Yeah, but it was a captive gorilla, so was pretty much dead inside already.

Aussie wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:



Quote:

I think lion's can get a 'taste' for human flesh. Not what you want in any lion, wild or tame. I don't think they are as endangered as gorillas.

Quote:



Still a terrible decision to have to make for the guy who shot him.

Imagine the sh.t the guy would have been in if the child got hurt or killed and he didn't take this action.

We currently value a human life over any other organism. Until that changes, the right thing was done even though I bet if they did something different the kid would have been OK.

The decision was based on the risk.

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 4:09pm:


I think there is.  Zoos ought ensure this sort of event can never happen.  We have to fence pools to make them allegedly kid proof.

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 4:55pm:


How did this kid manage to get into that position, cods?  You want to blame the parents alone.  I want to blame the Zoo for failing to ensure a kid cannot breach the enclosure.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:


Well....we don't know, do we.  But it is res ipsa loquitur that the Zoo was negligent ~ self evident.  The kid got in.

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:


He just wants to prove the zoo was culpable so in his imagination he can stick his hand out and collect a % of the damages. 

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:13pm:


If a four year old can get in....the negligence on the part of the Zoo is self evident.

Further, if a four year can get in, why couldn't the gorilla get out...if he wanted to...using the same method (whatever that was.)

No cods, from the link above:

Quote:


How could he possibly do that unless the Zoo failed to ensure he could not?

Aussie wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:


Are you functionally retarded? If there was a 1 meter high wall on the viewers side you could have a 5 meter drop to the animal. I can jump a meters but a gorilla can't jump 5

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:


Like my photo and the hovercar lol

Quote:


Read what was posted again cods.

Quote:


Don't know cods.  My point is that the Zoo has a duty of care to ensure this could not happen.  Yet it did......res ipsa loquitur.

Redmond Neck wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:41pm:


I have not expressed a concluded opinion.  I've asked questions I thought might help cods understand that the Zoo has a duty of care, which it breached.

It would be easy to just walk away from a situation where people are advocating in ignorance of the Law.  I'm trying to give cods a hand here.

Aussie wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:33pm:


Exactly.

The parents should sue the tits off the people who are in charge of the zoo. It's inexcusable that a gap was there for a kid to crawl through.

Just like circuses that always seem to have a shady and shonky feel about them that smells of animal cruelty and brutality - zoos are also sad places where animals are stuck in a hellish limbo for decades with nothing but concrete around them.

I stopped visitting Sydney's Taronga Park zoo a long time ago as a protest against the appalling conditions those poor bloody animals have to suffer in their concrete pens.

It's a disgusting trade in misery.

A zoo is a place of curiosity, otherwise no tickets would be sold.

The onus is on the zoo management to ensure that this curiosity is restrained by barriers of the sort that are fool-proof.

Gnads wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:


Sure.....but you should be able to take your toddler to a Zoo confident that the Zoo has put in place whatever is required which prevents toddler and dangerous animal coming into perilous contact......if you turn your back on the bugger for a nano second, or even longer.  It ought be a very safe place for its market which includes toddlers.

Redmond Neck wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:41pm:


Let us pray Redneck feels better after he sobers up.

This one does speaks for itself if the report I quoted is true.

Aussie wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 8:51pm:


Lolz....from Latin to Gordy.  Bahahahaha

blacklivesmatter

Well I'd like to see just where this child accessed the enclosure ...

and also ask why hasn't it happened before?

WH&S has been watered down for workers by self regulation........

wherein Risk Assessments are done ... and certain criteria met ....

and all situations have a point where outcomes are considered an acceptable risk.

Aussie wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 8:52am:



well take a look at your link...it might give you some idea....they are lucky that boy is alive

maybe we should have barricades up and down our highways to prevent kids running into the road...like they do......

cods wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 8:58am:


I wouldn't rely on the link too much.

For example, it says : "four-year-old boy falls into the enclosure holding a mountain gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo", followed immediately by "A 180 kilogram male gorilla in a US zoo has been shot dead after grabbing a three-year-old boy who fell into the ape exhibit moat."

They seem to be guessing at the distance he fell too:

"Authorities said the boy, who fell three to four metres".

The Link

greggerypeccary wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 9:31am:




gweg look at aussies link LOOK AT THE PICS...

it looks like more than 3 meters.. if they had not built a moat around the compound that boy would be dead...


no one is saying the ZOO wont be held accountable.  of course they will be its the good old American way..

what I am saying is where were the parents???...where does their responsibility end at the gates of the zoo apparently...

Thousands of people have already signed a petition condemning the killing of the gorilla. Witnesses say the gorilla was protecting the child.

AiA wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 9:57am:


In the hope of achieving what, exactly?

AiA wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 10:09am:




wow can anyone attend?....Id like to see that.

AiA wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 10:12am:



ahhh..

now your pulling my leg..

AiA wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 10:09am:


Found it:

"The killing of a Cincinnati Zoo gorilla after a child fell into its enclosure has sparked outrage online with thousands of people signing petitions calling for the child’s parents to be investigated."

“We the undersigned believe that the child would not have been able to enter the enclosure under proper parental supervision,” the petition reads.

“It is believed that the situation was caused by parental negligence,” it adds, before calling for “the parents to be held accountable for the lack of supervision and negligence that caused Harambe to lose his life.”

Link

greggerypeccary wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 10:28am:


I'm sure everyone will be asking the parents what happened, but that does not take away that duty of care the Zoo has.

Aussie wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 11:14am:


Precisely.

Compensation lawyer for the kid's parents.

"Your Honour, there was a breach in the safety fence. It was not secure against penetration and had not undergone inspection and repair as stipulated as part of the condition for the issuing of a licence for the zoo to operate as a business enterprise.

$3 million is being sought by the plaintiffs against the Management for culpable negligence causing distress, depression, panic attacks, erectile dysfunction, flash backs, tension headaches, and the consequent development of agoraphobia".

Lord Herbert wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 11:39am:



its acrophobia herb...a fear of height......or a vertigo attack...

I look at that animal and it is so sad he had to die..  sue the bloody parents for letting their feral kid loose in  a public place...

If they are unable to provide 100% protection for the visitors at a Zoo irrespective of their age or size, they should not be open. The onus is on the Zoo management to ensure this is the case.

Silly quips about security guards on each enclosure, or electric fences, are just that.. silly

Dustwun wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 11:52am:




Oh Christ, what am I laughing at? 
How could you say such a thing?

cods wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 11:47am:


The zoo - and ALL other concrete-type zoos should be banned and those poor bloody animals released into a fenced-off countryside somewhere.

I remember during my last visit to Taronga Park zoo in Sydney - standing in front of the concrete cell where this enormous gorilla was sitting there disconsolately contemplating the cruel and unforgivable circumstance he was confined to for the rest of his life.

His eyes met mine and I felt an enormous surge of embarrassment and shame that I was personally party to this inhumane abuse.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 7:27pm:


Actually he crawled under it, apparently. Should be a pretty simple thing to ensure can't happen wouldn't you agree?

Aussie is right - the zoo was negligent.

Aussie wrote on May 29^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:


Agreed. A 3 year old is not a ninja or a commando - its pretty darn simple to block their access to a deadly animal enclosure. They didn't, they should have - they are culpable.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 11:11am:


Thanks Herbie, good to be back after so long.  I will now spend time between here and D&R.

Belgarion wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 1:06pm:


Excellent.

You were always one of the best posters, and you shouldn't hide your light under a bush over there in that booth-sized forum board.

tickleandrose wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:


The video doesn't show him falling in.

He may have entered where the wall was not quite as high.

Whatever the case, he's certainly very lucky.

He could have been killed by the fall, the gorilla, or the bullet.

Lucky kid.

Belgarion wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 1:06pm:


Hello, Belgarion 

Look forward to hearing more from you. I made two posts on DR but they have been languishing in Brian's mod queue for over a week now.

Quote:


My posts appear immediately, so that makes no sense.  I was unaware of any pre-moderation of posts.  Maybe that's been introduced after I joined.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 2:16pm:



Debate & Relate.  A person there known as Nicole Page was a co Admin at the original site.  The current version is a Phoenix out of ashes when the original site burned to the ground.  OzPol Member Brian Smith now runs it.

Link.

Gnads wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:


Why?

Aussie wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:




Because it takes an excellent mark to shoot an animal so as not to enrage it or injure the person you are trying to save.

Also, you don't leave loaded guns lying around.

Aussie wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:


Loaded weapons, in a public place, sitting behind a sheet of glass?

It's a completely crazy idea.

Gnads wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 2:52pm:


The lions
The bears
The tigers

Maybe a couple more.

Delusional schizophrenics, drunks, religious fanatics, and suicidal depressives are on the short list for jumping into these compounds where the dangerous animals are pacing.

Alarms you press to immediately alert the staff to a life-and-death situation taking place.

At this zoo it took an entire 10 minutes for staff to arrive. That is totally unacceptable considering these zoos have battery-powered buggies available for the staff to get around in. It was utterly disgraceful that a boy was in the gorilla cage for all of 10 minutes before any staff made an appearance.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:


I was talking about a button behind the glass panel.

My aging neighbour had a 'button' she wore as a necklace. Every time she fell down she would press the button and an ambulance would immediately be on its way to her address. Happened many times.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:



Ohhhhhhh.

I beg your pardon then. You weren't clear.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:


Ah.

No need for glass then.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 3:31pm:


10 minutes from the time the gorilla was playing with the kid.

And whatever happened to CCTV cameras?

Hmmmm ... ?

Gonads, Mothra? Like to answer that one?

No CCTV cameras to watch that the visitors to the zoo weren't teasing the animals or behaving in an anti-social way?

Hmmmmmmmm ... ?

I'll tell you what the problem is. These are zoos that are run on a tight budget in order to maximise profits, and as such they deliberately forgo paying for the 'extras' just like the designers of the Titanic did.