To think it's unfair to blame the mother of child hurt by gorilla?

[pinkladyapple]

Yes if she was holding his hand maybe he wouldn't have ended up in the enclosure. But he could have gone over/through the fence in a split second. And the zoo should have fencing which makes this impossible, surely?

The parents aren't being prosecuted for negligence and yet the Internet seem angry at the mother.

But then the people who think that also seem to think a tranquilliser works instantly, and the gorilla wouldn't react to the pain or impact of the dart.

It's sad and terrible though. For everyone.

The zoo is to blame. There should be no way for a child to find their way into an animal's enclosure, for the safety of both animals and the public, especially as quickly as this incident appears to have happened. Everybody moans about H&S 'gorn mad' but this is exactly the sort of situation where all those OTT rules are necessary and appropriate. I don't know how good the regulations are in the US compared with here. If this enclosure was considered safe then they are clearly inadequate.

SN might be relevant. When DS was 6 we took him and his best friend to London Zoo for his birthday treat. The friend was hell bent on getting in with the animals and it was a full-time job stopping him. Most enclosures were safe enough but we almost lost him to the porcupines and the turkeys. We left early in the end even though they were having lots of fun, it was just too exhausting keeping the friend safe. He didn't have a diagnosis at the time but was diagnosed a year or so later and got lots of extra help at school. In this case, it's not to do with the 'normal' reaction once the child had fallen in with gorillas but could go some way to explaining his impulsive behaviour.

The reaction to the family, especially the mother, is disgusting. I haven't read anything that suggests she (or the father) were negligent. Twice with DD and once with DS I have 'lost' them for a few seconds in a public place. That's all the time it took in this case for a tragedy to happen. I was lucky, nothing bad happened to my DC. My heart goes out to this family and what they must be going through being at the centre of this shitstorm, on top of the trauma of the incident itself.

The reaction reminds me of the magical thinking that's behind a lot of victim blaming - 'If I can identify something the victim did wrong I can reassure myself this will never happen to me because I won't do those things wrong'.

RIP Harambe - a fine gorilla, by all accounts

Little Life backpacks are really good for 4yo's. All mine had them, and I've given them as gifts several times.

And I even used the actual "lead" after the time MNetters told me to get reins for DD after she hid suddenly disappeared at the supermarket checkout and I genuinely thought I would never see her again, even though she was only out of sight for 30 seconds.

I think people find it very hard to accept that this was just a tragic accident. It's more satisfying to have someone's head on a stick, and if you accept it could happen to anyone then it could happen to you.

I would love these perfect parents to explain how, if they were strapping another child into a push chair as this mother was, (getting their arms in, getting 2 or four clips into the harness, maybe fixing the bumper across, maybe while pushchair child is trying to talk to them or tantrumming) they would do all that while also not taking their eyes off their 4 year old, even for a few seconds which was all this took? It's not possible.

And the fact that most of this nonsense is demonising the mum as if the Dad wasn't even there - where to start?

Now I have someone on FB saying the parents have a criminal record as long as your arm No idea if this is true, and even if it were, it's totally irrelevant.

As is everything, apart from whether or not the enclosure was easily accessible to anyone.

My previous point was in relation to my own DC, and trying to figure them out/more than about this case in particular. I shouldn't have mentioned it, but it was my first thought.

Excellent post, PlentyOfPubeGardens.

Little Life backpacks are really good for 4yo's. All mine had them, and I've given them as gifts several times except not that good if your four year old is a Houdini, mine is a bolter, no road sense whatsoever. Crossing a road, in his reins, suddenly I was holding reins with empty backpack, the blighter had learned to unclip the dog clips! Also unless a small four year old they really are quite tight. Oh and I used to get a lot of double takes and shitty comments about him in reins at four, as they really are designed for toddlers.

Argh, this constant bollocks from papers saying bystanders said the gorilla was protecting him. It wasn't. A female might have but a male very probably won't, it will consider him a threat and deal with that threat.

You would not see a gorilla drag its own offspring around like that. There was nothing paternal and protective about the gorilla's behaviour.

KingJoffry I agree, but I think it's just a symptom of general American behaviour, shoot first, think later. An expert I heard interviewed said the gorilla was behaving as it would around an infant gorilla and was unlikely to harm it. Let's face it, a silverback is hardly feeling threatened by a 4 year old child is he?

I also agree you cannot watch your child every second of the day and a child should not be able to get inside a gorilla enclosure, so I blame the zoo more than I do the parents.

bottle, I wrote mine before I read yours but the very fact the child was unharmed indicates the gorilla was not trying to harm it. Let's face it, if it wanted to harm the child it could have killed him in seconds.

I think people find it very hard to accept that this was just a tragic accident. It's more satisfying to have someone's head on a stick, and if you accept it could happen to anyone then it could happen to you.

Yes, it's all very "just world theory", isn't like. Like the reaction to parents who unintentionally kill their children by accidently leaving them in parked cars. Ever since I read that haunting Washington Post article on the subject my attitude has definitely been "there but for the grace of God go I".

Well, unfortunately once it was in with the gorilla they had to shoot, given they couldn't use tranquilisers.

The question is how he got in.

I think the elephant in the zoo, or the gorilla not at the zoo is we don't need one more bratty badly behaved child in the world. Most of us would prefer the gorilla. But we can't voice that, so the anger is aimed at the parents and rightly so.

You have to understand animal behaviour. I'm absolutely no expert but I spent a lot of time with people who were. Gorillas are not, generally, as aggressive as chimpanzees. But the gorilla was showing aggression. You can't take a chance that he'd not have hurt the child. But yes, you're right, it could have hurt him in seconds. More than hurt him. The gorilla was posturing in such a way the keepers knew the situation was extremely dangerous.

It's sometimes just small nuances. I can tell when my dog is uncomfortable even if he seems perfectly relaxed to other people.

No, I absolutely promise you I'd prefer the child to live over the gorilla. I've no idea if he is bratty or not tbh. He's four.

Amazing how many normal people have come out as experts on gorilla behaviour since this story broke.

Yes, the zookeepers and experts who have years of training and experience working with gorillas, and with this gorilla, were all wrong to think the gorilla's behaviour meant the child might be at risk. The general public, most of whom have probably never even seen a gorilla in real life let alone done any research on gorilla behaviour, have watched a 2-minute video clip of the event and confidently announced the gorilla was 'protecting' the child and definitely not going to harm it. If enough people are saying it on Facebook then surely it must be true!

Yep i agree bottle

He is four, wet has no idea whether he is bratty or not

is we don't need one more bratty badly behaved child in the world and of course you know this child personally wet so obviously it's your judgement to make? And I bet you were the perfect child.

Gorillas should not be "living " in a Zoo. None of this would have happened if we had left them alone.

People love to attribute human emotions and behaviours to animals I have no idea why. To many bad movies I guess, people are deluded if they think this gorilla was going to nurture and care for this child and then gently hand him over to a keeper

Doesn't even matter you know? Human inside enclosure of dangerous animal = shoot to kill. Sorry folks, it is what it is.

"confidently announcing it was protecting him".

I've told you, Mavis, that gorilla was about to have adoption papers drawn up. You mark my words!".

Indeed miniminor

I'm not talking about you, bottle

These sorts of stories tend to result in natural justice in storybooks: Verucca Salt ended up being chucked out with the rubbish for not listening to Willy Wonker's warnings.

It would have been a shit story if the squirrels had been killed because of her behaviour, but that's pretty much what happened here. A child was determined to break the rules. For all the high pitched twittering about 'well we have ALL taken our eyes off our children' yes, OK, but somehow they haven't all ended up in gorilla pits - which suggests to mepoor parenting. Not that day, but throughout his life.

I accept that we don't live in a Roald Dahl world so as I've said, once he was in with the gorilla the gorilla had to be shot, but I personally don't much care for bratty badly behaved children who torment and upset animals and their ineffectual parents.

I bet you were the perfect child

Perfect child - definitely not.

Understood not to go leaping into places with massive boundaries around them clearly designated for animals not humans - I managed that.

Although the one and only time I was bitten by a dog it was a similar situation - told 'don't touch the dog, she's had puppies and she will bite you.' I of course went to touch the puppies and the dog bit me. And it served me right!

actually I was twenty when the above happened

The point is, what happened is unfair. The one who DID do wrong is fine, and the one who didn't (the gorilla) is dead.

Could it be any other way? No.

But it's still unfair. It's that that's caused the outcry.

Look, my house practically is a zoo. Nobody goes into keeping for the money. It's back breaking, shitty (literally) work. My life's ambition is to get to Africa. It's utterly shit that such a breathtakingly beautiful animal has died.

But it's really not about ineffectual parenting. He should not have been able to get in. Absolute bottom line.

The rights and wrongs of zoos are a whole different debate.

Have you ever met a 4 year old wet?

He wouldn't have intended to "upset" or "torment" the gorilla. He wouldn't have had any idea of the consequences of his actions. Because he's fucking 4. Barely out of toddlerhood. He would have believed that the gorilla was a lovely, furry friend, because that's how every TV show, movie and book aimed at children of that age portray all animals.