Pack of African painted dogs kill 3 year old at Pittsburgh Zoo. - Page 5

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Bookworm, I'll ask you the same question I asked Skeptic Ginger upthread.

You say that this was a foolish mistake that led to a tragedy and shouldn't be prosecutable, correct?

If that is the case, what WOULD be prosecutable? What could the mother have done to make this prosecutable short of throwing her child into the enclosure?

If an investigation were done, and it was found that she has done irresponsible things in the past in regards to her child I would be more inclined to think she should be. Also, if it were found that she actually DID let the child stand there without holding him I would say she should be.

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

What kind of half-wit thinks that a large fall into a pack of wild dogs will do anything but kill the child? What simple minded lunatic will deliberately place their child in that much danger?

Well, I would guess she was sure she was holding him tight enough that he wasn't going to fall.

MarkCorrigan · 6th November 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Well, I would guess she was sure she was holding him tight enough that he wasn't going to fall.

She put the child over a safety fence. I don't care if she's got GI Joe's kung fu grip, the woman deliberately endangered her child by removing every safety feature put in place.

What if she held the child up on the railings of a 31st story balcony and the kid wriggled out of her grip and fell. Is that acceptable? She was holding tightly to him, and she didn't mean to drop the kid, so this isn't prosecutable either?

What about what MJ did?

The point of these laws is that you aren't allowed to do something that will likely lead to the death of a child. Placing them past all the safety features installed around a wild dog pack would be pretty much a perfect example of this.

Quad4_72 · 6th November 2012, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

She put the child over a safety fence. I don't care if she's got GI Joe's kung fu grip, the woman deliberately endangered her child by removing every safety feature put in place.

What if she held the child up on the railings of a 31st story balcony? Is that acceptable? I mean, she's holding tight so what's the problem?

The point of these laws is that you aren't allowed to do somethign that will likely lead to the death of a child. Placing them past all the safety features installed around a wild dog pack would be pretty much a perfect example of this.

But remember the way the law works, as long as you learned your lesson you don't have to have any official punishment. That's how the law works right?

MarkCorrigan · 6th November 2012, 10:06 AM

I can't believe that people are willing to let this woman off because it might have been a one time thing. Well that's ok then. It was a one time lapse of judgement when I panicked and shot that man. Guess I shouldn't be prosecuted despite clearly committing a crime!

ETA Disclaimer: I've never shot a man. I've never even held a real gun.

truethat · 6th November 2012, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

No, I wouldn't. But I also know I am not perfect and I've made plenty of stupid mistakes in my own life.

I love the logic here. We excuse stupidity because "everyone does it" and so then we just suck it up and there are no consequences.

Men can be very aggressive and accidentally hit a woman in the heat of an argument and severely injure the woman. It happens every day and it's called domestic violence.

We prosecute this, we don't say "Hey look I've accidentally punched a woman in the face because I lost my cool and she was screaming in my face, it happens to the best of us."

No if the woman was in the zoo and her husband punched her in the face for putting the child up on the ledge, he'd be cooling his heels in a jail cell right about now.

But the "poor mother" who killed a person is a victim. Don't get me started on this double standard.

truethat · 6th November 2012, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Well, I would guess she was sure she was holding him tight enough that he wasn't going to fall.

Which is why he's dead.

truethat · 6th November 2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Well, I did say prosecute.

It happens every so often that a small child dies either in its paddling pool, or the neighbour's fishpond or when mum leaves it in the bath to answer the phone (coming back a minute later to find it face down - dead). These cases can all be assigned to GROSS NEGLECT if you want but they are still very unusual crimes, not to be classed with other offences within this category. I have in mind, for instance, industrial accidents resulting in death perhaps resulting from defective machinery, safety equipment or procedures. These things happen in the course of money making activity by businesses which are required by detailed laws to ensure a safe system of work.

In fact, it is unusual for anyone to go prison in these corporate cases as finding a responsible individual can be difficult and as a matter of policy one does not want to petrify wealth-creating activity.

In our case, the mother must face extreme social opprobrium, the ordeal of an inquest, a lifetime of remorse and guilt and probably prosecution and conviction. You really want to throw her in jail too? What if she has other kids to look after? Should they lose their mother so she can pay her debt to society. For my part I would be prepared, if not to write it off, then to accept token payment.

But they are not unusual. The number one cause of accidental death in children is drowning. Not car accidents.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...ntal-death-cdc

I don't want her to be thrown in jail. I want her to be prosecuted. Consider. If people were prosecuted for being caught leaving a child unattended at a pool, for breaching safety precautions in a park, they wouldn't put the child in the position in the first place.

Ex. If you are caught driving with a child who is not in a car seat or wearing a seat belt you will be prosecuted. So people follow the safety precautions.

If the mother knew if she got caught putting her child up there she could be arrested, she probably wouldn't have done it and the child would be alive.

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 10:30 AM

Perhaps I'm just compassionate to a fault.

MarkCorrigan · 6th November 2012, 10:31 AM

It depends, what is your attitude to the 31st floor hypothetical? Is it any different?

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

It depends, what is your attitude to the 31st floor hypothetical? Is it any different?

No, I believe that was an equally stupid lapse in judgment. But I'm sure MJ just knew he wasn't letting that kid fall either.

Just like the Dad who throws his kid up in the air is SURE he's catching him no matter what. Never thinking that maybe while that kid is up in the air someone may walk past him and trip and fall into him, making him stumble and miss the kid.

truethat · 6th November 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Perhaps I'm just compassionate to a fault.

Yep! Compassion is a very good thing. Of course we all feel compassion for this woman, she did a careless thing that will ruin her life. As parents we've all had that lucky near miss.

I remember one time I was lugging my younger son down the stairs at the 42nd Street subway station in the stroller and my other son (four years old) ran ahead and there wasn't anything I could do but run like a maniac down the stairs to catch him. He ran straight out to the edge of the platform and leaned over to see if the train was coming and I pretty much had a heart attack.

But that's not the same thing as me holding him out to see if the train was coming and having him hit by the train.

anglolawyer · 6th November 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

Yep! Compassion is a very good thing. Of course we all feel compassion for this woman, she did a careless thing that will ruin her life. As parents we've all had that lucky near miss.

I remember one time I was lugging my younger son down the stairs at the 42nd Street subway station in the stroller and my other son (four years old) ran ahead and there wasn't anything I could do but run like a maniac down the stairs to catch him. He ran straight out to the edge of the platform and leaned over to see if the train was coming and I pretty much had a heart attack.

But that's not the same thing as me holding him out to see if the train was coming and having him hit by the train.

In my opinion it's FAR WORSE!!!! You endangered TWO children with your ill-considered and reckless conduct and EVEN WORSE THAN THAT you may have caused inconvenience to COMMUTERS!!! I hope you spend the rest of your life IN TORMENT now this has been explained to you

anglolawyer · 6th November 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

No, I believe that was an equally stupid lapse in judgment. But I'm sure MJ just knew he wasn't letting that kid fall either.

Just like the Dad who throws his kid up in the air is SURE he's catching him no matter what. Never thinking that maybe while that kid is up in the air someone may walk past him and trip and fall into him, making him stumble and miss the kid.

There was a Dad who delightedly held his child up on greeting him after a long absence. Unfortunately, Dad had just alighted from a helicopter and the rotor blades were still spinning and the child died.

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 10:52 AM

duplicate post

anglolawyer · 6th November 2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

But they are not unusual. The number one cause of accidental death in children is drowning. Not car accidents.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...ntal-death-cdc

I don't want her to be thrown in jail. I want her to be prosecuted. Consider. If people were prosecuted for being caught leaving a child unattended at a pool, for breaching safety precautions in a park, they wouldn't put the child in the position in the first place.

Ex. If you are caught driving with a child who is not in a car seat or wearing a seat belt you will be prosecuted. So people follow the safety precautions.

If the mother knew if she got caught putting her child up there she could be arrested, she probably wouldn't have done it and the child would be alive.

I agree. If the facts warrant it, prosecute. A life has been lost. I just wouldn't throw her in jail. Prosecution might even be cathartic.

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

There was a Dad who delightedly held his child up on greeting him after a long absence. Unfortunately, Dad had just alighted from a helicopter and the rotor blades were still spinning and the child died.

My God. True? I've seen this happen with ceiling fans...luckily it was only a bump on the head.

anglolawyer · 6th November 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

My God. True?

True

fuelair · 6th November 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

True

Examples(I love www.dogpile.com - from whence commeth my help!): http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoB...%203%20-En.pdf

pages 8-10 and may be more.........

anglolawyer · 6th November 2012, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Examples(I love www.dogpile.com - from whence commeth my help!): http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoB...%203%20-En.pdf

pages 8-10 and may be more.........

My one is in there on p.10. Didn't know dogpile was still going.

I Ratant · 6th November 2012, 11:30 AM

The news today says the kid fell into the safety net, and bounced out into the dog exhibit.
The zoo needs to slacken off on the tightness of all of their nets to a less trampoline-like configuration.

fuelair · 6th November 2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

My one is in there on p.10. Didn't know dogpile was still going.

Still going strong - and still beats the feces out of Goobull

anglolawyer · 6th November 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Still going strong - and still beats the feces out of Goobull

Is it worth, like, billions? Or dog biscuits?

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Yep! Compassion is a very good thing. Of course we all feel compassion for this woman, she did a careless thing that will ruin her life. As parents we've all had that lucky near miss.

I remember one time I was lugging my younger son down the stairs at the 42nd Street subway station in the stroller and my other son (four years old) ran ahead and there wasn't anything I could do but run like a maniac down the stairs to catch him. He ran straight out to the edge of the platform and leaned over to see if the train was coming and I pretty much had a heart attack.

But that's not the same thing as me holding him out to see if the train was coming and having him hit by the train.

I would say it's a matter of perspective, in that case. Some might say you were just as criminally negligent because you should have been holding his hand. After all, you knew that 4 year olds are unpredictable, right? And you also knew there was a train down there.

Nosi · 6th November 2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

There should be criminal charges on the parent who put the kid up there.

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

I can't tell you how much I agree. This stupid bint needs charges of second or third degree murder and first degree stupidity.

manofthesea · 6th November 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

The news today says the kid fell into the safety net, and bounced out into the dog exhibit.
The zoo needs to slacken off on the tightness of all of their nets to a less trampoline-like configuration.

The netting is meant to catch cameras and other items carelessly dropped by people. That doesn't include other people.

MarkCorrigan · 6th November 2012, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by bookworm

I would say it's a matter of perspective, in that case. Some might say you were just as criminally negligent because you should have been holding his hand. After all, you knew that 4 year olds are unpredictable, right? And you also knew there was a train down there.

There's a difference between that and deliberately placing your child in a dangerous situation, placing him outside of the safety features around. How can you not see this?

Polaris · 6th November 2012, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

My one is in there on p.10. Didn't know dogpile was still going.

You're thinking of dogfart.

Nosi · 6th November 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Sometimes the animals breathe on the glass then write messages. Last time I was at the zoo, a baboon did so, and he advised me to invest in stock index funds.

Two monkeys and stock options. That adds some lightness to the discussion.

Nosi · 6th November 2012, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I always want to puke when I see parents holding squirmy kids over the barriers at the Boulder Dam. But I've seen it more than once, so I guess the parents don't think it's too risky.

That is just it. Many parents just don't think. They are too often involved mentally with other things like their cell phones or food or whatever to be thinking about what they are doing with their squirmy kid.

Polaris · 6th November 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Nosi

That is just it. Many parents just don't think. They are too often involved mentally with other things like their cell phones or food or whatever to be thinking about what they are doing with their squirmy kid.

And frequently when they do think it's about how they can shrilly demand that the rest of us change our behavior so they can go back to being too preoccupied with something other than their own kid.

Nosi · 6th November 2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

It really irks me when people say "Haven't they suffered enough!" If an employee had done the same thing they would have been arrested. Why are children treated like "possessions" of parents rather than people who have rights that need to be the same as anyone elses. 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.

I cannot stand the lack of logic people have when looking at this. If you took the emotional woo out of the equation the woman caused the death of another person. Crime.

The demand that babies and kids sit in the backseat out of sight has in my opinion been partly responsible for the hot car issue. I believe that technology can help responsible parents address the problem. One such is have the baby or baby seat wear an alarm that squeals on the parent's keyring letting said parent know baby is in the car. The baby seat model will squeal if there's weight on the seat. The baby model will squeal if baby is a certain number of feet away from the key chain.

Irresponsible parents? Slam them to the wall.

rjh01 · 6th November 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

The zoo will want her prosecuted just to relieve the zoo of some liability. Gross negligence and a $1 fine would do.

A coroner's inquiry would do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And with a fence or cage it isn't?

The glass allows people to have a close up view of an awake animal. Yes, it's a zoo. And perhaps for some people an image capture that looks like the animal is in the wild when everyone knows it's in a zoo is their important issue.

I love the close ups. I'll take a close up through glass any day over a clearer view of an animal too far away to see very well. I'm guessing with a zoom lens one can get that closeup, on a monitor or in print.

I prefer to look at animals via a low fence. For dangerous animals like those dogs a moat to keep the animals away from the fence would be needed. It is just a pity that there are too many people like what are we talking about to make that not enough security.

Large animals need a large cage so sometimes no matter what the cage is made of sometimes you will not get a close up of the animal. Long gone are the days where an animal could not run because the cage was too small.

angrysoba · 6th November 2012, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Not really. The punishments for a crime are not intended to make the perpetrator feel bad and remorseful. They are to meet a debt to society as a whole.

In this case consider the ramifications of the action. Put yourself in the position of workers at the zoo.

The child was ripped apart by the dogs. How would you be coping right now if you were the person who had to go into the pen and try to get the dogs off the baby? I would be psychologically traumatized in a very severe way. I am sure the workers are.
The animal that wouldn't get off the baby was killed
The visitors to the park that saw this happen were also traumatized
I would imagine that several children saw this happen and were also traumatized.
The child died a horrific death.
The zoo is now dealing with the fall out as well.

This "debt to society" argument doesn't work for me. With a debt somebody returns something or gives something in equal value. How will a traumatized kid who witnessed another kid being eaten by dogs by repaid in any way by a woman going to jail/being electrocuted or whatever other punishment you have lined up for her?

Originally Posted by truethat

So why are people only concerned about the mother?

I'm not "only concerned about the mother". This is a strawman argument of yours. I don't feel any deep sympathy or pity for her because I am not arguing about that aspect. I don't see any purpose in locking her up and can only wonder about the motivations of those who do want to see her locked up.

I Ratant · 6th November 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by manofthesea

The netting is meant to catch cameras and other items carelessly dropped by people. That doesn't include other people.

.
I bet a re-think is underway. There's more fools than there are foolproof ideas.

I Ratant · 6th November 2012, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

A coroner's inquiry would do the same thing.

I prefer to look at animals via a low fence. For dangerous animals like those dogs a moat to keep the animals away from the fence would be needed. It is just a pity that there are too many people like what are we talking about to make that not enough security.

Large animals need a large cage so sometimes no matter what the cage is made of sometimes you will not get a close up of the animal. Long gone are the days where an animal could not run because the cage was too small.

.
The Darwin Awardees that got et by those tigers at the SF Zoo showed that a moat or a high fence won't stop a pissed off tiger!

manofthesea · 6th November 2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
I bet a re-think is underway. There's more fools than there are foolproof ideas.

It's simple economics. How much more protection can the zoo afford?

Plus zoos nowadays provide petting zones with sheep, piglets, chicks, and other docile animals for small children.

Is there no personal responsibility now?

bookworm · 6th November 2012, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

There's a difference between that and deliberately placing your child in a dangerous situation, placing him outside of the safety features around. How can you not see this?

Not holding a four year olds hand near a train is still negligent. If you're going to take the harsh stance you have to do it across the board. Would it have changed your view if the kid had fallen on the tracks and been run over? I can then hear everyone saying "why was a four year old running free near a subway train?"

RedRatSnake · 6th November 2012, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
The Darwin Awardees that got et by those tigers at the SF Zoo showed that a moat or a high fence won't stop a pissed off tiger!

Agreed ~ Also the moat and deep pit thing don't work with stupid.

Edit : I'll share a quick account of what happen to me as a 4 yr old. Franklin Park zoo around 1965, I was at the mountain goat exhibit, at that time there was a huge metal fence maybe 10' tall in front of me, it had a base made of concert maybe a foot high, I can remember for some reason just jumping onto the fence like i was going to climb it or shake it, the goats ran over to me and started to grab my clothes through the fence so fast, they had my pants and my jacket around my stomach area, I can remember starting to yell and my parents and my grandparents all jumping to get me, i was kinda ripped away and my clothes were just a little torn, i was lucky they didn't get my fingers or foot.

Skeptic Ginger · 6th November 2012, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Wouldn't put my child boyeond safety features installed by zoo around dangerous animals encloseure ≠ perfect.

Would you put your child on the railings like that?

Do you have kids? Have you ever made a mistake that put them in danger whether the mistake had serious consequences or not?

Parents are human. Humans make mistakes.

6th November 2012, 09:58 AM	#161
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan Bookworm, I'll ask you the same question I asked Skeptic Ginger upthread. You say that this was a foolish mistake that led to a tragedy and shouldn't be prosecutable, correct? If that is the case, what WOULD be prosecutable? What could the mother have done to make this prosecutable short of throwing her child into the enclosure? If an investigation were done, and it was found that she has done irresponsible things in the past in regards to her child I would be more inclined to think she should be. Also, if it were found that she actually DID let the child stand there without holding him I would say she should be.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539

6th November 2012, 09:59 AM	#162
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan What kind of half-wit thinks that a large fall into a pack of wild dogs will do anything but kill the child? What simple minded lunatic will deliberately place their child in that much danger? Well, I would guess she was sure she was holding him tight enough that he wasn't going to fall.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539

6th November 2012, 10:03 AM	#163
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	Originally Posted by bookworm Well, I would guess she was sure she was holding him tight enough that he wasn't going to fall. She put the child over a safety fence. I don't care if she's got GI Joe's kung fu grip, the woman deliberately endangered her child by removing every safety feature put in place. What if she held the child up on the railings of a 31st story balcony and the kid wriggled out of her grip and fell. Is that acceptable? She was holding tightly to him, and she didn't mean to drop the kid, so this isn't prosecutable either? What about what MJ did? The point of these laws is that you aren't allowed to do something that will likely lead to the death of a child. Placing them past all the safety features installed around a wild dog pack would be pretty much a perfect example of this.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women" Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 6th November 2012 at 10:04 AM.

6th November 2012, 10:05 AM	#164
Quad4_72 AI-EE-YAH! Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: USA Posts: 5,830	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan She put the child over a safety fence. I don't care if she's got GI Joe's kung fu grip, the woman deliberately endangered her child by removing every safety feature put in place. What if she held the child up on the railings of a 31st story balcony? Is that acceptable? I mean, she's holding tight so what's the problem? The point of these laws is that you aren't allowed to do somethign that will likely lead to the death of a child. Placing them past all the safety features installed around a wild dog pack would be pretty much a perfect example of this. But remember the way the law works, as long as you learned your lesson you don't have to have any official punishment. That's how the law works right?
	__________________ Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken

6th November 2012, 10:06 AM	#165
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	I can't believe that people are willing to let this woman off because it might have been a one time thing. Well that's ok then. It was a one time lapse of judgement when I panicked and shot that man. Guess I shouldn't be prosecuted despite clearly committing a crime! ETA Disclaimer: I've never shot a man. I've never even held a real gun.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

6th November 2012, 10:09 AM	#166
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	Originally Posted by bookworm No, I wouldn't. But I also know I am not perfect and I've made plenty of stupid mistakes in my own life. I love the logic here. We excuse stupidity because "everyone does it" and so then we just suck it up and there are no consequences. Men can be very aggressive and accidentally hit a woman in the heat of an argument and severely injure the woman. It happens every day and it's called domestic violence. We prosecute this, we don't say "Hey look I've accidentally punched a woman in the face because I lost my cool and she was screaming in my face, it happens to the best of us." No if the woman was in the zoo and her husband punched her in the face for putting the child up on the ledge, he'd be cooling his heels in a jail cell right about now. But the "poor mother" who killed a person is a victim. Don't get me started on this double standard.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

6th November 2012, 10:10 AM	#167
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	Originally Posted by bookworm Well, I would guess she was sure she was holding him tight enough that he wasn't going to fall. Which is why he's dead.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

6th November 2012, 10:14 AM	#168
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	Originally Posted by anglolawyer Well, I did say prosecute. It happens every so often that a small child dies either in its paddling pool, or the neighbour's fishpond or when mum leaves it in the bath to answer the phone (coming back a minute later to find it face down - dead). These cases can all be assigned to GROSS NEGLECT if you want but they are still very unusual crimes, not to be classed with other offences within this category. I have in mind, for instance, industrial accidents resulting in death perhaps resulting from defective machinery, safety equipment or procedures. These things happen in the course of money making activity by businesses which are required by detailed laws to ensure a safe system of work. In fact, it is unusual for anyone to go prison in these corporate cases as finding a responsible individual can be difficult and as a matter of policy one does not want to petrify wealth-creating activity. In our case, the mother must face extreme social opprobrium, the ordeal of an inquest, a lifetime of remorse and guilt and probably prosecution and conviction. You really want to throw her in jail too? What if she has other kids to look after? Should they lose their mother so she can pay her debt to society. For my part I would be prepared, if not to write it off, then to accept token payment. But they are not unusual. The number one cause of accidental death in children is drowning. Not car accidents. http://health.usnews.com/health-news...ntal-death-cdc I don't want her to be thrown in jail. I want her to be prosecuted. Consider. If people were prosecuted for being caught leaving a child unattended at a pool, for breaching safety precautions in a park, they wouldn't put the child in the position in the first place. Ex. If you are caught driving with a child who is not in a car seat or wearing a seat belt you will be prosecuted. So people follow the safety precautions. If the mother knew if she got caught putting her child up there she could be arrested, she probably wouldn't have done it and the child would be alive.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Last edited by truethat; 6th November 2012 at 10:22 AM.

6th November 2012, 10:30 AM	#169
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Perhaps I'm just compassionate to a fault.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539

6th November 2012, 10:31 AM	#170
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	It depends, what is your attitude to the 31st floor hypothetical? Is it any different?
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

6th November 2012, 10:36 AM	#171
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan It depends, what is your attitude to the 31st floor hypothetical? Is it any different? No, I believe that was an equally stupid lapse in judgment. But I'm sure MJ just knew he wasn't letting that kid fall either. Just like the Dad who throws his kid up in the air is SURE he's catching him no matter what. Never thinking that maybe while that kid is up in the air someone may walk past him and trip and fall into him, making him stumble and miss the kid.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539

6th November 2012, 10:38 AM	#172
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	Originally Posted by bookworm Perhaps I'm just compassionate to a fault. Yep! Compassion is a very good thing. Of course we all feel compassion for this woman, she did a careless thing that will ruin her life. As parents we've all had that lucky near miss. I remember one time I was lugging my younger son down the stairs at the 42nd Street subway station in the stroller and my other son (four years old) ran ahead and there wasn't anything I could do but run like a maniac down the stairs to catch him. He ran straight out to the edge of the platform and leaned over to see if the train was coming and I pretty much had a heart attack. But that's not the same thing as me holding him out to see if the train was coming and having him hit by the train.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

6th November 2012, 10:48 AM	#173
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by truethat Yep! Compassion is a very good thing. Of course we all feel compassion for this woman, she did a careless thing that will ruin her life. As parents we've all had that lucky near miss. I remember one time I was lugging my younger son down the stairs at the 42nd Street subway station in the stroller and my other son (four years old) ran ahead and there wasn't anything I could do but run like a maniac down the stairs to catch him. He ran straight out to the edge of the platform and leaned over to see if the train was coming and I pretty much had a heart attack. But that's not the same thing as me holding him out to see if the train was coming and having him hit by the train. In my opinion it's FAR WORSE!!!! You endangered TWO children with your ill-considered and reckless conduct and EVEN WORSE THAN THAT you may have caused inconvenience to COMMUTERS!!! I hope you spend the rest of your life IN TORMENT now this has been explained to you

6th November 2012, 10:51 AM	#174
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by bookworm No, I believe that was an equally stupid lapse in judgment. But I'm sure MJ just knew he wasn't letting that kid fall either. Just like the Dad who throws his kid up in the air is SURE he's catching him no matter what. Never thinking that maybe while that kid is up in the air someone may walk past him and trip and fall into him, making him stumble and miss the kid. There was a Dad who delightedly held his child up on greeting him after a long absence. Unfortunately, Dad had just alighted from a helicopter and the rotor blades were still spinning and the child died.

6th November 2012, 10:52 AM	#175
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	duplicate post
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Last edited by bookworm; 6th November 2012 at 10:54 AM.

6th November 2012, 10:52 AM	#176
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by truethat But they are not unusual. The number one cause of accidental death in children is drowning. Not car accidents. http://health.usnews.com/health-news...ntal-death-cdc I don't want her to be thrown in jail. I want her to be prosecuted. Consider. If people were prosecuted for being caught leaving a child unattended at a pool, for breaching safety precautions in a park, they wouldn't put the child in the position in the first place. Ex. If you are caught driving with a child who is not in a car seat or wearing a seat belt you will be prosecuted. So people follow the safety precautions. If the mother knew if she got caught putting her child up there she could be arrested, she probably wouldn't have done it and the child would be alive. I agree. If the facts warrant it, prosecute. A life has been lost. I just wouldn't throw her in jail. Prosecution might even be cathartic.

6th November 2012, 10:53 AM	#177
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Originally Posted by anglolawyer There was a Dad who delightedly held his child up on greeting him after a long absence. Unfortunately, Dad had just alighted from a helicopter and the rotor blades were still spinning and the child died. My God. True? I've seen this happen with ceiling fans...luckily it was only a bump on the head.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539

6th November 2012, 10:54 AM	#178
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by bookworm My God. True? True

6th November 2012, 11:09 AM	#179
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,928	Originally Posted by anglolawyer True Examples(I love www.dogpile.com - from whence commeth my help!): http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoB...%203%20-En.pdf pages 8-10 and may be more.........
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,928	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

6th November 2012, 11:19 AM	#180
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by fuelair Examples(I love www.dogpile.com - from whence commeth my help!): http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoB...%203%20-En.pdf pages 8-10 and may be more......... My one is in there on p.10. Didn't know dogpile was still going.

6th November 2012, 11:30 AM	#181
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	The news today says the kid fell into the safety net, and bounced out into the dog exhibit. The zoo needs to slacken off on the tightness of all of their nets to a less trampoline-like configuration.

6th November 2012, 11:53 AM	#182
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,928	Originally Posted by anglolawyer My one is in there on p.10. Didn't know dogpile was still going. Still going strong - and still beats the feces out of Goobull
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,928	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

6th November 2012, 12:20 PM	#183
anglolawyer Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: surrey, england Posts: 3,224	Originally Posted by fuelair Still going strong - and still beats the feces out of Goobull Is it worth, like, billions? Or dog biscuits?

6th November 2012, 12:41 PM	#184
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539	Originally Posted by truethat Yep! Compassion is a very good thing. Of course we all feel compassion for this woman, she did a careless thing that will ruin her life. As parents we've all had that lucky near miss. I remember one time I was lugging my younger son down the stairs at the 42nd Street subway station in the stroller and my other son (four years old) ran ahead and there wasn't anything I could do but run like a maniac down the stairs to catch him. He ran straight out to the edge of the platform and leaned over to see if the train was coming and I pretty much had a heart attack. But that's not the same thing as me holding him out to see if the train was coming and having him hit by the train. I would say it's a matter of perspective, in that case. Some might say you were just as criminally negligent because you should have been holding his hand. After all, you knew that 4 year olds are unpredictable, right? And you also knew there was a train down there.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 539

6th November 2012, 12:42 PM	#185
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by WildCat There should be criminal charges on the parent who put the kid up there. African wild dogs are nasty nasty nasty, basically eat their prey to death. I can't tell you how much I agree. This stupid bint needs charges of second or third degree murder and first degree stupidity.
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

6th November 2012, 12:48 PM	#186
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354	Originally Posted by I Ratant The news today says the kid fell into the safety net, and bounced out into the dog exhibit. The zoo needs to slacken off on the tightness of all of their nets to a less trampoline-like configuration. The netting is meant to catch cameras and other items carelessly dropped by people. That doesn't include other people.
manofthesea 2wu4u Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,354

6th November 2012, 12:50 PM	#187
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,112	Originally Posted by bookworm I would say it's a matter of perspective, in that case. Some might say you were just as criminally negligent because you should have been holding his hand. After all, you knew that 4 year olds are unpredictable, right? And you also knew there was a train down there. There's a difference between that and deliberately placing your child in a dangerous situation, placing him outside of the safety features around. How can you not see this?
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz "the captain gives the order to osedlání/ he drives the horses to the groin/ There on the lunch/waiting women"

6th November 2012, 12:50 PM	#188
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	Originally Posted by anglolawyer My one is in there on p.10. Didn't know dogpile was still going. You're thinking of dogfart.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

6th November 2012, 01:01 PM	#189
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Sometimes the animals breathe on the glass then write messages. Last time I was at the zoo, a baboon did so, and he advised me to invest in stock index funds. Two monkeys and stock options. That adds some lightness to the discussion.
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

6th November 2012, 01:06 PM	#190
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by DragonLady I always want to puke when I see parents holding squirmy kids over the barriers at the Boulder Dam. But I've seen it more than once, so I guess the parents don't think it's too risky. That is just it. Many parents just don't think. They are too often involved mentally with other things like their cell phones or food or whatever to be thinking about what they are doing with their squirmy kid.
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

6th November 2012, 01:10 PM	#191
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	Originally Posted by Nosi That is just it. Many parents just don't think. They are too often involved mentally with other things like their cell phones or food or whatever to be thinking about what they are doing with their squirmy kid. And frequently when they do think it's about how they can shrilly demand that the rest of us change our behavior so they can go back to being too preoccupied with something other than their own kid.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

6th November 2012, 01:17 PM	#192
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	Originally Posted by truethat It really irks me when people say "Haven't they suffered enough!" If an employee had done the same thing they would have been arrested. Why are children treated like "possessions" of parents rather than people who have rights that need to be the same as anyone elses. 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. I cannot stand the lack of logic people have when looking at this. If you took the emotional woo out of the equation the woman caused the death of another person. Crime. The demand that babies and kids sit in the backseat out of sight has in my opinion been *partly* responsible for the hot car issue. I believe that technology can help responsible parents address the problem. One such is have the baby or baby seat wear an alarm that squeals on the parent's keyring letting said parent know baby is in the car. The baby seat model will squeal if there's weight on the seat. The baby model will squeal if baby is a certain number of feet away from the key chain. Irresponsible parents? Slam them to the wall.
Nosi Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,731	__________________ __________ Hiding from the

6th November 2012, 02:14 PM	#193
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,179	Originally Posted by casebro The zoo will want her prosecuted just to relieve the zoo of some liability. Gross negligence and a $1 fine would do. A coroner's inquiry would do the same thing. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger And with a fence or cage it isn't? The glass allows people to have a close up view of an awake animal. Yes, it's a zoo. And perhaps for some people an image capture that looks like the animal is in the wild when everyone knows it's in a zoo is their important issue. I love the close ups. I'll take a close up through glass any day over a clearer view of an animal too far away to see very well. I'm guessing with a zoom lens one can get that closeup, on a monitor or in print. I prefer to look at animals via a low fence. For dangerous animals like those dogs a moat to keep the animals away from the fence would be needed. It is just a pity that there are too many people like what are we talking about to make that not enough security. Large animals need a large cage so sometimes no matter what the cage is made of sometimes you will not get a close up of the animal. Long gone are the days where an animal could not run because the cage was too small.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

6th November 2012, 03:48 PM	#194
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,517	Originally Posted by truethat Not really. The punishments for a crime are not intended to make the perpetrator feel bad and remorseful. They are to meet a debt to society as a whole. In this case consider the ramifications of the action. Put yourself in the position of workers at the zoo. The child was ripped apart by the dogs. How would you be coping right now if you were the person who had to go into the pen and try to get the dogs off the baby? I would be psychologically traumatized in a very severe way. I am sure the workers are. The animal that wouldn't get off the baby was killed The visitors to the park that saw this happen were also traumatized I would imagine that several children saw this happen and were also traumatized. The child died a horrific death. The zoo is now dealing with the fall out as well. This "debt to society" argument doesn't work for me. With a debt somebody returns something or gives something in equal value. How will a traumatized kid who witnessed another kid being eaten by dogs by repaid in any way by a woman going to jail/being electrocuted or whatever other punishment you have lined up for her? Originally Posted by truethat So why are people only concerned about the mother? I'm not "only concerned about the mother". This is a strawman argument of yours. I don't feel any deep sympathy or pity for her because I am not arguing about that aspect. I don't see any purpose in locking her up and can only wonder about the motivations of those who do want to see her locked up.

6th November 2012, 03:58 PM	#195
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by manofthesea The netting is meant to catch cameras and other items carelessly dropped by people. That doesn't include other people. . I bet a re-think is underway. There's more fools than there are foolproof ideas.