info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Cincinnati Zoo incident
170 views
Skip to first unread message
Shakes
May 31, 2016, 3:24:31 PM5/31/16
to
Did folks here read about this incident ?
A 17 yr old, endangered, male gorilla had to be shot by the Zoo to save a 4 yr old boy who had managed to crawl into the enclosure. Apparently, the gorilla species is critically endangered, esp. the males as they are much lower in numbers.
My only wonder is what were the parents of the boy doing ? Apparently, the boy went under the outer rail, through wires and over the moat wall, and into the enclosure.
A 17 yr old, endangered, male gorilla had to be shot by the Zoo to save a 4 yr old boy who had managed to crawl into the enclosure. Apparently, the gorilla species is critically endangered, esp. the males as they are much lower in numbers.
My only wonder is what were the parents of the boy doing ? Apparently, the boy went under the outer rail, through wires and over the moat wall, and into the enclosure.
TT
May 31, 2016, 3:52:46 PM5/31/16
to
They should have of course shot the kid, so that he wouldn't harm the
endangered gorilla. I guess they missed.
Btw, the "critically endangered" part of course depends on the sub
species. And it also sounds A LOT like spin for the existence of zoos.
The idea supposedly being that they are saving the species - bullshit.
Animals are hardly ever reintroduced to wilderness, for practical
reasons alone not to even mention the genome which is often too limited
on zoo animals due to interbreeding. So basically all zoos are doing is
taking away from the genome of wild animals.
Apparently the gorilla was of "western lowland" kind, which still has
over 100 000 population in wild. The other species, of mountain type,
has only few hundred wild animals left.
"Critically endangered" is not quite true here. For comparison there are
only something like 3000 wild tigers, which are divided to subspecies
with fractured habitat. Tiger is listed as "endangered".
But as I said, shoot The Cincinnati Kid and sue the parents.
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 3:54:15 PM5/31/16
to
And make Mexico pay for it?
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 4:00:17 PM5/31/16
to
It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
Guypers
May 31, 2016, 4:01:18 PM5/31/16
to
soccerfan777
May 31, 2016, 4:07:23 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:
> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
Dog Life > Cat Life > Human Life > Gorilla life
> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
Would they have shot a cute poodle? Apparently the gorilla wasn't cute enough ;-)
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 4:17:42 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
Once it did happen though, the zoo can't be blamed for the actions they took. If they'd shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart and he killed the child before it took effect, critics would be blasting them today for not killing him instead. I don't necessarily agree that a human life is always more important than a wild animal's, but in this case it was a child, and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
TT
May 31, 2016, 4:18:05 PM5/31/16
to
31.5.2016, 23:00, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
The way I see it, it's simply a case of natural selection... if the kid
> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
is dumb enough then he deserves to die. Mother should be sterilized
afterwards. There are much more dumb kids than gorillas.
Also, the zoo keepers don't seem to be up to the task. Yes a gorilla can
kill the kid, but it's not sure it would have. Tranquilizer darts & such
could have been used. Yes, that would have made death of the kid a
possibility but as I said, a matter of natural selection. Sort of like
Steve Irwin, the idiotic "crocodile hunter".
TT
May 31, 2016, 4:21:05 PM5/31/16
to
31.5.2016, 23:17, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
But is there need to keep a kid with such genes alive...
> and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 4:24:07 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:18:05 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> The way I see it, it's simply a case of natural selection... if the kid
> is dumb enough then he deserves to die. Mother should be sterilized
> afterwards. There are much more dumb kids than gorillas.
> Also, the zoo keepers don't seem to be up to the task. Yes a gorilla can
> kill the kid, but it's not sure it would have. Tranquilizer darts & such
> could have been used. Yes, that would have made death of the kid a
> possibility but as I said, a matter of natural selection. Sort of like
> Steve Irwin, the idiotic "crocodile hunter".
Difference was that Steve Irwin was an adult making fully conscious choices. In his case, I agree with you. He thought it was entertaining, funny, and profitable to screw around with deadly animals on a weekly basis. One day the Russian Roulette wheel finally landed on his number.
> The way I see it, it's simply a case of natural selection... if the kid
> is dumb enough then he deserves to die. Mother should be sterilized
> afterwards. There are much more dumb kids than gorillas.
> Also, the zoo keepers don't seem to be up to the task. Yes a gorilla can
> kill the kid, but it's not sure it would have. Tranquilizer darts & such
> could have been used. Yes, that would have made death of the kid a
> possibility but as I said, a matter of natural selection. Sort of like
> Steve Irwin, the idiotic "crocodile hunter".
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 4:25:07 PM5/31/16
to
TT
May 31, 2016, 4:29:45 PM5/31/16
to
TT
May 31, 2016, 4:38:26 PM5/31/16
to
it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
rescued.”
I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
the water... but ultimately put him gently on his feet - at which point
they started shooting. I think a bit cruel to kill it because of
POSSIBILITY of gorilla harming the kid.
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 4:41:13 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:17:42 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
Yes it was something that could have happened extremely fast. If you had kids you would know that. The kid was beside his mother and then she called out for him and he disappeared. Another mother who witnessed the incident said:
> It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
She wrote on Facebook: 'This was an open exhibit! Which means the only thing separating you from the gorillas, is a 15 ish foot drop and a moat and some bushes!'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3615783/Police-says-charges-brought-against-parents-4-year-old-climbed-tragic-17-year-old-gorilla-s-enclosure.html
IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. Freak things like this happen. I don't think you can fault the parents in this case.
> Once it did happen though, the zoo can't be blamed for the actions they took. If they'd shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart and he killed the child before it took effect, critics would be blasting them today for not killing him instead.
> I don't necessarily agree that a human life is always more important than a wild animal's, but in this case it was a child, and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 4:42:08 PM5/31/16
to
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 4:47:45 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
> the water...
Are you crazy? The gorilla took the kid by the ankle and dragged him through the water roughly. If that were my kid I would have probably had a heart attack.
> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
> the water...
The zoo officials said that the gorilla was agitated (they have experts working at the zoo who would recognize that behavior) and agitated male gorillas are unpredictable. The zoo officials did the right thing IMO.
Life of a young kid > life of a wild gorilla.
PeteWasLucky
May 31, 2016, 4:49:33 PM5/31/16
to
I feel bad for the animal that was killed but think the other way around, what if the child was killed?
Also clearly the cage was not secured enough if a little child managed to get in, remember this place is visited the most by children, if parents know that for a second their child can make it through the fence they would have hesitated a lot before visiting.
Did the zoo publish anywhere that children can sneak through the fences and parents need to control their children?
Also clearly the cage was not secured enough if a little child managed to get in, remember this place is visited the most by children, if parents know that for a second their child can make it through the fence they would have hesitated a lot before visiting.
Did the zoo publish anywhere that children can sneak through the fences and parents need to control their children?
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 4:49:40 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
> rescued.”
In those cases female gorillas were involved and they were trying to protect the kids. They weren't violently pulling a kid through water and concrete like this agitated gorilla was!
> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
> rescued.”
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 4:50:25 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
> rescued.”
> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
> the water... but ultimately put him gently on his feet - at which point
> they started shooting. I think a bit cruel to kill it because of
> POSSIBILITY of gorilla harming the kid.
I think the outcome sucks, but the bigger argument probably is whether there should be zoos at all. Many are more humane than they used to be, but unlike wildlife sanctuaries, they still exist only to entertain humans at the animals' expense. And these days there are many other ways people can learn about animals if they want to. There are a zillion documentaries, online videos, etc.
> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
> rescued.”
> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
> the water... but ultimately put him gently on his feet - at which point
> they started shooting. I think a bit cruel to kill it because of
> POSSIBILITY of gorilla harming the kid.
But since zoos do still exist and this incident happened at one, officials didn't have much choice. A gorilla is so damn strong that it could kill a child unintentionally, the crowd reaction was agitating him in this case. One possible option might have been to try the tranquilizer dart first and have a rifleman on standby to shoot to kill if the gorilla turned more aggressive before the dart took effect. As I said before though, if they showed restraint and the kid ended up dead, officials would be paying a bigger price today than they are now.
PeteWasLucky
May 31, 2016, 4:51:59 PM5/31/16
to
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
Are you sure it was a male gorilla? :)
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
TT
May 31, 2016, 4:53:21 PM5/31/16
to
31.5.2016, 23:47, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
>> the water...
>
> Are you crazy? The gorilla took the kid by the ankle and dragged him through the water roughly. If that were my kid I would have probably had a heart attack.
>
The mother just shouted "I love you" without much distress. Is she black?
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
>> the water...
>
> Are you crazy? The gorilla took the kid by the ankle and dragged him through the water roughly. If that were my kid I would have probably had a heart attack.
>
> The zoo officials said that the gorilla was agitated (they have experts working at the zoo who would recognize that behavior) and agitated male gorillas are unpredictable. The zoo officials did the right thing IMO.
>
> Life of a young kid > life of a wild gorilla.
>
If gorilla attacks a human then I see grounds for killing. But this
gorilla wasn't attacking, if it had it would have been over in tenth of
a second - SPLAT! :)
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 4:54:07 PM5/31/16
to
TT
May 31, 2016, 4:55:54 PM5/31/16
to
31.5.2016, 23:49, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>> rescued.”
>
> In those cases female gorillas were involved
Always with your feminist angle, aren't you...
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>> rescued.”
>
> In those cases female gorillas were involved
:-P
TT
May 31, 2016, 4:57:09 PM5/31/16
to
31.5.2016, 23:50, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> As I said before though, if they showed restraint and the kid ended up dead, officials would be paying a bigger price today than they are now.
That of course is the point... they were protecting their own ass
> As I said before though, if they showed restraint and the kid ended up dead, officials would be paying a bigger price today than they are now.
instead of caring about the animal.
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 4:59:29 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:53:21 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
> 31.5.2016, 23:47, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> > Life of a young kid > life of a wild gorilla.
> No. Life of a gorilla > life of a human
Depends on the human. If it were Rafa in there with the silverback for instance, I'd say call off the rifleman.
> 31.5.2016, 23:47, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> > Life of a young kid > life of a wild gorilla.
> No. Life of a gorilla > life of a human
And even some kids are damn bratty. It's an individual judgement call. ;)
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 5:02:05 PM5/31/16
to
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 5:02:09 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:51:59 PM UTC-4, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Are you sure it was a male gorilla? :)
Yes I'm sure. He was dumb! :)
> Are you sure it was a male gorilla? :)
When this type of incident happened before where female gorillas were involved they had the good sense to realize the kids were harmless and the gorillas went into protection mode even picking up one of the kids and cradling it.
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 5:02:53 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> But since zoos do still exist and this incident happened at one,
> officials didn't have much choice. A gorilla is so damn strong that it
> could kill a child unintentionally, the crowd reaction was agitating
> him in this case. One possible option might have been to try the
> tranquilizer dart first and have a rifleman on standby to shoot to
> kill if the gorilla turned more aggressive before the dart took
> effect. As I said before though, if they showed restraint and the kid
> ended up dead, officials would be paying a bigger price today than
> they are now.
>
I say Make American Zoos Safe Again! We need a bigger wall and we'll make
>
> But since zoos do still exist and this incident happened at one,
> officials didn't have much choice. A gorilla is so damn strong that it
> could kill a child unintentionally, the crowd reaction was agitating
> him in this case. One possible option might have been to try the
> tranquilizer dart first and have a rifleman on standby to shoot to
> kill if the gorilla turned more aggressive before the dart took
> effect. As I said before though, if they showed restraint and the kid
> ended up dead, officials would be paying a bigger price today than
> they are now.
>
the gorillas build it!
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 5:04:12 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 5:04:31 PM5/31/16
to
TT
May 31, 2016, 5:05:39 PM5/31/16
to
Sort of like forced manual labour. After that they can print some
register plates.
TT
May 31, 2016, 5:06:21 PM5/31/16
to
TT
May 31, 2016, 5:06:51 PM5/31/16
to
TT
May 31, 2016, 5:11:22 PM5/31/16
to
1.6.2016, 0:02, jdeluise kirjoitti:
not sending you, they're sending gorillas that have lots of problems and
they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're
bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good gorillas,
but I speak to zoo guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
undecided
May 31, 2016, 5:18:13 PM5/31/16
to
> > >
> > >> 31.5.2016, 23:17, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> > >>> and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible
> > >>> idiots.
> > >>
> > >> But is there need to keep a kid with such genes alive...
> > >
> > > The kid is 4 years old... cut him some slack.
> > >
> >
> > I was talking about his genes... mother let him do it.
>
> The mother didn't "let him do it." It was a freak accident.
People use 'accident' too loosely these days to thwart taking responsibility. Not paying attention to your little brat is not an accident. I've had enough with those types of parents that let their kids do whatever they want regardless of their surroundings.
> > >> 31.5.2016, 23:17, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> > >>> and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible
> > >>> idiots.
> > >>
> > >> But is there need to keep a kid with such genes alive...
> > >
> > > The kid is 4 years old... cut him some slack.
> > >
> >
> > I was talking about his genes... mother let him do it.
>
> The mother didn't "let him do it." It was a freak accident.
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 5:26:52 PM5/31/16
to
undecided <cos...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> People use 'accident' too loosely these days to thwart taking
> responsibility. Not paying attention to your little brat is not an
> accident. I've had enough with those types of parents that let their
> kids do whatever they want regardless of their surroundings.
From what I read she had other kids too, and he slipped through while
>
> People use 'accident' too loosely these days to thwart taking
> responsibility. Not paying attention to your little brat is not an
> accident. I've had enough with those types of parents that let their
> kids do whatever they want regardless of their surroundings.
she was attending to them... the father wasn't there. I wouldn't put
the blame squarely on her shoulders, but certainly she could have
handled the situation differently. You'd think there is some reasonable
expectation on her part that her kid wouldn't be able to get in to the
enclosure so easily...
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 5:27:08 PM5/31/16
to
TT <as...@dprk.kp> writes:
>> I say Make American Zoos Safe Again! We need a bigger wall and we'll make
>> the gorillas build it!
>>
>
> "When Congo sends its gorillas, they're not sending the best. They're
> not sending you, they're sending gorillas that have lots of problems
> and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're
> bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good gorillas,
> but I speak to zoo guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
:)
>> I say Make American Zoos Safe Again! We need a bigger wall and we'll make
>> the gorillas build it!
>>
>
> "When Congo sends its gorillas, they're not sending the best. They're
> not sending you, they're sending gorillas that have lots of problems
> and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're
> bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good gorillas,
> but I speak to zoo guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 5:30:17 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
Too much blame on the parents. It's not like they instructed the
child to do it.
I see no problem in all of this. Child was saved, gorilla was
unfortunately executed.
How about parents suing the zoo? Obviously their security measures
weren't so great if a kid bypassed them.
In the future when bioengineering becomes so advanced all the
extinct species will be restored anyway. Save the gorilla's cells
and stop brainwashing the people with irrelevant news.
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
> It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
>
> Once it did happen though, the zoo can't be blamed for the actions they took. If they'd shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart and he killed the child before it took effect, critics would be blasting them today for not killing him instead. I don't necessarily agree that a human life is always more important than a wild animal's, but in this case it was a child, and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
> It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
>
>
Too much blame on the parents. It's not like they instructed the
child to do it.
I see no problem in all of this. Child was saved, gorilla was
unfortunately executed.
How about parents suing the zoo? Obviously their security measures
weren't so great if a kid bypassed them.
In the future when bioengineering becomes so advanced all the
extinct species will be restored anyway. Save the gorilla's cells
and stop brainwashing the people with irrelevant news.
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 5:40:48 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 2:30:17 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> I see no problem in all of this. Child was saved, gorilla was
> unfortunately executed.
Is this the Stalinist perspective? Utilitarian priorities with a dose of tough love thrown in...
> I see no problem in all of this. Child was saved, gorilla was
> unfortunately executed.
> How about parents suing the zoo? Obviously their security measures
> weren't so great if a kid bypassed them.
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 6:01:02 PM5/31/16
to
TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
> is dumb enough then he deserves to die. Mother should be sterilized
> afterwards. There are much more dumb kids than gorillas.
How can a kid be dumb when he beat the zoo security? I know who's
dumb here.
> 31.5.2016, 23:00, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>>
>
> The way I see it, it's simply a case of natural selection... if the kid
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>>
>
> is dumb enough then he deserves to die. Mother should be sterilized
> afterwards. There are much more dumb kids than gorillas.
How can a kid be dumb when he beat the zoo security? I know who's
dumb here.
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 6:01:03 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
protector etc. I am not surprised by TT showing his true beliefs
disguised as trolling.
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 6:20:35 PM5/31/16
to
> > How about parents suing the zoo? Obviously their security measures
> > weren't so great if a kid bypassed them.
>
> Sue the zoo for not anticipating the special needs of moron visitors. I guess a good lawyer could run with that, sure.
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 6:27:21 PM5/31/16
to
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 6:30:03 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
very bad taste from you, especially in this year.
And yes, that's actually pretty much like that, but I do hope you
finally realize it's not something Stalin invented. It's the
civilizational model he was part of. Existed before him, and
after him.
He was just on top of all things during hard times which were cruel.
Look at the mess that was caused by one pathetic hurricane in USA
in 2005? Compare that to several wars, revolutions, changes in
political and economic systems, outside aggression, 27 million
dead, etc.
You still don't get it that nobody in the world thinks he was a
kind genius.
At least Stalin didn't preached about individual liberties and at
the same time had personal slaves like US founding fathers. And
they're someone's role models. People who would serve jail time
in 2016. Just like Stalin.
But those were the times.
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 6:40:49 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:27:21 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> And if they do, I'll bet the zoo's lawyers will savage them worse than that gorilla could have. If no visitor really got into that enclosure before...if there are witnesses to how the parents were occupying themselves...if there were previous instances of negligence by the parents, or by the mother in her day-care job, etc. Public opinion is already heavily against the family, and rightfully so...IMHO.
There were other witnesses who said the kid ran off quickly and it was an accident and the parents were not negligent. They also said there wasn't much separating them from the gorillas. No 4 year old kid should be able to get through the security measures and fall into a gorilla pit.
> And if they do, I'll bet the zoo's lawyers will savage them worse than that gorilla could have. If no visitor really got into that enclosure before...if there are witnesses to how the parents were occupying themselves...if there were previous instances of negligence by the parents, or by the mother in her day-care job, etc. Public opinion is already heavily against the family, and rightfully so...IMHO.
The case will probably not make it to court and the zoo will probably settle for an undisclosed amount. Just watch.
It's amazing to me that public opinion is heavily against the parents and for some wild unpredictable beast who was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. Some people are nuts IMO.
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 6:56:34 PM5/31/16
to
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
>
> Hitler loved animals more than humans. He was s vegetarian, animal
> protector etc.
That is very likely a myth, and if it's true it was not until very late in
>
> Hitler loved animals more than humans. He was s vegetarian, animal
> protector etc.
his life. There is plenty of evidence that his vegetarianism was purely
for propaganda purposes and that in reality quite the opposite was true.
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 7:01:03 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
in charge of these
cases?
Shakes
May 31, 2016, 7:10:31 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent.
Come now, would you have said the same thing if the boy's father was the one at the zoo ? :)
> The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 7:14:39 PM5/31/16
to
Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> According to one of the reports I read, the boy had to crawl between
> the bars of the fence, and then slide down the moat. So it wasn't
> something that happened in a split second.
I doubt it took the kid long to get through the bars, he's 3 or 4. Once
>
> According to one of the reports I read, the boy had to crawl between
> the bars of the fence, and then slide down the moat. So it wasn't
> something that happened in a split second.
he's through there what could the parent have done to stop him from
going further? Clearly the kid was fixated on getting in.
Thomas R. Kettler
May 31, 2016, 7:22:12 PM5/31/16
to
In article <Z5n3z.10134$mN1....@uutiset.elisa.fi>, TT <as...@dprk.kp>
wrote:
Now you're just aping someone else's words!
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
wrote:
--
Remove blown from email address to reply.
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 7:30:05 PM5/31/16
to
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Who cares even if it wasn't genuine on a personal level. Leaders
are there to sell and promote their agenda.
Vegetarianism, anti smoking etc. He promoted those.
are there to sell and promote their agenda.
Vegetarianism, anti smoking etc. He promoted those.
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 7:35:41 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> It's amazing to me that public opinion is heavily against the parents and for some wild unpredictable beast who was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. Some people are nuts IMO.
Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
> It's amazing to me that public opinion is heavily against the parents and for some wild unpredictable beast who was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. Some people are nuts IMO.
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 7:55:20 PM5/31/16
to
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
>
> Who cares even if it wasn't genuine on a personal level. Leaders
> are there to sell and promote their agenda.
> Vegetarianism, anti smoking etc. He promoted those.
I think it's important for "leaders" to have a shred of honesty and
>
> Who cares even if it wasn't genuine on a personal level. Leaders
> are there to sell and promote their agenda.
> Vegetarianism, anti smoking etc. He promoted those.
practice what they preach. Otherwise they are merely dishonest
marketeers, like Trump/Clinton.
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 8:01:04 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>
>> It's amazing to me that public opinion is heavily against the parents and for some wild unpredictable beast who was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. Some people are nuts IMO.
>
> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
>
This is why you're so fucked up. As a society. You lost last ounce
>
>> It's amazing to me that public opinion is heavily against the parents and for some wild unpredictable beast who was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. Some people are nuts IMO.
>
> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
>
of rationalism. The way I see it, neither side is pursing
rationalism anymore. The conservatives, the religious ones, of
course not, but the opposing side of the political and social
spectrum liberal, secular etc has lost the plot completely as
well.
Of course it's ok to shoot a gorilla. How many pigs or chicken or
cows are slaughtered in cruel and undignified manner each day.
At least gorilla died from a bullet, which is considered honorable
and manly.
He was 17 years old. If he didn't reproduce by now, his genes
weren't that much great anyway. And if he did, he fulfilled his
evolutionary purpose, what's the shame in going away with the
blast?
Certainly it would be counterproductive to have this specimen
fathering so many young gorillas.
It's an unfortunate event, but instead of giving recognition to
people who shot him and saved kid's life, the whole drama is
unleashed.
Sick and ridiculous.
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:02:44 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Did folks here read about this incident ?
very much, yes.
>A 17 yr old, endangered, male gorilla had to be shot by the Zoo to save a 4 yr old boy who had managed to crawl into the enclosure. Apparently, the gorilla species is critically endangered, esp. the males as they are much lower in numbers.
there are 100k of the western lowland silverbacks. still, that's
relatively few.
>My only wonder is what were the parents of the boy doing ? Apparently, the boy went under the outer rail, through wires and over the moat wall, and into the enclosure.
the mother was distracted somehow, and the father, i don't believe he
was present. the father, btw, is a convicted drug dealer and has a
very long rap sheet. the mother is suing the zoo. she's trash, what
else can you say?
bob
wrote:
>Did folks here read about this incident ?
very much, yes.
>A 17 yr old, endangered, male gorilla had to be shot by the Zoo to save a 4 yr old boy who had managed to crawl into the enclosure. Apparently, the gorilla species is critically endangered, esp. the males as they are much lower in numbers.
there are 100k of the western lowland silverbacks. still, that's
relatively few.
>My only wonder is what were the parents of the boy doing ? Apparently, the boy went under the outer rail, through wires and over the moat wall, and into the enclosure.
the mother was distracted somehow, and the father, i don't believe he
was present. the father, btw, is a convicted drug dealer and has a
very long rap sheet. the mother is suing the zoo. she's trash, what
else can you say?
bob
stephenJ
May 31, 2016, 8:04:35 PM5/31/16
to
No way should this be so controversial. The situation was obvious:
1) They HAD to kill the gorilla as quickly as possible. No telling what
the gorilla was going to do, can't take any chances. No brainer, if you
say otherwise you are weird in some way.
2) The gorilla should not be dead and a hefty portion of the blame has
to go to the zoo. No way should it be possible for a 3 year old to gain
access to the gorilla zone.
3) The kid's parent(s) deserve blame as well, as it is negligent to not
stop your 3 year old from climbing into the gorilla zone.
Blame the zoo 60%, the parent 40%.
> On 5/31/2016 2:24 PM, Shakes wrote:
> Did folks here read about this incident ?
>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
1) They HAD to kill the gorilla as quickly as possible. No telling what
the gorilla was going to do, can't take any chances. No brainer, if you
say otherwise you are weird in some way.
2) The gorilla should not be dead and a hefty portion of the blame has
to go to the zoo. No way should it be possible for a 3 year old to gain
access to the gorilla zone.
3) The kid's parent(s) deserve blame as well, as it is negligent to not
stop your 3 year old from climbing into the gorilla zone.
Blame the zoo 60%, the parent 40%.
> On 5/31/2016 2:24 PM, Shakes wrote:
> Did folks here read about this incident ?
>
> A 17 yr old, endangered, male gorilla had to be shot by the Zoo to save a 4 yr old boy who had managed to crawl into the enclosure. Apparently, the gorilla species is critically endangered, esp. the males as they are much lower in numbers.
>
>
> My only wonder is what were the parents of the boy doing ? Apparently, the boy went under the outer rail, through wires and over the moat wall, and into the enclosure.
>
---
>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:10:50 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 13:00:16 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It was an accident which could have happened to any parent.
the father is a drug dealer with long rap sheet and the mother let her
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It was an accident which could have happened to any parent.
4yo out of sight long enough for him to evade barriers right AFTER the
kid was asking if he could "swim with the gorilla."
no, it couldn't happen to "any" parent - but this one, i'm surprised
the kid made it to 4.
> The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
gorilla was going to intentionally harm the child, in fact the gorilla
had a history of nurturing behavior to his sisters and mother and
appeared to be sheltering the child minus the fact he was too strong.
IMO if he was going to kill the child he would've done it.
however, he could've unintentionally harmed the child and they had no
choice but to shoot him.
the mother should be charged and children's services should
investigate the home the child is in IMO.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617016/EXCLUSIVE-PICTURES-parents-four-son-fell-zoo-enclosure-sparking-controversial-killing-Harambe-gorilla-emerges-father-lengthy-criminal-history.html?ITO=1490
bob
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 8:11:37 PM5/31/16
to
This is rst, we scale things in terms of 7543. Please get with the
program!
program!
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 8:12:21 PM5/31/16
to
*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> writes:
>
> At least gorilla died from a bullet, which is considered honorable
> and manly.
lol
>
> At least gorilla died from a bullet, which is considered honorable
> and manly.
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:14:29 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 13:17:41 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
my take, if say a 40yo man jumped in the pen intentionally, i'd say
let him find his way out, but the 4yo kid can't be blamed. i will say
if it were my child i think i'd have gone in after him and tried to
distract the gorilla - but the kid's mom just said "mommy's here for
you!" outside the enclosure.
i do blame the parent (singular, i don't think the father was there,
at least he wasn't mentioned yet, and he is a drug dealer wit long
record) and think the law and/or children's services should look long
and hard at that family.
bob
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
>It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
>
>Once it did happen though, the zoo can't be blamed for the actions they took. If they'd shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart and he killed the child before it took effect, critics would be blasting them today for not killing him instead. I don't necessarily agree that a human life is always more important than a wild animal's, but in this case it was a child, and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
spot on gracchus, i agree fully with every word.
>
>Once it did happen though, the zoo can't be blamed for the actions they took. If they'd shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart and he killed the child before it took effect, critics would be blasting them today for not killing him instead. I don't necessarily agree that a human life is always more important than a wild animal's, but in this case it was a child, and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
my take, if say a 40yo man jumped in the pen intentionally, i'd say
let him find his way out, but the 4yo kid can't be blamed. i will say
if it were my child i think i'd have gone in after him and tried to
distract the gorilla - but the kid's mom just said "mommy's here for
you!" outside the enclosure.
i do blame the parent (singular, i don't think the father was there,
at least he wasn't mentioned yet, and he is a drug dealer wit long
record) and think the law and/or children's services should look long
and hard at that family.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:15:13 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 14:18:12 -0700 (PDT), undecided
<cos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> 31.5.2016, 23:17, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> > >>> and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible
>> > >>> idiots.
>> > >>
>> > >> But is there need to keep a kid with such genes alive...
>> > >
>> > > The kid is 4 years old... cut him some slack.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I was talking about his genes... mother let him do it.
>>
>> The mother didn't "let him do it." It was a freak accident.
bob
<cos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> 31.5.2016, 23:17, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> > >>> and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible
>> > >>> idiots.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > The kid is 4 years old... cut him some slack.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I was talking about his genes... mother let him do it.
>>
>> The mother didn't "let him do it." It was a freak accident.
>
>People use 'accident' too loosely these days to thwart taking responsibility. Not paying attention to your little brat is not an accident. I've had enough with those types of parents that let their kids do whatever they want regardless of their surroundings.
exactly!
>People use 'accident' too loosely these days to thwart taking responsibility. Not paying attention to your little brat is not an accident. I've had enough with those types of parents that let their kids do whatever they want regardless of their surroundings.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:17:03 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 23:28:55 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>>
>>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>>
>> It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
>>
>> Once it did happen though, the zoo can't be blamed for the actions they took. If they'd shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart and he killed the child before it took effect, critics would be blasting them today for not killing him instead. I don't necessarily agree that a human life is always more important than a wild animal's, but in this case it was a child, and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
>>
>
>
>Too much blame on the parents. It's not like they instructed the
> child to do it.
>
>I see no problem in all of this. Child was saved, gorilla was
> unfortunately executed.
>
>How about parents suing the zoo?
they already are. this is the USA after all.
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent. The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>>
>>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>>
>> It is not something that could have happened in a split second. As someone pointed out, in 38 years nobody had gotten through that barrier. And a witness heard the kid "joke" with the mother about going into the enclosure shortly before it happened. Obviously the parents were occupied with something they deemed more important than caretaking in an environment where it was critical, so I have no sympathy for them in this firestorm they brought upon themselves.
>>
>> Once it did happen though, the zoo can't be blamed for the actions they took. If they'd shot the gorilla with a tranquilizer dart and he killed the child before it took effect, critics would be blasting them today for not killing him instead. I don't necessarily agree that a human life is always more important than a wild animal's, but in this case it was a child, and it's not the child's fault that his parents are irresponsible idiots.
>>
>
>
>Too much blame on the parents. It's not like they instructed the
> child to do it.
>
>I see no problem in all of this. Child was saved, gorilla was
> unfortunately executed.
>
>How about parents suing the zoo?
> Obviously their security measures
> weren't so great if a kid bypassed them.
>In the future when bioengineering becomes so advanced all the
> extinct species will be restored anyway. Save the gorilla's cells
> and stop brainwashing the people with irrelevant news.
PeteWasLucky
May 31, 2016, 8:19:11 PM5/31/16
to
stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:
Why the overreaction for the gorilla death? What if it was a chicken?
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 8:19:18 PM5/31/16
to
How is the father's rap sheet (who wasn't even present) relevant?
> and the mother let her 4yo out of sight long enough for him to evade
> barriers right AFTER the kid was asking if he could "swim with the
> gorilla."
I'd like to see the security measures first. To say that she *must*
have been negligent just because the kid managed to get through some
bars doesn't stand in my opinion. We need to know how long it actually
took him, etc. I'd assume a reasonable expectation of safety and that
the security measures were enough for the average visitor (among whom
are MANY small children).
> and the mother let her 4yo out of sight long enough for him to evade
> barriers right AFTER the kid was asking if he could "swim with the
> gorilla."
have been negligent just because the kid managed to get through some
bars doesn't stand in my opinion. We need to know how long it actually
took him, etc. I'd assume a reasonable expectation of safety and that
the security measures were enough for the average visitor (among whom
are MANY small children).
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:21:14 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:20:35 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> > > How about parents suing the zoo? Obviously their security measures
>> > > weren't so great if a kid bypassed them.
>> >
>> > Sue the zoo for not anticipating the special needs of moron visitors. I guess a good lawyer could run with that, sure.
>>
>> Skriptis is right though(something I thought I would never say.) Should a 4 year old kid really be able to crawl through the barrier and fall into the enclosure? Shabby safety standards? I bet the parents will sue.
>
>And if they do, I'll bet the zoo's lawyers will savage them worse than that gorilla could have.
forget the zoo's lawyers, where is the law enforcement and children's
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:20:35 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> > > How about parents suing the zoo? Obviously their security measures
>> > > weren't so great if a kid bypassed them.
>> >
>> > Sue the zoo for not anticipating the special needs of moron visitors. I guess a good lawyer could run with that, sure.
>>
>> Skriptis is right though(something I thought I would never say.) Should a 4 year old kid really be able to crawl through the barrier and fall into the enclosure? Shabby safety standards? I bet the parents will sue.
>
>And if they do, I'll bet the zoo's lawyers will savage them worse than that gorilla could have.
services??
> If no visitor really got into that enclosure before...if there are witnesses to how the parents were occupying themselves...if there were previous instances of negligence by the parents, or by the mother in her day-care job, etc. Public opinion is already heavily against the family, and rightfully so...IMHO.
so what do you think the mother is?
bob
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 8:26:35 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:21:14 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
> > If no visitor really got into that enclosure before...if there are witnesses to how the parents were occupying themselves...if there were previous instances of negligence by the parents, or by the mother in her day-care job, etc. Public opinion is already heavily against the family, and rightfully so...IMHO.
> gracchus, the father is a convicted drug dealer with a long rap sheet,
> so what do you think the mother is?
We can probably abbreviate it to an apostrophe and two letters. :)
> gracchus, the father is a convicted drug dealer with a long rap sheet,
> so what do you think the mother is?
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 8:27:19 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:19:11 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Why the overreaction for the gorilla death? What if it was a chicken?
And what if you were an amoeba?
> Why the overreaction for the gorilla death? What if it was a chicken?
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 8:30:03 PM5/31/16
to
jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
to tell you that smoking is bad?
Having a character is an important issue, but let's not confuse
promoting an agenda that a leader feels is important with
hypocrisy.
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:30:13 PM5/31/16
to
anyway, IMO, zoos shouldn't exist, and if they have to have them, they
should have very few with enough resources to ensure things like only
have animals in containment reasonably close to their natural climate
and environment, huge areas to roam, etc. same goes for orcas in sea
world - ridiculous. elephants in circuses - ridiculous. dolphins in
tanks - ridiiculous.
yrs ago i went to the mall and they had a "show" of a few cats
(panther, jaguar, etc) in cages for people to watch. one was walking
in a small circle, obviously a bit irritated. the handler asked the
crowd "any questions?" i shouted out, "yes, i have one: if you were a
young lion would you like to be living in that cage?" to which she
shouted to the audience "oh, we have one of THEM in the audience, just
ignore."
see, like with hillary, ain't going to convince people who see it the
other way.
bob
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 8:30:44 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:04:35 PM UTC-7, StephenJ wrote:
> Blame the zoo 60%, the parent 40%.
More like zoo 10%, parent 90%. And the zoo's only liability is for not being impervious to imbeciles.
> Blame the zoo 60%, the parent 40%.
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:32:57 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 23:38:28 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>31.5.2016, 23:24, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:18:05 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>
>>> The way I see it, it's simply a case of natural selection... if the kid
>>> is dumb enough then he deserves to die. Mother should be sterilized
>>> afterwards. There are much more dumb kids than gorillas.
>>
>>> Also, the zoo keepers don't seem to be up to the task. Yes a gorilla can
>>> kill the kid, but it's not sure it would have. Tranquilizer darts & such
>>> could have been used. Yes, that would have made death of the kid a
>>> possibility but as I said, a matter of natural selection. Sort of like
>>> Steve Irwin, the idiotic "crocodile hunter".
>>
>> Difference was that Steve Irwin was an adult making fully conscious choices. In his case, I agree with you. He thought it was entertaining, funny, and profitable to screw around with deadly animals on a weekly basis. One day the Russian Roulette wheel finally landed on his number.
>>
>
>“This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
>it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>rescued.”
>
>I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
>the water... but ultimately put him gently on his feet - at which point
>they started shooting. I think a bit cruel to kill it because of
>POSSIBILITY of gorilla harming the kid.
the gorilla wasn't going to intentionally hurt the kid, pretty clear,
but he is so strong he could've accidentally hurt/killed him. even
though he was behaving gently after pulling him to the other side of
the pond.
it's sad, i feel bad for the kid having the parents he does and bad
for the gorilla.
bob
>31.5.2016, 23:24, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:18:05 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>>
>>> The way I see it, it's simply a case of natural selection... if the kid
>>> is dumb enough then he deserves to die. Mother should be sterilized
>>> afterwards. There are much more dumb kids than gorillas.
>>
>>> Also, the zoo keepers don't seem to be up to the task. Yes a gorilla can
>>> kill the kid, but it's not sure it would have. Tranquilizer darts & such
>>> could have been used. Yes, that would have made death of the kid a
>>> possibility but as I said, a matter of natural selection. Sort of like
>>> Steve Irwin, the idiotic "crocodile hunter".
>>
>> Difference was that Steve Irwin was an adult making fully conscious choices. In his case, I agree with you. He thought it was entertaining, funny, and profitable to screw around with deadly animals on a weekly basis. One day the Russian Roulette wheel finally landed on his number.
>>
>
>“This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
>it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>rescued.”
>
>I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
>the water... but ultimately put him gently on his feet - at which point
>they started shooting. I think a bit cruel to kill it because of
>POSSIBILITY of gorilla harming the kid.
the gorilla wasn't going to intentionally hurt the kid, pretty clear,
but he is so strong he could've accidentally hurt/killed him. even
though he was behaving gently after pulling him to the other side of
the pond.
it's sad, i feel bad for the kid having the parents he does and bad
for the gorilla.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:35:38 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 23:53:24 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>31.5.2016, 23:47, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>
>The mother just shouted "I love you" without much distress. Is she black?
she's white. trash.
>> The zoo officials said that the gorilla was agitated (they have experts working at the zoo who would recognize that behavior) and agitated male gorillas are unpredictable. The zoo officials did the right thing IMO.
>>
>> Life of a young kid > life of a wild gorilla.
>>
>
>No. Life of a gorilla > life of a human
>
>If gorilla attacks a human then I see grounds for killing. But this
>gorilla wasn't attacking, if it had it would have been over in tenth of
>a second - SPLAT! :)
that's right. they say gorillas can crush coconuts with their hands
and have strength of 7 olympic lifters.
bob
>31.5.2016, 23:47, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>>
>>> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
>>> the water...
>>
>> Are you crazy? The gorilla took the kid by the ankle and dragged him through the water roughly. If that were my kid I would have probably had a heart attack.
>>
>>> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
>>> the water...
>>
>>
>
>The mother just shouted "I love you" without much distress. Is she black?
she's white. trash.
>> The zoo officials said that the gorilla was agitated (they have experts working at the zoo who would recognize that behavior) and agitated male gorillas are unpredictable. The zoo officials did the right thing IMO.
>>
>> Life of a young kid > life of a wild gorilla.
>>
>
>No. Life of a gorilla > life of a human
>
>If gorilla attacks a human then I see grounds for killing. But this
>gorilla wasn't attacking, if it had it would have been over in tenth of
>a second - SPLAT! :)
that's right. they say gorillas can crush coconuts with their hands
and have strength of 7 olympic lifters.
bob
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 8:43:05 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:30:13 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> anyway, IMO, zoos shouldn't exist, and if they have to have them, they
> should have very few with enough resources to ensure things like only
> have animals in containment reasonably close to their natural climate
> and environment, huge areas to roam, etc. same goes for orcas in sea
> world - ridiculous. elephants in circuses - ridiculous. dolphins in
> tanks - ridiiculous.
I agree. Zoos are outmoded and unnecessary. One can't even make a good case for them being needed for education anymore because there are so many other options that don't involve confining animals under those conditions.
> anyway, IMO, zoos shouldn't exist, and if they have to have them, they
> should have very few with enough resources to ensure things like only
> have animals in containment reasonably close to their natural climate
> and environment, huge areas to roam, etc. same goes for orcas in sea
> world - ridiculous. elephants in circuses - ridiculous. dolphins in
> tanks - ridiiculous.
> yrs ago i went to the mall and they had a "show" of a few cats
> (panther, jaguar, etc) in cages for people to watch. one was walking
> in a small circle, obviously a bit irritated. the handler asked the
> crowd "any questions?" i shouted out, "yes, i have one: if you were a
> young lion would you like to be living in that cage?" to which she
> shouted to the audience "oh, we have one of THEM in the audience, just
> ignore."
> see, like with hillary, ain't going to convince people who see it the
> other way.
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:46:11 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 13:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>
>> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>> rescued.”
>
>In those cases female gorillas were involved and they were trying to protect the kids. They weren't violently pulling a kid through water and concrete like this agitated gorilla was!
>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>> rescued.”
>
the gorilla took the kid quickly to another part of the enclosure
because he was spooked from the crowd yelling, not because he wanted
to harm the kid. he held the kid's hand very gently right after he
took him there. if he wanted to harm the kid he would have crushed him
instantly.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:46:35 PM5/31/16
to
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 00:06:53 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:
>1.6.2016, 0:06, TT kirjoitti:
>> 1.6.2016, 0:04, jdeluise kirjoitti:
>>> TT <as...@dprk.kp> writes:
>>>> :-P
>>>>
>>>
>>> She calls Serena a gorilla doesn't she?
>>>
>>
>> Was the kid black? Her mother sounds black.
>
>His (its)
white trash.
bob
>1.6.2016, 0:06, TT kirjoitti:
>> 1.6.2016, 0:04, jdeluise kirjoitti:
>>> TT <as...@dprk.kp> writes:
>>>
>>>> 31.5.2016, 23:49, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla
>>>>>> world;
>>>>>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and
>>>>>> again on
>>>>>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>>>>>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>>>>>> rescued.”
>>>>>
>>>>> In those cases female gorillas were involved
>>>>
>>>> Always with your feminist angle, aren't you...
>>>> 31.5.2016, 23:49, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 4:38:26 PM UTC-4, TT wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla
>>>>>> world;
>>>>>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and
>>>>>> again on
>>>>>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>>>>>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>>>>>> rescued.”
>>>>>
>>>>> In those cases female gorillas were involved
>>>>
>>>> :-P
>>>>
>>>
>>> She calls Serena a gorilla doesn't she?
>>>
>>
>> Was the kid black? Her mother sounds black.
>
>His (its)
white trash.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:50:18 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 13:50:23 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>
>> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>> rescued.”
>
BINGO! damn gracchus, you oughta be the write in candidate.
> Many are more humane than they used to be, but unlike wildlife sanctuaries, they still exist only to entertain humans at the animals' expense. And these days there are many other ways people can learn about animals if they want to. There are a zillion documentaries, online videos, etc.
>But since zoos do still exist and this incident happened at one, officials didn't have much choice. A gorilla is so damn strong that it could kill a child unintentionally, the crowd reaction was agitating him in this case.
i don't think he was agitated so much as a bit scared or confused.
> One possible option might have been to try the tranquilizer dart first and have a rifleman on standby to shoot to kill if the gorilla turned more aggressive before the dart took effect. As I said before though, if they showed restraint and the kid ended up dead, officials would be paying a bigger price today than they are now.
zoos really shouldn't exist in the form they are now. i've been to the
columbus zoo couple times, and it's supposedly famous for being a
"good zoo" and jack hannah heads it yada yada etc, and IMO even that
zoo isn't near acceptable. since then i've not been to a zoo and doubt
i'd support one again.
wild animal parks, with animals in their natural habitat or very close
to it, i could see.
bob
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
>
>> “This is not the first time that this has happened in the gorilla world;
>> it happened on Aug. 31, 1986, at the Durrell Wildlife Park, and again on
>> Aug. 16, 1996, at the Brookfield Zoo,” the petition states. “In these
>> two cases the gorillas were not killed and both of the children were
>> rescued.”
>
>> I watched a video of the incident. Yes gorilla dragged the kid a bit in
>> the water... but ultimately put him gently on his feet - at which point
>> they started shooting. I think a bit cruel to kill it because of
>> POSSIBILITY of gorilla harming the kid.
>
>I think the outcome sucks, but the bigger argument probably is whether there should be zoos at all.
>> they started shooting. I think a bit cruel to kill it because of
>> POSSIBILITY of gorilla harming the kid.
>
BINGO! damn gracchus, you oughta be the write in candidate.
> Many are more humane than they used to be, but unlike wildlife sanctuaries, they still exist only to entertain humans at the animals' expense. And these days there are many other ways people can learn about animals if they want to. There are a zillion documentaries, online videos, etc.
>But since zoos do still exist and this incident happened at one, officials didn't have much choice. A gorilla is so damn strong that it could kill a child unintentionally, the crowd reaction was agitating him in this case.
i don't think he was agitated so much as a bit scared or confused.
> One possible option might have been to try the tranquilizer dart first and have a rifleman on standby to shoot to kill if the gorilla turned more aggressive before the dart took effect. As I said before though, if they showed restraint and the kid ended up dead, officials would be paying a bigger price today than they are now.
zoos really shouldn't exist in the form they are now. i've been to the
columbus zoo couple times, and it's supposedly famous for being a
"good zoo" and jack hannah heads it yada yada etc, and IMO even that
zoo isn't near acceptable. since then i've not been to a zoo and doubt
i'd support one again.
wild animal parks, with animals in their natural habitat or very close
to it, i could see.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:51:20 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 15:55:18 -0800, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
thank you for including clinton.
bob
wrote:
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 8:57:21 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 16:10:30 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent.
>
>Come now, would you have said the same thing if the boy's father was the one at the zoo ? :)
the mother was distracted obviously. not watching her kid. kid's lucky
to have made it to 4.
bob
wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 1:00:17 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> It was an accident which could have happened to any parent.
>
>
>> The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
>According to one of the reports I read, the boy had to crawl between the bars of the fence, and then slide down the moat. So it wasn't something that happened in a split second.
>> The kid is a rambunctious little guy and maybe the parents took their eyes off him for a split second and he fell.
>> The zoo officials did the right thing IMO. You have to take the life of a human child whose life is being endangered over the life of a wild unpredictable animal as unfortunate as the outcome may be.
>
the mother was distracted obviously. not watching her kid. kid's lucky
to have made it to 4.
bob
jdeluise
May 31, 2016, 8:59:13 PM5/31/16
to
bob <b...@nospam.net> writes:
>
> white trash.
She doesn't look white to me, even on the article you linked earlier
that had at least two pictures of them...?
>
> white trash.
She doesn't look white to me, even on the article you linked earlier
that had at least two pictures of them...?
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 9:01:03 PM5/31/16
to
stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:
Chinese evaluated Mao's legacy in a similar way, 70% good, 30% bad.
I'd say blame it 30% zoo, 5% parents, 65% child.
Since child can't be accountable imo, nobody has over 50%, nobody
should sue anybody.
Everyone should be lucky that it all ended well.
Patents probably sue, I don't know, but considering the hysteria
against them, maybe they're suing to gain the upper hand. This is
utterly idiotic with everyone suing everyone for everything.
And they're ungrateful because the zoo will probably have to pay
fine and where will they find money than to take away from
animals, or staff salary.
So in essence, people that saved their child could lose their job,
or animals could experience deterioration in life conditions.
Instad of holding their child and being happy. Assholes.
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 9:01:04 PM5/31/16
to
bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:
Can they roll two frying pans like this?
https://youtu.be/SzZX4dVCW1o
https://youtu.be/SzZX4dVCW1o
*skriptis
May 31, 2016, 9:01:04 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 9:11:54 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:01:04 PM UTC-7, *skriptis wrote:
> Gracchus <> Wrote in message:
Because I'm against zoos or Hillary? Either way, I'll take it as a compliment.
> Gracchus <> Wrote in message:
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:14:41 PM5/31/16
to
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 01:54:45 +0200 (CEST), *skriptis
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> of rationalism. The way I see it, neither side is pursing
> rationalism anymore. The conservatives, the religious ones, of
> course not, but the opposing side of the political and social
> spectrum liberal, secular etc has lost the plot completely as
> well.
>
>Of course it's ok to shoot a gorilla. How many pigs or chicken or
> cows are slaughtered in cruel and undignified manner each day.
> weren't that much great anyway. And if he did, he fulfilled his
> evolutionary purpose, what's the shame in going away with the
> blast?
>
>Certainly it would be counterproductive to have this specimen
> fathering so many young gorillas.
>
>
>It's an unfortunate event, but instead of giving recognition to
> people who shot him and saved kid's life, the whole drama is
> unleashed.
>
>Sick and ridiculous.
i think the real issue is twofold:
1. should gorillas or animals be in zoos to begin with? recall your
comment that slaves were "normal" 200yrs ago...
2. the mother is an irresponsible person who is married to a drug
dealer and should be prosecuted for child endangerment.
nobody is saying the gorillas life is more important than the child's.
i'm an animal lover and nature nut, but even i know the gorilla
might've killed the boy even if inadvertently.
bob
<skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:40:49 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>> It's amazing to me that public opinion is heavily against the parents and for some wild unpredictable beast who was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. Some people are nuts IMO.
>>
>> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
>>
>
>
>This is why you're so fucked up. As a society. You lost last ounce
>>
>>> It's amazing to me that public opinion is heavily against the parents and for some wild unpredictable beast who was dragging the kid around like a rag doll. Some people are nuts IMO.
>>
>> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
>>
>
>
> of rationalism. The way I see it, neither side is pursing
> rationalism anymore. The conservatives, the religious ones, of
> course not, but the opposing side of the political and social
> spectrum liberal, secular etc has lost the plot completely as
> well.
>
>Of course it's ok to shoot a gorilla. How many pigs or chicken or
> cows are slaughtered in cruel and undignified manner each day.
>
>At least gorilla died from a bullet, which is considered honorable
> and manly.
>
>He was 17 years old. If he didn't reproduce by now, his genes
>At least gorilla died from a bullet, which is considered honorable
> and manly.
>
> weren't that much great anyway. And if he did, he fulfilled his
> evolutionary purpose, what's the shame in going away with the
> blast?
>
>Certainly it would be counterproductive to have this specimen
> fathering so many young gorillas.
>
>
>It's an unfortunate event, but instead of giving recognition to
> people who shot him and saved kid's life, the whole drama is
> unleashed.
>
>Sick and ridiculous.
i think the real issue is twofold:
1. should gorillas or animals be in zoos to begin with? recall your
comment that slaves were "normal" 200yrs ago...
2. the mother is an irresponsible person who is married to a drug
dealer and should be prosecuted for child endangerment.
nobody is saying the gorillas life is more important than the child's.
i'm an animal lover and nature nut, but even i know the gorilla
might've killed the boy even if inadvertently.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:19:10 PM5/31/16
to
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:20:41 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 16:59:11 -0800, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
i heard she was white on the radio today, were they mistaken? is it
black trash or white trash?
bob
wrote:
black trash or white trash?
bob
PeteWasLucky
May 31, 2016, 9:21:16 PM5/31/16
to
Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:19:11 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>
>> Why the overreaction for the gorilla death? What if it was a chicken?
>
> And what if you were an amoeba?
>
People pretend to care much, but why do people overreacting now?
>
>> Why the overreaction for the gorilla death? What if it was a chicken?
>
> And what if you were an amoeba?
>
Is it because it's a gorilla? What if it was a lion? What if it
was a rat?
Is it by size? Have you given it some thoughts why we are taking
this one differently?
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:22:57 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 16:19:15 -0800, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>bob <b...@nospam.net> writes:
>
>
>>
>> the father is a drug dealer with long rap sheet
>
>How is the father's rap sheet (who wasn't even present) relevant?
goes to the character of the parents, IMO.
>> and the mother let her 4yo out of sight long enough for him to evade
>> barriers right AFTER the kid was asking if he could "swim with the
>> gorilla."
>
>I'd like to see the security measures first.
i agree, obviously they could've had bulletproof glass in front of all
enclosures. but then how many people would go? for every car accident
when a kid runs in traffic, should we put glass in front of all roads?
or expect parents to teach their kids not to do it and watch them?
> To say that she *must*
>have been negligent just because the kid managed to get through some
>bars doesn't stand in my opinion. We need to know how long it actually
>took him, etc. I'd assume a reasonable expectation of safety and that
>the security measures were enough for the average visitor (among whom
>are MANY small children).
bob
wrote:
>bob <b...@nospam.net> writes:
>
>
>>
>> the father is a drug dealer with long rap sheet
>
>How is the father's rap sheet (who wasn't even present) relevant?
>> and the mother let her 4yo out of sight long enough for him to evade
>> barriers right AFTER the kid was asking if he could "swim with the
>> gorilla."
>
>I'd like to see the security measures first.
enclosures. but then how many people would go? for every car accident
when a kid runs in traffic, should we put glass in front of all roads?
or expect parents to teach their kids not to do it and watch them?
> To say that she *must*
>have been negligent just because the kid managed to get through some
>bars doesn't stand in my opinion. We need to know how long it actually
>took him, etc. I'd assume a reasonable expectation of safety and that
>the security measures were enough for the average visitor (among whom
>are MANY small children).
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 9:22:57 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:19:10 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> where did you find that albino gorilla? :-)
I expected a clip of the Mugato from "Star Trek."
> where did you find that albino gorilla? :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP1VoH_0l-E
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:25:25 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:04:15 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>No way should this be so controversial. The situation was obvious:
>
>1) They HAD to kill the gorilla as quickly as possible. No telling what
>the gorilla was going to do, can't take any chances. No brainer, if you
>say otherwise you are weird in some way.
it is true, they had to kill the gorilla because whether he intended
>No way should this be so controversial. The situation was obvious:
>
>1) They HAD to kill the gorilla as quickly as possible. No telling what
>the gorilla was going to do, can't take any chances. No brainer, if you
>say otherwise you are weird in some way.
to or not, he was strong enough to easily kill the child.
>2) The gorilla should not be dead and a hefty portion of the blame has
>to go to the zoo. No way should it be possible for a 3 year old to gain
>access to the gorilla zone.
for every traffic incident in which someone is able to "fall" into a
street in front of cars, or should people be responsible with children
too?
>3) The kid's parent(s) deserve blame as well, as it is negligent to not
>stop your 3 year old from climbing into the gorilla zone.
>Blame the zoo 60%, the parent 40%.
or better yet, not exist.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:26:12 PM5/31/16
to
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:28:23 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT), Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com>
i was wrong, i apologize, i stand corrected: appears the parents of
the kid were black. i heard on the radio today the kid was white.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617016/EXCLUSIVE-PICTURES-parents-four-son-fell-zoo-enclosure-sparking-controversial-killing-Harambe-gorilla-emerges-father-lengthy-criminal-history.html?ITO=1490
bob
wrote:
>Did folks here read about this incident ?
>
>A 17 yr old, endangered, male gorilla had to be shot by the Zoo to save a 4 yr old boy who had managed to crawl into the enclosure. Apparently, the gorilla species is critically endangered, esp. the males as they are much lower in numbers.
>
>My only wonder is what were the parents of the boy doing ? Apparently, the boy went under the outer rail, through wires and over the moat wall, and into the enclosure.
for all those who say i never admit mistake:
>Did folks here read about this incident ?
>
>A 17 yr old, endangered, male gorilla had to be shot by the Zoo to save a 4 yr old boy who had managed to crawl into the enclosure. Apparently, the gorilla species is critically endangered, esp. the males as they are much lower in numbers.
>
>My only wonder is what were the parents of the boy doing ? Apparently, the boy went under the outer rail, through wires and over the moat wall, and into the enclosure.
i was wrong, i apologize, i stand corrected: appears the parents of
the kid were black. i heard on the radio today the kid was white.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3617016/EXCLUSIVE-PICTURES-parents-four-son-fell-zoo-enclosure-sparking-controversial-killing-Harambe-gorilla-emerges-father-lengthy-criminal-history.html?ITO=1490
bob
stephenJ
May 31, 2016, 9:31:14 PM5/31/16
to
wouldn't want to be in a cage.
Last year we went to the Ringling Bros circus for the first time since
we were little kids. Loved most of it, all the stuff involving people,
but still vowed never to come back after seeing the elephants. Whereas
the dogs seemed to love doing their tricks, in our opinion you could see
in the elephant eyes they were smart enough to be aware they were
captive and were humiliated by it.
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:32:13 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 21:21:15 -0400 (EDT), PeteWasLucky
<waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:19:11 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>
>>> Why the overreaction for the gorilla death? What if it was a chicken?
>>
>> And what if you were an amoeba?
>>
>
>People pretend to care much, but why do people overreacting now?
> Is it because it's a gorilla? What if it was a lion? What if it
> was a rat?
i don't believe in animal testing either, especially for cosmetic
<waleed...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:19:11 PM UTC-7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>
>>> Why the overreaction for the gorilla death? What if it was a chicken?
>>
>> And what if you were an amoeba?
>>
>
>People pretend to care much, but why do people overreacting now?
> Is it because it's a gorilla? What if it was a lion? What if it
> was a rat?
reasons. i don't buy anything w/out the "not tested on animals" label.
>Is it by size? Have you given it some thoughts why we are taking
> this one differently?
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 9:37:50 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:22:57 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> goes to the character of the parents, IMO.
Just saw this article...gist is:
> goes to the character of the parents, IMO.
"The family of a boy who entered a Cincinnati Zoo gorilla's enclosure last weekend -- spurring zoo officials to shoot and kill the animal -- will be the focus of an investigation into the incident, Cincinnati police said Tuesday"
"Cincinnati police said Tuesday that their review "is only regarding the actions of the parents/family that led up to the incident and not related to the operation or safety of the Cincinnati Zoo."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/us/gorilla-shot-harambe/
I expect we'll learn more about these lowlifes over the next week, and good chance none of it will be good.
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 9:41:22 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:35:41 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
It's easy for us to speculate what happened sitting on our couches. But all I know is if that were my kid and he/she ran away quickly and by the time I realized what happened he/she was in a gorilla enclosure, I would shoot the beast myself to protect my child.
> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
It's sad how it ended up with the gorilla dead but under these circumstances one can't take any chances. At the end of the day I value the life of a child over the life of a wild gorilla capable of violence. I don't understand the outcry here. The kid ran away quickly fell into the enclosure and the gorilla was agitated and dragging the kid around in the water violently. The zoo officials know the behavior of their animals and obviously thought serious harm could come to the child if they didn't react and kill the gorilla. Adios gorilla I say. Nice knowing you.
Court_1
May 31, 2016, 9:44:46 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> the father, btw, is a convicted drug dealer and has a
> very long rap sheet.
Apparently he has cleaned up his life or at least attempted to and what does his criminal past have to do with what happened at the zoo between the mother and child?
the mother is suing the zoo. she's trash, what
> else can you say?
No she isn't suing the zoo YET. That's false. She probably will though and I don't blame her if she does.
> the father, btw, is a convicted drug dealer and has a
> very long rap sheet.
Apparently he has cleaned up his life or at least attempted to and what does his criminal past have to do with what happened at the zoo between the mother and child?
the mother is suing the zoo. she's trash, what
> else can you say?
No she isn't suing the zoo YET. That's false. She probably will though and I don't blame her if she does.
Gracchus
May 31, 2016, 9:48:48 PM5/31/16
to
On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 6:44:46 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > the father, btw, is a convicted drug dealer and has a
> > very long rap sheet.
> Apparently he has cleaned up his life or at least attempted to and what does his criminal past have to do with what happened at the zoo between the mother and child?
Because the guy is a scumbag who taught his child that rules don't matter. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > the father, btw, is a convicted drug dealer and has a
> > very long rap sheet.
> Apparently he has cleaned up his life or at least attempted to and what does his criminal past have to do with what happened at the zoo between the mother and child?
> the mother is suing the zoo. she's trash, what
> > else can you say?
> No she isn't suing the zoo YET. That's false. She probably will though and I don't blame her if she does.
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:49:17 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 20:30:55 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>On 5/31/2016 8:25 PM, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:04:15 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No way should this be so controversial. The situation was obvious:
>>>
>>> 1) They HAD to kill the gorilla as quickly as possible. No telling what
>>> the gorilla was going to do, can't take any chances. No brainer, if you
>>> say otherwise you are weird in some way.
>>
>> it is true, they had to kill the gorilla because whether he intended
>> to or not, he was strong enough to easily kill the child.
>>
>>> 2) The gorilla should not be dead and a hefty portion of the blame has
>>> to go to the zoo. No way should it be possible for a 3 year old to gain
>>> access to the gorilla zone.
>>
>> the zoo is partly to blame, but then again, should we blame all cities
>> for every traffic incident in which someone is able to "fall" into a
>> street in front of cars, or should people be responsible with children
>> too?
>>
>>> 3) The kid's parent(s) deserve blame as well, as it is negligent to not
>>> stop your 3 year old from climbing into the gorilla zone.
>>> Blame the zoo 60%, the parent 40%.
>>
>> i'll go 70 parent, 30 zoo. but the zoo should have a better security,
>> or better yet, not exist.
>
>I have to admit i like zoos but can't justify their existence. I
>wouldn't want to be in a cage.
i've been to a handful of zoos, most recently columbus about 5yrs ago.
>On 5/31/2016 8:25 PM, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2016 19:04:15 -0500, stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> No way should this be so controversial. The situation was obvious:
>>>
>>> 1) They HAD to kill the gorilla as quickly as possible. No telling what
>>> the gorilla was going to do, can't take any chances. No brainer, if you
>>> say otherwise you are weird in some way.
>>
>> it is true, they had to kill the gorilla because whether he intended
>> to or not, he was strong enough to easily kill the child.
>>
>>> 2) The gorilla should not be dead and a hefty portion of the blame has
>>> to go to the zoo. No way should it be possible for a 3 year old to gain
>>> access to the gorilla zone.
>>
>> the zoo is partly to blame, but then again, should we blame all cities
>> for every traffic incident in which someone is able to "fall" into a
>> street in front of cars, or should people be responsible with children
>> too?
>>
>>> 3) The kid's parent(s) deserve blame as well, as it is negligent to not
>>> stop your 3 year old from climbing into the gorilla zone.
>>> Blame the zoo 60%, the parent 40%.
>>
>> i'll go 70 parent, 30 zoo. but the zoo should have a better security,
>> or better yet, not exist.
>
>I have to admit i like zoos but can't justify their existence. I
>wouldn't want to be in a cage.
it was probably the one that convinced me to stop going to zoos even
though i loved seeing the animals - it was 93deg that day and i saw
polar bears in an outdoor pen with a chilled pool and grizzly bears
close to them. i couldn't get over how unnatural it was for a polar or
grizzly bear to be in that heat, regardless of the water.
>Last year we went to the Ringling Bros circus for the first time since
>we were little kids. Loved most of it, all the stuff involving people,
>but still vowed never to come back after seeing the elephants. Whereas
>the dogs seemed to love doing their tricks, in our opinion you could see
>in the elephant eyes they were smart enough to be aware they were
>captive and were humiliated by it.
Tv. elephants, not so much. i'm happy ringling stopped the elephants
and seaworld the orcas - but there's a suuuuper long way to go and IMO
they zoo situation needs to be either abolished or completely
rethought.
bob
bob
May 31, 2016, 9:51:38 PM5/31/16
to
On Tue, 31 May 2016 18:41:21 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:35:41 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
>
>It's easy for us to speculate what happened sitting on our couches. But all I know is if that were my kid and he/she ran away quickly and by the time I realized what happened he/she was in a gorilla enclosure, I would shoot the beast myself to protect my child.
would you jump in the enclosure to distract the "beast"?
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 7:35:41 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> Maybe most of those asked weren't the kind that see wild animals as something to be used for human amusement or killed for body parts on human whim because they're supposedly just beasts without souls anyway. And of course anyone who differs with this and values the animals must be some crazy tree-hugging granola hippie, right? It's quite similar to the view that former third-world colonies were better off being colonies because the non-white natives are stupid and uncivilized to govern themselves. Call that good old common sense if you like. I'm glad to be one who disagrees.
>
>It's easy for us to speculate what happened sitting on our couches. But all I know is if that were my kid and he/she ran away quickly and by the time I realized what happened he/she was in a gorilla enclosure, I would shoot the beast myself to protect my child.
>It's sad how it ended up with the gorilla dead but under these circumstances one can't take any chances. At the end of the day I value the life of a child over the life of a wild gorilla capable of violence. I don't understand the outcry here.
> The kid ran away quickly fell into the enclosure and the gorilla was agitated and dragging the kid around in the water violently. The zoo officials know the behavior of their animals and obviously thought serious harm could come to the child if they didn't react and kill the gorilla. Adios gorilla I say. Nice knowing you.
bob
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages