398 times
Reputation: 5237
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
Correctly guessed. Luck in other words. You accomplished nothing but to possibly instill a fear of dogs in your daughter. What you should have done is remove her from a potentially dangerous situation. You need to read up on brain development in children. You're asking your kids to use higher order thinking they are years away from acquiring just to test your so called "parenting" philosophy.
Old 05-30-2016, 10:41 AM
Location: Back in the gym...Yo Adrian!
9,371 posts, read 17,497,562 times
Reputation: 18346
You have to be a special kind of an A-hole to allow your toddler to fall into a gorilla den. This gorilla is dead because of careless aloof parents who were probably busy taking selfies or looking at their phones.
Old 05-30-2016, 10:42 AM
10,404 posts, read 7,488,333 times
Reputation: 18346
After seeing the video, I'm on the side of the zoo. I'm surprised the child wasn't killed.

I'm not on the side of the parents. They need to be charged with negligence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top