Remember the Pittsburgh Zoo example of retarded parenting?

In reply to Lesley:

Which is why I only supported charges if she attempted to sue......

Datsun1500 wrote: You can argue all you want that there should have been a better blockade, it will not change the fact that she lifted her kid over the existing wall and lost her grip. If she would not have done that, he'd still be here, no matter what the zoo had in place.

You are 100% correct the Mother holds responsibility for the death of her child. However had the zoo put a method in place ensuring that a person could not fall into the enclosure (Be it all mesh, glass windows, a 2nd fence below isolating the "fall zone") The mothers actions would have been minimized. The zoo makes money by providing people "entertainment" through the confined viewing of otherwise dangerous or exotic animals. In this unique situation the responsibility is on them to take all measures possible to avoid risk. If it is true that the Zoo has PREVIOUSLY been made aware of the risk of parents putting children in a situation where they could fall into an enclosure and FAILED to put further preventative measures in place they were Negligent. This mother was stupid for putting her child up their and letting him fall in however the fact that the Zoo had chosen to not take efforts to prevent a fall shares some responsibility.

I am by no means a someone who advocates removing personal responsibilty however I feel that we as a society should create environments where mistakes in personal judment are minimized and when people and corporations are negligent corrective action needs to take place. The reality of the world is the only way to get corporations to change and the only way to make up for personal loss is with the exchange of numbers followed by lots of zeros. I'm sure I'll get labeled by most of you as being "one of those people who want the world to be 100% safe".

I quite frankly find the "darwin" opinions on this site appaling. The lack of compasion this shows for other humans is embarassing. I'm sorry some people have to deal with "idiots" everyday but they are still people and deserve some amount of respect and compassion. The idea that people are suggesting that people being killed/eaten/or placed in situations where they will kill themselves as being humerous is absurd.

nocones wrote: I quite frankly find the "darwin" opinions on this site appaling. The lack of compasion this shows for other humans is embarassing. I'm sorry some people have to deal with "idiots" everyday but they are still people and deserve some amount of respect and compassion. The idea that people are suggesting that people being killed/eaten/or placed in situations where they will kill themselves as being humerous is absurd.

Exactly this, times a thousand. People think it's funny or they're just venting but in reality they're embracing their inner sociopath. It's clear these are people that have never watched someone die in front of them or dealt with the aftermath of a traumatic death of a friend of loved one. Either that or they really don't have empathy and are excellent at treating people outside of their social circle as "the other."

I deal with idiots a lot and yet I still try to protect people from themselves as much as I can. To do otherwise is to deny your own humanity and to be a bad human being.

If only there had been a railing to prevent them from going beyond the railing.

In reply to Datsun1500:

lol

cutter67 wrote: the hundreds of parents maybe thousands that did it before her are all bad parents and are stupid shiny happy people......

Yup! Just because thousands of people do it, doesn't mean it's NOT stupid or dangerous.

dculberson wrote: Cutter, don't try being reasonable, this is where people go to whine about the decline of society while ignoring all the stupid stuff they themselves do every single day. It's fun feeling superior to other people and glossing over your own faults! I would never do X! I've never made a mistake!

Let me stipulate: I DO STUPID AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS E36 M3 ALL THE TIME.

I just don't freak out and blame the world when it bites me in the ass, or try to sue someone for not preventing me from doing it.

Datsun1500 wrote:

e_pie wrote: If only there had been a railing to prevent them from going beyond the railing.

Unfortunately 2 railings would not be enough at some point. Once someone went beyond the second one, it can be said they must have known they would have needed a third. We need a railing beyond the railing, beyond the original railing, or a net.

At that point you just need a sniper to take out the offender. Nothing will stop them at that point.

To me it's not about preventing a fall. I'm not saying that all elevated situations need some rediculous fall arestor. I think the current ~36-42" railings that get placed about EVERYWHERE in the US are sufficent to comunicate to EVERYONE hey dumbass there is something beyond here that you probably don't want to fall off. Most people will then walk up to the railing and do a pretty good job assesing their likelyhood of dying if they fall off said structure. The problem here is a Fall (Whicht he zoo did put railing up to prevent) results in being confined in a cage with wild animals who pack hunt and dismember things that look foodish. This requires a 2nd level of protection ton ENSURE that no one can get in. Most zoos acomplish this by some form of Total enclosure or a railing set back a distance from the edge such that a Fall over the railing would NOT result in co-confinement with some animals. It sounds/looks like this enclosure was not designed to achieve this. In the area the child fell off (which the Zoo staff were aware and concerned about parents putting their children on the railing) there was no such measure of 2nd restriction in place. I think there is a very real possibility with out signage warnings or barriers that the mother in question and all parents who lifted their kids up over the barrier were not AWARE of how dangerous the animals on the other side of the barrier could be. The parents may have simply assesed the risk of injury from the fall only and been ignorant of the risks the animals would pose after the fall. Every zoo I have been in that has had platforms or enclosures with railings like that with no secondary safety barrier have been around animals that pose little risk to people. Birds, wallabys, goats, and other Herbivor type animals.

Again obviously mother dropped kid into savage beast container with armchair quarterback predictable results. However if a child/person intruding into this cage could concievably result in this kind of situation the zoo does have responsibility to do everything possible to make the risks known and prevent entrusion. Perhaps they did do that and if so the suit will result in a finding for the Zoo. If not she will get compensated and the Zoo will learn to do a better job of risk assesment in the future.

Duke wrote:

dculberson wrote: Cutter, don't try being reasonable, this is where people go to whine about the decline of society while ignoring all the stupid stuff they themselves do every single day. It's fun feeling superior to other people and glossing over your own faults! I would never do X! I've never made a mistake!

Let me stipulate: **I DO STUPID AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS E36 M3 ALL THE TIME. ** I just don't freak out and blame the world when it bites me in the ass, or try to sue someone for not preventing me from doing it.

+1. It's called "taking responsibiity for your actions." Something rarely anyone does anymore.

Bobzilla wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote:

e_pie wrote: If only there had been a railing to prevent them from going beyond the railing.

Unfortunately 2 railings would not be enough at some point. Once someone went beyond the second one, it can be said they must have known they would have needed a third. We need a railing beyond the railing, beyond the original railing, or a net.

At that point you just need a sniper to take out the offender. Nothing will stop them at that point.

But that's not the situation here and you both know it. There was 1 railing and a tiny net. There does not seem to be evidence that the woman was actively trying to place her child in the cage by circumventing all possible prevention methods. I know your way of interpreting it is funnier though.

nocones wrote: To me it's not about preventing a fall. I'm not saying that all elevated situations need some rediculous fall arestor. I think the current ~36-42" railings that get placed about EVERYWHERE in the US are sufficent to comunicate to EVERYONE hey dumbass there is something beyond here that you probably don't want to fall off. Most people will then walk up to the railing and do a pretty good job assesing their likelyhood of dying if they fall off said structure. The problem here is a Fall (Whicht he zoo did put railing up to prevent) results in being confined in a cage with wild animals who pack hunt and dismember things that look foodish. This requires a 2nd level of protection ton ENSURE that no one can get in. Most zoos acomplish this by some form of Total enclosure or a railing set back a distance from the edge such that a Fall over the railing would NOT result in co-confinement with some animals. It sounds/looks like this enclosure was not designed to achieve this. In the area the child fell off (which the Zoo staff were aware and concerned about parents putting their children on the railing) there was no such measure of 2nd restriction in place. I think there is a very real possibility with out signage warnings or barriers that the mother in question and all parents who lifted their kids up over the barrier were not AWARE of how dangerous the animals on the other side of the barrier could be. The parents may have simply assesed the risk of injury from the fall only and been ignorant of the risks the animals would pose after the fall. Every zoo I have been in that has had platforms or enclosures with railings like that with no secondary safety barrier have been around animals that pose little risk to people. Birds, wallabys, goats, and other Herbivor type animals. Again obviously mother dropped kid into savage beast container with armchair quarterback predictable results. However if a child/person intruding into this cage could concievably result in this kind of situation the zoo does have responsibility to do everything possible to make the risks known and prevent entrusion. Perhaps they did do that and if so the suit will result in a finding for the Zoo. If not she will get compensated and the Zoo will learn to do a better job of risk assesment in the future.

very well put and what i have been trying to say the whole time.

I think the zoo should have known the animals were dangerous, and removed them from the zoo. The zoo should not have animals at the zoo. If there were no animals, the kid wouldve never been hurt at all. My wife plays a game on the ipad that is a virtual zoo. We have had zero fatalities at our house since the creation of this zoo. Clearly, this PROVES fake zoos are safer than real ones. The real zoos should spend their safety budget on the installation of monitors that project images of virtual animals, thereyby negating any possibility of danger from injury sustained by actual teeth.

Plus, you can put like 50 ice cream stands in the virtual zoos, one at every corner! Which is awesome because everyone loves ice cream.

dculberson wrote:

nocones wrote: I quite frankly find the "darwin" opinions on this site appaling. The lack of compasion this shows for other humans is embarassing. I'm sorry some people have to deal with "idiots" everyday but they are still people and deserve some amount of respect and compassion. The idea that people are suggesting that people being killed/eaten/or placed in situations where they will kill themselves as being humerous is absurd.

Exactly this, times a thousand. People think it's funny or they're just venting but in reality they're embracing their inner sociopath. It's clear these are people that have never watched someone die in front of them or dealt with the aftermath of a traumatic death of a friend of loved one. Either that or they really don't have empathy and are excellent at treating people outside of their social circle as "the other." I deal with idiots a lot and yet I still try to protect people from themselves as much as I can. To do otherwise is to deny your own humanity and to be a bad human being.

That's a pretty broad brush.

I watched a very good friend of mine DIE right in front of me after he made a mistake on his motorcycle and was hit by a truck......I also wrecked in all the aftermath. Oct 9th 2005.

I love when people claim "I dislike when Y group does X", then turn around and do X themselves.

I guess all motorcycle tires should be heat cycled and have the mold release compound removed before sale, right?

Oh, I meant to add that if the other bystanders did hold the mother back from jumping in the enclosure I hope they feel bad about it. Nothing would stop me from jumping in there if it was my kid, other than perhaps a half dozen burly dudes. I would be in there as soon as the kid slipped from my hands.

Not that I would be dumb enough to do it, of course.

z31maniac wrote:

dculberson wrote:

nocones wrote: I quite frankly find the "darwin" opinions on this site appaling. The lack of compasion this shows for other humans is embarassing. I'm sorry some people have to deal with "idiots" everyday but they are still people and deserve some amount of respect and compassion. The idea that people are suggesting that people being killed/eaten/or placed in situations where they will kill themselves as being humerous is absurd.

Exactly this, times a thousand. People think it's funny or they're just venting but in reality they're embracing their inner sociopath. It's clear these are people that have never watched someone die in front of them or dealt with the aftermath of a traumatic death of a friend of loved one. Either that or they really don't have empathy and are excellent at treating people outside of their social circle as "the other." I deal with idiots a lot and yet I still try to protect people from themselves as much as I can. To do otherwise is to deny your own humanity and to be a bad human being.

That's a pretty broad brush. I watched a very good friend of mine DIE right in front of me after he made a mistake on his motorcycle and was hit by a truck......I also wrecked in all the aftermath. Oct 9th 2005. I love when people claim "I dislike when Y group does X", then turn around and do X themselves. I guess all motorcycle tires should be heat cycled and have the mold release compound removed before sale, right?

Well you're obviously a sociopath.

I got a nice early introduction into death. I got to be the one to find my grandfather dead at the ripe old age of 9. Watched my Grandmother die in the hospital. Had a close cousin die in a car crash when I was 16 etc.

I do deal with idiots all day, every day. I run into them in the wild. I watch them do dumb things all the time. My hope for humanity has been dropping since I was 18. I now mostly hope one of these idiots doesn't do something directly to me at this point. Amongst themselves? Do whatever you want.

dculberson wrote: If you didn't call for the death of people then I was not calling you a sociopath. If you did, then you are a sociopath. It's not "funny" or "clever" to say people deserve to die. If you did not say it then why are you reacting to my "broad brush" statement that only applies to those people?

If people die doing risky, dangerous, potentially-lethal things, then they deserved to die . Not deserved in the sense of "justice" or even "retribution", but deserved as in "I ignored the fact that this could kill me, and now it's about to".

dculberson wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Trolls will troll.

Not sure why you keep disclosing your intent...

Wow, the "I know you are but what am I" level of argument is getting tiresome from all sides.

In reply to z31maniac:

I feel for you there, I was following a friend when he smashed a buick that didn't use its turn signal. Thankfully, I haven't had to relive that experience since 4-20-07

FWIW, darwinism and trolling have no place in any of this discussion......so please, get rid of it.

nocones wrote: There does not seem to be evidence that the woman was actively trying to place her child in the cage by circumventing all possible prevention methods.

That's actually exactly what the lady did.

Personally, if I was the owner of the zoo, I'd just close up shop. "This is why you can't have nice things, shiny happy people". Your arguments are circular logic, and as pointed out everywhere, there is only one inevitable end (bubble wrapped and not allowed to go outside).

Of course, I'd institute a waver policy that just like in motorsports, people sign their lives away as soon as they enter.

In reply to HiTempguy:

Still wouldn't stop the lawsuits.....