JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 29th November 2012, 05:23 AM   #881
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
So we had a lot of stuff wrong. She did not stand him on a rail and she tried to get in after him. Good call by the DA. Next case please.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 06:10 AM   #882
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The forgotten sweet abyss
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
So we had a lot of stuff wrong. She did not stand him on a rail and she tried to get in after him. Good call by the DA. Next case please.
Where does it say she didn't stand him on the rail?
DreamingNaiad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 06:45 AM   #883
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
Where does it say she didn't stand him on the rail?
Where does it say she did? She picked him up and he sort of lunged forward to press his face against the 'glass' that wasn't there and pitched forward.

So, anyhow, are you gonna be second-guessing the DA? If so, I look forward to hearing the grounds. Same question to truethat.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 06:51 AM   #884
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,286
It says in the text:

Quote:
Investigators said Maddox Derkosh's mother picked him up and put him on top of a railing at the edge of a viewing deck on Nov. 4 when he lost his balance and fell into the African painted dogs exhibit.
http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html

Sounds like as she was putting him up onto the railing, he leaned forward thinking there was glass and she lost her grip on him. A tragic accident which could happen to any parent.

Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 29th November 2012 at 07:03 AM.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:05 AM   #885
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle View Post
It says:


http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...z/-/index.html

Sounds like as she was putting him up onto the railing, he leaned forward thinking there was glass and she lost her grip on him.
Noted but that is not in the recording of the press conference. It would be good to see the whole thing unedited. The other point is she did not just stand him on the rail or raise him above the rail (whichever it was). She kept hold of him and lost control when he pitched forward. Once more, that is not as egregious as leaving him precariously balanced by himself somehow or other expecting him either to maintain his own balance or fall backwards, which is the picture that has been painted here by the 'how do you know this didn't happen' folk (AKA truethat).

It is not at all unlike the story of the mother whose child got free and ran down the subway stairs, luckily coming to no harm. These things happen.
It is, of course, extremely serious and very sad, but not an occasion for the kind of excoriating criticism on view here.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:11 AM   #886
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
She picked him up and deliberately put him in harms way. Give me a break. It is nothing at all like losing control of your child in a public place because the child runs. If the child had climbed up there himself in a few seconds while her back was turned that would be like the subway incident.

What part of she "put him on the railing" above a 14 drop over a pack of wild dogs don't you understand?

You keep trying to twist it and bend it into something other than it flat out is. Weird.


I mean this is what I mean about reading comprehension.

This is what it says in the article you cited


Quote:
Investigators said Maddox Derkosh's mother picked him up and put him on top of a railing at the edge of a viewing deck on Nov. 4 when he lost his balance and fell into the African painted dogs exhibit.

Read more: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...#ixzz2DcoSbtTb
How do you translate that to "she was holding him and the boy thought there was glass there and leaned toward the glass and fell in"

How do you know the boy thought there was glass there? You are just flat out making things up.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 29th November 2012 at 07:15 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:14 AM   #887
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
She picked him up and deliberately put him in harms way. Give me a break. It is nothing at all like losing control of your child in a public place because the child runs. If the child had climbed up there himself in a few seconds while her back was turned that would be the same thing.

What part of she "put him on the railing" above a 14 drop over a pack of wild dogs don't you understand?

You keep trying to twist it and bend it into something other than it flat out is. Weird.
Why not tell the DA? Or are you going to be saying he fell victim to this Mom woo thing of yours?

On the facts as disclosed in the press conference, this is nothing more than a tragic accident, not a crime on the mother's part. So no penalty, no 'debt to society' and no pointless prosecution.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:16 AM   #888
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
How do you translate that to "she was holding him and the boy thought there was glass there and leaned toward the glass and fell in"

How do you know the boy thought there was glass there? You are just flat out making things up.
The DA said so - watch the recording.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:18 AM   #889
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Listen you keep making crap up and that's what I've been saying the entire thread. That based on the woo sentiment of mommy love, the posters in this thread have made excuse after excuse for the mother without knowing any of the details in the story.

Your posts are a classic example of this. You read that she deliberately put him on the railing and then say she was just "holding him and the child lunged forward thinking it was a glass panel"

Where in the heck are you getting that from?


Tragic accidents based on stupidity should be prosecuted in my opinion. Across the board. That's all I have said in this thread and I'm standing by it.

The debt to society is to help teach parents they need to be responsible for their children and to treat the actual victim in this case, the BOY like we respect his life like anyone else's and not treat him like a possession of the mother.

I still feel that way. You haven't made any sort of compelling argument to express otherwise.

Making things up to win a point is ridiculous and you've done it through the entire thread.


Also your constant mantra "Tell it to the DA" is lame. We're having a discussion in this thread. So far I've seen the same excuses made for the mother. That somehow her love of her child outweighs his rights as a victim who was horribly killed.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury

Last edited by truethat; 29th November 2012 at 07:20 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:25 AM   #890
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
I will say this, if the mother had just walked him into the enclosure and thought there was a glass panel there and picked him up not realizing it, then I'd consider it a total accident.

But explain to me how she would think there was a panel of glass in front of her?
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:37 AM   #891
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Where to begin with this:
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Listen you keep making crap up and that's what I've been saying the entire thread. That based on the woo sentiment of mommy love, the posters in this thread have made excuse after excuse for the mother without knowing any of the details in the story.
I have not made anything up at any time. I have discussed hypotheses and so have you. That is not 'making crap up'. If you would like to point to anything I have 'made up' please do so.

Quote:
Your posts are a classic example of this. You read that she deliberately put him on the railing and then say she was just "holding him and the child lunged forward thinking it was a glass panel"

Where in the heck are you getting that from?
The DA in the recording linked to above.

Quote:
Tragic accidents based on stupidity should be prosecuted in my opinion. Across the board. That's all I have said in this thread and I'm standing by it.
So, if the child whose mother had let it go running off into the subway had died than you wold prosecute, right?

Quote:
The debt to society is to help teach parents they need to be responsible for their children and to treat the actual victim in this case, the BOY like we respect his life like anyone else's and not treat him like a possession of the mother.
You are confusing two things again. And also making little sense. The 'debt to society' idea concerns retributive punishment while the 'help teach parents' thing concerns rehabilitative punishment. Not only do you not agree with the existing law of manslaughter, you do not agree either with the purpose of the criminal jurisdiction. You have this idea that prosecution per se is an end in itself. It is not. It is a prelude to conviction and sentence and has no other purpose.

Quote:
I still feel that way. You haven't made any sort of compelling argument to express otherwise.
Noted.

Quote:
Making things up to win a point is ridiculous and you've done it through the entire thread.
Denied. Please point to where I have made anything up.

Quote:
Also your constant mantra "Tell it to the DA" is lame. We're having a discussion in this thread. So far I've seen the same excuses made for the mother. That somehow her love of her child outweighs his rights as a victim who was horribly killed.
Given your view that the law should be changed so that 'any accident based on stupidity' should be prosecuted (i.e. should be a crime) I agree it is lame to point you at the DA. You need to speak to your congressman. Don't be surprised at the reaction, however.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 07:43 AM   #892
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I will say this, if the mother had just walked him into the enclosure and thought there was a glass panel there and picked him up not realizing it, then I'd consider it a total accident.

But explain to me how she would think there was a panel of glass in front of her?
The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:49 AM   #893
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The forgotten sweet abyss
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident.
What is so impossible about a baby jerking out of someone's arms?

My brother did it to me at about 4 weeks and if I had been in the process of standing up he would probably have fallen.

And of course a toddler can do it too.
DreamingNaiad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:56 AM   #894
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
What is so impossible about a baby jerking out of someone's arms?

My brother did it to me at about 4 weeks and if I had been in the process of standing up he would probably have fallen.

And of course a toddler can do it too.
I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as our the child in the zoo was 2-3years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time.

As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville.

Last edited by anglolawyer; 29th November 2012 at 09:36 AM. Reason: to clarify
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:59 AM   #895
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Yeah, a baby less than a month old can hardly lift its own head; much less jerk loose from an adult's arms.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:01 AM   #896
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,286
They are very good at squirming though.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:08 AM   #897
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
The DA said it was the boy who thought there was glass in front of him. His eyesight was poor. Now, we had someone upthread claiming (somewhat improbably) they had leaped from their mother's arms at one week old. If a one week old baby can do that (I do not for one moment believe it) then a 2-3 year old boy certainly can. It just happened at a most inopportune moment. That's all. An accident.

I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.

He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:09 AM   #898
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as our child was 2-3 years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time.

As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville.

we're not talking about your freakin' baby. We're talking about the two year old. And two year olds most certainly have the legs to stands and wiggle and whatnot.

This is what I mean about making things up. This baby in this situation was STOOD up on the railing. I would imagine the if he was stood that he had leg strength TO stand.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:16 AM   #899
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.

He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous.
So, it was not me who was 'making crap up' but the DA (according to you). I reported what the DA said and you basically accused me of lying. Is that civil and courteous? I think not. I am willing to accept your apology.

The DA would know, to the required degree, what the boy thought by using information about what he did and then interpreting it. That's how all of us work out what each other is thinking.

So, how do you know better than the DA? Please state your sources, if any.

Last edited by anglolawyer; 29th November 2012 at 09:31 AM.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:27 AM   #900
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
we're not talking about your freakin' baby. We're talking about the two year old. And two year olds most certainly have the legs to stands and wiggle and whatnot.

This is what I mean about making things up. This baby in this situation was STOOD up on the railing. I would imagine the if he was stood that he had leg strength TO stand.
I was talking about my freaking baby in a way that is relevant to the topic and I continue to not require your permission to do so. Thank you. We are in agreement that a two year old can use his legs to leap. That is my whole point. Once again, I am not making things up.

He was stood upon the railing according to the article, with his mother holding him (new fact) but he managed to get free of her grasp by unexpectedly pitching forward thinking there was a glass barrier. His mother could not foresee that. These are the facts which have emerged from the DA's enquiries.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:42 AM   #901
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The forgotten sweet abyss
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I'm sorry but that's just making things up. How in the world would the DA know what the 2 year old thought? This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy.

He could have just lost his balance because he couldn't see very well. To suggest the mindset of a two year old is ridiculous.
Eye witnesses described it as a lunging motion. Of course, we can't know for sure but with a vision problem he might not have realised there was only perspex below the railing.
DreamingNaiad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:43 AM   #902
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,784
It may be that he saw the net as a sort of playground thing.
__________________
“People who say they don't have time to read simply don't want to.”

― Julie Rugg, A Book Addict's Treasury
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:56 AM   #903
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The forgotten sweet abyss
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I had a baby. He never came anywhere close to leaping from my grasp. I thought he was the same as all other babies. They don't have the muscle power in their legs to leap. They cannot shift their body weight. Whatever, let's say our experience varies. It hardly matters as our the child in the zoo was 2-3years old. The point I was making was that if a one week old can leap out of Mum's arms (I still don't believe it) then a 2-3 year old certainly can. Of course, the reasonable parent expects the unexpected but we can't all be perfect all the time.

As you say, you nearly dropped your brother and if you had and he had broken his neck then truethat would have you prosecuted - but I wouldn't and nor would the United States. So truethat and you (if you agree with her) are basically in fantasyville.
If he had squirmed out of my arms in the living room and broken his neck that would be just an accident. If he did so while I had him on top of a 14ft railing I believe I would be at fault. Perhaps not legally but morally.

And I don't know why your trying to point out to me they are squirmy. I brought up that story pages ago (crivens this thread has gotten long!) to point out that they are squirmy. Which is why they shouldn't be put in this kind of situation.
DreamingNaiad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:57 AM   #904
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
Eye witnesses described it as a lunging motion. Of course, we can't know for sure but with a vision problem he might not have realised there was only perspex below the railing.
And a vision problem (also a new fact - to me) would make it harder to see the dogs without being lifted up over the barrier, a foreseeable issue which the zoo perhaps ought to have thought about.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:59 AM   #905
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
If he had squirmed out of my arms in the living room and broken his neck that would be just an accident. If he did so while I had him on top of a 14ft railing I believe I would be at fault. Perhaps not legally but morally.

And I don't know why your trying to point out to me they are squirmy. I brought up that story pages ago (crivens this thread has gotten long!) to point out that they are squirmy. Which is why they shouldn't be put in this kind of situation.
I am not explaining myself well. Evidently. I am not going to try again though.

I am quite sure the mother will feel the full force of the moral implications of what happened as the years pass, which is why she is deserving of sympathy.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 10:07 AM   #906
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The forgotten sweet abyss
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
And a vision problem (also a new fact - to me) would make it harder to see the dogs without being lifted up over the barrier, a foreseeable issue which the zoo perhaps ought to have thought about.
She could have held him in her arms instead of on top of the barrier. Not sure how anyone could consider this the zoos fault.
DreamingNaiad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 10:44 AM   #907
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
She could have held him in her arms instead of on top of the barrier. Not sure how anyone could consider this the zoos fault.
Well, the DA is certainly thinking that one over so you may get your answer.
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 10:32 AM   #908
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Remember this case?

Quote:
Safety monitors at the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium warned superiors multiple times that people were dangling children into the African painted dogs exhibit years before the animals fatally mauled a toddler who fell in last November, attorneys for the victim's family say.

Legal experts said the claims could be a turning point in a Whitehall couple's wrongful-death case against the Highland Park facility, increasing its liability because of its alleged inaction.

“It shows actual knowledge of the danger and a knowing failure to take corrective action,” said Jon Perry, an independent observer and attorney at the Downtown firm Rosen Louik & Perry.

He called the early warnings “as close to a smoking gun as you can find.”
I don't recall the dangling thing but in the article it says one case involved
Quote:
“... a person holding a child through the open side of the wild-dog exhibit deck trying to bring the dogs over. A pane of Plexiglas may have to be installed. A lot of things are dropped in the exhibit and cannot be retrieved because the dogs are unwilling to leave exhibit. Amos will be asked about his advice on this matter.”
What? The kids were being used as bait?
__________________
I'm quite certain they were not part of the murder - Grinder
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2014, 01:35 PM   #909
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,436
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
Remember this case?



I don't recall the dangling thing but in the article it says one case involved

What? The kids were being used as bait?

It worked, didn't it?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2014, 08:05 PM   #910
Olowkow
Philosopher
 
Olowkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,748
I happened to see this in the news today.

updated 2:17 PM EDT, Tue June 3, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/justic...uling-lawsuit/

Quote:
The family of a 2-year-old boy who was mauled to death after falling into an exhibit of African painted dogs has reached a settlement in a lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Zoo. "Details of the settlement will remain confidential," attorneys for the boy's parents said in a joint statement released Monday with the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium.
Maddox Derkosh slipped over a railing, bounced into a safety net, bounced again, and tumbled into the exhibit in November 2012.
Apparently, the mother was not charged, and the zoo was liable.
__________________
Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. --Shakespeare
Olowkow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2014, 09:09 PM   #911
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,462
Originally Posted by Olowkow View Post
I happened to see this in the news today.

updated 2:17 PM EDT, Tue June 3, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/justic...uling-lawsuit/

Apparently, the mother was not charged, and the zoo was liable.
It's certainly no surprise that the zoo was liable if it ignored safety warnings.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2014, 12:06 PM   #912
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,292
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
It's certainly no surprise that the zoo was liable if it ignored safety warnings.
To what extent do you have to prevent people from their own idiocy? The safety warnings were about people using their children as bait - hmm, hanging them outside the railing. This was about a child placed on a railing, who then fell into the enclosure. From Olowkow's link:
Quote:
Railings throughout the zoo are designed to make it difficult to place children on them, Baker said. They're at a 45-degree angle so that if a child is placed on one and falls, he or she would hopefully fall backward, away from the animal enclosure, she said.
The settlement is confidential, so we don't know to what extent the zoo admitted liability.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2014, 12:31 PM   #913
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,001
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
To what extent do you have to prevent people from their own idiocy? The safety warnings were about people using their children as bait - hmm, hanging them outside the railing. This was about a child placed on a railing, who then fell into the enclosure. From Olowkow's link:

The settlement is confidential, so we don't know to what extent the zoo admitted liability.
Usually liability is not admitted at all. Cash is paid in return for confidentiality.

As far as I can make out, the enclosure was badly designed. The dogs could disappear out of sight and when they came near the viewing tower they couldn't be seen without leaning out. Health and safety assumes people will not always fully appreciate risk. If you want to make money displaying dangerous animals you have to ensure the safety of the public.
__________________
I'm quite certain they were not part of the murder - Grinder
anglolawyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2014, 04:26 PM   #914
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 13,462
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
To what extent do you have to prevent people from their own idiocy?
Are you kidding?

Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The safety warnings were about people using their children as bait - hmm, hanging them outside the railing. This was about a child placed on a railing, who then fell into the enclosure.
Yes, but that's how the parents won their case, by showing that the zoo had not prevented stupid people from doing stupid things:

Quote:
The parents' attorney, Robert Mongeluzzi, said then that the zoo "failed miserably in their solemn responsibility to prevent the attack" and "shamelessly attacked Maddox's grieving mother."

In October, Mongeluzzi filed a counterclaim on behalf of Elizabeth Derkosh, which included excerpts from the minutes of several of the zoo's safety committee meetings since August 2006.

The first excerpt says, "Wild dog exhibit has one side of the exhibit that is open and a visitor was seen dangling a child over the exhibit through the opening." According to the court filing, similar observations were brought to the safety committee's attention on four more occasions by July 2007 - including one that said, "Guest are dangling children over the railing at the Wild Dogs exhibit" - but Mongeluzzi contends the exhibit still was not changed until after Maddox was killed.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.