ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics 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 6th November 2012, 02:48 AM   #121
Ts4EVER
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 151
The zoo really should have done more, like for example putting some kind of dangerous animal in there to scare people from putting their children on any railings... oh wait

Last edited by Ts4EVER; 6th November 2012 at 02:49 AM.
Ts4EVER 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 6th November 2012, 04:17 AM   #122
Soapy Sam
NLH
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,094
I have watched African wild dogs hunt on several occasions in East Africa. They are impressive and admirable cooperative hunters. I liked them and was frankly, frightened by them in a way no other animal, including wolves and hyaenas has ever scared me. Killer whales come closest. Or humans of course.
I don't know that the mother would have achieved much beyond her own injury or death, by jumping in after her child, especially as she might have been injured by the drop itself. Several people would certainly have been able to drive the animals off, but who knows what goes through the heads of highly intelligent, cooperative pack hunters in a prison context, where they are wholly dependant on their jailers for food?
Maybe to them this was literally an offer of food.

I have wondered why Africans never domesticated Lycaon pictus. It seems like such an obvious choice.
Soapy Sam 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 6th November 2012, 04:35 AM   #123
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 14,476
Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
Several people would certainly have been able to drive the animals off, but who knows what goes through the heads of highly intelligent, cooperative pack hunters in a prison context, where they are wholly dependant on their jailers for food?
Maybe to them this was literally an offer of food.
It seems they had to shoot one of the dogs which "got aggressive" when they approached it. So, it isn't clear they could have cleared it away even with some of the superheroes on this thread who would have jumped down into the enclosure.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
I have wondered why Africans never domesticated Lycaon pictus. It seems like such an obvious choice.
Probably because they are dangerous?
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 04:44 AM   #124
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,597
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
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.
Authorities indeed may hesitate to prosecute the mother in such traumatic and tragic circumstances. However, I have no doubt whatsoever, that they will prosecute the Zoo owners/managers to the fullest extent of the Law if they find the slightest breach of any safety code or standard.

To me, this seems something of a double standard.
smartcooky 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 6th November 2012, 05:26 AM   #125
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Authorities indeed may hesitate to prosecute the mother in such traumatic and tragic circumstances. However, I have no doubt whatsoever, that they will prosecute the Zoo owners/managers to the fullest extent of the Law if they find the slightest breach of any safety code or standard.

To me, this seems something of a double standard.
It's not so straightforward as I thought. Thinking about the zoos I have visited there have been plenty of exhibits I could have got into if I really wanted. And I don't want to look at animals through glass or bars. It seems virtually impossible for the zoo to get it right. If everything is behind glass I may as well stick to watching natural history programmes on TV but if the animals are exposed to some extent some nut or foolish person is going to do something dumb sooner or later (as a quick search on YouTube will verify).

There are regulations governing this kind of thing. It shouldn't be possible, for example, to have a cage through which the public can stick their arms and have them bitten off. In Amsterdam you can if you want climb over a waist high barrier and then put your fingers through the mesh separating you from the big cats, which would probably get a kick out of biting them off.

On the other hand, I have it from a genuine Pittsburgher that she has wondered about the safety of this particular exhibit before, which makes you think.
anglolawyer 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 6th November 2012, 05:45 AM   #126
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,733
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Authorities indeed may hesitate to prosecute the mother in such traumatic and tragic circumstances. However, I have no doubt whatsoever, that they will prosecute the Zoo owners/managers to the fullest extent of the Law if they find the slightest breach of any safety code or standard.

And they probably should. Those standards are not much use if they are not enforced. Determining the culpability and intent of an individual is sometimes less clear-cut, as this thread has demonstrated.

Quote:
To me, this seems something of a double standard.

It is, in a way, but it is also one which is (if you'll excuse the expression) inherent in the system.

Juries are comprised of humans, and prosecutors are compelled to deal with this reality. There is no point for them to devote resources to attempting a prosecution which they do not think they can win.

Just as in this thread, members of a jury can be swayed by the human element of this sort of event. And it only takes one out of twelve for a mistrial.

A business, OTOH, doesn't get that sympathy effect. If anything the opposite is true.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 05:57 AM   #127
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,733
Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
<snip>

I don't know that the mother would have achieved much beyond her own injury or death, by jumping in after her child, especially as she might have been injured by the drop itself.

<snip>

The mother ... or anyone else.

Would-be rescuers make up a startling percentage of the victims of accidents. It is a sad truth which is drummed into first responders of all types ... EMT, cops, firemen, lifeguards, even construction workers.

Unfortunately it isn't taught enough to the people who need to know it the most, the untrained bystander with good intentions.

The people who work with those dogs on a daily basis were unwilling to just rush in. There's a reason for that caution, and it should be recognized by the chest-pounding Internet Tough Guy crowd.

(Although it probably won't be.)
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 07:07 AM   #128
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,250
Not sure if anyone had posted this yet:
Quote:
The head of the Pittsburgh Zoo says a medical examiner has concluded that a toddler who fell into an African painted dog exhibit Sunday was killed by the animals, not by the fall.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...painted%20dogs

I just can't even imagine.

And then this:
Quote:
Police said the child lost his balance after his mother lifted him in a standing position onto the 4-foot-high wooden railing of an elevated
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...xhibit-660660/

According to that, the child "Lost his balance", which to me means that the mother was not holding onto him at all. If that is the case, that is just flat out gross negligence/child endangerment, and she should be imprisoned.

__________________
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
Quad4_72 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 6th November 2012, 08:04 AM   #129
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,025
Odd that it seems more and more like criminal gross negligence the more we hear isn't it?

Not really. Any moron who places their child on top of a safety fence around a wild animal enclosure is grossly negligent already, that they are also stupid enough not to hold on to their child in that position isn't shocking to me at all.
__________________
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 6th November 2012, 08:23 AM   #130
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Not sure if anyone had posted this yet:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...painted%20dogs

I just can't even imagine.

And then this:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...xhibit-660660/

According to that, the child "Lost his balance", which to me means that the mother was not holding onto him at all. If that is the case, that is just flat out gross negligence/child endangerment, and she should be imprisoned.

I doubt whether there is any punishment which will measure up to what she is going through already and I fail to see what good a period of imprisonment will do. Deterrence? Forget it. No other parents will think it's OK to put their children in harm's way when they see how she 'got away with it'. Rehabilitation? Forget that too. She got rehabilitated in the split second she saw her child fall away from her to his death (and what happened after that, which I shall not attempt to describe). Retribution? That's what those calling for punishment seem to want. She's gotta pay for what she did. You can bet she'll pay every day of her life. If she doesn't jump under a tram it will be a miracle.
anglolawyer 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 6th November 2012, 08:24 AM   #131
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,355
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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.
I've been irked by the "They've suffered enough!" argument for years and couldn't find a way to verbalize it and you pretty much hit the nail on the head, it treats the parents as the victims instead of the child.
__________________
- 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 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 6th November 2012, 08:30 AM   #132
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,355
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
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.
And worse the case we're discussing seems to be more akin to "I purposely put Johnny in the road and a car hit him!"

She didn't "let" her child play on a railing above a pit of wild dogs.... she put him up there!
__________________
- 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; 6th November 2012 at 08:32 AM.
JoeBentley 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 6th November 2012, 08:50 AM   #133
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,733
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I doubt whether there is any punishment which will measure up to what she is going through already and I fail to see what good a period of imprisonment will do. Deterrence? Forget it. No other parents will think it's OK to put their children in harm's way when they see how she 'got away with it'. Rehabilitation? Forget that too. She got rehabilitated in the split second she saw her child fall away from her to his death (and what happened after that, which I shall not attempt to describe). Retribution? That's what those calling for punishment seem to want. She's gotta pay for what she did. You can bet she'll pay every day of her life. If she doesn't jump under a tram it will be a miracle.

I have a certain agreement with this sort of attitude, but it is weakened by the way it seems so selectively applied. Somehow it's usually when it's mothers or other figures society traditionally places on a pedestal.

When it's (for example) a teenager who makes a mistake that will haunt them for the rest of their lives there seems to be more of a "make an example out of 'em" response, even if the circumstances are similar ... a stupid mistake they wouldn't ever make twice.

If this woman had been a nanny or au pair I suspect the sympathy vote would be less vigorous. Even though it is not fair to assume that she would be any less devastated by the tragedy than a birth mother..

Last edited by quadraginta; 6th November 2012 at 08:52 AM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 09:02 AM   #134
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I have a certain agreement with this sort of attitude, but it is weakened by the way it seems so selectively applied. Somehow it's usually when it's mothers or other figures society traditionally places on a pedestal.

When it's (for example) a teenager who makes a mistake that will haunt them for the rest of their lives there seems to be more of a "make an example out of 'em" response, even if the circumstances are similar ... a stupid mistake they wouldn't ever make twice.

If this woman had been a nanny or au pair I suspect the sympathy vote would be less vigorous. Even though it is not fair to assume that she would be any less devastated by the tragedy than a birth mother..
Over here (England) court's take full account of the youth of defendants and we even have special youth courts and punishments which reflect this. I do not suggest for one second btw. that your point is not well made, only that the example may not be the best.

All sorts of nefarious things are or have been treated leniently by society, such as white collar crime for instance, or inappropriate male behaviour toward females whether in the workplace or within marriage.

A nanny or au pair (or a teacher on a school outing) would deserve less sympathy, being responsible for someone else's child and not subject to the same life sentence of remorse and grief that would be peculiar to the mother-child relationship. Is there a closer bond anywhere in nature? Call me soft-headed but this seems to make a difference.
anglolawyer 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 6th November 2012, 09:11 AM   #135
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
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.....
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.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 6th November 2012 at 09:15 AM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 6th November 2012, 09:21 AM   #136
Soapy Sam
NLH
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,094
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Probably because they are dangerous?
Yes, but so were wolves. I imagine the wild dogs, like grey wolves, will vary in their willingness to associate with humans. You would think, given Man's long time in Africa, we would have "acquired" a highly social predator into our gang.
Maybe I'm canomorphising(!?). These are not canids. We call them "dogs" and see vaguely dog-like behaviour, but I suppose that's silly. They are not dogs. They're not even wolves. They're different.
Soapy Sam 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 6th November 2012, 09:33 AM   #137
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I doubt whether there is any punishment which will measure up to what she is going through already and I fail to see what good a period of imprisonment will do. Deterrence? Forget it. No other parents will think it's OK to put their children in harm's way when they see how she 'got away with it'. Rehabilitation? Forget that too. She got rehabilitated in the split second she saw her child fall away from her to his death (and what happened after that, which I shall not attempt to describe). Retribution? That's what those calling for punishment seem to want. She's gotta pay for what she did. You can bet she'll pay every day of her life. If she doesn't jump under a tram it will be a miracle.
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.



So why are people only concerned about the mother?
__________________
“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; 6th November 2012 at 09:42 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 6th November 2012, 09:44 AM   #138
quadraginta
What was the question?
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 9,733
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
<snip>

A nanny or au pair (or a teacher on a school outing) would deserve less sympathy, being responsible for someone else's child and not subject to the same life sentence of remorse and grief that would be peculiar to the mother-child relationship. Is there a closer bond anywhere in nature? Call me soft-headed but this seems to make a difference.

I don't agree with this presumption. Many caregivers develop bonds as close as or even closer than those of the natural parents. It is common enough that it has become a worn out literary device in many media. There is no basis for discounting the intensity of a relationship on nothing other than the existence or degree of consanguinity.

With respect, I find myself in agreement with the description "soft-headed". This is the sort of idealized wishful thinking which makes it difficult for the average person to believe that parents ... mothers as much as fathers ... are the most likely perpetrators of violent death for small children.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2012, 09:46 AM   #139
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
This is exactly what I am talking about and why it sets a dangerous precedent. What is to stop a mother who is trying to kill her kid from doing the exact same thing and then faking devastation. How many times have we seen that in the news?
__________________
“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; 6th November 2012 at 10:13 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 6th November 2012, 09:47 AM   #140
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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 zoo is now dealing with the fall out as well.



So why are people only concerned about the mother?
I don't think people are only concerned with the mother. There is a discussion here about what happens to her. I accept all your points about the traumatic consequences but do you suggest anyone is likely to be more traumatised than the mother? Or to be coping for longer?

I am aware of theories of deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution as theoretical justifications for punishment. I guess 'paying one's debt to society' comes into the third category, which is the most dubious of the three imho. It implies that the criminal must suffer some corresponding detriment to that which they have caused by their crime, and you list a lot of the types of harm which have likely been caused here. What I suggest is that the mother, uniquely, is the one person likely to suffer the most and most prolonged detriment almost regardless whether she is further punished by society.

Of course, the mother may be callous, she may be a careless drug addict, she may have lost several other children through neglect etc. These things would make a difference, but assuming a normal mother with normal feelings, whose moment of irresponsibility or carelessness or gross negligence (call it what you like) caused her child's death, I wonder whether she has and will suffer enough not to warrant retributive 'eye for an eye' style justice to be meted out. Prosecute, sure, as a mark of disfavour, but sentence her to some kind of extended probation and/or community-based punishment. She will repent at leisure anyway.
anglolawyer 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 6th November 2012, 10:09 AM   #141
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I don't think people are only concerned with the mother. There is a discussion here about what happens to her. I accept all your points about the traumatic consequences but do you suggest anyone is likely to be more traumatised than the mother? Or to be coping for longer?

I am aware of theories of deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution as theoretical justifications for punishment. I guess 'paying one's debt to society' comes into the third category, which is the most dubious of the three imho. It implies that the criminal must suffer some corresponding detriment to that which they have caused by their crime, and you list a lot of the types of harm which have likely been caused here. What I suggest is that the mother, uniquely, is the one person likely to suffer the most and most prolonged detriment almost regardless whether she is further punished by society.

Of course, the mother may be callous, she may be a careless drug addict, she may have lost several other children through neglect etc. These things would make a difference, but assuming a normal mother with normal feelings, whose moment of irresponsibility or carelessness or gross negligence (call it what you like) caused her child's death, I wonder whether she has and will suffer enough not to warrant retributive 'eye for an eye' style justice to be meted out. Prosecute, sure, as a mark of disfavour, but sentence her to some kind of extended probation and/or community-based punishment. She will repent at leisure anyway.
I consider propping your three year old child up on a ledge regardless if there were wild animals below, GROSS NEGLECT. And I see parents get away with this all the time.

There is a tendency in society to constantly paint women as victims (which I won't go into here but I have mentioned before) and this bias is detrimental to society as a whole.


Example

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...ot_to_death_in

Quote:
Holly Pallone told cops she accidentally shot little Anthony Pallone Jr. while she was trying to remove the bullets from a gun that wasn't hers that she didn't know how to unload. Sadly, the gun fired, and the baby boy took a gunshot right in the middle of his forehead. So the gun killed the child, but more importantly, a woman who didn't know how to use a gun allegedly killed the child.
Recent example from my friend who is visiting Harry Potter World. She posted this three days ago.

Quote:
I must be a tish over protective. Teddy (possibly 2) is wandering around alone at the pool. When he got into the pool his parents turned their backs and have yet to see where he is. I am having a nervous breakdown and he is not my child. he was also climbing on rocks and had to be removed from them by the staff THREE times. And nothing will ever happen to them...crazy!!!!
My sister once ruined a brand new phone by walking directly into a pool when she showed up with her daughter because a child was drowning left unattended. She instinctively went straight into the pool with her clothes and everything and pulled out the kid. The mother was buying hot dogs. The child was three years old. This is a different story than the quote above.
__________________
“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; 6th November 2012 at 10:18 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 6th November 2012, 10:11 AM   #142
casebro
Philosopher
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,467
The zoo will want her prosecuted just to relieve the zoo of some liability. Gross negligence and a $1 fine would do.
__________________
Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts.

Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them.

It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.
casebro 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 6th November 2012, 10:15 AM   #143
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,025
In what way are the zoo at all liable for this?
__________________
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 6th November 2012, 10:21 AM   #144
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
To suggest that the mother uniquely will suffer the most consequence is not logical at all. It is an emotional statement. I have seen plenty of mothers in my life time (my own mother included) who do not care about their children at all.
__________________
“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 6th November 2012, 10:22 AM   #145
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Not sure if anyone had posted this yet:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=...painted%20dogs

I just can't even imagine.

And then this:
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...xhibit-660660/

According to that, the child "Lost his balance", which to me means that the mother was not holding onto him at all. If that is the case, that is just flat out gross negligence/child endangerment, and she should be imprisoned.

I wouldn't just believe what I read in a newspaper. I seriously doubt she let go of a 2 year old on an angled railing. Newspapers always seem to put the worst possible spin on things. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the angle of the (possibly still slick, since it's been raining) railing contributed to the child's feet slipping. If you see pics of those railings, it would be extremely difficult to stand on them so I'm sure the mother was holding 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 6th November 2012, 10:23 AM   #146
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by anglolawyer View Post
I doubt whether there is any punishment which will measure up to what she is going through already and I fail to see what good a period of imprisonment will do. Deterrence? Forget it. No other parents will think it's OK to put their children in harm's way when they see how she 'got away with it'. Rehabilitation? Forget that too. She got rehabilitated in the split second she saw her child fall away from her to his death (and what happened after that, which I shall not attempt to describe). Retribution? That's what those calling for punishment seem to want. She's gotta pay for what she did. You can bet she'll pay every day of her life. If she doesn't jump under a tram it will be a miracle.
Exactly.
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 6th November 2012, 10:38 AM   #147
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
This is exactly what I am talking about and why it sets a dangerous precedent. What is to stop a mother who is trying to kill her kid from doing the exact same thing and then faking devastation. How many times have we seen that in the news?
Sorry, I find the idea of punishing a bunch of parents for the accidental death of their child to deter a few people from killing their child pretty despicable.
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 6th November 2012, 10:41 AM   #148
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Just seems to me there are alot more perfect people in this world than I ever imagined.
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 6th November 2012, 10:43 AM   #149
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,025
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Just seems to me there are alot more perfect people in this world than I ever imagined.
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?
__________________
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 6th November 2012, 10:45 AM   #150
truethat
Penultimate Amazing
 
truethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,866
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Sorry, I find the idea of punishing a bunch of parents for the accidental death of their child to deter a few people from killing their child pretty despicable.
It's not about "punishing the parent" it's about enforcing responsibility. Children are in the precarious position of being at the mercy of the responsibility of the parent.

People who don't consider that a "person" lost their life here are coming from a blind spot.

If the woman had propped up a 20 year old cerebral palsy student in her field trip up on that wall and he fell in I think you would have an entirely different perspective.
__________________
“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 6th November 2012, 10:45 AM   #151
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
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?
No, I wouldn't. But I also know I am not perfect and I've made plenty of stupid mistakes in my own life.
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 6th November 2012, 10:46 AM   #152
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,250
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Sorry, I find the idea of punishing a bunch of parents for the accidental death of their child to deter a few people from killing their child pretty despicable.
The accidental death was due to gross negligence which could have been prevented by doing the obvious right thing. If Michael Jackson had accidentally dropped the child when he dangled him over the railing, do you think he would be deserving of punishment? I mean it was just an accident, right? He surely learned his lesson, 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
Quad4_72 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 6th November 2012, 10:48 AM   #153
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
It's not about "punishing the parent" it's about enforcing responsibility. Children are in the precarious position of being at the mercy of the responsibility of the parent.

People who don't consider that a "person" lost their life here are coming from a blind spot.

If the woman had propped up a 20 year old cerebral palsy student in her field trip up on that wall and he fell in I think you would have an entirely different perspective.
Since we don't know this person it's hard to say how responsible she generally is. Perhaps this was a complete aberration from her normal demeanor. And since none of us is perfect, who are we to say?
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 6th November 2012, 10:48 AM   #154
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,025
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
No, I wouldn't. But I also know I am not perfect and I've made plenty of stupid mistakes in my own life.
Letting go of their hand is a stupid mistake. Losing sight of them while they play outside is a stupid mistake.

Deliberately putting them in a dangerous position is not.
__________________
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 6th November 2012, 10:50 AM   #155
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,250
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
Letting go of their hand is a stupid mistake. Losing sight of them while they play outside is a stupid mistake.

Deliberately putting them in a dangerous position is not.
It's called child endangerment, which is punishable by a prison sentence. You are correct, that is not just a stupid mistake.
__________________
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
Quad4_72 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 6th November 2012, 10:52 AM   #156
bookworm
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 568
Not all people are worldwise. Believe it or not, the obvious dangerousness of some things that most of us see clear as day, doesn't even occur to some people. For example, do you really think that all young people are born knowing that someone can die from being in a hot car? I bet you'd be very surprised to learn how many people that wouldn't even occur to.
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 6th November 2012, 10:54 AM   #157
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,025
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?
__________________
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 6th November 2012, 10:55 AM   #158
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,250
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Not all people are worldwise. Believe it or not, the obvious dangerousness of some things that most of us see clear as day, doesn't even occur to some people. For example, do you really think that all young people are born knowing that someone can die from being in a hot car? I bet you'd be very surprised to learn how many people that wouldn't even occur to.
Ignorance is not an excuse for committing crimes.
__________________
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
Quad4_72 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 6th November 2012, 10:55 AM   #159
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,025
Originally Posted by bookworm View Post
Not all people are worldwise. Believe it or not, the obvious dangerousness of some things that most of us see clear as day, doesn't even occur to some people. For example, do you really think that all young people are born knowing that someone can die from being in a hot car? I bet you'd be very surprised to learn how many people that wouldn't even occur to.
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?
__________________
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 6th November 2012, 10:55 AM   #160
anglolawyer
Philosopher
 
anglolawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,756
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I consider propping your three year old child up on a ledge regardless if there were wild animals below, GROSS NEGLECT. And I see parents get away with this all the time.

There is a tendency in society to constantly paint women as victims (which I won't go into here but I have mentioned before) and this bias is detrimental to society as a whole.


Example

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...ot_to_death_in



Recent example from my friend who is visiting Harry Potter World. She posted this three days ago.



My sister once ruined a brand new phone by walking directly into a pool when she showed up with her daughter because a child was drowning left unattended. She instinctively went straight into the pool with her clothes and everything and pulled out the kid. The mother was buying hot dogs. The child was three years old. This is a different story than the quote above.
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.
anglolawyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics 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 07:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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