The family is, quite frankly, irrelevent. A kid was trapped with an animal strong enough to rip him limb from limb easily. No, sedating the animal was not an option (the popularity of youtube "coming out of aenesthesia" videos shows why: going under can be just as unpredictable). I don't care if the parents were snorting meth while the kid climbed the fence: once down there, the kids safety had to take precedence. He (she? I don't know) was 4 years old. No rational thought, no ability to deduce consequences. His parents abilities weren't his fault. Sucky situation all around, but there was no other viable alternative, once the kid was down there.

Sensible as always, momof4.

Sure seems like a design flaw to me. I would think that a gorilla exhibit (or a lion/tiger/polar bear/etc. exhibit) would be designed in such a way that if a parent did take their eyes off their child for a short time, the child wouldn't be able to fall into the exhibit.

A lot of people want to find some ways to vilify the parents to justify hating and punishing them. I hope the father doesn't lose his job because of the above information about his past being revealed.

As far as the "gentle giant" protecting the child: even if it was, that little boy was in extreme danger. Most of the videos posted on the internet edited out the parts that were "too disturbing", that showed the gorilla running fast through the moat dragging the little boy by the leg. Regardless of the poor gorilla's intentions, it could have snuffed that little boy in a split second with no hostile intent at all.

That's a good point, JD. Seems like when they design an enclosure they should take into account the behaviors of the humans outside of it as well as the animals inside.

...but I am no hairy primate expert...

As a hairy primate, I resemble that remark.

So, what changes have to happen to see that this doesn't happen again?

Not a lot of traffic about that.

We forget so easily.

Apparently, some think we should have three dead gorillas. Twice, at least, concerns were unwarranted.

Hanna.

Because Americans insist that wild animals be presented to them by zoos in postures of cuddly (human) emotional accessibility, it's perhaps come to the point where zoos aren't worth the suffering they cause to the beasts within. Americans don't seem to come out of their visits with the humility they ought to have.

The animal kingdom is not fucking around.

So, what changes have to happen to see that this doesn't happen again?

Have the fencing designed so kids can't get through.

There must be some holes in the fencing at that enclosure now. I grew up in Cincinnati, and went to the zoo a lot as a kid. They always had fencing hidden in the bushes in front of the enclosure, and quite frankly, given how well designed the separation is, the mom should easily have been able to stop the kid. I don't want criminal charges filed against the parents, but they do need to pay some kind of restitution to the zoo.

I posted about and read a few articles about this story yesterday. The impression I got of the dad is yes, he has a few black marks on his past, but he has decided to try and turn his life around, and be a dad to his four children. This means that these kids are doing better than 67% of black children, who have no father.

Cut the guy a break. He's doing right by his kids, which means that chances are that his kids were grow up to be better than their dad was in his younger days.

A couple of things I noticed about yesterday is that the Blacks Lives Matter types and black activists made superlative jackasses of themselves by claiming that this instance of shooting the gorilla was yet another example of "white privilege."

One bright young star who has the nerve to call himself "Hood Intellect" claimed that had it been a black child that had fallen into the enclosure, they would have used a tranquilizer gun to subdue the gorilla, which would have further endangered the child, as the tranquilizer would have taken a few minutes to work and might have agitated the gorilla in the meantime.

By the way, the child is male and his name is Isaiah. Last name unknown, since his parents don't share the same surname.

Another person claimed that the gorilla was killed to preserve a white life.

Still waiting for the apologies, but they don't seem to be forthcoming. I'm not holding my breath.

But of course, you cannot win with the perpetually-aggrieved. It seems that there is a petition that has collected thousands of signatories saying that the parents should be held responsible for the gorilla's death.

So, despite having egg on their collective faces, they will almost certainly claim that this petition is another example of "white privilege."

And these same morons I just quoted will insist that the had the parents been white, no one would be clamoring for the parents to be held responsible.

Regarding that, I don't think it's quite realistic, short of keeping the kid on a leash, for a parent to keep an eye on the kid every second. As the mother pointed out, accidents happen.

I think the zoo is more responsible. Yes, I recognize that you cannot build an enclosure for animals that will keep out someone determined to get in. But surely, we can do better with these enclosures so that a four-year-old can't effortlessly breeze right into it.

Frankly, if you don't know how to contain or restrict a four-year-old, you shouldn't have kids.

Apparently, some think we should have three dead gorillas. Twice, at least, concerns were unwarranted. ~ Radwaste at May 30, 2016 11:31 PM

Rad, Binti Jua was a female gorilla. Harambe was a male gorilla. As much as the feminists don't want to admit biological differences in the sexes, these two cases illustrate them. The boy in the Cincinnati case was being used as a plaything by a posturing male gorilla, not treated as an injured child by a female gorilla.

momof4 is right. Once the child was in the enclosure (whoever was to blame), his safety was paramount. The gorilla's was not.

And Crid is on point with his comment on zoos. We see wild animals in zoos and other people-friendly environments and forget that nature is vicious. Wild animals are not pets.

Visitors to a South African national park were recently treated to a front row seat for nature's pageantry when lions attacked and ate an antelope on the road in front of them. Wise and friendly Simba these guys were not.

Frankly, if you don't know how to contain or restrict a four-year-old, you shouldn't have kids.

This is naive. Kids are sneaky little beasts. It takes a second of distracted attention and they are off.

I think people get such a kick out of judging others that they can't help thinking they would do better than parents and zoo officials in this situation.

Astra:

This is naive. Kids are sneaky little beasts. It takes a second of distracted attention and they are off.

Hello, Astra. I think you might have misunderstood me and perhaps applying it to parenting skills was a poor comparison.

I have shared my views that the zoo should be responsible on other venues of social media, and people have criticized this idea, claiming that it would be impossible to create an animal enclosure that no one could get into yet still allowing people to view the animals.

I pointed out that I'm not suggesting that we should make the enclosures absolutely impermeable. I'm saying that we should make them so a four-year-old can't simply waltz right through them and fall into the moat surrounding the gorillas. Surely, we can accomplish that much.

I wasn't suggesting that the parents should have been able to contain or restrict the child 100% of the time while at the zoo. I agree, that would be unrealistic. A momentary distraction is all it takes for a child to be off and running. I'm suggesting that a zoo could surely provide a barrier to the enclosure that's four-year-old proof. A half wall, four feet high, for instance. Or simply make the spaces within the guardrail smaller, too small for a child to slip through.

But when it's a matter of kids in the home, I could certainly contain a four-year-old within the house if I wanted to. It's called a locked door. A chain bolt out of the child's reach will most certainly confine it to the house.

I was suggesting that if the designers of the zoo can't design an enclosure that would keep a four-year-old out, they probably shouldn't have kids, because their kids would constantly be getting away from them.

Conan:

Rad, Binti Jua was a female gorilla. Harambe was a male gorilla. As much as the feminists don't want to admit biological differences in the sexes, these two cases illustrate them. The boy in the Cincinnati case was being used as a plaything by a posturing male gorilla, not treated as an injured child by a female gorilla.

Witnesses at the event would disagree with you, Conan. They observed the gorilla holding hands with the child. The gorilla must have been pretty gentle considering it could have killed the child merely by exerting a strong grip on it. Gorillas are just that strong.

Was the gorilla rough with the child? Maybe. He was pulling the child causing it to skid along the surface of the water. Maybe that's how a gorilla playfully engages with a child? Or perhaps the gorilla was panicked the screams of the crowd and took the child away to protect him?

I'm not disputing that a female gorilla would have been more gentle, but the gorilla was not "posturing."

Based on this article, complete with photographs, I'm going with "protecting." The gorilla displayed none of the classic signs of simian aggression. Which makes its death that much more tragic. But still necessary.

Patrick, you haven't seen the video where he dragged the kid through the moat by the leg? Swung him around? Acted as if it were a plaything? Male gorillas kill others offspring. It's what they do. He was not nurturing. The kid would have died. Saying it was "holding hands" with the kid, even if that's how it appeared, is anthropomorphizing. Animals don't "hold hands", they don't have human goals or actions. Trying to assign them those, leads to misunderstandings and occasionally tragedies.

Suddenly I recognized what's happening: Our entire body politic is being conducted as a make-up-you-own-mind blog comment stack.

...And I find I don't mind being regarded as a solitary, antisocial crank in that context, either.

Let us continue.

Elsewhere, it said that the kid climbed over a 3 foot fence before walking (and falling) into the 15-foot pit. I'd have to see it, but it doesn't sound like much of a barrier for a kid who manages to slip away AND is too young to understand the need to stay away from heights like that.

Even so, she had three other kids with her, including a baby. What if the kid had simply run off and gotten run over by some vehicle? Maybe it's a very bad idea to try to manage that many kids? Also, why hasn't this happened before, since little kids get lost at zoos all the time? So many questions.

From the HuffPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/courtney-perry/the-cincinnati-zoo-mother-deserves-empathy_b_10220956.html

Excerpt:

"If you’re angry, use that as fuel to incite change. Maybe the zoo should create safer animal enclosures. Maybe gorillas shouldn’t be in zoos at all. Maybe zoo-goers should be required to attend an animal and zoo safety seminar before wandering around the park and large animal exhibits. Maybe kids under 8 should be required to wear one of those backpack leash things? Okay, that one is purely selfish. I secretly love seeing kids on leashes, being walked in public like little rabid Jack Russell Terriers. Whatever you believe, outside of thinking the mom shouldn’t have made a mistake, let that fuel your drive."

1) The dad's history has nothing to do with this — and it was irresponsible to report it.

2) The zoo had no choice but to kill the animal.

3) I'm sure the mother didn't intend for this to happen, and wishes it didn't.

That said, I'll gladly be the turd in this particular punch bowl.

It's not about lambasting or "positive punishment." It's about responsibility. There's no way to parse this other than the fact the mother was irresponsible (oh, I know, I know, it's just impossible to keep an eye on them every minute) and it resulted in tragedy.

Had it been a babysitter or day-care provider in charge, I think there would be a hue and cry for charges. I'm not sure why parents should be held to a lesser standard.

Slate (ugh) had an essayist who said this:

Today’s mothers and fathers are constantly denounced as helicopter parents—micromanagers and overcoddlers of their children who will never learn how to be independent. The finger-pointing at the parents of the boy at the zoo suggests that there is no such thing as the right amount of parenting. Things go wrong because either we’ve done too little or done too much. Either way, it’s all our fault.

Oh, get off the cross. The parents are not the victim in this incident.

I disagree that humans are more important than apes; the gorilla was the one person in this scenario who didn't fuck up.

I like to think I'm so morally pure that I would endanger my own kid to save the gorilla, but I'm not; but I'm pretty fucking sure I would never have been the parent in this scenario, and those losers need to pay big time for facilitating Harambe's murder.

If anyone disagrees with my first sentence, please explain in objective terms why human life is elevated above that of other sentient creatures.

If you have a child, or an animal that is not about 99 percent reliable at obeying simple verbal commands from an adult, (the most important one being *stop*) It isn't safe to take them out *anywhere* without being strapped into a stroller or on a leash with a strong healthy adult holding on to it.

On a farm, in the wild, or on a busy city street these children, dogs, etc. become predator food or road kill.

In the Zoo, it was the other visitors, and the gorilla that paid the price.
How horrifying to the other kids it must have been seeing both this child fall into the enclosure, and then the zoo staff shoot the gorilla.

I was suggesting that if the designers of the zoo can't design an enclosure that would keep a four-year-old out, they probably shouldn't have kids, because their kids would constantly be getting away from them.

Ah, okay. My personal feeling is that while it would certainly be worthwhile to review their enclosure design, sometimes accidents happen and someone or something dies without any one person or institution being egregiously at fault.

It's a mistake that any parent could make. My kid-having friends have zero empathy for the unfortunate oversights of other parents, until the day their kid runs off or gets hold of something sharp or drinks something dangerous or falls down some stairs. The parents could have noticed he was missing a split second after he darted away, but maybe they started looking in a much more plausible direction.

Does anyone have to be at fault here? The enclosure should be impermeable to toddlers, but maybe he found an entry path no one over three feet could reasonably have anticipated. I hope the family and the zoo call it a draw.

Saying it was "holding hands" with the kid, even if that's how it appeared, is anthropomorphizing.

The Internet is full of images of humans cuddling with lions, bears, elephants--oh,look, a pitbull snuggling with a bunny! The accompanying captions imply we all have something to learn here but never spell out what that might be. (I promise it's stupid.) Animals don't have our moral compasses and don't fall into neat categories of "loving and gentle" vs "violent."

Whenever there's an exotic-animal escape or mauling, the armchair zoologists on the Internet are out in full force saying the animal could have been tranquilized or maybe lulled to sleep with a pan flute--never mind that the real experts forced to make this call probably love the animal more than anyone and rely on it for their own livelihood.

Apologies for my botched tags. I'd edit them if I could.

My personal feeling is that while it would certainly be worthwhile to review their enclosure design, sometimes accidents happen and someone or something dies without any one person or institution being egregiously at fault.

Seems the enclosure has worked 100% of the time since it was installed in the 1970s. It's not the variable in this case.

Given the near-magical qualities ascribed to toddlers and their escapades, I'd add that a Trump fence wouldn't keep them out either... which brings us back to that darn old parental responsibility.

Momof4:

Patrick, you haven't seen the video where he dragged the kid through the moat by the leg? Swung him around? Acted as if it were a plaything? Male gorillas kill others offspring. It's what they do. He was not nurturing. The kid would have died. Saying it was "holding hands" with the kid, even if that's how it appeared, is anthropomorphizing. Animals don't "hold hands", they don't have human goals or actions. Trying to assign them those, leads to misunderstandings and occasionally tragedies.

Yes, the gorilla did drag the child on two separate occasions. At no point was he "swinging the child around" or "acting as if it were a plaything."

Some sources claim that the gorilla was throwing Isaiah Gregg around. I didn't see that, either.

I also saw, at one point, before the agitated gorilla chose to flee and take the child with him, the gorilla seemed to helping the child carefully to his feet.

As for not holding hands, let me remind you that we're talking about a very intelligent animal, a member of the most intelligent order on the planet, in fact, and one that has the opportunity to observe humans all day. It's an oversimplification to say that animals don't hold hands. Chimps have been observed to do it.

The bonobo, humans' nearest relative in the animal kingdom, walks upright, kisses, and performs oral sex...

so I've heard...

from someone who knows. Yeah, that's it.

I'm not saying that we'd all be perfectly safe if we jump into enclosures with 400-pound gorillas. I'm just saying that it's entirely possible that an intelligent animal, particularly one born in captivity as this gorilla was, might be able to sense a helpless child and move to protect it.

If the gorilla wanted the child dead, it would be. The child was stuck in there for ten minutes. Plenty of time for a supposedly posturing ape to end a child's life if it wanted to.

But I suspect we'll have actual experts, such as zoologists, weighing in before long. I'll wait and see what they see and defer to their judgment.

Given the near-magical qualities ascribed to toddlers and their escapades, I'd add that a Trump fence wouldn't keep them out either...

Unless you forgot to include your irony tag, then I'll say stuff and nonsense:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chain-link_and_barbed_wire.jpg#/media/File:Chain-link_and_barbed_wire.jpg

See also: Israel's fences with both Gaza and the West Bank. If Israel can build a fence that foils suicide bombers and requires them to tunnel underneath, then I think the Cincinnati zoo can keep a 4 year old at bay.

If the gorilla wanted the child dead, it would be. The child was stuck in there for ten minutes. Plenty of time for a supposedly posturing ape to end a child's life if it wanted to.

So...who's going to go in there and retrieve the wayward child?

Volunteers? anyone? Bueller?

If Israel can build a fence that foils suicide bombers and requires them to tunnel underneath, then I think the Cincinnati zoo can keep a 4 year old at bay.

Conversely, if the millions of parents who had visited the exhibit over the decades had managed to keep their issue from scrambling into the pit, then I think these Cincinnati zoo visitors could keep a 4 year old at bay.

Maybe that's how a gorilla playfully engages with a child? ~ Patrick at May 31, 2016 8:50 AM

And if that "playful engagement" endangers the child?

However, the gorilla was not "playfully engaging" with the boy. He was, in a direct quote from Thane Maynard, director of the zoo, "agitated by the child and onlookers' screams and began dragging [the child] around."

But I suspect we'll have actual experts, such as zoologists, weighing in before long. I'll wait and see what they see and defer to their judgment. ~ Patrick at May 31, 2016 12:14 PM

We did have actual experts weigh in. They worked for the Cincinnati Zoo and determined on-site that animal was a danger to the child.

Another animal expert, Jack Hanna, has already weighed in and said that the boy was in danger from the gorilla and that shooting the gorilla was the zoo's only option.

An unnamed witness, no indication of expertise in gorilla behavior was provided, is the one who said the gorilla was protecting the boy, not an acknowledged gorilla expert. So, take the report of protective behavior with a grain of salt.

Conan, none of what you've cited supports your contention that the gorilla was "posturing."

Of course he was a danger to the child. I don't dispute that. I'm simply saying that, at the time, he displayed no signs of aggression. Maybe he really was being protective of the child at the time. However, that doesn't suggest that the animal's protective attitude (if that's what it was) couldn't change and the gorilla could become aggressive, especially with all those people screaming at him.

I also don't dispute that shooting the animal was the only viable option. Very sad, undoubtedly, but necessary.

I'm simply pointing out that you described the gorilla as "posturing."

And I'm saying, "Assumes facts not in evidence, counselor!"

I would like to see what the experts have to say about the animal's specific behaviors. And since it was born in captivity, I'd also like to hear what the gorilla's handlers have to say, since they knew it best.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, Conan. I promise. Yes, I do try to do that sometimes, but not this time.

And it's also possible, even likely it seems, that the gorilla was being "protective" of the child in a very wrong sense of the term. Like, "This is mine now, and you can't have it back."

What if it was being "protective"? It's a wild animal. It could have changed its mind at any second. A noise could have scared it. The kid could have startled it or used the wrong body language.

Why does anyone think this zoo would have killed its own multi-million dollar investment if it wasn't necessary?

I'm simply pointing out that you described the gorilla as "posturing."

Yes, I did.

I'll take you at your word that you're genuinely curious why I used "posturing" and not trying to antagonize me.

In the video I saw, it looked like he was standing over the child with his hackles up, telling the onlookers not to come near his new toy. Hence "posturing."

From my understanding, gorillas rarely engage in actual violence, preferring puffery and posturing behavior to scare their opponents. It seems Harambe was disoriented from the crowd noise and the child's cries and engaged in defensive posturing, some of the "erratic" behavior of which the zoo's director spoke.

Not all gorilla posturing is slapping the ground and thumping their chests.

"Oh, get off the cross."

But the view is spectacular from up there. Also, it's easier climbing up than down, y'know.

"Why does anyone think this zoo would have killed its own multi-million dollar investment if it wasn't necessary?"

Means, motive, and opportunity: they whacked the monkey for the insurance money.

"I'm suggesting that a zoo could surely provide a barrier to the enclosure that's four-year-old proof. A half wall, four feet high, for instance."

Patrick at May 31, 2016 8:38 AM

A kid was killed at the Pittsburgh zoo after his mother lifted him up to see over the barrier. From the photo at the link (below), the barrier appears to be clear plexi/glass, but it was still common for parents to lift their kids for a better view:

"The boy's mother has admitted to holding her son in her arms to get a better view of nearly a dozen painted dogs below them from an observation deck on Nov. 4.

When her son unexpectedly "lurched forward" in her arms, he fell through an unprotected opening and onto the ground [...]

"Lou Nene, in an interview broadcast Nov. 28, 2012, on KDKA-TV admitted that he would see mothers place their children above or on the inadequately protected railing and opening 'at least 10' times a day," according to the complaint addressing the dogs' observation deck.

The toddler allegedly bounced off a net placed under this opening that was meant to catch small items such as cell phones and sunglasses, and then he landed fully conscious on the exhibit's floor. [...]

On Thursday the zoo's public and media relations manager, Tracy Gray, argued the zoo had continually exceeded all of the exhibit safety standards by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums with their last five-year accreditation awarded to them two months before the child's death in September 2012.

"The USDA has conducted 35 inspections at the painted dog exhibit since its opening in 2006. At no time have any concerns or violations regarding this exhibit been identified by the regulatory agency," said Gray in an email."

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-blame-boy-mauled-death-zoo-article-1.1453399

As Michelle points out, any attempt to idiot-proof something just results in a more determined idiot.

In that case, police and the D.A. ruled the mother's holding the kid over the barrier "a tragic accident."

Then, of course, the mother sued the zoo.

In an effort to get people to feel closer to the animals, zoos have changed the way they build enclosures.

No way should anyone have a way into an animal's enclosure. It is the zoo's fault.

If you want to blame the parents, may I suggest you have never been a parent or you are just being dishonest.

I'm a farmer. I'm responsible for my animals. If they get out of the fence, it's my fault. If predators get in my fence, it's my fault.

If a toddler can get into an animal's enclosure, that enclosure was not enclosed enough.

And if people got as worked up over our governement as over this family's close call, we would not be stuck with two horrible people running for president.

Upvote for Beth here. x12 My ex's hunting dog once got out and a Jaguar ran over it. My insurance had to pay for a new bumper for the precious Jag. Not so much as a sorry for my dog. It's on the person who owns the animal to protect the animal and protect the public from the harm the animal does.

It's on the person who owns the animal to protect the animal and protect the public from the harm the animal does.

... except in this case, the only one who came to harm was the animal. Because Mom wasn't doing her job.

If you want to blame the parents, may I suggest you have never been a parent or you are just being dishonest.

Because I can operate birth control, I can't recognize shitty parenting when I see it?

"I didn't dangle my precious over the cheetahs! I just put him on the railing for a minute!"

This year's idiot parent zoo case has something in common with 2015's idiot parent zoo case: Both idiot parents watched other people's children for a living.

http://fox8.com/2015/05/27/mom-of-child-who-fell-into-cheetah-exhibit-gives-statement-on-incident/

I hate the stinking shit out of Beth's comment. I wrote a bunch of bitter stuff. You get this instead. Merry Christmas.

You hate my comment? Goodness. I thought it was pretty factual and accepting of the fact that people are human and no parent can control a child every second of every day.

I have been to zoos with gorillas where there is no way anyone can possibly climb into an enclosure - if those zoos can see the possibilities, so should zoos that think it's cooler to let people be closer to dangerous mammals.

I use a potent clipboard manager. It's all in there somewhere. Don't tempt me.

Because I can operate birth control, I can't recognize shitty parenting when I see it?

I have to agree with Beth, Kevin. And I think it's a bit harsh to claim that a child getting out of your sight is necessarily "shitty parenting."

It's simply unrealistic to expect a parent to keep their eyes glued to the child every second of the entire day. It only takes a few seconds of distraction, which is inevitable in the human experience, for the child to be off and running.

Still, I'm glad at least some seem to agree with me here, such as JD, goosegg and Beth, that the zoo is more at fault.

I tried to raise this point on a Facebook wall of a friend of mine, a "new lawyer" as Isab once called him. And he and his friends, also new lawyers said that holding the zoo responsible was ridiculous.

Beth, I think this is kind of an overstatement: "No way should anyone have a way into an animal's enclosure."

It would be impossible to keep someone out of an animal's enclosure if they're determined to get in. Still, I don't think making an enclosure four-year-old proof is asking for too much.

Amy "...I am no hairy primate expert..."

So, Gregg has a smooth body then?

I'm still waiting for the people to chime in who think letting your kid walk a couple of blocks holding the hand of an older child is scary dangerous.

I bet they think the Zoo should be child proofed like a rubber room in a psychiatric ward.

I don't think the Zoo is at fault here, but get a dumb enough jury, they could lose.

Going to court is always a crap shoot, but if they get sued by the parents, I would advise them to counter sue.

If the enclosure became compromised, it's a matter of time before a kid figures out how to shimmy down there to the water. This kid or a kid on a field trip with 30 other kids, 1 teacher and 4 parents. Some kid will find a way when there's not enough eyes. Haven't you seen those Houdini children who escape the house to be found strolling into EZ Mart at 2:00 a.m. for a slushie? I knew one who at 3 would escape his house (in the country, not by a crazy road) so many times they had to put a deadbolt on the top of the doorframe and upend all the chairs. That kid was determined to go visit his grandparents at the house next door. Just saying. Baby proof that zoo.

☑ Isab

I will trust everything you guys say about Ohio, because I'm not going to watch a video that ends with brutal killing.

But since reading the description of Michelle's Pittsburgh tragedy, I find it looms larger in my appreciation of the circumstance, colored as it is with a violent human death. The thoughtless, naive chirpings of those who imagine that every space —including a pen of wild animals— can and should be made perfectly safe are tested most clearly in the Pennsylvania case. She was almost certainly a loving mother; and she was also terribly, negligently naive, overpowering obvious safeguards to essentially toss her toddler into a pen of famously savage canines.

It pissed me off so much I looked up the name, and found this follow-up:

“Details of the settlement will remain confidential. The Derkosh family and the zoo request that the privacy of all parties involved be respected,” the statement said.

The museum is a private nonprofit, meaning it's either tax-exempt or tax-diminished as a corporate enterprise. It happens that way for the benefit of the people of Pittsburgh. They presumably pay higher taxes so that the zoo can benefit, floating along in some detachment from economic realities. When the zoo gets sued, the money doesn't come from Dick Cheney or the mustache dude on the Monopoly board or any other rich, racist white guy: That wealth is lost to the people who enjoy the zoo.

How are *they* responsible for this woman's malfeasance? Why can't Pittsburghers even know what the cost of the parent's lawsuit means to their community? Whaddyoo mean, "respectful privacy"?

There are no possible phenomena in the world for which somebody hasn't predicted tragedy: None. To complain that someone, somewhere had warned that the triply-secured boundaries of that exhibit didn't prevent this mother from taking such an enormous risk is obtuse in the extreme. The photo of her in Michelle's link is hauntingly poignant… But that poignance assigns no responsibility for her suffering to other people.

This calls to mind Snoopy in the adjacent blog comments suggesting that the appropriate response to the Gawker case is personal investigations of staffers rather than existing, centuries-old patterns of jurisprudence. People don't just want to be protected, or to consider thoughtful compensation when horrible outcomes occur. Like the schoolchildren on America's campuses, they want to be protected from events in all cases. And their logic is childishly detached (e.g., Beth's teen-aged "No way.")

And when someone isn't protected, no matter how obvious the hazard or trivial the involvement of the surrounding community, the smirking American wants to see a huge payout.

…From the wealth of third parties, never their own (unsmirking) wallets.

I hate that.

That was a 9.7, people.

You may applaud, but only if it won't distract others nearby. Go easy about it if you're reading this through your smartphone on public transit.

The encounter started off well, Harambe stood the boy up, even pulled his pants up. However, the screams of the onlookers seemed to startle him, and he started acting defensively, standing over the boy, then started grabbing and carrying him. He carried him up and was trying to drag the boy into one of the cave-like places the gorillas rest.

"The screaming seemed to agitate the 450-pound primate, witnesses said, and the scene quickly deteriorated. The gorilla became more aggressive and was seemingly determined not to free the child, witnesses said.

“From what we saw [the child] could have been killed at any second,” Bruce Davis, who was with Hollifield, told WCPO. “He threw him 10 feet in the air, and I saw him land on his back. It was a mess.”

O’Connor said the boy tried to free himself on at least one occasion. “[Harambe] pulled the boy back in, tucked him underneath and really wasn’t going to let him get away,” she said.

Harambe had the boy between his legs and was hovering over him, she said.

“I saw him when he was on top of the habitat, dragging the boy, pulling him underneath him. It was not a good scene,” O’Connor said. “He literally picked the boy up by his calf and dragged him toward another cave to basically get him out of the view of this crowd that hadn’t yet dispersed.”

The video that showed the gorilla carrying and dragging the boy along the ground to drag him into a cave has been deleted. It was rough to watch.

Michele, that link was a hard read. I'll tell you one thing, if I were that mom, the "other zoo visitor" who restrained me from jumping in after my kid would be dead. I would have made it my mission in life.

momof4, I would have helped you in. But I have experience with (domestic) dogs that has prompted me to think about how to handle dog fights and attacking dogs, and as a kid I was a volunteer docent at a local zoo - so I have a lot of experience scaling enclosures. Also, I'm reflexively protective.

I think a lot of people are reflexively self preserving. I hear this is generally a good thing, something I need to learn to do more often, however I cannot imagine the mindset that would imagine a parent would rather watch her child die than die trying to save her child. What is worth living for is worth dying for.

Crid, I agree with all your points. I don't think the family should have been paid. I imagine the zoo's insurance company calculated that it would be cheaper to settle than to pay legal fees to go through with the jury trial the family wanted (per Isab's point). It is generally considered financially cheaper to settle than to go to trial. From this standpoint just going to trial is considered "losing".

That said, the zoo was on notice that a lot of parents put their kids at risk by holding them up over the barrier. Industry standards are a baseline, not a cap on the ability to respond in a way that mitigates danger.

People who know how unpredictable and slippery toddlers are know very well why it's a bad idea to put them on top of a protective barrier. The zoo knew that people regularly and frequently did just that. The zoo placed a net to catch cell phones and wallets, but not children, even though it new people regularly placed children on top of the barrier.

"knew," not "new."

"I think a lot of people are reflexively self preserving. I hear this is generally a good thing, something I need to learn to do more often, however I cannot imagine the mindset that would imagine a parent would rather watch her child die than die trying to save her child. What is worth living for is worth dying for."

You bring up another reason why kids need strong and loving fathers.

My husband was a top division I athlete. He would have been over the wall into the dog enclosure about five seconds after the kid hit the ground. Faster than any woman other than an Olympic medal winner could have managed it.

It has been my experience that woman always hesitate, and weigh their options.

Not always possible in life and death situations.

"It has been my experience that woman always hesitate, and weigh their options.

Not always possible in life and death situations."

Isab at June 1, 2016 9:16 AM

Training is an opportunity to think through scenarios and weigh options ahead of time. I think males have an advantage / more transferable experience with taking action in the throes of mortal fear, given higher levels of testosterone and the impact that has on aggression, increased risk taking, and diminished concern for pain, as well as the psychic pain of the social cost of not taking those risks.

Grasping a life or death situation can be impossible for people who have not truly felt that fear and had to operate through the biochemical rush that blocks thinking - that's where training and experience need to take over.

I'm in favor of any exercise that trains kids to think through scenarios and what they would do, as well as get a sense of what trade offs are in keeping with their values - that in itself is a worthwhile life skill, whether it's learned in athletic sports or on more ephemeral playing fields such as chess or role playing gaming.

(I don't have the coordination needed for team sports, I just have the odd skill set of scaling zoo exhibits - I've already thought that through.)

I'm all like having this emotionally nuanced insight over here... Suddenly understanding why women are patient with the shitty superhero movies of the last 40 years, the ones with dumb violence and the NYC skyline being decimated and the plots that travel so well internationally... Ironclad Xman on the Matrix of Trackstar'd Superbats... Y'know, the movies for 12 year old boys.

Because women will skip over the part of the fantasy where they toss their own beloved child beyond obvious safeguards into a foaming pack of savage Canidae, just for the pleasure of talking about how they'd jump in after little Conor to protect him from the animal rage, and how they'd fuckin' *kill* anyone who interfered with this expression of their dear, dear, oh-so-tender affection.

Because, gol-darn it, they rilly love their kids! And they want you to know that!







You guys hear the one about Djuzandthepuss?

"ill skip over the part of the fantasy where they toss their..."

Nah.

I'm living with the consequences of a mistake I would trade my life to make up for. I can't. I wasn't even the final adult in charge, but blame is not the point when you're committed to being effective. I didn't do everything I could do to be effective. I watched my wife be lax in ruling out lung cancer, accepting her doctor's approach, when I should have said "Fuck that noise - getting a CT to rule out lung cancer is less risky than presuming it isn't lung cancer just because it's almost never lung cancer, and because there's a cough going around." Because given her history, lung cancer was not out of the question. We did not rationally weigh the risks and trade offs. I thought there were wolves and I did not do everything in my power to get the spotlight on them, partly out of reflexive deference to her autonomy but mostly because I wasn't thinking rationally.

My human frailty is not so different, if at all, from a woman who downplays the notorious slipperiness of toddlers in order to give her kid the pleasure of a better look at a zoo exhibit by doing what so many parents before her regularly did at that exhibit, with no bad consequences. The magnitude of the consequence does not justify the reward, it's just that risk of incurring the consequence seems so minimal.

As for Isab, she said her husband would have gone after *the kid" - somebody else's kid. From what I've read here over the years, I imagine Isab, momof4, and their respective spouses would be likely to react to save an innocent kid, and likely more capable than most.

...also, I've read your work here before - don't hold back on the loud use of all caps just because I mentioned my wife's passing. I mentioned it because I find it relevant, not to shut down discourse by playing the widow card.

Today in "I Just Turned My Back for a Second!" World:

An artist called Zhao took three days and three nights to painstakingly craft a 1.8 meter statue of Zootopia character Nick Wilde from thousands of LEGO bricks, only to have a four-year-old knock down the piece after just one hour of display. The statue was destroyed despite ropes and “No Touching” signs.

"I'm living with the consequences of a mistake I would trade my life to make up for. I can't. I wasn't even the final adult in charge, but blame is not the point when you're committed to being effective. I didn't do everything I could do to be effective. I watched my wife be lax in ruling out lung cancer, accepting her doctor's approach, when I should have said "Fuck that noise - getting a CT to rule out lung cancer is less risky than presuming it isn't lung cancer just because it's almost never lung cancer, and because there's a cough going around."

Stop beating yourself up about something you think you could have fixed with enough aggressive whining about testing and diagnosis.

Lung cancer can metastasize quickly, and chances are, depending on the form, when you went in the first time it was already too late.

Doctors have been selling the lie that early detection leads to a *cure* for far too long.

I also suggest reading "The Emperor of All Maladies"

It explains why some cancers have metastasized even before you can detect them.

Split second decision making on your part could still have left you with a bad outcome, and possibly five years of agonizing decline and illness before her demise.

"Because women will skip over the part of the fantasy where they toss their own beloved child beyond obvious safeguards into a foaming pack of savage Canidae, just for the pleasure of talking about how they'd jump in after little Conor to protect him from the animal rage, and how they'd fuckin' *kill* anyone who interfered with this expression of their dear, dear, oh-so-tender affection."

WT? Did you drink your lunch? Who said they'd toss their kid in? I've taken a ton of kids to a lot of zoos and never had one climb a fence, or fall in, or disappear, or even puke from too much popcorn. And yes, I would kill (Kill, not *kill*)anyone who held me back while my kid (any one of them) was in mortal danger, for any reason. It's no pleasure, it's a fact. (In the interest of not tempting fate, even though my kids are older now, the fact that nothing devastating ever happened to any of them while I was momentarily distracted by a sibling is sheer luck, and I'm thankful for it.)

Michelle, I'm so sorry.

"Who said they'd toss their kid in?"

Oh, nobody SAYS it. A wink is as good as a nod, though.

however I cannot imagine the mindset that would imagine a parent would rather watch her child die than die trying to save her child. What is worth living for is worth dying for.

I cant imagine the mindset of a person with multiple kids risking their life to bail out one.

What about the others? Are they not deserving of a mother to live and protect them as opposed to pointlessly waste her life trying to save one of multiple children from its own stupidity?

Well, zoos originally had fences, walls, etc. installed to keep animals IN.

I guess they really should have thought about fences, walls, etc. to keep people OUT.

Next we will have to build a high wall between the road and the sidewalk because some parent/guardian didn't hold the kid's hand tight enough to keep him from running out into traffic.

Next we will have to build a high wall between the road and the sidewalk because some parent/guardian didn't hold the kid's hand tight enough to keep him from running out into traffic.

Subway platforms!

Think of the CHILDREN!

I'm really hesitant to tell distant people on a blog how handle their grief... Or even nearby ones. But for more reasons than fit in a blog comment, I really believe you oughta give yourself a break. Health fails in insidious ways, and one day will do so for each of us. We'll each wonder it if was that pack of Winstons in 1978, or the processed sugar in those candy bars in 1986.

But the distinguishing characteristic of the woman at the zoo, the reason my rhetoric went so sharp, is that she couldn't contain her pain and decided to cast it out into the community through this lawsuit.

There's a lot of pain. I can't imagine that much. But I don't think it belongs most to others. When she talks about it, all of us will shiver with sorrow, and some will imagine lashing out as she perhaps must: Yes! It's should be *impossible* for something like this to happen! It's partly the zoo's fault!

But that kind of safety is an illusion. And when government is involved, you'll pay and pay dearly for that illusion. (Been through a TSA line lately?)

But more to the point: The emotionally responsive people on a blog like this —or those reading the story in overwhelming sympathy in the newspaper of over breakfast— are not dreaming of consoling her with money from their own accounts... I've certain read no suggestion here that anyone was reaching for their wallet.

I don't think the zoo could or should make drastic changes to their arrangements in light of her tragedy. That they might do so, decreasing the enjoyment of who-knows-how-many exhibits, is something which would almost certainly happen a punitive financial burden.

The zoo wasn't negligent. (How do we know the zookeepers were aware of parents taking this risk with toddlers?) The zoo, and those who enjoy it with typical good sense in safety, ought not be punished for her mistake.

So when I see these emotions welling up in comments like this, but ending always with an outcome of spending other people's money or limiting other people's options, I think of commenter Lovelysoul... She used to do that a lot. Profligate in her sharing of compassion, she never seemed able to ask others to do better for themselves; but the costs (and irresponsibility) to be paid were never her own.

Isab, thanks for the book recommendation. Your comment got me thinking. I can't know how it would have turned out. My failure to be insistent is a failure of character I have to live with, but you're right in pointing out that I most likely could not have changed the outcome, and that knowing earlier might have just increased concern and decreased quality of life.

When I look back, what I believe were her first symptoms occurred at about the same as two other family tragedies, both of which she shepherded the family through. A diagnosis at that time would have been unfathomable on top of an already surreal waterfall of family health issues.

My wife had a gene mutation correlated with no response to chemotherapy. I know this because I insisted on getting genetic testing, against the doctor's objections. His preferred approach was to use genetic mutation information only if the standard approach did not achieve a remission. My wife had a bad response to the final chemo, and began dying hours after. If I hadn't insisted on the preemptive genetic testing, I would not have had the information I needed to know that her type of cancer doesn't respond to chemo. That early detection might not have given her anything but years of distraction and pain. My mind hadn't brought those points full circle together until now. And I get to see that in the years between, I gained whatever clarity I needed to insist and get through to her when I most needed to, while respecting her agency.

momof4, thank you.

Luj, I've never had kids, but from listening to my friends and family who do, I gather the mindset is one of being willing to die to save the kid who needs to be saved, and if that fails, finding the will to live by being there for the kids who need you to go on living.

Crid, our comments crossed in passing - I wasn't ignoring you when I wrote the comment above. Thanks for your comment about giving myself a break. The outcome was the most important thing, and I think you and Isab are right that there's too much at play for my inaction to be a pivotal point worth being hung up on. And this evening I saw that in the intervening years I developed the character I wish I had from the start, and that it gave me something I would not have had if I hadn't persisted and succeeded.

Regarding the death at the Pittsburgh zoo - I agree with your point about personal responsibility and the public coffers, I just don't know if the kid's family initiated the lawsuit or if their insurance company got the ball rolling. Either way - it is common for the first year after loss to be raw and visceral, or disassociated, usually at turns both. I'm going to give the family the benefit of the doubt and assume that in the shock of losing a child, and in a uniquely horrific manner at that, the family was moved into and through the lawsuit by other interested parties. .

I hadn't considered that insurance companies might be part of the machinery

(Anyone ever see Egoyan's The Sweet Hereafter?)

I have this tiny little principle, barely tested:

When your compassion for someone compels expenditures by third parties, you're doing it wrong.

"When your compassion for someone compels expenditures by third parties, you're doing it wrong."

Agreed.

I do distinguish compassion from pragmatism and pragmatic collective funding of efforts (namely national defense, of which I consider vaccinations and public education to be an important component).

Michelle,

I'm so very sorry for your loss.

Your comment, particularly the part where you blame yourself for the late diagnosis of your wife's lung cancer, and refer to this as a "character flaw" on your part, touched me deeply.

I was diagnosed with lung cancer earlier this year. Along with the treatments I have undergone (to date, radiation, chemo, lobectomy), I have experienced my husband care for me during my least attractive time eva, as well as care for our son, continue working, and more.

I don't know how this will end. If it ends poorly, I would be devastated to learn that my husband questioned the quality of his character, or thought he didn't do enough. He's my hero---my knight, and he deserves the best, always.

I wish you peace, and hope you are able to give yourself that leeway others have suggested you deserve. Take care.

Oh Mel. Thank you.

This is bringing up more for me than I can put into words.

We knew her odds for remission were low, but we assumed she would make it through the first course of treatment. We were wrong. A high dose of chemo, a leptomeningeal metastasis, and later the drugs she received in hospice, all altered her mind and body.

She was unhappy with the changes in her body and her appearance. I fell more in love with her with every passing day. Every iteration of her was beautiful.

Every time she changed, I grieved losing her again, and I fell in love with her again. I still do - as I move through the days learning how to do the things she did for us, I understand her differently and I am still amazed by her, still in love with her.

The rest is too much to put into words.

My heart goes out to you and your husband.

Thank you.

There must be some holes in the fencing at that enclosure now. I grew up in Cincinnati, and went to the zoo a lot as a kid. They always had fencing hidden in the bushes in front of the enclosure, and quite frankly, given how well designed the separation is, the mom should easily have been able to stop the kid. I don't want criminal charges filed against the parents, but they do need to pay some kind of restitution to the zoo.

spqr2008 at May 31, 2016 5:36 AM
________________________________________

I agree. And apparently you're right about the hole. I'm amazed no one else here has mentioned that. At least, when I searched on "gap" I found a few articles that suggested the kid found and used such a hole. There were many such gaps at this zoo, reported in 2013. But even if there were never any neglected holes in the fence, they still have to make the fence so a dumb kid can't climb over it - NOT at all the case, as you'll see below!

Zoos have an absolute obligation to protect the ANIMALS, at least - plus, they cheerfully accept the need to pay their staff to round up and supervise little kids who merely get lost. Every day. What's the difference when it comes to making sure kids can't climb the fence or get through it?

Unfortunately -

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

- the fence (only the height is going to change, it seems) is obviously very easy for any climbing toddler to get over, given all the footholds, as you can see from the photo. What is the zoo THINKING?!

And, as others have pointed out in the media, had the kid been a blonde little girl, NO one would likely have blamed the parents for carelessly looking the other way for just a few seconds - they would have blamed the zoo.

But I will admit that it's ALSO possible that in the past, even three year olds could be expected to fear, not just wild animals, but the anger of their parents for being disobedient. Which would explain why this has apparently never happened at this zoo before. Nowadays, PARENTS are the ones afraid of making their kids cry over any little thing, whether it's saying "no," yelling, or punishing kids by grounding them for a week - or even just taking away their ice cream.

Some thoughts on grief.