Pack of African painted dogs kill 3 year old at Pittsburgh Zoo.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

If I was the prosecutor's office, I'd offer not prosecute, as long as she didn't sue the zoo or otherwise try to profit from her kid's death.

I was expecting you to suggest she suffer the fate of the Biblical Jezebel.

[korenyx]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I'm pretty sure korenyx was referring to the story in his own previous post, involving an older child on a school trip, rather than to the 3-year-old child in the OP.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you Myriad. I was referring to an older child.

P.S. I'm a her.

[korenyx]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Ahh. Okay.

You are quite right.



The anecdotes were starting to run together. I lost track.

Also lack of coffee.

It's okay.

Very upsetting subject.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I was expecting you to suggest she suffer the fate of the Biblical Jezebel.

That too.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I agree there would be exceptions. So far in the thread it appears WC and MarkCorrigan vote for criminal

Absolutely I do. This woman didn't suffer an accident due to a silly mistake like taking her eyes off her child while he played in the garden or something. THAT wouldn't be prosecutable in my opinion because it would just be a fatal mistake, something anyone could make.

This woman on the other hand deliberately put her child beyond the saftey features the zoo installed. This is criminal negligence.

Let's take a different option. You are driving with your small child safely belted into the booster seat in the back of the car. You have an accident, your child dies. It's awful, but you took reasonable safety precautions and are not negligent.

If you had not seatbelted your child and left them loose in the seat, that is gross negligence and you ARE liable for the death of your child.

This woman deliberately put her child's life in danger. She consciously decided to do something dangerous to her child. She deserves criminal punishment, just the same as a boss who orders his workers not to use provided safety equipment or someone who stores a loaded gun in an easily accessible box. The child would not have fallen in if the mother hadn't removed all safety precautions from her child.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I think 'stupid' is not always 'criminal' and this is a case of stupid.

It's also criminal. The woman not only ignored saftey warnings and features meant to protect the public but deliberately and knowingly made sure her child was not protected. She sent him out into a battlefield without a flak jacket, she didn't do up his seatbelt in the car, she did something deliberately that removed all the available and functioning safety features. This woman is a danger to her children.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

In the end, it's all just how people see things and there's no way to say it is definitely X or Y.

Would you prosecute someone who, like in my above example, did not fit their child with a seatbelt causing them to die in a car crash? This woman was criminally negligent. If you don't think so, where would you put the line? What would this moron have to do to have you think she should be prosecuted? Throw her child into the enclosure?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Excellent analogies.

I think so. What would all these woolly libtards say if a mother was laying claymore mines around her toddler's play pen and then the child stepped on one and repainted the nursery walls in crimson? Would we then say the mother was too distraught at the soiling of her new curtains to be prosecuted. Well? Well?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

She sent him out into a battlefield without a flak jacket,

I think it would have been negligent of her to send her three year-old off to a war even with a flak jacket.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

The need to blame and make someone pay really bothers me sometimes. We need to identify why things happen to avoid future danger, but sometimes the thirst for revenge just seems like masturbation to me.

I think that's unfair on masturbation.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think so. What would all these woolly libtards say if a mother was laying claymore mines around her toddler's play pen and then the child stepped on one and repainted the nursery walls in crimson? Would we then say the mother was too distraught at the soiling of her new curtains to be prosecuted. Well? Well?

You don't put curtains in a room with mines! Vertical blinds only, to preserve clean lines. Duh.

[Alphaba]

A sad news.

Originally Posted by WildCat

African wild dogs are nasty nasty nasty, basically eat their prey to death.

Originally Posted by fagin

Those things are mean, nasty, vicious, have jaws that crush bone, and hunt in packs.
Think of a pack of pit bulls on steroids.

Wow, what a lot of anthropomorphism there!

Humans are in exuberant numbers and may be nasty while painted hunting dogs are an endangered species (page on IUCN red list) and are just, huh, Lycaon pictus^WP. An interesting video to learn about them: BBC Natural World - A Wild Dog's Story.

And incidentally, those African hunting dogs in Pittsburgh Zoo may well have been either wild or from first generation in captivity, as can be inferred from the following video: Africa - The Painted Dog (Journeyman Pictures. Info about Pittsburgh Zoo starts at 13.09 till 13:17).

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by truethat

Why are children treated like "possessions" of parents rather than people who have rights that need to be the same as anyone elses.

I'm not a big fan of "childrens rights". They don't have rights so much as protections.

Originally Posted by truethat

The right to life is pretty basic. (Let's not derail into any abortion arguments for grawds sake) The woman was criminally negligent.

This also goes to people who leave their kids in a car on a hot day and have them suffocate. To me, criminal. What is to stop a parent from pretending it was an accident? Oh I was just trying to show him the view.....whoopsie~! I'm so devastated.

Actually, this is a good point and the good point is whether or not you see a distinction between the mother accidentally letting go of a toddler while holding it above the safety rail or picking the baby up and hurling it in to pretend it was an accident. Do you think the crime of accidentally killing the baby through negligence is the same as deliberate pre-meditated murder?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You don't put curtains in a room with mines! Vertical blinds only, to preserve clean lines. Duh.

What if the mother was negligent? It could have been an honest mistake...

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I was expecting you to suggest she suffer the fate of the Biblical Jezebel.

She gets an Oscar?

Oh, wait. "Biblical".

More coffee.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Absolutely I do. This woman didn't suffer an accident due to a silly mistake like taking her eyes off her child while he played in the garden or something. THAT wouldn't be prosecutable in my opinion because it would just be a fatal mistake, something anyone could make.

This woman on the other hand deliberately put her child beyond the saftey features the zoo installed. This is criminal negligence.

Let's take a different option. You are driving with your small child safely belted into the booster seat in the back of the car. You have an accident, your child dies. It's awful, but you took reasonable safety precautions and are not negligent.

If you had not seatbelted your child and left them loose in the seat, that is gross negligence and you ARE liable for the death of your child.

This woman deliberately put her child's life in danger. She consciously decided to do something dangerous to her child. She deserves criminal punishment, just the same as a boss who orders his workers not to use provided safety equipment or someone who stores a loaded gun in an easily accessible box. The child would not have fallen in if the mother hadn't removed all safety precautions from her child.

It's also criminal. The woman not only ignored saftey warnings and features meant to protect the public but deliberately and knowingly made sure her child was not protected. She sent him out into a battlefield without a flak jacket, she didn't do up his seatbelt in the car, she did something deliberately that removed all the available and functioning safety features. This woman is a danger to her children.


Would you prosecute someone who, like in my above example, did not fit their child with a seatbelt causing them to die in a car crash? This woman was criminally negligent. If you don't think so, where would you put the line? What would this moron have to do to have you think she should be prosecuted? Throw her child into the enclosure?

As a parent who knows how easy it is to make a mistake, not every mistake is criminal. Even the most careful conscientious parents make mistakes.

Like I said, it's a continuum we all draw the line somewhere on. I don't draw it where you do. We can add Truethat to the people in the thread who draw the line on the criminal side for this case. I don't, at least not from the pittance of information we have in the news reports.

It's opinion. You are welcome to have a different one but you cannot argue absolutes in this case.

[truethat]

Who died and left you boss? We can argue whatever we want. Some people do feel there should be absolutes. Isn't that what you've been going on about the vaccine posts, how we should go by absolutes based on "research?"

Accidents with kids should not include a mother dropping her baby over a wall into a dog pack to be ripped to shreds. Not only was it horrible for the child, she contributed to the death of an animal, probably traumatized the rescuers and other people and children at the zoo.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Alphaba

..
And incidentally, those African hunting dogs in Pittsburgh Zoo may well have been either wild or from first generation in captivity, as can be inferred from the following video: Africa - The Painted Dog (Journeyman Pictures. Info about Pittsburgh Zoo starts at 13.09 till 13:17).

I believe the news report said all/most? of them were born in captivity.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by truethat

Who died and left you boss? We can argue whatever we want. Some people do feel there should be absolutes. Isn't that what you've been going on about the vaccine posts, how we should go by absolutes based on "research?"

Accidents with kids should not include a mother dropping her baby over a wall into a wolf pack to be ripped to shreds. Not only was it horrible for the child, she contributed to the death of an animal, probably traumatized the rescuers and other people and children at the zoo.

I say you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine and you say, "Who died and left you boss?" No wonder it's so difficult to have a discussion with you when you apparently use a different language at times.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Alphaba

A sad news.




Wow, what a lot of anthropomorphism there!

Humans are in exuberant numbers and may be nasty while painted hunting dogs are an endangered species (page on IUCN red list) and are just, huh, Lycaon pictus^WP. An interesting video to learn about them: BBC Natural World - A Wild Dog's Story.

Does the BBC video cut right before the dogs pull the entrails out of the still-living wildebeest or whatever?

[Alphaba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I believe the news report said all/most? of them were born in captivity.

Did you check the video? It is really interesting. The relevant quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Bester, animal dealer, South Africa

Wild dogs going to Pittsburgh Zoo. Let's see, 4 dogs going to Pittsburgh [...] 5 going to Pittsburgh.

After watching it several times, I do admit that this sequence isn't very clear as to the origin of this guy's animals. But the whole trade of African hunting dogs appears murky.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I'm not a big fan of "childrens rights". They don't have rights so much as protections.



Actually, this is a good point and the good point is whether or not you see a distinction between the mother accidentally letting go of a toddler while holding it above the safety rail or picking the baby up and hurling it in to pretend it was an accident. Do you think the crime of accidentally killing the baby through negligence is the same as deliberate pre-meditated murder?

No but I think by not cracking down on it harshly people can use it to cover up a murder with an accident.

I mean seriously? You get tired of taking care of your kids just let them drown in the backyard pool and call 911 hysterical. The bleeding hearts that look at things emotionally instead of logically will be all

"The poor mother, she's devastated as it is! Her punishment is having to live with it!"

I'm annoyed with how gullible so many people seem to be. Need I even mention Casey Anthony???

Ex. If I wanted to murder a toddler I could do many things quite easily

• Let them "Slip and crack their head in the bathtub and drown" while I "answered the phone for two minutes"
  
• Let them drown in the pool
  
• Accidentally drop them into a dog pack and either die from the fall or be ripped to shreds by wild animals. The crocodile tank will work as well.
  
• Leave them in the car the entire day at work after I forgot to drop them at day care on a hot day.
  
• Walk out into a hurricane and have them swept out of my arms as I tried to make my way through a storm surge.
  
• Get lost and let them freeze to death in the woods
  
• Accidentally shoot them in the face with a gun while trying to take bullets out of it.
  
• Let them "accidentally" drink nasil spray (My girlfriend had that happened to her kids by accident twice before they called protective services.)
  
  
  

Historically there are many instances where mothers killed their kids. All that this coddling and pity does is give them an easy way to get away with it.


BTW MAJOR DISCLAIMER I am not saying that any of the scenarios recently mentioned in the news are murder cases. Just that the immediate idea that a woman can't be evil in such cases is troubling to me.

[Alphaba]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Does the BBC video cut right before the dogs pull the entrails out of the still-living wildebeest or whatever?

That's their usual way of killing large preys. Lions kill by strangulation, anacondas by suffocation and other snakes with venom, domestic cats play with their prey before killing it, etc. Each non-human predator species has its own way to kill preys, and African hunting dogs' way is no more and no less "nasty" than the others.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

As a parent who knows how easy it is to make a mistake, not every mistake is criminal. Even the most careful conscientious parents make mistakes.

Like I said, it's a continuum we all draw the line somewhere on. I don't draw it where you do. We can add Truethat to the people in the thread who draw the line on the criminal side for this case. I don't, at least not from the pittance of information we have in the news reports.

It's opinion. You are welcome to have a different one but you cannot argue absolutes in this case.

It seems fairly clear that the parent deliberately placed the child in a position which made it possible for him to fall over a barrier which was designed to discourage people from doing exactly that.

From CNN

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.

Would you consider this to be a negligent thing for a responsible adult to do?

If so, why is that negligence not criminal?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Alphaba

That's their usual way of killing large preys. Lions kill by strangulation, anacondas by suffocation and other snakes with venom, domestic cats play with their prey before killing it, etc. Each non-human predator species has its own way to kill preys, and African hunting dogs' way is no more and no less "nasty" than the others.

Suit yourself, but I'd take snake bite over wild dog attack any day.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Suit yourself, but I'd take snake bite over wild dog attack any day.

How about slow asphyxiation by anaconda?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

It seems fairly clear that the parent deliberately placed the child in a position which made it possible for him to fall over a barrier which was designed to discourage people from doing exactly that.

From CNN

Would you consider this to be a negligent thing for a responsible adult to do?

If so, why is that negligence not criminal?

Exactly. This isn't some reasonable mistake anyone could have made and oh dear she's a poor parent.

This woman deliberately and stupidly endangered her child's life. I ask you again, where DO you draw the line on criminal negligence? What would she have had to do to make you think she was culpable?

Would YOU place your small child on top of a safety fence?


ETA: To make it even more clear:

"Oh I took my eyes off poor Johnny for 30 seconds and he ran out into the road!" = Not criminally negligent.

"I let Johnny play in the road and a car hit him!" = Criminally negligent.

Deliberately putting your child in a position where they are in obvious danger is a criminally negligent action. This woman should be prosecuted especially if the idiot tries to sue the zoo. This is entirely her fault.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

How about slow asphyxiation by anaconda?

I can't believe I'm getting an agument for the claim that getting killed by African wild dogs is a nasty way to go.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

How about slow asphyxiation by anaconda?

I doubt it would be all that slow - you are dead within just a couple of minutes - would be my guess.
Death from a venomous snake bite would be a lot slower in most cases.

But I would rather die by snake than by dogs or cats ripping out my guts and eating me alive.

[Lakia]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I can't believe I'm getting an agument for the claim that getting killed by African wild dogs is a nasty way to go.

I'd rather be killed by a lion then a pack of African wild dogs. That doesn't mean that the dogs are "nastier" then lions. They have to eat to survive like the rest of us.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by WildCat

I can't believe I'm getting an agument for the claim that getting killed by African wild dogs is a nasty way to go.

You're not. Not from me, at least. I was taking issue with the idea that there was something uniquely "nasty" about these dogs as opposed to other carnivores or even carnivores in general. I wouldn't want to be eaten by a shark either, but that doesn't mean they're nasty. Just sharks.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by Hallo Alfie

I doubt it would be all that slow - you are dead within just a couple of minutes - would be my guess.

They don't actually crush their prey, you know. They just keep squeezing a little tighter as it struggles. Each time it relaxes a bit they gain a little ground. It ain't quick if the prey is very big for them.

Quote:

Death from a venomous snake bite would be a lot slower in most cases.

But I would rather die by snake than by dogs or cats ripping out my guts and eating me alive.

Death by carnivore isn't ever going to be a preferred way to go by anyone. I just don't think these dogs deserve singularly bad press.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Lakia

I'd rather be killed by a lion then a pack of African wild dogs. That doesn't mean that the dogs are "nastier" then lions. They have to eat to survive like the rest of us.

That makes them less nasty?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Originally Posted by truethat

[*]Walk out into a hurricane and have them swept out of my arms as I tried to make my way through a storm surge.
BTW MAJOR DISCLAIMER I am not saying that any of the scenarios recently mentioned in the news are murder cases. Just that the immediate idea that a woman can't be evil in such cases is troubling to me.

Seriously? You're picking this as an example of maternal evil?

[truethat]

Once again the reading comprehension issues on this site never cease to amaze me.

Quote:

BTW MAJOR DISCLAIMER I am not saying that any of the scenarios recently mentioned in the news are murder cases.
__________________

And while I typed it I knew someone would say something anyway. As is the pattern.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Here's a couple of tips for you.
1. Make sure your flash is turned off - it's this flash mode on your camera http://mszaandam.files.wordpress.com...1098f.gif?w=30.

2. Rest the front end of the camera lens (carefully) right against the glass.

You will not see a reflection, and any dirt or marks on the glass will be far enough away from the autofocus range of your camera that they will;
(a) not cause the autofocus to to seek or lock onto them, and
(b) be out of focus so that you won't see them.

Unless you are a professional photographer, you will never be able to tell the difference.

A smart cookie indeed!!!

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Viewing can be much better through glass:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Even if the glass isn't perfectly clean:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Of course, this guy broke the glass, so there's no perfect system :

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I think these videos shows the problems with glass. It is obvious they are in a zoo. It is OK for holiday snaps, but not much more. Would not want to print them out or use them in any way.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Here's a couple of tips for you.
1. Make sure your flash is turned off - it's this flash mode on your camera http://mszaandam.files.wordpress.com...1098f.gif?w=30.

2. Rest the front end of the camera lens (carefully) right against the glass.

You will not see a reflection, and any dirt or marks on the glass will be far enough away from the autofocus range of your camera that they will;
(a) not cause the autofocus to to seek or lock onto them, and
(b) be out of focus so that you won't see them.

Unless you are a professional photographer, you will never be able to tell the difference.

You can use flash though glass. Just do not have the glass at right angles to the photo. I have used this technique heaps of times. Here is an example


You can see the camera flash on the left hand side. The glass was very clean so it is almost impossible to see directly. And yes I would have had the camera right next to the glass. But even so, as it was indoors, you can see a reflection of the lights. The photo was taken by me at the Australian War memorial in Canberra.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by truethat

No but I think by not cracking down on it harshly people can use it to cover up a murder with an accident.

I mean seriously? You get tired of taking care of your kids just let them drown in the backyard pool and call 911 hysterical. The bleeding hearts that look at things emotionally instead of logically will be all

"The poor mother, she's devastated as it is! Her punishment is having to live with it!"

I'm annoyed with how gullible so many people seem to be. Need I even mention Casey Anthony???

Ex. If I wanted to murder a toddler I could do many things quite easily

• Let them "Slip and crack their head in the bathtub and drown" while I "answered the phone for two minutes"
  
• Let them drown in the pool
  
• Accidentally drop them into a dog pack and either die from the fall or be ripped to shreds by wild animals. The crocodile tank will work as well.
  
• Leave them in the car the entire day at work after I forgot to drop them at day care on a hot day.
  
• Walk out into a hurricane and have them swept out of my arms as I tried to make my way through a storm surge.
  
• Get lost and let them freeze to death in the woods
  
• Accidentally shoot them in the face with a gun while trying to take bullets out of it.
  
• Let them "accidentally" drink nasil spray (My girlfriend had that happened to her kids by accident twice before they called protective services.)
  
  
  

Historically there are many instances where mothers killed their kids. All that this coddling and pity does is give them an easy way to get away with it.


BTW MAJOR DISCLAIMER I am not saying that any of the scenarios recently mentioned in the news are murder cases. Just that the immediate idea that a woman can't be evil in such cases is troubling to me.

So you want to punish the mothers in accidental deaths to cut down on the number of mothers whose children "accidentally" die.

Right, I see what you mean. Remember all those women whose children "accidentally" died of "cot death".

[truethat]

No; by the way 'cot death" can be found to be the case in an autopsy. You can't smother a kid and try to pass it off as cot death. Cot death they just stop breathing they don't struggle.


But of course take it to the complete extreme instead of trying to understand what I mean. What I mean is that criminalizing negligence or specifically putting your child in harms way CAN and will save the lives of children in the future.

For example, since everyone is so twisted about it already, the mother that lost her kids in the Hurricane in Staten Island was driving on Father Capadano Blvd. That is literally one block away from the ocean and an area that could possibly be swamped in high tide. Her husband worked for the Sanitation Department. At first I thought she was from the area but she left with her kids and drove them into a hurricane. At the time that she did this there were already 3 foot swells rolling off the storm surge. Going into it was not the right move. Do I want to make this woman feel worse than she does, of course not.

At the same time this level of sympathy encourages stupidity like the woman in this thread. And it creates a situation where children can be deliberately killed using the same excuse. Ex. Next time there is a hurricane don't leave the evacuation area and take your kid out into the storm and say he got swept away. You could literally get away with murder.


If it wasn't mothers and children I think people would see it differently. If a man lost his wife in the storm because he couldn't hang on any more would you be suspicious? No because a woman could fend for herself in that storm. However what that mother did would be like the man taking the woman out on a canoe in the middle of a hurricane and then losing her at sea.

Are you saying you would not be the slightest bit suspicious if you heard that story?

When I see mothers putting children at horrible risk and then playing the victim when their own choices lead to the death of their child, it is annoying.

But go on with the pity. I'm not going to discuss that aspect any further.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Seriously? You're picking this as an example of maternal evil?

No. It was preceded by the statement :' if I wanted to murder a toddler I would..."

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by truethat

No; by the way 'cot death" can be found to be the case in an autopsy. You can't smother a kid and try to pass it off as cot death. Cot death they just stop breathing they don't struggle.


But of course take it to the complete extreme instead of trying to understand what I mean. What I mean is that criminalizing negligence or specifically putting your child in harms way CAN and will save the lives of children in the future.

For example, since everyone is so twisted about it already, the mother that lost her kids in the Hurricane in Staten Island was driving on Father Capadano Blvd. That is literally one block away from the ocean and an area that could possibly be swamped in high tide. Her husband worked for the Sanitation Department. At first I thought she was from the area but she left with her kids and drove them into a hurricane. At the time that she did this there were already 3 foot swells rolling off the storm surge. Going into it was not the right move. Do I want to make this woman feel worse than she does, of course not.

At the same time this level of sympathy encourages stupidity like the woman in this thread. And it creates a situation where children can be deliberately killed using the same excuse. Ex. Next time there is a hurricane don't leave the evacuation area and take your kid out into the storm and say he got swept away. You could literally get away with murder.


If it wasn't mothers and children I think people would see it differently. If a man lost his wife in the storm because he couldn't hang on any more would you be suspicious? No because a woman could fend for herself in that storm. However what that mother did would be like the man taking the woman out on a canoe in the middle of a hurricane and then losing her at sea.

Are you saying you would not be the slightest bit suspicious if you heard that story?

When I see mothers putting children at horrible risk and then playing the victim when their own choices lead to the death of their child, it is annoying.

But go on with the pity. I'm not going to discuss that aspect any further.

It's not pity that makes me suspicious of your argument. I find the idea of prosecuting mothers whose children die accidentally as a means of deterring deliberate killing to be a kind of sick joke.

What is the relevance in this case? Do you suspect the mother of deliberately feeding her kid to the dogs?

Your options here seem to be:
a) Yes
b) No
c) Who knows?

It seems that in the case of "Who knows?" you would prefer to err on the side of deliberate killing. Does this sound like a just way of doing things to you? It doesn't to me.

[Ernie M]

I took this photo at the Pittsburgh Zoo on Sunday, 07 Oct 2012- about a month ago.

A bunch of people are standing around a tiger exhibit, not too far from the African Painted Dog exhibit. If you look closely, you can see a child propped up on the railing by a woman. I'm not sure if the railing height is the same as the Painted Dog exhibit, but it does have the 45° railing in the cnn blog JREF Forum member quadraginta cited. In that blog, Pgh Zoo President Barbara Baker stated that the angled rail idea was to hopefully ensure that if a child fell while standing on a railing, they would fall back away from the animal exhibit.

I believe this tiger exhibit to be very safe, as I recall there is a rock overhang separating the crowd and the tigers, which is many, many feet above a water "moat" which lies at the bottom of the rock overhang.

For me, the Pittsburgh Zoo has beautiful, natural-looking habitat exhibits which are very safe. It is very sad and unfortunate a child died in the Zoo.

Click the picture to see it larger.