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 8th November 2012, 07:03 AM   #361
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
I'm saying that my default isn't "Oh my god the poor mother" It's "oh my god the poor child"
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 07:07 AM   #362
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Yes, I was responding to the posts implying that she may have killed her child deliberately.
Huh. Let me guess...Truethat?


Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
By that standard there are alot of unfit parents out there. Probably most of the posters here had unfit parents.
It's funny because I don't remember my parents holding me over a large drop, or placing me past security barriers. In fact I remember, being a little git as all children are from time to time, trying to bypass security measures and being chided for it.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 8th November 2012, 07:09 AM   #363
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,136
Parents should not get special consideration when it comes to harm to their children when they are the direct catalyst for that harm.

If a zoo worker or teacher on a field trip or babysitter or random bypasser had put the child up on the railing we would not be having this discussion.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley 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 8th November 2012, 07:11 AM   #364
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: surrey, england
Posts: 8,020
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I see what you're saying in regards to culpability for an accident. But I was under the impression we were talking about proof that this woman deliberately set out to harm her child. I was saying that we don't arrest people for murder simply because we don't know that they didn't intend to kill someone.
My apologies. I did not realise we were now discussing murder. That would be very difficult to prove without an eye witness or a confession or palpably untruthful explanation or some kind of forensic evidence (Heaven knows what). I shall butt out.
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 8th November 2012, 07:18 AM   #365
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Well, I think I've said all I want to say on this matter. I have come to a new appreciation and understanding of the idea of prosecuting this woman even if I wouldn't do it. So thanks, people.
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 07:24 AM   #366
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Huh. Let me guess...Truethat?




It's funny because I don't remember my parents holding me over a large drop, or placing me past security barriers. In fact I remember, being a little git as all children are from time to time, trying to bypass security measures and being chided for it.

HaHa - one last thing. I don't know how old you are but did your parents ever let you ride without a seatbelt, ride a bike without a helmet, use roller skates or a skateboard without being padded up, smoke in the house or car, climb a tree, slide down a banister?
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 07:27 AM   #367
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,136
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I don't know how old you are but did your parents ever let you ride without a seatbelt, ride a bike without a helmet, use roller skates or a skateboard without being padded up, smoke in the house or car, climb a tree, slide down a banister?
1. I would argue that those things are not comparable to being intentionally placed by the parent on a ledge above a pit of wild dogs.

2. Even if I did that wouldn't make this okay.

3. And yes if any of the actions mentioned directly lead to the death of the child, the possibility does exist that I would argue in those cases for prosecution of the parent on the grounds of reckless endangerment.

4. Why are only parents allowed to put their child in danger but not other people?
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley 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 8th November 2012, 07:29 AM   #368
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,022
I'm 25. My father still has a go at me for taking my seatbelt off before the car has stopped if I'm driving anywhere with him, I can't ride a bike but when I was learning/failing to learn they insisted I put my helmet on, they would have an absolute fit if I smoked anywhere (heart condition and not that stupid) I never climbed trees and they yelled at me the one time I tried sliding down a banister.

As an addition, they insisted I buy a gum shield for playing rugby.

They looked at other parents and considered the other parents to be way too restrictive.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 8th November 2012, 07:36 AM   #369
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,136
And furthermore no one is arguing for some sort of vengeful bloodlust or way out of the ordinary revenge fantasy on this woman, we're simply stating that she should be held to the same legal and moral standards as anyone else that causes the death of another human being via their carelessness and that her status as a "grieving mother" isn't the get out of responsibility for her actions free card that some are painting it as. We're not demanding she be drug into town square and be given a blood eagle and then we all get to line up and take turns peeing into the open wound. We're asking her to be put into the legal system. That's all.

I don't think this woman is a monster or evil or whatever. She's no worse then someone that runs a stop sign and t-bones a car or gundecks a safety check on an electrical system and causes someone to get electrocuted or any of a billion other possible scenarios.

But she's also no better.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 8th November 2012 at 07:43 AM.
JoeBentley 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 8th November 2012, 07:41 AM   #370
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Parents should not get special consideration when it comes to harm to their children when they are the direct catalyst for that harm.

If a zoo worker or teacher on a field trip or babysitter or random bypasser had put the child up on the railing we would not be having this discussion.
That's the point I made pages ago. And even worse. If the woman had dropped someone's Iphone and tried to get off by saying "I feel so bad about it I'm so sorry" most of us would say she should have to pay for the broken phone.

It speaks to the idea that people treat children like possessions of the parent. As if "well if she broke her own phone then she's suffering enough but if she broke someone else's she should have to pay for it."

As if the child in unto himself has no value as a person in society. Creepy if you ask me.
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 07:44 AM   #371
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
And furthermore no one is arguing for some sort of vengeful bloodlust or way out of the ordinary revenge fantasy on this woman, we're simply stating that she should be held to the same legal and moral standards as anyone else that causes the death of another human being via their carelessness and that her status as a "grieving mother" isn't the get out of responsibility for her actions free card that some are painting it as. We're not demanding she be drug into town square and be given a blood eagle and then we all get to line up and take turns peeing into the open wound. We're asking to be put into the legal system. That's all.

I don't think this woman is a monster or evil or whatever. She's no worse then someone that runs a stop sign and t-bones a car or gundecks a safety check on an electrical system and causes someone to get electrocuted or any of a billion other possible scenarios.

But she's also no better.
Exactly. And once prosecuted if we see that she just made a stupid mistake I'd doubt she'd be sentenced to jail. But it would give a message to other parents that if you don't follow safety precautions for your child society will hold you accountable.

Parents didn't use to make their kids wear seatbelts. It was only when they could be prosecuted for not doing so that they started towing the line.
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 07:47 AM   #372
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
I'm 25. My father still has a go at me for taking my seatbelt off before the car has stopped if I'm driving anywhere with him, I can't ride a bike but when I was learning/failing to learn they insisted I put my helmet on, they would have an absolute fit if I smoked anywhere (heart condition and not that stupid) I never climbed trees and they yelled at me the one time I tried sliding down a banister.

As an addition, they insisted I buy a gum shield for playing rugby.

They looked at other parents and considered the other parents to be way too restrictive.
Those are all things that unfit parents used to let their kids do.
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 07:49 AM   #373
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Until they realized they could be held accountable for it.........and now you get the point.
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 09:37 AM   #374
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
 
Halfcentaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 6,644
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
It would not be hard to find examples of negligence that you would agree should be punishable. Think of a coal mine that routinely neglects basic safety procedures in pursuit of profit, or merchant shipping lines sending seamen through the Suez canal with no protection (such as a safe room) against Somali pirates. Ignoring known or knowable, serious risk is often such as to take outside the civil sphere, where negligence mostly plays out, especially where lives are lost, not least because the compensation for death is often nugatory compared to that for serious but non-fatal injury (in England anyway).
I agree with you so I should not have phrased that as I did. I'm not sure about negligence being punishable depending heavily upon circumstances. Which is probably a good reason to have judges.
Halfcentaur 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 8th November 2012, 09:54 AM   #375
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
 
Halfcentaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 6,644
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I'm not the one who stuck the parental gender in it. The other posters did. But "hasn't she suffered enough" has been the mantra. There does seem to be in society this sort of lack of understanding that just because someone is a mother or father but in general people stereotype the mother, that she's going to automatically be this devoted mother. She didn't jump in to try to save him and she also risked his life.

So my sympathies are not lined up quite yet. Would it be a different story if she was annoyed with him whining and crying because "he couldn't see" and she grabbed him and roughly put him up on the edge and lost her grip?

No one knows the details and everyone's immediately buying it was a total accident.

There are innumerable ways for a parent to kill their child and get away with murder. This is because people tend to look at these "accidents" as if the parent is completely devastated. It's not always true.
You seem to be putting everyone who disagrees with you about this in any way into the same position, or I could be mistaken.

You also seem to have a habit of pigeon holing people that disagree with you as unreasonable or irrational, and you seem to frequently bring up the fact that you are personally plagued by people who disagree with you who you also claim lack the intelligence or reasoning ability to understand why they are wrong, which makes it frustrating to bother discussing anything with you.
Halfcentaur 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 8th November 2012, 10:43 AM   #376
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
I grow weary of people seeing things the way you posted in the first part of the second paragraph which brings me to the conclusions I have in the second part.

I debate plenty of people on here that I consider intelligent. But when you have to repeatedly post that PROSECUTE is not the same thing as PUNISH it tends to get wearisome and I give up and scratch people into the second pile.

I don't even know what your position is on this topic. But I and several others in here have repeatedly posted that liability and prosecution is not the same as throwing the mother in jail.

If people still can't distinguish between the two after several days of posts and pages of posts what conclusion would YOU make?


The distinction should be so obvious IMO that it doesn't even need clarification. And yet here we are. What does that mean to you?
__________________
“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; 8th November 2012 at 10:44 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 8th November 2012, 10:45 AM   #377
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK/US
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
HaHa - one last thing. I don't know how old you are but did your parents ever let you ride without a seatbelt, ride a bike without a helmet, use roller skates or a skateboard without being padded up, smoke in the house or car, climb a tree, slide down a banister?
Surely the correct analogies would be:

Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
did your parents ever let you ride without a seatbelt,
Correct analogy to this case: did your parents ever deliberately unbelt a perfectly functioning seatbelt that had previously been correctly fastened before starting to drive?


Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
ride a bike without a helmet,
Correct analogy to this case: did your parents ever deliberately remove your helmet, when it had been on properly, before you rode a bike?

etc etc

(i.e. it is not merely a passive "letting" the kid do something risky. It is that the parent deliberately took actions, circumventing safety features already in place, to put the kid in danger)
Giz 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 8th November 2012, 10:54 AM   #378
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,474
We have APDs at the Center where I volunteer. There's a strict "no shared space" rule. The dogs are in one are when the keepers are in the other. We have a shotgun in that area. Greg Rasmussen, who works with APDs in Zimbabwe, approved of our setup when he was here a few weeks ago. That was a warm and fuzzy for me, I like our keepers.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla 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 8th November 2012, 10:54 AM   #379
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Surely the correct analogies would be:


Correct analogy to this case: did your parents ever deliberately unbelt a perfectly functioning seatbelt that had previously been correctly fastened before starting to drive?



Correct analogy to this case: did your parents ever deliberately remove your helmet, when it had been on properly, before you rode a bike?

etc etc

(i.e. it is not merely a passive "letting" the kid do something risky. It is that the parent deliberately took actions, circumventing safety features already in place, to put the kid in danger)
I do see what you're saying but I just don't agree here. She didn't remove any safety features, she sat the kid on the fence and held him there. She didn't put him over the fence that was there to block people from going in. She didn't climb over the fence herself with him.
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 10:56 AM   #380
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Surely the correct analogies would be:


Correct analogy to this case: did your parents ever deliberately unbelt a perfectly functioning seatbelt that had previously been correctly fastened before starting to drive?



Correct analogy to this case: did your parents ever deliberately remove your helmet, when it had been on properly, before you rode a bike?

etc etc

(i.e. it is not merely a passive "letting" the kid do something risky. It is that the parent deliberately took actions, circumventing safety features already in place, to put the kid in danger)
Exactly. So my question to this would be what kind of parent would do something like that.

She may have just made a mistake. But she may have had a habit of being maliciously careless with him.

The only information that indicates otherwise is that she was screaming and crying and had to be medicated. But what is really indicating that she wasn't always this careless with him.

Picture a mother who is going stir crazy at home. She takes him out to the zoo and let's him climb on dangerous rocks and walk unattended. She's frustrated with him. They go into the dog view and she's happy because the bottom panel is glass so he can see through it. He's fussing and whining because he can't see and she bends down in anger grabs him and miscalculates the range of the rail and accidentally drops him over the side.

Could happen.


In this case her intent would be different but also her personality would be different. There's a heck of a lot of bias in this case and it's telling.

If this was a poor black mother who showed up at the zoo with her four kids and one dropped one, the reaction would be entirely different.

When people think a mother is a "nice" mother she gets treated much differently and this bias is scary.

Two sets of children were murdered last week in NYC. One set was from a white upper west side class of family the other set was in a rent controlled building in the Bronx. The nanny killed the one set, the ex boyfriend killed the other. Which one is in the news getting all the sympathy?
__________________
“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; 8th November 2012 at 10:57 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 8th November 2012, 11:02 AM   #381
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I do see what you're saying but I just don't agree here. She didn't remove any safety features, she sat the kid on the fence and held him there. She didn't put him over the fence that was there to block people from going in. She didn't climb over the fence herself with him.
Right and if she was on 2nd floor of a building and sat the child on the balcony ledge she didn't do anything wrong either.

You are either not paying attention to the age of the child or ignoring the fact that even if the dogs had not killed him, the fall could have. Even if it didn't kill the child it could cause severe traumatic brain injury which is why anyone with half a brain knows you are not supposed to do it.

Also how do you know she sat him on the fence and held him there? I have seen no statements that said that at all? Please cite your statement.


Everything I read is that she STOOD him on the railing. Sitting him suggests care was taken to make it safer, none was.


Quote:
City police said the boy's 34-year-old mother had placed him in a standing position on a wooden railing overlooking the enclosure.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-0...hree-more-dogs
__________________
“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; 8th November 2012 at 11:05 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 8th November 2012, 11:06 AM   #382
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 19,474
Once the kid "broke the barrier", probably with his feet as Mom swung him up there, he was violating the safety zone. If there had been a responsible adult in charge of the child that would not have happened. However, most kids are raised by morons, their parents.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla 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 8th November 2012, 11:54 AM   #383
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The forgotten sweet abyss
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I do see what you're saying but I just don't agree here. She didn't remove any safety features, she sat the kid on the fence and held him there. She didn't put him over the fence that was there to block people from going in. She didn't climb over the fence herself with him.
How was the 'safety feature' (fence) going to be able to work if she placed her child on top of it? Do you understand how fences work?

Being balanced on top of it gives you about the same amount of safety as being on the wild dog side of it. None. Her child was safely on the correct side of the barrier and she removed that safety.

I wouldn't even lean my camera on the barrier, let alone another person. She needs to be held accountable by the justice system, even if she is grieving. That shouldn't change anything. After all, it is self-inflicted.

The consequences of her actions made her sad? Not much sympathy from me really. I'll save that for her son and the rest of the family.
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 8th November 2012, 12:00 PM   #384
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Right and if she was on 2nd floor of a building and sat the child on the balcony ledge she didn't do anything wrong either.

You are either not paying attention to the age of the child or ignoring the fact that even if the dogs had not killed him, the fall could have. Even if it didn't kill the child it could cause severe traumatic brain injury which is why anyone with half a brain knows you are not supposed to do it.

Also how do you know she sat him on the fence and held him there? I have seen no statements that said that at all? Please cite your statement.


Everything I read is that she STOOD him on the railing. Sitting him suggests care was taken to make it safer, none was.




http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-0...hree-more-dogs
Sorry, you're right. From what is known, she stood him there.

The age and small size of the child is precisely why she likely thought she had control of the situation. I doubt she or anyone else would think they could hold a larger child on there.
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 12:04 PM   #385
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
You've had kids so I know if you think about it, you'll realize it doesn't make too much sense. I'm still not sure of his age I think he was two, but a two year old definitely doesn't have the balance required to stand on an edge like that. She had to know he would likely lose his balance. Standing up against something would be different. What is very strange is that if she had simply done the same thing to the left or right there were screens that would have protected him.
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 12:09 PM   #386
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
You've had kids so I know if you think about it, you'll realize it doesn't make too much sense. I'm still not sure of his age I think he was two, but a two year old definitely doesn't have the balance required to stand on an edge like that. She had to know he would likely lose his balance. Standing up against something would be different. What is very strange is that if she had simply done the same thing to the left or right there were screens that would have protected him.
Well, if it's shown that she stood him there and let him stand by himself, that would be a whole other ballgame for me. I don't even think it would be possible for her to let him stand by himself on a rail that's angled at 45 degrees. My understanding of her actions is with the stipulation that she was holding him and thought she had him secure. I can't even stand watching a small child walk up and down the stairs by themselves. I'm always amazed how many people just let their toddlers bound up and down the stairs. Scares the crap out of me.

Last edited by bookworm; 8th November 2012 at 12:11 PM.
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 12:23 PM   #387
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Me too. I think she thought she had him. But the whole situation was stupid. You're a mother. If your kid was dangling another younger sibling at the top of the railing of a set of stairs and accidentally dropped him down on his head, I really doubt that as a mom you'd say "Oh my gosh the poor kid, he probably feels horrible and that is enough." I think in spite of that you'd either ground the kid or talk seriously about the lack in judgment.

So I guess some in the thread are wondering why you wouldn't hold an adult to the same standards?
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 01:21 PM   #388
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Middle of nowhere, UK.
Posts: 8,022
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
I do see what you're saying but I just don't agree here. She didn't remove any safety features, she sat the kid on the fence and held him there. She didn't put him over the fence that was there to block people from going in. She didn't climb over the fence herself with him.
As someone above says, do you know how fences work?

If you are behind the fence, it is protecting you. If you are anywhere other than behing it it's about as useful as wearing a crystal to keep away illness or waving a magic wand over yourself to get rid of cancer.

She removed the perfectly functioning and more than adequate safety feature the zoo put in place by placing her child in a position where he was no more protected by it than the hunks of meat thrown to the dogs each day.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 8th November 2012, 02:08 PM   #389
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
As someone above says, do you know how fences work?

If you are behind the fence, it is protecting you. If you are anywhere other than behing it it's about as useful as wearing a crystal to keep away illness or waving a magic wand over yourself to get rid of cancer.

She removed the perfectly functioning and more than adequate safety feature the zoo put in place by placing her child in a position where he was no more protected by it than the hunks of meat thrown to the dogs each day.
That RAILING, and that's what it is, not a fence, is hardly adequate as a safety feature when any child could run right in there and hop right over it if they wanted to. I've been there and that's exactly what I thought while I was standing there looking over it. It's very design, directly over the pen, and wide open and not very high, kind of lends the appearance that those are not really dangerous animals.
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 02:26 PM   #390
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
That RAILING, and that's what it is, not a fence, is hardly adequate as a safety feature when any child could run right in there and hop right over it if they wanted to. I've been there and that's exactly what I thought while I was standing there looking over it. It's very design, directly over the pen, and wide open and not very high, kind of lends the appearance that those are not really dangerous animals.
Ah but see now you've spoken to my motive. I do wonder if she dumped the kid out on purpose. There's a net right in front of the thing. I've been in places myself and thought 'Man this would make a huge lawsuit' and the kid fell in the safety net bounced out and then fell down.

Not knowing anything about the mother I could at this point consider a story where she dropped him in the net thinking he'd get pulled out and she could sue the zoo, never thinking in a million years that he'd fall all the way down or that he'd be mauled by the dogs.

I could seriously see this happening. So what makes you so sure it isn't.

Plus, how tall are you, nearly every post I've seen about it says it isn't that low and that it would be impossible for a child to get over it.
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 03:32 PM   #391
DreamingNaiad
Muse
 
DreamingNaiad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: The forgotten sweet abyss
Posts: 519
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
That RAILING, and that's what it is, not a fence, is hardly adequate as a safety feature when any child could run right in there and hop right over it if they wanted to. I've been there and that's exactly what I thought while I was standing there looking over it. It's very design, directly over the pen, and wide open and not very high, kind of lends the appearance that those are not really dangerous animals.
It doesn't matter if it was a railing, a fence or a wall of kryptonite. It was a safety barrier that she chose to ignore.

And I doubt a two or three year old could just hop over it.

You would seriously think that just because someone can jump over the barrier that the animals weren't all that dangerous? It's about 12 ft to the ground. In other words, the only reason there is a gap for viewing is that the dogs can't reach you. That's largely what barriers are for in zoos, to keep animals in. Not to keep morons out.

That'll show the zoo for expecting common sense.

Pack of wild dogs not dangerous ... (despairs of humanity)
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 8th November 2012, 04:02 PM   #392
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
I do have to wonder, if there was ONE dog that was domesticated down there, I would not risk dropping my kid down by it. Animals are animals.
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 04:08 PM   #393
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
I just talked to someone who is making me believe that I either don't remember that exhibit correctly or they've changed it since I've been there last. But the railing IS rather high now. I don't have time right now but just wanted to say that.

Also, I haven't been talking about toddlers getting in there by themselves but older children. If an older child climbs in there you can hardly consider them a moron because they are a child.

Anyway, be back later.
bookworm 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 8th November 2012, 04:08 PM   #394
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past 'Resume Speed'
Posts: 13,799
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
That RAILING, and that's what it is, not a fence, is hardly adequate as a safety feature when any child could run right in there and hop right over it if they wanted to. I've been there and that's exactly what I thought while I was standing there looking over it. It's very design, directly over the pen, and wide open and not very high, kind of lends the appearance that those are not really dangerous animals.
Based on that, you would expect this sort of thing to happen all the time ..

It doesn't; so there must be an alternate, more logical explanation, which probably already lies within this thread somewhere..
__________________
" What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about? "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Skeptical Greg 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 8th November 2012, 05:08 PM   #395
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,136
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
That RAILING, and that's what it is, not a fence, is hardly adequate as a safety feature when any child could run right in there and hop right over it if they wanted to.
You're splitting hairs, badly.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley 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 8th November 2012, 06:00 PM   #396
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK/US
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad View Post
It doesn't matter if it was a railing, a fence or a wall of kryptonite. It was a safety barrier that she chose to ignore.
Yeah, I think that's the key point in it looking so bad.

It wasn't that she was the victim of freak bad luck.

It wasn't a case of her being a little inattentive, while Junior climbed somewhere unsafe.

It was a case of her deliberately circumventing the safety features that were doing a great job of keeping her kid safe.

If she isn't to be prosecuted, then how could we ever prosecute anyone who (say) left their kid in a hot car? That might be a simple error of omission... rather than the error of commission seen here.
Giz 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 8th November 2012, 06:17 PM   #397
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
 
RedRatSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Southie, Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,625
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...87_634x382.jpg

I have not really been keeping up with this, I figured it would take a few days to get stuff sorted out with the zoo and police, I seen this picture the other day and figured it was just being used as a reference to show a net, i had no idea it was the place the child fell from, it looks like a homemade shack to me, i can't believe that tree fort looking thing is in a large zoo.

Mod WarningPlease do not hotlink images.
Posted By:Lisa Simpson

Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 9th November 2012 at 04:33 PM.
RedRatSnake 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 8th November 2012, 06:22 PM   #398
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
The plexiglass at the bottom is about 4 feet high. You can see through the bottom and taller people can see through the mesh. The picture is a bit weird but there is an opening above the outside net. She stood her 2 year old toddler on the edge of the rail and he fell into the net on the outside and bounced out and fell to the ground. I realize that at nearly 6 feet tall myself I would have immediately pulled myself up over onto the net and jumped down, but if she was a petite woman she may not have been able to pull herself over.

This was not a situation where she just walked up and put her son on the edge. She'd have needed to put him up.
__________________
“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 8th November 2012, 07:29 PM   #399
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
 
RedRatSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Southie, Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,625
Ok ~ I see there is no mesh over the plexi in front it's just open, why would they do that it makes no sense.
RedRatSnake 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 8th November 2012, 07:43 PM   #400
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,792
Because it's four feet high, so unless you deliberately tried to get up on it you wouldn't have a problem. The safety net is there to catch cell phones and cameras. Not people.
__________________
“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
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 07:13 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.