[Ammi]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Whilst I get why it was shot I am not 100% comfortable with the notion that a human life is somehow more valuable than that of a gorilla but that is another debate

..and if it was your child's life and you were watching helplessly...would you really be saying..hold back, let's try a tranquiliser, let's take that risk that the gorilla doesn't become agitated and my son is ok...

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I wouldn't call making a conscious decision to leave you children on their own for hours while you went out drinking a momentary distraction, how you justify that but condemn these parents is baffling tbqh

|There was little option than killing the Gorilla. Terrible tragedy to deal with but the actions taken seem appropriate.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..and if it was your child's life and you were watching helplessly...would you really be saying..hold back, let's try a tranquiliser, let's take that risk that the gorilla doesn't become agitated and my son is ok...

I have not said anything about tranquillisers, holding back or taking a risk I am afraid

And I would have been holding onto my children at all times in that situation so it would not have arisen

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Whilst I get why it was shot I am not 100% comfortable with the notion that a human life is somehow more valuable than that of a gorilla but that is another debate

I agree but the simple matter is gorillas can't sue! There is no way the zoo could possibly risk a lawsuit of that nature so the gorilla became collateral damage sadly. Were it your child though, I'm sure you would feel their life was more valuable, I know I would.

Disclaimer....I am not saying you would take your eye of your child etc etc purely hypothetical

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I have not said anything about tranquillisers, holding back or taking a risk I am afraid

And I would have been holding onto my children at all times in that situation so it would not have arisen

...whether the parents took their eyes off their child or not though and for however many moments..?..that would still have meant no danger at all to Harambe, he would have been safely in his enclosure...except that his enclosure wasn't safe for him because it was able to be breached...that is only and entirely the responsibility and fault of the zoo....regardless of any 'curious children'...

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think you're being unreasonable tbh, people get distracted, it happens, wait till you have a kid yourself and come back to me when they're 5 and tell me that not one single time in their whole life did you get distracted

I look after my neice a lot now and if we are out I don't let go of her hand. If I do she's in my eyeline constantly.

If I took her to the zoo I'd certainly pay her my undevided attention around an enclosure of potentially dangerous animals.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[Crimson Dynamo]

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...enclosure.html

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by _Tom_

The parents have more than one kid, it's tough to keep your eye on every kid. If you turn your eye for a second, anything can happen. Parents make mistakes, no parent is perfect.

If they find it difficult to keep track of their kids maybe they should have invested in a buggy or some reigns.

I'm not saying it wasn't an unfortunate accident but the parents should take some responsibility for clearly not being in control of their children.

[Amy Jade]

Witness heard the child tell his mother he wanted to get in the water, but she said 'no'

So the kid had already told his mother he wanted to get in the water, this could have easily been prevented.

[LukeB]

How old is he? I remember I had a harness on when I went to the zoo with my parents.

[Amy Jade]

4 I think it said.

[Amy Jade]

[billy123]

Lets have a game of spot the people with no children of their own.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Lets have a game of spot the people with no children of their own.

or a game of spot the parents who dont stop their children climbing into a gorilla pit

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by LukeB

How old is he? I remember I had a harness on when I went to the zoo with my parents.

Just last week then ??

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Lets have a game of spot the people with no children of their own.

Like having a kid automatically makes you all-knowing. Plenty of children are killed by their parents sometimes in the most horrific ways. So while I don't have kinds of my own, I've never murdered one either.

My take on this is, what the hell were the parents doing letting such a small child out of their sight. Secondly, how is it possible for a child get into the enclosure? They had no option but to kill the gorilla, which is as outrageous as it is tragic. The parents and the zoo are responsible for this.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Can't disagree with any of that; like I said before, I really can't think of any good reason that a dangerous wild animal's enclosure should be easily accessible by any member of the public, let alone a 4-year-old child. I can't see any way around it not being negligenceon the part of the zoo.

The parents, I think the issue here is the complacency that comes with unquestioning adherence to figures of authority - but as a society, we drum that into people FROM age 4. Basically... people have this idea that "There's no way that X would be allowed", "surely the people in charge will keep us safe", "the place wouldn't be allowed to be open if there was any danger" etc. etc.

Just look at the litigation culture... "Oh I tripped over a broken pieve of path, that's the council's fault for not fixing the path, they owe me..." rather than, "I should have been watching where I was going, I wasn't and tripped."

In short... when people think it's "impossible" for something like that to happen, they aren't considering the possibility of it at all, and like I said possibly become complacent, rather than truly negligent.

In truth... there's really no one "looking out for you and yours" other than yourself, most of the time, and you should live with that in mind. Not paranoia, per se, just awareness.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

No, I'm sorry but this ****ing stupid and just plain laughable. He was not 'looking after the kid' at all. He dragged the kid by the ankle though water, multiple times... An expert has already said that he wasn't looking after the child, I don't know why people keep saying this. It's just cringey and stupid.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

No, I'm sorry but this ****ing stupid and just plain laughable. He was not 'looking after the kid' at all. He dragged the kid by the ankle though water, multiple times... An expert has already said that he wasn't looking after the child, I don't know why people keep saying this. It's just cringey and stupid.

which expert?

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

which expert?

Somebody on facebook apparently.

[waterhog]

as heart breaking as this is and it is wrong a child could get in but it had to happen. sorry if that upsets anyone but in reality - that was the only option with least risk.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Lets have a game of spot the people with no children of their own.

Yeah like the parents of Baby P...Oh no wait...Shannon Matthews mum...no wait ermmm

Being a parent doesn't mean they know better, that's a stupid statement.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I have seen "experts" call it both ways but how they know when there have been so few examples of this I have no idea

Its not a Lion or a Tiger


Its the fault of a disgusting zoo who trap and exhibit animals for profit