My god, is that really the kind of world you want to live in? Nothing is needed until after it was needed to save a life?
No, people just need to take responsibility and realize everything isn't perfect and that everything shouldn't have to be fixed "so it doesn't happen again" because what other kid had fallen in before this incident?
So because it's never happened at this particular zoo, it doesn't matter? This has actually happened before in 1996. How can a zoo NOT consider the possibility of someone entering into the enclosure? If that was the case, there'd be no fences or glass or anything and all the animals would be roaming around doing as they please. The fact that there was a barrier shows they thought about it. But the fact a three year old managed to get in shows they didn't think it through and it wasn't adequate. We are not asking for it to be completely fixed. It is impossible to say it'll never happen again. But there are more precautions the zoo could have taken in the first place. As always hindsight is a great thing. And as always it takes something drastic to happen for people to think. How stupid to think a zoo would think about adequate enclosures.
Yes how very stupid to think the zoo needs to build a more "adequate enclosure" when there already is one. How very stupid for all the other parents whose kid did not fall into the pit for the 17? Years that the gorilla was alive. But since this incident happened everything is the zoos fault for not having a big enough fence. How stupid!
If a child managed to get in it obviously was not adequate. If it was, there would be no way for the child to get in. It's not all the zoos fault. The mother should have been watching. But the child should not have been able to climb in in the first place.
So should we put some electricity on the enclosure too? Because what if there is a big enough fence and someone still manages to climb over? Get the zoo to cater to everyone's needs. :lol:
It's called being realistic. If it's a big enough fence no one should be able to climb over. That's the point. Bar of course they manage to bring a ladder into the zoo. Which isn't reasonable anyway. :lol: And it is not about catering to everyones needs. It's about considering the ages of people who would enter into a zoo. Children frequent zoos probably more than anyone else. You have to consider the possibility of a child losing its parent. You have to consider the child running off. You have to consider the child hiding. You have to consider the realistic possibility a parent will look a way for a split second and find their child gone.
I couldn't bear to read any more of the idiotic posts I'll just say this. Yes kill the bloody animal, there is no animal more important than a human life even if he was the last of such animals on earth. It's not the kids fault his father has made poor decisions either don't punish him for that. There is not a parent on earth that there kid has not gotten into something or somewhere the parent did want them too, it also happens get over it.
Exactly. A zoo has to consider children doing something stupid and wanting to get closer to the animals. If a child doesn't say they wanna go pet the animal I'd be surprised! It's happened now. So we need to learn from it and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Both the parents and the zoos have to take precautions.
Well my point is that the parents should have watched their kid and none of this would have happened because I'm pretty sure this fence hasn't been argued until this event. Which brings me to ask this question, why hasn't it been debated to be built bigger before? Because it was adequate already?
There's possibly one of those cultural differences at work. In the UK I'm very much aware of my statutory obligations to prevent accidents and injuries at my workplace whether by my actions or my omissions. If something like this happened to me our company would be legally liable and I could personally be subject to a criminal prosecution if I had neglected to carry out safety checks. Our insurance company would also invalidate our coverage if we had been negligent. The legal onus is always on the venue owner. An ounce of prevention is worth of pound of cure, right? I would have thought that would apply more in litigious America rather than health-and-safety obsessed Europe. A risk assessment is done on the basis of severity versus frequency. This kind of accident would fall under very severe, low frequency, so the risk should have been identified and reasonable steps taken to prevent that accident. The barrier was ineffective because the child was able to squeeze through the gaps in the wires. As small children often visit the zoo the question should have been asked "is this barrier going to stop a small child from entering the enclosure?" I did all sorts of crazy mischief at that age (my mother can attest). Mother and child can be holding hands, walking away from the enclosure. The next second the child lets go of the mother's hand and darts back towards the enclosure and through the gap, and a parent will tell you just how fast they can be.
Yet you fail to mention that the kid could be the next Whitey Bulger, Ted Bundy or Hitler. Every human had the capacity for the depths of evil And depravity. Human life is no more valuable than animal life, if anything it is less valuable, based on population and ratios if that is how one wishes to ascribe value. Point is no one can change the past. It happened. Put on your big person pants and get over it. Spending the mental energy arguing about this is totally #firstworldproblems. Que statics about #kidsdiedduewater #peopledyingnfrkmcurablediseases #armsofanangelanimalcommercal
So selfish I'm hoping a alien race invades and starts killing humans left and right its only what they deserve.
I agree the mother should have been watching her child. But I also think the zoo had a role to play and they failed to meet up to it. A mere absence of trouble does not mean there is an adequate prevention in place. If it was adequate it would NEVER have happened in the first place. This has happened before on at least one other occasion. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though, isn't it? Agreed.
The way I see it the zoo were always going to receive a backlash whichever decision they made. If they tranquillised Harambe people would be claiming "the zoo didn't act quick enough" and so on, that's if the kid was completely fine never mind if the kid wasn't, from the zoo's stand point they would have less risk if they shot Harambe instead of potentially incurring a large lawsuit which could lead to the closure of the zoo and the loss of all their other endangered species as a result. Let's be perfectly honest, it's America...you leave the milk out of the fridge for more than 5 minutes and somebody is already running to the crown court... TL;DR = Less risk to shoot Harambe than risk a more damaging lawsuit. America has a lawsuit culture where everyone takes everyone to court for anything they can make easy money off.
From where I see the story now, it seemed wrong. But if that had been my kid if have taken the gorilla on and killed it myself.
The gorilla was bred in captivity first off Second off, yes the parents should have been watching but they weren't, and by the time he fell in it was too late. Gorillas are a pain in the A to tranquilize, they're huge it would have taken too long if everyone wouldn't have started screaming they could has probably done it but they freaked it out. Lastly, the kid fell in and they had to save it end of story.
Depends who you ask. Personally, it not being my kid, I'd have risked the kid dying if it meant keeping the gorilla alive.
Ermm... hyper speed? It's a gorilla, champ, not Guitar Hero. Whether the gorilla is aware it is endangered or not means nothing at all. The Great Barreir Reef isn't aware that it's being bleached but that doesn't bely the fact. It doesn't need to fight for survival. It was already in captivity. Why would anyone talk to it? It's a gorilla. You eat gorillas? Is that why they are being hunted? Whose argument are you trying to rebut? #muchconfuse The basis of your somewhat confusing post seems to be that you think that a gorilla must be equal to a human in understanding for it to be worth saving. I would say most people don't have that. I'm seeing a lot of catastrophization in your post. Some people always latch on to a worst case scenario to justify their overreactions."It might of got mad", "might of broke its toy"... Or, like every other time it was tranqed, it could have gone to sleep.