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.
Apparently the child crawled through the barrier. Three year olds are not easy to keep in line. I can see it happening, parent turns their back to deal with other child for a minute, kid climbs barrier.
The Cincinnati zoo website is down, but was he a breeding male or a bachelor. There are about 100 excess gorilla makes just in the US, so it may not be as big a tragedy as if it was a female, depending on his genes.
Sorry, but I have two children that I can easily WATCH at the zoo. Parents should be held accountable when their toddlers wander off into an enclosed area with wild animals. No excuses. I am a very attentive parent and I am sick of seeing toddlers running in the street near moving cars and dumb ass moms on their cell phones.
i think zoos should have to make all animal enclosures completely impossible for humans to in any way come in contact with any of the animals. or at least all of the animals that are able to harm or kill a person. i don't know exactly how they would/could do that. but it just seems like this would be the best way to stop future tragedies like this. sad
Zoo Miami which is a cageless Zoo where animals are separated by huge moats.
I agree with this and also feel it was sad that the zookeepers had no choice under the circumstances. The child could have been harmed or killed in the blink of an eye, even if the gorilla had no actual intent.
All the screaming idiots watching also didn't help. Anyone who knows animals realizes that screaming and yelling will agitate animals at the very least. The general public should have been quickly removed from the area.
The parents are lucky to have their child back alive and unhurt. I only hope they cannot profit off this incident through a lawsuit. They actually should owe the zoo (which taxpayers support) the compensation for a valued animal.
After reading this account of what happened, I think that's absolutely true. It appears from this that the gorilla at first, wasn't harming the boy. But after hearing the screams he became agitated and confused.
OMG, please!
So parents are totally faultless if they instruct their kids to behave, thus relieving them of the responsibility of actually watching out for their welfare... say around a busy road? A rushing river, a bonfire, the balcony on a high rise? Because we all know kids always do what their parents tell them, especially the little ones!
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.
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.
No, it doesn't just always happen. There are plenty of parents who are able to watch their children and have the common sense to keep them from ending up endangered by a wild animal.
Quote:
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.
As the parent, you should have taken her away from the situation. It is never okay to just leave your child to annoy an animal and "let the chips fall where they may." You are lucky that all the dog did was bark at her. That just seems very irresponsible to allow your child to be in such a dangerous situation. You could have just as easily end up as a news story about a child being mauled to death by a dog, or even ended up in the hospital from an animal bite. Animals are not something you use to teach your child a lesson with.
Quote:
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.
Your poor children. A 3 year old was forced to stand on hot asphalt because they need your permission for everything they do? Don't most kids usually take their shoes and socks off at that age? Especially while sitting. I take my shoes off sometimes in the car (not when driving) because its more comfortable. But I guess having complete control over a small child is more important then their comfort.
No, it doesn't just always happen. There are plenty of parents who are able to watch their children and have the common sense to keep them from ending up endangered by a wild animal.
Nope, I call bull. Life happens, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to stop and intercept every single thing a squirmy and stubborn child wants to do. Of course you have to put in reasonable effort and not just throw your hands up and say "oh well," but even the best of parents have things happen and those who say "no not me" are lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
As the parent, you should have taken her away from the situation. It is never okay to just leave your child to annoy an animal and "let the chips fall where they may." You are lucky that all the dog did was bark at her. That just seems very irresponsible to allow your child to be in such a dangerous situation. You could have just as easily end up as a news story about a child being mauled to death by a dog, or even ended up in the hospital from an animal bite. Animals are not something you use to teach your child a lesson with.
My gut instinct told me that, this being a pet store and the owner of the store feeling OK with a dog being out in the open in that manner, it was probably a more mild-mannered dog that they felt confident wouldn't overreact and maul someone. That my daughter, for a short bit anyway, would leave the dog alone when I told her to, that told me she understood what she was being told to do (or not do). With that understanding having been conveyed to her, it was HER JOB at that point to comply, it was not my job to keep reminding her 8329 times. As one person know once said "I don't chew my cabbage twice" (meaning "I'm going to say this only once") and as another said "don't do for a child what they are perfectly capable of doing for themselves." Yes it was my job to teach her, it was not my job to keep reminding her 32 dozen times what I'd already told her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
Your poor children. A 3 year old was forced to stand on hot asphalt because they need your permission for everything they do? Don't most kids usually take their shoes and socks off at that age? Especially while sitting. I take my shoes off sometimes in the car (not when driving) because its more comfortable. But I guess having complete control over a small child is more important then their comfort.
Especially at a young age, a child's very reason for existing is to do what their parents tell them to do. PERIOD. They have no vote nor are they supposed to have one. No it's not supposed to be like boot camp, yes a parent should show they care about what their child wants, but that doesn't give a child the right to go against their parents and disobey them.
A child taking their shoes off at such times means it slows down the parents who have to wait for their child to put their shoes on AGAIN (or the parent has to do it for them) before they go into the store--and yes, the parent's convenience DOES matter, and in fact since the parents are the ones doing the work and are the ones "in charge" I'd say their comfort on certain occasions matters MORE. (When I was growing up the adults got better Christmas gifts than the children, such was understood as a "seniority perk" that adults were entitled to because they were adults and thus were the ones who worked at jobs and did all the work as parents.) It means shoes get lost and misplaced and it means the parent has to go run another errand that could've been avoided. Yes, these things, to me, trump the child's "comfort," they can just get over it and take it. It's not going to kill them to keep their shoes on for 20 minutes in a car.
How in the name of all that is holy do you allow a 4 year old to be unsupervised for long enough that he falls into a gorilla cage? The fall alone could have seriously damaged the child, let alone the gorilla.
Nope, I call bull. Life happens, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to stop and intercept every single thing a squirmy and stubborn child wants to do. Of course you have to put in reasonable effort and not just throw your hands up and say "oh well," but even the best of parents have things happen and those who say "no not me" are lying.
So if these things are just "impossible" to stop, why has every other parent/caregiver who has visited the Cincinnati Zoo been able to keep their child away from the gorillas? Is it some big cover up? All these parents who claim their child has never been in a cage with a wild animal are simply lying?
Quote:
Yes it was my job to teach her, it was not my job to keep reminding her 32 dozen times what I'd already told her.
Or you just leave the pet store if you are unable to supervise her and she is unable to behave properly.
It's always easy, after the fact, to second guess the people involved in such a thing.
When you're in the middle of a crisis situation, you have to make decisions with only what you know at the very second.
The zookeepers did what they believed necessary at the moment.
The Parents. we can blame the parents. But, anyone who has ever cared for kids that age knows that the little buggers can slip away with in the blink of an eye, and it takes superhuman effort to keep track of them, sometimes.
Yes, the parents, and whatever extended family was there "should have kept better control over the kid." What'dya want them to do? Use a leash? My kid brother was one of those kids. Mom DID use a leash a few times. People looked at here with horror. She said, "You try keeping up with him."
It was unfortunate. The zoo will figure out how they can keep another rugrat from getting through the fence, and life goes on.
The Parents, hopefully, will learn to keep an even tighter rein on their little darling, or one day, he will get in another jam, and not be so lucky.
The parents need to pay for this death. They need to be at least fined and forced to pay restitution toward conservation. But given the sound of the mother's voice, I highly doubt the media or the zoo will have the guts to do anything to the parents. In fact, the media is doing their best to be PC and not make public their names or faces, for obvious reasons.
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.
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.
*
