Support NeoGAF

[travisbickle]

If this was a python exhibit would it even be a story? #snakelivesmatter

#allanimalswedonteatlivesmatter

 

[The_White_Rose]

in this hypothetical scenario were someone chooses to save their dog over child. Do you think criminal charges could be brought to that individual if the child died as a result of the dog being saved?

A random kid and not one's own child?
Depends on if the state has a duty to rescue. In the US, there is no duty to rescue generally, so no criminal charges. There is a limited exception in which if you begin to rescue someone or exclude others from doing so then a duty is imposed. In many European countries, there is a duty to rescue and there can be charges.

 

[freenudemacusers]

If this was a python exhibit would it even be a story? #snakelivesmatter

If it were a big spider most of gaf wouldn't have even opened the thread.

 

[StayDead]

So is this like, if you were in control of a runaway train's tracks, and it is going to go down the track where your dog happens to be on the tracks, you would flip the switch to make the train hit a baby instead of your dog?

I have to ask if we're using statements like this, how the heck did the baby get on the tracks to begin with?

 

[MisterR]

Nah, parents fault for losing their child there, they should have been looking after it better. He knew his dog so it's natural to give more priority to it, and want to save it over something he does not know.

I currently don't live with any dogs, but the two times I've been most upset in my life was when two of my dogs died. I wish they were still here with me. I really miss them. I can't feel anything for some kid I don't know or know nothing about apart from them just being some random kid, of which there are millions more in the world. I think for people to care more about some random kid who they don't know over a dog who has depended on you for most likely close to their whole life actually shows a coldness of sorts. Like it'd be better off if you did not have a dog, if you think they're just some non feeling object to shove in the backyard and leave there as some just some status symbol or to intimidate or guard property.

No, you can love your dog deeply and yet still be a sane human being and realize that you prioritize someone's child over your dog.

 

[Volimar]

If it were a big spider most of gaf wouldn't have even opened the thread.

Sorry, but if there were video of a spider dragging some kid around, I'd be clicking that thread.

 

[neorej]

I have to ask if we're using statements like this, how the heck did the baby get on the tracks to begin with?

He was put there by a silverback gorilla.


#itsallconnected

 

[perineumlick]

Are sidewalks fenced up where you're from?

Do gorillas walk the streets where you're from?

 

[numble]

I have to ask if we're using statements like this, how the heck did the baby get on the tracks to begin with?

It is a take on a very common philosophical question. But it really shouldn't matter whether the baby wandered there on its own, it was put there, it got there due to some accident, etc.

From a legal point of view (ignoring philosophical or ethical aspects), if you deliberately turn the train to hit the baby, you'd likely be found guilty of murder.

A random kid and not one's own child?
Depends on if the state has a duty to rescue. In the US, there is no duty to rescue generally, so no criminal charges. There is a limited exception in which if you begin to rescue someone or exclude others from doing so then a duty is imposed. In many European countries, there is a duty to rescue and there can be charges.

Not true. See my example.

 

[The_White_Rose]

It is a take on a very common philosophical question. But it really shouldn't matter whether the baby wandered there on its own, it was put there, it got there due to some accident, etc.

From a legal point of view (ignoring philosophical or ethical aspects), if you deliberately turn the train to hit the baby, you'd likely be found guilty of murder.



Not true. See my example.

The train case is a little different. I would agree that it would be punishable.

 

[Exterminieren]

Saw this on imgur, sorry if it's been posted already.

Pff, what the fuck does she know? Should have sent Sam Fisher to extract the kid instead.

 

[Ray Wonder]

What in the actual fuck this crazy reasoning right here.

So the zoo can be absolved because they did their bare minimum.



Standard compliant brah. It's perfect and cannot be criticized.

I never said it's perfect. Obviously it's not because a kid made it through. It meets standards though. If a restaurant meets health standards you don't fine them for health related problems. If something is wrong with those standards, you change them, not blame the companies which follow them.

You haven't told me why this is crazy reasoning. I'm only asking because you seemed fairly sure that I was so wrong that it required a response such as "What in the actual fuck this crazy reasoning right here."

Then you didn't respond.

 

[neorej]

Do gorillas walk the streets where you're from?

Not usually, but we do have these things called cars and if some posters in this thread are to be believed, a child can escape your attention and wander off into the street. And usually, cars are a lot more lethal when they come into contact with a child than a gorilla. So we should fence up those streets ASAP!

 

[Coxy100]

"A dog"?

A member of your family. It being a dog doesn't matter. It's a member of your family, and that is more important than a stranger. At least it is to me.

Wow. Each to their own - but I would always put another human life (stranger) over that of an animal - especially if it's a baby...

 

[ElNino]

Are sidewalks fenced up where you're from?

Of course not, but I also don't have any expectations of safety for my four year old when playing around the road.

At a Zoo however, there is an expectation that the exhibits can not be entered easily by a four year old. My son often tries to run when he is in a mood (which is more often than I'd like), so I need to be extra careful with him at the Zoo. But I would never think that he could get into an exhibit with such apparent ease as this child did. 38 years of no child entering does not mean it is safe, it just means they were lucky for that long.

 

[bengraven]

Saw this on imgur, sorry if it's been posted already.

Exactly.

That plus:

violently dragging and throwing the child

Sorry, I love animals but come on. If an animal's life means more to you than a kid then you're not programmed correctly. A kid shouldn't die because their parents are idiots.

 

[Future]

Not usually, but we do have these things called cars and if some posters in this thread are to be believed, a child can escape your attention and wander off into the street. And usually, cars are a lot more lethal when they come into contact with a child than a gorilla. So we should fence up those streets ASAP!

Cars will not intentionally target someone unlike an animal getting their habitat invaded. Unless you are in GTA

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

I originally ignored the news, but since this has become quite a big deal I decided to see why. Now that I know the story I still don't quite understand. Correct me if any of my information is wrong.

Parents lost track of their child, and the child walked into a cage with a gorilla. The gorilla began quite violently handling the child. Zookeepers shot and killed the gorilla to save the child.

To me after the initial mistake was made, there is no other reasonable way to handle the situation. The zookeepers could not have taken the risk of the gorilla killing the child, that would have been negligence. It is unfortunate that the animal had to be killed, but animal life is not worth as much as human life.

So why is there so much controversy?

 

[neorej]

Cars will not intentionally target someone unlike an animal getting their habitat invaded. Unless you are in GTA

I have a silverback SUV, you clearly haven't seen it in action.

 

[Kreed]

Who cares if there was 40 years with no accidents?

You mean 3 months?

In March, two polar bears escaped containment behind the scenes at the zoo. The zoo responded by sheltering guests indoors until they were sure the situation was under control.

The zoo later said the public was never at risk.

“Keepers and people were not in any danger but as a precaution because it is a dangerous animal we got all our guests to go in the buildings until we were fully aware of the situation and then folks were asked to leave," said Cincinnati Zoo Director Thane Maynard.

There have been other incidents as well. In 2008, a gibbon named Euell escaped his enclosure, made it all the way to the parking lot and bit a man on the leg. The man wasn’t seriously hurt.

In 2000, Casper the cheetah somehow made it out of his enclosure. At the time, the zoo wasn’t sure how he managed to scale a 15-foot stone wall. Casper was corralled and no one was hurt.

In 1990, zookeeper Laurie Stober had her arm bitten off by a polar bear.

Stober was awarded $3.5 million in a lawsuit against the Cincinnati Zoo, but that verdict was appealed and the two sides settled out of court.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/Record-shows-Cincinnati-Zoo-takes-security-seriously/39789326

 

[Maxim726X]

I originally ignored the news, but since this has become quite a big deal I decided to see why. Now that I know the story I still don't quite understand. Correct me if any of my information is wrong.

Parents lost track of their child, and the child walked into a cage with a gorilla. The gorilla began quite violently handling the child. Zookeepers shot and killed the gorilla to save the child.

To me after the initial mistake was made, there is no other reasonable way to handle the situation. The zookeepers could not have taken the risk of the gorilla killing the child, that would have been negligence. It is unfortunate that the animal had to be killed, but animal life is not worth as much as human life.

So why is there so much controversy?

Eh I understand why people are upset, but there really wasn't any other way to handle the situation.

The real question is, what can be done to prevent incidences like this in the future?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Not usually, but we do have these things called cars and if some posters in this thread are to be believed, a child can escape your attention and wander off into the street. And usually, cars are a lot more lethal when they come into contact with a child than a gorilla. So we should fence up those streets ASAP!

A government can't feasibly do anything about that. But the zoo can make sure that this situation cannot happen again. They went for all style no safety after all. It's not going to be that hard. Sadly it took this situation to make them see that.

 

[Ray Wonder]

Cars will not intentionally target someone unlike an animal getting their habitat invaded. Unless you are in GTA

Not sure what this is disputing. Unless I'm mistaken this is about as relevant as saying "Gorillas don't have windshield wipers like cars do."

It's still a danger.

This gorilla didn't try to hurt this kid.
Cars won't try and run over a kid in the street.

The gorilla could've hurt the kid.
Cars could hurt a kid that wanders in the street.

 

[jorma]

Not usually, but we do have these things called cars and if some posters in this thread are to be believed, a child can escape your attention and wander off into the street. And usually, cars are a lot more lethal when they come into contact with a child than a gorilla. So we should fence up those streets ASAP!

Yes, believe it or not, a child CAN do that. It's one of the most common causes of child injury death in the world.

Not sure what the point is though.

 

[neorej]

Yes, believe it or not, a child CAN do that. It's one of the most common causes of child injury death in the world.

Not sure what the point is though.

How do parents manage to keep their children safe while walking on the sidewalk, yet in a zoo, they cannot? Or at least, this particular parent couldn't. You're with your child, you identify potential dangers; a road with cars, a bridge with a defective railing, a body of water, a shady guy in a trenchcoat in the middle of a heatwave, a gorilla-enclosure with a low fence followed by a 10ft drop.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This is ridiculous.

It is impossible that no little kids get separated from their parents every week in that Zoo for at least a few minutes. No parent is perfect 100% of the time. Kids get lost or are left unattended all the time.

So it is impossible that the Zoo doesn't accumulate several unattended-kids-hours every year. Are you willing to admit that possibility? That this stuff happens? Or are you going to pretend that this is the first time in 40 years that a kid is left unattended in the Cincinatti Zoo?

So why it remained safe for 40 years? Plain old luck. The fence preventing people from falling into the enclosure is ridiculous. The photo of it has been posted. So in all those times little kids were left unattended, well, one decided to climb and fell. The problem is not the parents, as I said, many kids must be left unattended in that zoo every year. Are you blaming every one of those parents too? Because clearly all of them played russian roulette with the possibility their kids didn't climb a flimsy fence and fell during the moments they weren't looking. Cause it was just dumb luck their kids didn't randomly decide to climb a fence. The only direct cause is that the Zoo security could not stop a 3 y/o from climbing and falling.

It is easy to blame the parents, but also it should be fucking crystal clear that, if a fence can be trivially and quickly climbed by a three year old kid, it is not secure, by definition.

It's a zoo, not a quest through a jungle. I guess after 38 year of no kids jumping into enclosures, you might think it was "safe". You are not going to be hyper vigilant about something that never happens.

No it isn't realistic to expect 100% perfection, but people still expect it. Like pointing out she was taking a picture like that is some major breach of protocol.

Don't worry though, half a million want her investigated by child services and charged, Cleveland PD has decided to do that too. She'll probably pay some how and everyone will fucking forget about the gorilla and move on to the next thing.

It wasn't effective purely because of luck, but because, like many zoo exhibits, it relied at least somewhat on parents to exercise caution with young kids so everybody could see the gorillas clearly. Obviously, kids have gotten lost in the zoo before, but how often in that particular exhibit, and how often because the parent was doing some unrelated bullshit and just not minding a child who expressed a desire to jump in with the gorillas, as happened here? Most parents will go into DEFCON 1 if their small child is by a pool, let alone near an open-air gorilla exhibit 15 feet below. If a parent stopped to take a picture, and their kid wandered away from them and pushed a baby carriage down some stairs or knocked some worker off a ladder, people would feel comfortable condemning the parent as having been dumb and negligent in that case, but when the same setup happens and an intelligent, rare animal dies, it's somehow "just an accident".

 

[Christopher]

So i have just read that police are going to investigate the parents due to online pressure. What the fuck is wrong with people. Are parents going to start getting arrested if their kid runs off in the super market or runs out in the road.

Things with kids happen in split seconds and by all accounts that is what happened.

Jesus christ i'm fucking sick of the twitter police. They sit behind their keyboards with their prefect lives were they all have fucking halos and have never made a mistake.

This forum does the same thing daily, the level of standard to be judged is insane.

 

[Ray Wonder]

This is ridiculous.

It is impossible that no little kids get separated from their parents every week in that Zoo for at least a few minutes. No parent is perfect 100% of the time. Kids get lost or are left unattended all the time.

So it is impossible that the Zoo doesn't accumulate several unattended-kids-hours every year. Are you willing to admit that possibility? That this stuff happens? Or are you going to pretend that this is the first time in 40 years that a kid is left unattended in the Cincinatti Zoo?

So why it remained safe for 40 years? Plain old luck. The fence preventing people from falling into the enclosure is ridiculous. The photo of it has been posted. So in all those times little kids were left unattended, well, one decided to climb and fell. The problem is not the parents, as I said, many kids must be left unattended in that zoo every year. Are you blaming every one of those parents too? Because clearly all of them played russian roulette with the possibility their kids didn't climb a flimsy fence and fell during the moments they weren't looking. Cause it was just dumb luck their kids didn't randomly decide to climb a fence. The only direct cause is that the Zoo security could not stop a 3 y/o from climbing and falling.

It is easy to blame the parents, but also it should be fucking crystal clear that, if a fence can be trivially and quickly climbed by a three year old kid, it is not secure, by definition.

Scenario:

You're at the Grand Canyon. If your kid is unattended, they are able to climb a fence and fall to their death.

Do you trust that the 3' guard rail is enough to keep your 4 year old from jumping to their death, or do you make sure they don't have the opportunity to try and climb it?

Do you blame the state for not making bigger guard rails if you fail to keep track of your child?

 

[Lys Skygge]

The whole situation is sad. But it was an accident. A 4 year old did what 4 year olds do. The gorilla did what gorillas do. The parent likely turned her back for second and the kid used the opportunity to do what he wanted. The whole thing likely happened in just a few seconds.

I blame no one. It was a terrible accident. The zoo did what it had to do.

 

[Astral Dog]

Witness said mom said "no" to the kid

 

[LifEndz]

The whole situation is sad. But it was an accident. A 4 year old did what 4 year olds do. The gorilla did what gorillas do. The parent likely turned her back for second and the kid used the opportunity to do what he wanted. The whole thing likely happened in just a few seconds.

I blame no one. It was a terrible accident. The zoo did what it had to do.

Exactly. She was there with the child in question and her other children. She likely turned to her attention to another child and that's when the child got away. The whole ordeal is horrible, and I wouldn't wish those harrowing 10 minutes of watching your child in that enclosure on anyone.

 

[DJwest]

I originally ignored the news, but since this has become quite a big deal I decided to see why. Now that I know the story I still don't quite understand. Correct me if any of my information is wrong.

Parents lost track of their child, and the child walked into a cage with a gorilla. The gorilla began quite violently handling the child. Zookeepers shot and killed the gorilla to save the child.

To me after the initial mistake was made, there is no other reasonable way to handle the situation. The zookeepers could not have taken the risk of the gorilla killing the child, that would have been negligence. It is unfortunate that the animal had to be killed, but animal life is not worth as much as human life.

So why is there so much controversy?

I really don't get it either. The parents are big negligent idiots and should be blamed but it would have been insane to take the risk of having the child killed. Come on guys.

 

[Slacker]

Scenario:

You're at the Grand Canyon. If your kid is unattended, they are able to climb a fence and fall to their death.

Do you trust that the 3' guard rail is enough to keep your 4 year old from jumping to their death, or do you make sure they don't have the opportunity to try and climb it?

Do you blame the state for not making bigger guard rails if you fail to keep track of your child?

Anyone counting how many times this argument has been made in this thread? Has to be in the 50 to 60 range by now.

I can't make it any more clear than the dozens of others who have responded to similar what if's, but I'll say it again. If I'm standing on a sidewalk near a busy road with a toddler I recognize that as a potentially dangerous situation. If I'm standing on the edge of the Grand friggin Canyon, I recognize that as a dangerous situation. If I'm standing on the sidewalk at the zoo, surrounded by other parents and kids having a day out, I don't see that as a dangerous situation. Why not? Because I expect the zoo to make reasonable accommodations to keep a 3 year old from accidentally flopping into a gorilla pit within seconds, and because it's not something that anyone imagines happening.

Hindsight is 20/20 and we're all now looking back on what happened as if it was some kind of eventuality, but before this event it had never happened before. And you're telling me the mom is irresponsible because she wasn't on high alert that a history making accident was imminent?

 

[Ray Wonder]

Anyone counting how many times this argument has been made in this thread? Has to be in the 50 to 60 range by now.

I can't make it any more clear than the dozens of others who have responded to similar what if's, but I'll say it again. If I'm standing on a sidewalk near a busy road with a toddler I recognize that as a potentially dangerous situation. If I'm standing on the edge of the Grand friggin Canyon, I recognize that as a dangerous situation. If I'm standing on the sidewalk at the zoo, surrounded by other parents and kids having a day out, I don't see that as a dangerous situation. Why not? Because I expect the zoo to make reasonable accommodations to keep a 3 year old from accidentally flopping into a gorilla pit within seconds, and because it's not something that anyone imagines happening.

I don't know why you said "Grand friggin Canyon" and then "sidewalk at the zoo, surrounded by other parents and kids having a day out" like they're that much different.

I could say at the "sidewalk at the Grand Canyon surrounded by other parents and kids having a day out" and "Next to a giant friggin gorilla exhibit with a tiny guardrail"

Hindsight is 20/20 and we're all now looking back on what happened as if it was some kind of eventuality, but before this event it had never happened before. And you're telling me the mom is irresponsible because she wasn't on high alert that a history making accident was imminent?

No, I'm looking at that gate and wondering why the parents thought it was safe enough not to be on high alert like the 38 years of parents before them.

 

[HStallion]

Thinking about it I guess if the situation was weighed in favor of saving my dog, I would save her over some random child. Like if a huge fire broke out in a ten story apartment building from the fifth floor up and my dog was on the fourth floor and some kid stuck on the 9th. I'd attempt to save my dog but would probably not attempt to save the kid knowing full well I might have a slim chance of doing so but would most likely succumb along with the kid. Though who knows what I would do with adrenaline pumping and the pressure on.

 

[BioHazard]

Anyone counting how many times this argument has been made in this thread? Has to be in the 50 to 60 range by now.

I can't make it any more clear than the dozens of others who have responded to similar what if's, but I'll say it again. If I'm standing on a sidewalk near a busy road with a toddler I recognize that as a potentially dangerous situation. If I'm standing on the edge of the Grand friggin Canyon, I recognize that as a dangerous situation. If I'm standing on the sidewalk at the zoo, surrounded by other parents and kids having a day out, I don't see that as a dangerous situation. Why not? Because I expect the zoo to make reasonable accommodations to keep a 3 year old from accidentally flopping into a gorilla pit within seconds, and because it's not something that anyone imagines happening.

Hindsight is 20/20 and we're all now looking back on what happened as if it was some kind of eventuality, but before this event it had never happened before. And you're telling me the mom is irresponsible because she wasn't on high alert that a history making accident was imminent?

Exactly. Culturally, I don't think zoos are seen as a "Keep an eye on your children at ALL TIMES, one false move and you're dead!" type of places. Let's face it, if they were seen as that, hardly anyone would visit with children. Anyone ever been to the zoo in the last couple of decades on like a summer weekend? Children and families EVERYWHERE, its incredibly chaotic.

 

[Ray Wonder]

Exactly. Culturally, I don't think zoos are seen as a "Keep an eye on your children at ALL TIMES, one false move and you're dead!" type of places. Let's face it, if they were seen as that, hardly anyone would visit. Anyone ever been to the zoo in the last couple of decades on like a summer weekend? Children and families EVERYWHERE, its incredibly chaotic.

I've been to plenty zoos, and the times as a kid I tried to climb up on the wood guardrails to get a better view I got yanked down and scolded.

 

[vainglorious]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ould-you-save-puppy-or-child-burning-building

Interesting study on the "Would you save your pet over another human being" moral dilemma.

"Is Topolski suggesting that 40% of people would save their pet over a person if confronted with a real runaway bus, a real foreign tourist, and their real dog? Of course not. However, while responses to fantasy situations do not predict how people will behave in the real world, they do shed light on differences in moral thinking. For example, the researchers asked the subjects to explain why they made their decisions. They found that subjects who elected to save people over pets were more likely to give logic-based justifications for their decisions whereas decisions to save the pet were more likely to be rooted in emotion (“I love my pet.&#8221 Further, women were four times more likely than men to give emotionally-laden, care-based reasons for their decisions."

People in this thread stating that they would save their pet over another human being are clearly emotional thinkers. Which is interesting because it provides some additional insight into the general decision making and bargaining principals of these same people in the context of arguments, morality, ethics, and life decisions. It is difficult to make logical arguments with people whom are making a conscious choice to be emotional and highly illogical.

 

[phaonaut]

Thinking about it I guess if the situation was weighed in favor of saving my dog, I would save her over some random child. Like if a huge fire broke out in a ten story apartment building from the fifth floor up and my dog was on the fourth floor and some kid stuck on the 9th. I'd attempt to save my dog but would probably not attempt to save the kid knowing full well I might have a slim chance of doing so but would most likely succumb along with the kid. Though who knows what I would do with adrenaline pumping and the pressure on.

What if your dog was on the same floor (on fire) as the kid? Do you attempt to save either?

 

[IAmAnAgnostic]

40% of people would save their pet over a person if confronted with a real runaway bus, a real foreign tourist, and their real dog

That is a disturbingly high number, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[HStallion]

What if your dog was on the same floor (on fire) as the kid? Do you attempt to save either?

Probably neither, I love my dog and I'd like to save the kid but I also wouldn't just run in foolishly knowing I've got little chance of saving either and would most likely die myself. My point was I guess in very specific circumstances I could actually see myself saving my dog over a random child. Another example is maybe there is a huge flash flood sweeping away everything and my dog is clinging to some detritus close to shore but out in the deep water where things are much more powerful some kid is stuck to a tree and I have no good way of reaching him, I'd probably go for my dog again. Doesn't mean I would just leave the kid to die, I'd call for help or try and find someone or something to help me reach him.

 

[vainglorious]

That is a disturbingly high number, but interesting nonetheless.

Well, considering human nature and humanity's predisposition for confrontation is it really hard to grasp that almost half of the population values their emotions and how possible situations relate to them and makes them feel over rational decision making?

It's unfortunate regardless.

 

[HStallion]

Well, considering human nature and humanity's predisposition for confrontation is it really hard to grasp that almost half of the population values their emotions and how possible situations relate to them and makes them feel over rational decision making?

It's unfortunate regardless.

What I find odd is I would assume the emotional ones would go for the people and the more logical ones would go for the dog. Even now I have to manufacture situations where I'd most likely save my dog over a child only a few posts above this and that is the far more logical reaction. Then again that might just be how I see the world as I would assume most people and especially parents or loved ones wouldn't even bother to "think" before jumping in to save the child.

 

[vainglorious]

What I find odd is I would assume the emotional ones would go for the people and the more logical ones would go for the dog. Even now I have to manufacture situations where I'd most likely save my dog over a child only a few posts above this and that is the far more logical reaction. Then again that might just be how I see the world as I would assume most people and especially parents or loved ones wouldn't even bother to "think" before jumping in to save the child.

Your assumption is wrong. There is nothing inherently logical about valuing the life of a pet over a member of your fellow species.

Choosing to rescue your pet over a human beings life is prioritizing your emotional state, it's an inherently illogical emotional decision.

 

[perineumlick]

I remember when the boy was killed at the Pittsburgh zoo a few years ago. Nowhere near as much discussion as this incident, and that child was torn apart, and one of the dogs was destroyed. So much more outrage and drama over this incident compared to that one; the thread died in like one day from what I remember.

 

[CornBurrito]

looks like a fun life the gorilla

The enclosure they have is actually fairly huge.

I don't think gorillas get upset by the sight of black bars because you know, a zoo isn't a prison, and gorillas don't have the capacity to go "OMG I'M IN PRISON I DIDNT DO ANYTHING WRONG LET ME OUT I'M INNOCENT!"

I swear the people against zoos are probably just one step away from declaring owning a pet dog/cat as being equivalent to owning a slave.

 

[Dragon1893]

I originally ignored the news, but since this has become quite a big deal I decided to see why. Now that I know the story I still don't quite understand. Correct me if any of my information is wrong.

Parents lost track of their child, and the child walked into a cage with a gorilla. The gorilla began quite violently handling the child. Zookeepers shot and killed the gorilla to save the child.

To me after the initial mistake was made, there is no other reasonable way to handle the situation. The zookeepers could not have taken the risk of the gorilla killing the child, that would have been negligence. It is unfortunate that the animal had to be killed, but animal life is not worth as much as human life.

So why is there so much controversy?

There shouldn't be but there are some truly shocking posts in here.

As for all the armchair parenting, I'm not going to judge the mother without having seen what actually happened. She is to blame because she is responsible for her children, regardless of how it went down, but what most people without firsthand experience don't realize is how quickly shit can hit the fan with a child of that age, especially if the child is very active and you're in a chaotic environment, let alone if your attention is divided between more than one.
I'm very protective of my son, to the point where I hear criticisms of being overprotective almost on a daily basis, and I'd still be a fool to assume that something like this wouldn't happen to me.
A day in a crowded environment while taking care of children is mentally exhausting and a split-second distraction, just one, is all it takes. When you're in a place that was created for families to enjoy themselves and relax, you assume that a minimum of safety measures have been taken to avoid the easy occurence of life threatening situations, even though this should never be an excuse to let your guard down.

As for people saying they'd save an animal before an innocent child... My dog died a few months ago so I know how that feels, but I'd like to see your reaction when seeing someone save a dog over your own son or daughter. You'd sing a very different tune.

I hope the kid recovers fast and the loss of such a magnificent animal truly hurts my soul.

 

[aliengmr]

It wasn't effective purely because of luck, but because, like many zoo exhibits, it relied at least somewhat on parents to exercise caution with young kids so everybody could see the gorillas clearly. Obviously, kids have gotten lost in the zoo before, but how often in that particular exhibit, and how often because the parent was doing some unrelated bullshit and just not minding a child who expressed a desire to jump in with the gorillas, as happened here? Most parents will go into DEFCON 1 if their small child is by a pool, let alone near an open-air gorilla exhibit 15 feet below. If a parent stopped to take a picture, and their kid wandered away from them and pushed a baby carriage down some stairs or knocked some worker off a ladder, people would feel comfortable condemning the parent as having been dumb and negligent in that case, but when the same setup happens and an intelligent, rare animal dies, it's somehow "just an accident".

I do not condemn parents that momentarily lose track of their kids. As overprotective as I am I still know that I am not immune to it. Regardless, I think she paid the price, I would likely be traumatized watching that.

As has been posted numerous times, a zoo exhibit, be it high strength glass or open air enclosure is not treated with the same level of awareness as a pool or street. If anything it's the least stressful part of being at the zoo. The walk to and from each exhibit is worse. I have never once thought a kid would be able to do what that kid did. I expect getting lost in the park, not swiftly climbing into enclosures.

Had she been doing anything outside standard zoo behavior, like dangling him over the railing or helping him over the fence then fine, she's completely at fault. Taking pictures is not outside the norm and neither is attending to other kids.

If there is a bright side, I have learned how easy it is for a 4yo to get into one those enclosures and plan on being on guard for it in the future.

 

[Byakuya769]

This thread still going strong?

How do we weigh a life's worth? There are far fewer Lowland Gorillas in the world so a male Silverback is more valuable to his species than a 4 year old kid when considering things like genetic diversity and the already scarce nature of the species. Then again the kid could achieve far more in his lifetime than a Gorilla, he could be the next Einstein or the next Obama, and vice versa he could also be the next John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy. So is this Gorilla worth more alive to his species continued presence on this planet than this kid will be valuable to society as he grows up?

...

Y'all have fun.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

It's so silly that this whole sitution seems to have sparked an outcry among some questioning the life of a gorilla vs. a human child. I don't care how or why the kid ended up there or who's at fault. Human life takes priority.

If there's gonna be any sort of a reactionary critical look though, it should be at the idea of having Zoos all together. Honestly how feasible is it to have wild animals held in captivity, while still providing them with a good life, keeping up safety standards for both animals and humans AND managing to make the animals visible to visitors ?

I'm not fully convinced it can't be done , but it seems all too easy to sacrifice one or two aspects here.