Cincinnati Zoo kills gorilla after child gets into his cage, May 28, 2016

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I'm right there with you, I hope it wasn't purposeful, but this possibility has been nagging at me for the last few days. Something seems off about it all and I just have bad vibes about it. I really hope this case is investigated to the fullest extent. Didn't I read that the father has an extensive criminal background? I'm not sure where but don't have time to backtrack.

I found the links about the father's criminal background for you...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-racism-found-cincinnati-zoo-saga-article-1.2655860

http://m.aol.com/article/2016/06/01...gorilla-enclosure-had-criminal-past/21387081/

http://www.newsy.com/videos/why-is-the-boy-s-father-s-criminal-past-relevant-in-gorilla-s-death/



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[neesaki]

Snipped for focus...




I think your expectations for a three year old's ability to understand and forsee danger and exercise impulse control are a bit high.





It should not have been possible for a three year old to get through the barrier, under any circumstances. It is not unreasonable for the mother to presume the zoo had designed barriers to keep children out of the exhibits.

Should she have been watching him closer? Of course... but we have the benefit of hindsight. Sure she could have used a leash... but, like the vast majority of parents, she didn't. She turned her attention away for a moment, at the wrong moment. Nothing in MSM indicates that she was on her phone. That is nothing but a SM rumor. MSM actually does report that it was a moments inattention... from multiple witnesses.




http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/30/us/gorilla-shot-cincinnati-witnesses/



http://time.com/4355635/gorilla-zoo-cincinnati-mom-harassed/

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Actually a leash isn't necessary, holding tightly to his hand or even picking him up would work just fine. I recall doing that many times with mine and he was a big three year old. But maybe that type of parenting behavior is a thing of the past...beats me.

 

[neesaki]

Nothing has been reported indicating that this is a pattern of behavior with this child. It may be, but it may have been an atypical impulse of a three year old excited by an outing to the zoo.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

What can I say, I want to see the best in people, but in this case I don't see that in this mother's actions as a parent. It's beyond bizarre and tragic and strange what happened, and I can't let that go because what happened, didn't happen easily. What are the chances? What child has ever gotten into that gorilla enclosure? Any prior history?

So, that's my final assessment and it's my own opinion. I question everything, I am the eternal skeptic for which I apologize if it offends anyone.

In the end it's not worth arguing about as it's out of our hands at this point, and we're never going to agree anyway. I hope and pray that this little boy has a good life, and I pray his parents are really, really good people and I'm just gotten the wrong impression.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

What can I say, I guess we live on different planets.

Can you explain what has been reported that indicates to you that this is a pattern of behavior for this child?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I'm not going to quote anyone, because I've seen several posters state similar things...

A. It is extremely rare for a child to get into a zoo exhibit, and has never happened at this particular exhibit.

B. The mother should have seen the possibility of her child getting into the exhibit, because zoos are dangerous and barriers not designed to keep children out.

Aren't these contradictory? How could the mother foresee this when these events are so rare?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[JeannaT]

People talk of this child as though he is an uncontrollable little hellion. That may not be the case at all. He may very well be an adventurous/curious child who did not know the danger he was facing. Folks are speaking about him as though he is doomed for a life of crime. This mother is very likely just as loving and compassionate AND attentive as 99% of those posting here and on other sites and comments sections. I don't get the need to condemn either of them. If the barriers at the zoo were unbreachable (As i would expect of a zoo that caters to toddlers) this tragedy would not have happened.

Easy to condemn and point fingers until it is you who is being pointed at. JMO

I don't think he's necessarily doomed to a life of crime - but I do think he's destined for a life of suicidal behavior. That's what I think. I think this child has very little in the way of survival skills that most mammals are born with.

I have a minor in psychology, and I was REALLY interested in the studies of the "visual cliff". Kids at the age of about 8 months old will NOT cross a visual cliff, even if their mother is calling them to cross it. Because even at the age of 8 months, they know it is dangerous.

For those who are interested, google "visual cliff babies". I think it will make you realize how completely unusual it is for a 4 year old to slide down a 15 foot cement barrier.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I don't think he's necessarily doomed to a life of crime - but I do think he's destined for a life of suicidal behavior. That's what I think. I think this child has very little in the way of survival skills that most mammals are born with.

I have a minor in psychology, and I was REALLY interested in the studies of the "visual cliff". Kids at the age of about 8 months old will NOT cross a visual cliff, even if their mother is calling them to cross it. Because even at the age of 8 months, they know it is dangerous.

For those who are interested, google "visual cliff babies". I think it will make you realize how completely unusual it is for a 4 year old to slide down a 15 foot cement barrier.

What if the edge of the cliff was obscured by bushes, and he couldn't see the actual drop until he was sliding down it?

 

[Montjoy]

I don't know why so many people here are so quick to dismiss all of the witness statements saying that the mother was only distracted for an instant and that she had no way of knowing what was going to happen, or of stopping it? I mean, why are baseless assumptions considered more useful than actual statements of actual people who were there?

So much hatred for this woman. There must be a lot of perfect mothers out there who have never had their children do anything unexpected.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I have a minor in psychology, and I was REALLY interested in the studies of the "visual cliff". Kids at the age of about 8 months old will NOT cross a visual cliff, even if their mother is calling them to cross it. Because even at the age of 8 months, they know it is dangerous.

For those who are interested, google "visual cliff babies". I think it will make you realize how completely unusual it is for a 4 year old to slide down a 15 foot cement barrier.

RSBM

One of the criticisms of the visual cliff study was, "Did they really support the hypothesis that depth perception was innate in humans?" One issue was about the glass over the deep part of the visual cliff. By covering up the deep side with glass the researchers enabled the babies to feel the solidity of the glass before they would cross over. This response was repeated over and over again in tests.[9] Another criticism has to do with the experience of the infant. Infants who learned to crawl before 6.5 months of age had crossed the glass, but the ones that learned to crawl after 6.5 months of age avoided crossing the glass. This helps support the hypothesis that experience does have an impact on avoidance of the glass, rather than just being innate.[10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_cliff



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[flourish]

But then there's been at least one poster whose husband tried to be Superman and jumped off roofs as children.

My own eldest brother climbed to the top of a ladder as a crawling infant, scaring our pregnant mother half to death, but she stayed calm and managed to talk to him as she slowly made her way up and grabbed him.
He is still alive and headed steadily toward 60. Thank goodness.

I looked up the experiment and saw this:

" The researchers found that to make the assessment, the babies relied on the mothers’ facial expression — a reassuring, happy one meant they kept crawling, and an alarmed, angry one made them stop at the edge of the Plexiglas."

From https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/02/29/visual-cliff-study/

People have commented that the mother was super calm, so perhaps he didn't realize, or was just being a little kid who didn't control an impulse. The more I've pondered this one, I've come to decide it fits more into the area of "horrible, possibly foreseeable accident," and speculative hindsight is so much more comfortable than staring down the barrel of a gun at a gorilla and a little human.

 

[SophieRose]

I don't know why so many people here are so quick to dismiss all of the witness statements saying that the mother was only distracted for an instant and that she had no way of knowing what was going to happen, or of stopping it? I mean, why are baseless assumptions considered more useful than actual statements of actual people who were there?

So much hatred for this woman. There must be a lot of perfect mothers out there who have never had their children do anything unexpected.

There seems to be a lot of people on the net who live in plexiglass houses.

 

[sonjay]

I'm not going to quote anyone, because I've seen several posters state similar things...

A. It is extremely rare for a child to get into a zoo exhibit, and has never happened at this particular exhibit.

B. The mother should have seen the possibility of her child getting into the exhibit, because zoos are dangerous and barriers not designed to keep children out.

Aren't these contradictory? How could the mother foresee this when these events are so rare?

A. It is true that in 38 years, no one — child or adult — has previously gone into the gorilla enclosure at this zoo, either by accident or on purpose.

B. The mother should have exercised the same level of parental care that millions of other mothers have exercised in the 38 years this exhibit has existed.

 

[sonjay]

Oh, and C. When a thing happens at a rate of 0.0000000000-something percent over the course of 38 years, then when that thing finally happens, it's not necessarily a sign that it's time to panic because they've been doing it wrong for 38 years.

 

[bluesneakers]

http://time.com/4355366/gorilla-police-investigation/

More at link.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

It's human nature, imo, to believe "It can't happen to me" so we (in general) find ways to convince ourselves and prove it would never happen to us:

Mom wasn't watching the child - I always watch my child
Mom is a bad parent - I am a good parent
Mom says ____ - witnesses disagree and I believe them
Mom was on cell phone - people spend too much time on cell phones but not me (or maybe me but never again)
Child is disobedient and disrespectful - my kids are good and obedient
Zoo should have taken precautions - parents should be more attentive and/or I never go to zoos

Etc.

I've seen this with shootings, natural disasters, domestic violence, etc., etc.

JMO

 

[rob]

To me, this is just an unfortunate accident. The mother looked away, the child did something unexpected. BUT, as a mother, if you decide to walk on a sidewalk on the side of a busy 6 lane highway, it's your responsibility to make sure that your child does not step into the road, not the DOT that built the road. If you take your child up in a hot air balloon, it's your responsibility to make sure he doesn't climb over the side. etc, etc
I hate that the ape was killed, but I do feel that the child must come first. And I certainly think that the zoo should not be fined or penalized but should maybe look into what they can do to make this safer.
The family should not try to get a payday off of this and if they do, then they should be penalized.
All MOO and Murphy's Law and all that

 

[nomoresorrow]

There seems to be a lot of people on the net who live in plexiglass houses.

You ain't kidding! Of course we can all be anything we want to be online... reminds me of my "adult" (I use the term loosely...) niece who doesn't have custody of her own two children due to her repeated bad life choices (i.e., drug and alcohol abuse, bringing strangers (meeting men online) into her home, stealing, etc.) and yet she's the first one I see posting judgmental and condemning posts on Facebook in response to situations involving moms. I just scratch my head and think, wow, another person who is a complete failure in their own life and yet stands in judgement of others - GMAFB!

 

[JohnPaul]

I certainly think that the zoo should not be fined or penalized but should maybe look into what they can do to make this safer.

really?.....only one person/child has ever got into this enclosure in 30+ years, out of how many millions of people and children who have been there during that time, that seems pretty damn safe to me

 

[Jax49]

Zoo set to reopen exhibit with new fencing. Doesn't look that much safer to me. MOO

http://www.wlwt.com/news/prosecutor-reviewing-cpd-investigation-into-zoo-gorilla-incident/39863244

"The zoo said the new barrier railing is 42” high with solid wood beams at the top and on the bottom with knotted rope netting.
That's a half-foot higher than the steel railing barrier previously in place."

 

[monster12]

Zoo set to reopen exhibit with new fencing. Doesn't look that much safer to me. MOO

http://www.wlwt.com/news/prosecutor-reviewing-cpd-investigation-into-zoo-gorilla-incident/39863244

"The zoo said the new barrier railing is 42” high with solid wood beams at the top and on the bottom with knotted rope netting.
That's a half-foot higher than the steel railing barrier previously in place."

Well you can't crawl through that one but now that it's higher parents will just pick up their kids and put them on the railing to see over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blue22]

To me, this is just an unfortunate accident. The mother looked away, the child did something unexpected. BUT, as a mother, if you decide to walk on a sidewalk on the side of a busy 6 lane highway, it's your responsibility to make sure that your child does not step into the road, not the DOT that built the road. If you take your child up in a hot air balloon, it's your responsibility to make sure he doesn't climb over the side. etc, etc
I hate that the ape was killed, but I do feel that the child must come first. And I certainly think that the zoo should not be fined or penalized but should maybe look into what they can do to make this safer.
The family should not try to get a payday off of this and if they do, then they should be penalized.
All MOO and Murphy's Law and all that

I'm not sure I would call it unexpected. There were witnesses saying the child repeatedly said he was going to get into the moat. No parent should be surprised that their young child does something that they repeatedly say they will.

I don't agree with opinions that say he "fell in." It wasn't a freak, haphazard accident. The child wanted in and he got in. He got in under his mom's watch, after he told her he would. He simply did something he wanted to, and she didn't stop him. It wasn't a freak thing that happened despite taking precautions. I'm not sure how I feel about criminal charges here, but I do think that CPS should be involved. NOT to drag these kids away from the mom. I just think that this situation calls for making sure this mom is full capable of keeping her children safe. Making sure that she is able to provide boundaries and appropriate supervision. She simply failed to keep her child safe and was downright lucky he didn't die. It happened. Now the proper agencies should make sure it's not a pattern.

(I realize we agree about the mother not appropriately taking caution. Your post just got me thinking and I added )