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.

Let's not pretend that zoos originally had anything to do with conservation

Who said that CheeriandO ? Zoos were utterly dreadful until recent years. I wasn't even happy with London Zoo a few years ago. The Polar Bears enclosure was cramped and concrete, the Condors had no room to spread their wings in their cages (and they were cages), let alone fly anywhere. Now, thankfully many zoos have changed (I don't know about London Zoo, as I was so upset I never went back). Jersey Zoo became the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust (and now I think is the Durrell Wildlife Park)? They are ONLY committed to the conservation and preservation of certain species. Extract from their website below:

Six hogs were released today into Barnadi Wildlife Sanctuary, which is a new release site. In total now 100 hogs have been released into three protected areas.
Pygmy hogs are the world’s smallest hog species and are Critically Endangered. The original population in Manas National Park is likely to have fewer than 250 animals left. So these releases mark major steps forward in securing a viable population in the wild.
We are extremely proud to be working in partnership with Ecosystems-India, the IUCN Wild Pig Specialist Group and the Governments of Assam and India to save the pygmy hog

Regarding the parents suing the zoo.... This could well be at the behest of their insurance providers if the boy needed medical treatment. It's quite common here in the U.S.; insurance providers won't pay hospital bills until the injured party has sued any other parties involved (like in the case of the woman who was burned by McDonald's coffee). So it's not necessarily down to the parents being grabby shits.

Regarding the tiny fence... What stops the gorillas escaping is a 15 ft deep concrete moat inside the enclosure, the sides of which are angled so they can climb in and out on their side but not on the spectators side. So the fence of the enclosure really is that small.

I wasn't doubting the size of the fence, I was doubting the claim that the fence was all that stood between gorilla and onlooker. Rightly so evidently.

I think the parents sueing (sp) tells us everything we need to know about them.

Yes absolutely, it tells us that they've have American medical insurance which will require them to at least try to reimburse their costs from the zoo rather than the insurance company having to shell out

ie precisely nothing.

Yep, I'm sure their intentions are entirely innocent

Well I'm sure you're the expert on the intentions of a couple that you have never met 5000 miles away. back atcha

I think needing to pay medical bills is morally neutral.

I mean yes, the system that forces injured parties to take legal action just to cover the expense of essential medical treatment is aborrhent to most people in countries with free (at the point of service) healthcare.

But Americans cop a lot of shit for being so litigation-happy when it's largely the result of a convoluted and messed up (IMO) healthcare provision.

Here we have NHS but still people are happily suing at a whim. (Maybe its that "no win - no fee" thing is tempting)

I saw the mother being interviewed. To say she was lacking in awareness

about her role as a parent is putting it mildly. No acknowledgement

whatsoever that she was not watching her child, or any expression of regret

for what had happened. I'm not in the least bit surprised that she is Sueing.

if its true they are suing.....lets hope the zoo counter sues

I hope so Samcro

But don't you think her demeanor could be attributed to defensiveness thanks to all the hate coming her way? People aren't going to be happy with an apology from her - going by comments I've been reading all over the place they want the absolute ruination of her life!

When my DS was at primary school I was a class volunteer on two trips to the zoo. Each time I was in charge of a small group of 5-6. Did I have my eyes on all six all of the time? Probably not! And it's not a high alert scenario like walking through a forest, you just assume that a zoo will be child friendly and safe.

A four year old should not be able to access the enclosure of an animal so dangerous its own keepers don't risk physical contact with it. They could have lost their son, why not sue?

news3lv.com/news/nation-world/group-says-cincinnati-zoo-has-been-cited-for-enclosure-issues-before-05-31-2016-154050452

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/mother-boy-who-sparked-zoo-8127933

Fortunately common sense has prevailed, and no charges are to be brought against the parents. From the above article:

Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters said the case did not come close to warranting a charge of child endangerment, and he defended Michelle Gregg, 32, as an attentive parent undeserving of the sharp criticism and threats.

He said the mother had three other children with her at the zoo and had turned away "for a few seconds" to attend to one when the boy took off.

"If anyone doesn't believe a three-year-old can scamper off very quickly, they've never had kids. Because they can. And they do," Deters said.

Legal experts had said all along that child endangerment charges were unlikely under such circumstances.

Echoing those experts, Deters said there was no evidence the mother heedlessly put her child in danger, as prosecutors would have had to show.

"If she had been in the bathroom smoking crack, that would be a different story. But that's not what happened here," the prosecutor said.

Deters said he has been "a bit taken aback" by the reaction to the gorilla's death.

He added: "The zoo suffered a great loss but it is still an animal. It does not equate with human life. And they felt that this boy's life was in jeopardy and they made the painful choice to do what they did."

So maybe all the demonisers of the parents will lay off now, but sadly I doubt it.

At least the poor parents can get over their shock without the cloud of possible charges hanging over them to make it worse.

Only hope that this child will grow up a decent human being, not like his 'poor' parents

Only hope that this child will grow up a decent human being, not like his 'poor' parents

I suppose we should hope the same for yours then?

Funny that the county prosecutor who was in possession of the full facts defended the mother as being an attentive parent. Not something you'd be upset that a child would grow into at all. Unlike on the other hand, a judgemental internet busybody with nothing better to do than criticise someone they don't know from a bar of soap. Now that I'd rather a child didn't grow up to be.

Well quite, whereismyfuckingcoat.

Agree with thefitfatty and whereismy

Predictable that the people persecuting the mother parents, have conveniently disappeared fucked off when it has been proven (by a county prosecutor) that the parents mother were without blame and that this was a true accident, facilitated by the incompetence of the zoo's security.

I'm still amazed that a little boy could get into a gorilla enclosure. And that anyone can think that's the fault of the parents somehow.