Yes, I read in an article just after the incident that both parents were there. My apologies if that was inaccurate. If it was,that means that instead of a case of irresponsible parents, this is simply a case of an irresponsible mother. She should still watch her kid.Again, my apologies for any inaccurate information.

I also find it a bit bothersome that these stories blow up like this and go national and then everyone has to weigh in with their opinion because they suddenly become an expert on gorillas or parenting or zoo enclosures, etc.

And you don't have to look any further than this thread to witness that phenomenon.

'An assumption on my part was not made, look at AmyLou321's post 5 hours prior to this post: "both mother and father were there. watch your kids people"'

Well, I guess the assumption there is that what Amylou321, internet sock puppet, stated was correct. I did the same thing reading this thread and have no idea what the facts actually are. Whisper down the lane.

lukkiirish, I get that perspective, in theory... unfortunately, I think a very high percentage of people are just looking for something to be outraged/ argue about and latch onto these human interest stories to do it without being informed or sharing anything of value at all (I am referring here to the larger nationwide/worldwide outcry about stories like this, not to posts on GW). Then the whole world goes atwitter about the story of the day, only to move on to the next thing the next day (sometimes leaving innocent people's lives ruined).

I've read articles now about the criminal record of the father of this child, and from what I understand, people are inundating the Facebook page of the mom's employer with angry messages. Why? How does this help anyone or anything?

This isn't a respectful sharing of opinions - and it almost never ends up that way when these types of stories go viral. It's just a mob getting ginned up about the latest outrage of the day, only to forget it tomorrow.

And you don't have to look any further than this thread to witness that phenomenon.

Some posts don't even have the boy's age correct.

Hmmm, looking that up, I see news articles referencing both a 3 year old and a 4 year old. Everyone here says 4. For all intents and purposes, about the same. Moot point - of no significance. I can't see how whether the child was 3 or 4 makes a difference. It's a very young child.

So much is being said about the idea that the mom should have known her boy was "unruly". But, really, do we know this child was typically unruly, or was he usually obedient and compliant? We don't know, one way or the other. We weren't there, and none of us knows this family.

Whether or not the child was unruly, whether the mom was attentive, whether the dad was there and on and on, whether the safeguards were adequate.......the child was in grave danger based on all of the supposedly knowledgeable professionals.

I am deeply disturbed by the death of this beautiful animal. He endured captivity to be killed by us, by a bullet. However, if hesitation had caused the death of this child? Harambe would still have lost his life, too.

A really great, compassionate and challenging read is this Pulitzer Prize winning article from 2010 in the Washington Post about parents who forget their kids in hot cars. It really makes you think twice about judging people harshly who make a terrible mistake. Content of this article is very distressing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fatal-distraction-forgetting-a-child-in-thebackseat-of-a-car-is-a-horrifying-mistake-is-it-a-crime/2014/06/16/8ae0fe3a-f580-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

I am not a fan of zoos in general and typically refuse to attend them. Bigger fan of wildlife parks when they are done compassionately for the needs of the animals.

I think my parents are probably pretty good parents and I was actually a pretty good child. That said twice before the age of five I managed to escape our house at night and lock myself outside in the winter. Once the milkman let me in, and once I walked to a friend's house, let myself in and played with her Barbies. This is in Canada and I could easily have died. I guess it's a good thing I did know how to put on my snowsuit. I also had a habit of running outside straight into the street and in fact that was the only time I was spanked as a child. Kids can be real jerks.

...making the Facebook rounds

I'm certainly not a proponent of the mob mentality or the stretch the "media" takes to get every angle for the benefit of a news story but I still believe conversations like the one of this thread are important and censorship of discussions like this are wrong. When it comes to being misinformed, well just like with most stories, don't we have the media to thank for that?

I personally am not judging the mother, I'm voicing my opinion on the outcome of her actions and I just don't agree with the mentality that we all make mistakes and so it goes. Yes, we all make mistakes but just because it's a mistake that doesn't relieve someone from being responsible or held accountable, especially when injury occurs. I feel that if she was negligent and her negligence resulted in this out come and this out come has legal ramifications she should be held responsible, just like any other citizen in those shoes. Also, as a parent myself, I think it's BS that a parent shouldn't be expected to know their own child and/or the amount of supervision that's needed to keep that child safe. Can anyone here honestly say that they don't know their own children? Or that they can't reasonably predict what their needs are going to be carewise out in public? Even as an 18 year old mother I knew my child and what I needed to do to keep her safe, so it's very hard for me to believe that this woman, who also has a job in childcare, didn't. Yes, the zoo is liable as well and there is no dispute there, they both failed the child and that innocent animal.

Accidents happen all the time but especially in the case of injury, when laws are broken, the responsible party is expected to be held accountable. Whether intentional or not, we cannot pick and choose when someone is held accountable and when someone isn't. If that were the case, then people who leave kids in hot cars shouldn't face charges, people who accidently fire a gun and shoot someone shouldn't face charges, the old man who accidently hits his gas pedal instead of the break and runs his car through a crowd of people shouldn't face charge. Anyone who injures another person or person's property should never be held liable because let's face it, it was just a mistake. Right?

Pic of barrier.

I was just going to post the picture of the barrier....it would not take much for an active child to get over it. Another picture

I think that barrier is too low imo.

Robo, your story reminds me when I had my first child, a family up the street from me had 6 young kids (ages ranged from baby to about 10). The family was lovely... friendly and the kids were all well-behaved. The parents were decent and attentive. It was just a *big* family from my perspective of trying to just manage my first one.

One day I was walking my baby in the stroller past their house, and their 3-year-old was climbing out the screen of their living room window--the screen! I asked him if his mother knew what he was doing. He said, no, she had a headache and was lying down and he didn't want to make her headache worse. (haha!)

I ended up chatting with him for a bit to keep him occupied and we eventually rang the doorbell. The mother had put all the young kids down (this one included) for a nap, locked the doors, and had herself laid down for a few moments. Yes, she did have a headache, she said. And yes, I bet he had made it worse!

FWIW, the term 'rush to judgement' is on my mind in re: this event.

I find it hard to believe the mother would not be attached to this very young little boy at all times - and not realize when they were no longer touching. Regardless of it being a zoo, fear of losing your child in a crowd or public place is terrifying enough.

It's certainly possible she handed him over to the other caretaker (if there really was one) or maybe one of the other children in order to take the presumed photo.

"I find it hard to believe the mother would not be attached to this very young little boy at all times - and not realize when they were no longer touching."

Really? You hold on or held on to your 4 year old every minute while out in public? You never paused to take a picture or get a tissue out of your purse?

I agree with you Robo. From what I have seen/heard, it was an accident. I heard on the radio this morning the 911 tape where the mother called in. Bless her heart! I am sad too that they had to put the gorilla down, but feel they made the best choice they could at the time. Also, I heard that the boy is doing well and the family has not hired an attorney. In fact, it was stated that the family will be donating any money sent to them for the boy, to the zoo.

Maddielee - exactly! While I do not have children, I have worked with children for much of my life and have certainly seen how very quickly one can get away.

Yikes, that fence is way too low! I'm surprised there wasn't an incident prior to this.

I raised one boy, and he kept me busy. There's no way you're going to hold a little boy's hand the entire time. She was pushing a stroller too.

Sorry but I think it's odd and can't imagine not having tabs on a 4 year old in a crowd, anywhere.

ETA: That is not to say that I blame her or think she should have charges brought against her. I reserve those things for gross negligence. No one really knows what happened here anyway.

He was standing at the rail. She looked away for a minute to tend to another child and he went over the rail. What's odd about that?

Robo, you said that beautifully. That's what I have been wanting to express but not even coming close to putting it as eloquently as you did. Thank you. Proverbial nail, head, and hammer.

Mayflowers, I think you're comment about the railing and how surprising it is that it's never happened before is key. Lot's of kids are hard to handle especially in that kind of environment, why hasn't it happened before? Were all those other parents before this incident just overly cautious? Or was it maybe this parent wasn't cautious enough? I'm just saying...

Yes, I think what Robo wrote is certainly a valid point and food for thought, but why wouldn't that apply to all the other "mistakes" people make as well? And I'm not saying that to be argumentative or to cause a stir, I would really like to understand the difference between this and other circumstances that are also mistakes, only the people involved have been charged with a crime, neglect or whatever. Like the babies left in cars for example.

We need to protect better. Maybe we will all be viewing through protective glass from now on...OOOPS maybe not !!

If you had read the article at the WashPo that Robo posted about... I can't imagine wanting to put someone in jail for leaving your infant child in a hot car....the parent will spend the rest of their life in a living hell.

I read that story wnen it first came out.. heartbreaking...

They have done studies on this.... the slightest break in a routine can cause someone to "forget" that the child is in the car.

There was a tragic bus accident a few years ago... and one of the students died.

The driver wasn't drunk, not texting, not using his cell phone, not impaired, not driving recklessly.

It was a pretty big story... anyway, I was shocked, totally taken aback, by the call for blood....and being new here, I was looked upon as being thinking strangely for not agreeing with the mob....I can't tell you how many people actually said "I hope they fry the guy"..... "Hope he gets life"

In a state that routinely fries people and thinks nothing of handing out 30 years sentence increments.

That was the first inkling that I had made a grave mistake in moving here.

Lukk, if a child is killed by a faulty airbag in a car driven by a parent, the airbag manufacturer and the car maker can be sued. The parent would not be held responsible unless it's proven that the driver caused the accident while impaired in some way.

If I let my 10 ride a carnival ride and the ride malfunctioned and caused injury, the carnival ride owners would be responsible. Not me for allowing my child to ride that ride.

Criminal charges for accidents that involved children vary by state.

In the case of the child falling into the gorilla exhibit, the child was not injured badly. Because the gorilla was put down before it could cause more injury. The child would not have fallen into the exhibit if the barriers to the exhibit had been built differently. Hind Sight is always clearer.

In in the article above which is from 2010 so little bit out of date, about 40% of cases no charges are laid because prosecutor see it as a genuine mistake and not intentional neglect. Sorry I know that subject matter can be very upsetting, it's a very moving article.

'He was standing at the rail. She looked away for a minute to tend to another child and he went over the rail. What's odd about that?'

I also find it odd and amazing that you actually know what happened. Didn't know you were there and viewed the entire thing firsthand. My apologies.

I read that that's what happened. Go to any zoo and you'll see kids standing at the rails. The parents aren't clutching them. Many parents are there with more than one child so it's physically impossible to hold on to all of them. Shoot, my neighbor has eight kids age 12 and under. Their zoo trip must be like a zoo.

So what do you find odd about that? I find it odd that you'd get antagonistic and sarcastic just because I don't think it's odd to not be touching a child the entire time.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the responses and can see what you're saying. When looking from a different perspective, I actually can agree with most of it. I just don't know if I agree 100%, but again that's why I like these types of threads, I have a lot of respect and regard for the group here and I really do leave with something new to ponder. Off to go read Robo's thread.

http://time.com/4353115/jane-goodall-gorilla-harambe-cincinnati-zoo/

Jane Goodall, one of the world’s most renowned primatologists, wrote an email on Tuesday to the director of the Cincinnati Zoo, saying she thought the slain gorilla may have been protecting the boy who fell into the animal’s exhibit.

The scientist and animal rights activist extended her sympathies to the zoo’s director, Thane Maynard, amid national backlash over the shooting death of a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla named Harambe.

“I tried to see exactly what was happening—it looked as though the gorilla was putting an arm round the child—like the female who rescued and returned the child from the Chicago exhibit,” she wrote, according to the correspondence the Jane Goodall Institute made public. Goodall may have been referring to the1996 incident at the Brookfield Zoo in Illinois in which a female gorilla [Binti Jua] carried a boy to safety after he fell into her pit.

“Anyway, whatever, it is a devastating loss to the zoo, and to the gorillas,” Goodall wrote.

Harambe was shot dead after officials said he dragged around a three-year-old boy who fell into its enclosure on Saturday. Authorities are considering possible criminal charges, a prosecutor said Tuesday.

Goodall also asked how the two other female gorillas living with Harambe reacted to the death. “Are they allowed to see, and express grief, which seems to be so important?” she wrote.

“I feel so sorry for you, having to try to defend something which you may well disapprove of,” she added.

Goodall declined to comment further, a spokesman for the Jane Goodall Institute told TIME on Tuesday.

What does that mean?

-------------------

ETA re my post above: "

... everyone has to weigh in with their opinion because they suddenly become an expert on gorillas or parenting or zoo enclosures, etc."

If anyone is an expert, it's Jane Goodall. Apparently she can't voice an opinion either.

I believe the message of Cindymac's cartoon is that we care more for gorillas than refugees. Maybe if refugees had a gorilla onboard we would be more likely to welcome them? I'm sure she will correct me if I misinterpreted it.

Snookum, thanks for the Goodall link. I had wondered if she would comment. Maybe they will let her review all of the video. The article only quotes her comments about Harambe seeming to be protective. I'd be interested in her insights of the other behaviors, too. Does anyone know if the dragging, etc occurred only after the crowd began reacting? I'd be very interested in a factual timeline.

Did anyone else see the interview on GMA with the father and son who put the baby bison in their vehicle? It gives a very different slant to that situation than was originally reported. I wish we could depend on real news with real facts.

Exactly why I try to refrain from a rush to judgement over these type of news stories. More info will certainly emerge over time to clarify any situation & it's almost never what we might have thought from initial reports.

Here's a handy tool from OnTheMedia.org - a Breaking News Consumer's Handbook...

I saw that interview Cattyles and I have to agree it did put a different slant. Sad as well about the baby bison. Sometimes Mother Nature makes no sense.

Snookums, pretty much what Cattyles said. It would be nice if we could show the same empathy towards humanity in crisis.

I think a lot of people do have empathy for humans, more so in crisis. To say we only care about a gorilla or animals is a gross overstatement and isn't fair.

Cattyles, yes I'd be very interested in hearing more of what she thinks and perceived too. I had a feeling she would see the protective gestures and so comment. I hope she talks about it more in the future. I'd really like to know what she thinks about when he was dragging him through the water.

As I recall, he ran off with the boy when the commotion ranked up. I noticed the same thing in the linked Jambo tape. Jambo was nurturing the child but when the boy's mother started screaming hysterically at the top of her lungs a young male ran onto the scene. The zookeepers had some difficulty managing him but luckily were able to keep him at bay and under control without anyone getting hurt.

In the tiger incident with Siegfried & Roy, they also thought the tiger was actually being protective, although Roy was hurt in the process. They were very close. I think he had raised him from a cub, not positive.

We can have compassion in both circumstances, Cindymac. They are separate and different.

Yes, they are different and I can only imagine what a thread discussion about refugees would look like, taking cover...

'We can have compassion in both circumstances, Cindymac. They are separate and different.'

and not mutually exclusive.

but we get your point ;-)

They are holding a news conference today at 1:00, they might be charging the parents.

No charges against the mother----as it should be.

That's good to know nothing crazy was going on. I wonder why no one else saw the child crossing the barrier. Was he able to crawl through from below or did he have to climb over it where I would think anyone else would have noticed before he got very far.