UPDATE: Cincinnati Police Zero In On Parents in Zoo Incident

[avebury]

Last edited Tue May 31, 2016, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Update:

http://www.tmz.com/2016/05/31/cincinnati-zoo-cops-investigating-parents-gorilla/

Cincinnati police are zeroing in on the parents of the 3-year-old boy who fell into Harambe the gorilla's enclosure ... a strong sign they could still be charged with a crime.

Cincy PD says they are reviewing "the actions of the parents/family that led up to the incident." Cops make it clear they're NOT focusing on the Cincinnati Zoo -- since that falls under the United States Department of Agriculture's jurisdiction.



=========

It will be interesting to see what will be their findings. I would guess that the mother might have more to be concerned about then the zoo.


http://www.wlwt.com/national/cincinnati-police-investigating-zoo-incident/39804108

Cincinnati police are investigating the incident at the city's zoo last weekend in which a child entered a gorilla enclosure, the local prosecutor's office said.

A 3-year-old boy managed to get into the enclosure and was dragged across a moat by the 450-pound gorilla. After a 10-minute encounter, the Cincinnati Zoo shot and killed the gorilla, named Harambe. The boy was not seriously injured.

"The Cincinnati Police Department is reviewing the circumstances surrounding the incident with the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo," police spokeswoman Tiffaney Hardy said.

"After the review, we will determine if charges need to be brought forward. If it is determined charges need to be brought forward, we would then discuss it with the Hamilton County prosecutor's office."

It was not immediately clear whether the investigation will focus on the zoo or the boy's mother, who was with the boy at the time.

[LanternWaste]

1. The Cincinnati PD should read DU.

The police should simply read posts on DU. A handful of posters directly imply absolute knowledge of what happened and what should have happened, in addition to a pure and righteous knowledge of who specifically is to blame.

[moriah]

2. I've noticed.

Along with a ton of religion, fertility shaming, and slut-shaming for her daring to have four children and actually try to take them out for a fun day, then having the reflexive response to thank God for her son living through what otherwise could have been a tragedy.

And racism, lots of it.

It's sickening.

[LisaL]

5. Otherwise could have been a tragedy?

So an endangered animal killed isn't enough of a tragedy for you?

[moriah]

42. The tragedy is caging higher primates at all, there.

They do not belong in zoos, labs, nor do any primates, even New World monkeys, belong as pets.

They belong in the wild where they can live natural lives. He may not have meant to cause the human child a concussion. His actions might have not harmed a young gorilla at all.

But even a higher primate vs a child? Yes, I'm going to choose the child's life. I wish they'd done more to solve it less lethally, that goes without saying.

[avebury]

6. Instead of four of her own kids it could have easily been a group

of kids from the daycare that she worked at. It is not unreasonable to suggest that any adult taking a group of children out in public have backup to make sure that all children are adequately supervised. Would you feel so sympathetic towards her if it had been your child that was with her that went into the gorilla moat?

Most rational adults would find it difficult to watch a group of children all by themselves. The fact that she also works at a daycare would lend mot people to believe that she should be even more aware of what it takes to keep track of a number of children because parents leave their children at that daycare every day with the expectation that the kids will be in one piece at the end of the day.

My issue with the whole situation may be summarized as follows:

1. I don't care who the children belong to, one woman cannot safely manage 4 children by herself in an environment full of distractions.

2. You cannot expect young children to have impulse control and it doesn't matter how many times you tell a child not to do something, some kids will look you right in the eye and do it anyway. The child issued multiple red flag warnings which the mother failed to take seriously. That is why adults should be in control not children.

3. The mother's apparent lack of good old fashioned common sense. She didn't take at least one other adult with her and she took her eyes off the only kid with her who wanted to dive into the gorilla moat. She has changed her story about what she was doing at least once to try to make herself look not that bad.

4. The mother failed to acknowledge that she did play a role in the tragedy. She could have said something along the lines of I will never forgive myself for turning away for a moment and as a result my child was hurt. I feel so bad that a beautiful animal was killed as a result of what happened. A lot of the public backlash that has landed or her like a ton of bricks is a result of her failure to take ownership of the role she played in the events. Her reaction was along the range of "Accidents happen, thank God for saving my son's life. You can see how well her statements went over with the public. She came across as totally clueless.

People need to take responsibility for their actions, plain and simple.

[REP]

8. Excellent points, clearly stated

I think everyone would be far more sympathetic about the first three things if she had acknowledged her part in the incident and expressed thanks for the safe return of the child as well as at least some regret for the death of one of the very few remaining lowland gorillas on this planet.

I think it's safe to assume that parents know their children and can predict their behavior, especially when they're young and have stated that they're going or want to do something, and how they react to being told "no." I would also assume that at least one other mother has come to that exhibit with several young children and left with all of them intact in the 38 prior years that there have been no problems at that exhibit.

[kiva]

15. These are all reasons, to me,

to say that the mother shares a substantial amount of the blame...and dad, if he had been there.

Every parent of a 'runner' that I've knows has been aware by the time the child is three that they have an escape artist on their hands and compensate - harnesses or extra adults or not going somewhere if they don't have some sort of help. Instead this woman decided to take four children - one a runner - to a crowded public place without another adult.

I agree that had she made some attempt to acknowledge her own role in this I would have some sympathy, but her "accidents happen" attitude makes her look like a self-absorbed and insensitive idiot.

[moriah]

45. Ever thought that was because she had already been getting hatemail? Nt

[melman]

47. Your basing that on

what? I mean besides your imagination.

[moriah]

49. The fact that she acknowledged people were blaming her already in the original FB posting.

Look, I'm sad that any primate had to die that day, but regardless of if the zoo will be required (or choose) to update their barriers and methods for de-escalation when a person is far more negligent and actually holds the kid up over the railings, like happened in my hometown, those exhibits are terrible.

I think higher primates in zoos are treated cruelly enough by being taken out of their natural habitats and peer groups that those particular exhibits should not exist at all, or if they do only because of having no other home for a gorilla that was bred in captivity or taken from its mother and can never re-integrate, they should be protecting ALL the primates better.

Including our todflers, but also the primates from our kids and kids in adult bodies being unruly, teasing, taunting them...

[kiva]

50. I could be wrong on the timeline,

but my understanding was that no one in the public sphere knew her identity until she outed herself on Facebook, then presumably one or more of her FB friends made her identity public. While she was getting a lot of negative publicity from the beginning, it was anonymous criticism until she chose to self-identify.

By that point she and her partner should have been able to come up with at least a sentence or two indicating that she recognized that she had a substantial piece of responsibility for what happened.

[moriah]

52. My last word on this, because this subject is making me too.angry, having known...

... too many children who died from accidents that, while in hindsight everything is 20/20, the parents were acting reasonably.

There are two types of parents who have raised a kid -- ones who will admit they lost track of them at least once, and liars.

[moriah]

43. Okay, then when you want to go pass laws about how many children women can have in public....

.... and how much supervision is required for personal (not just zoos, but malls, any place where a child could get lost or hurt) errands per child, go write your congressman and make it law.

The fact was, this wasn't a daycare outing, and there are other employees at the daycare -- she doesn't run it, she works there.

[liberalhistorian]

41. Well, of course she's being

slut-shamed and fertility-shamed. She is not, after all, a member of a white fundy family. Like, say the Duggars.

[moriah]

44. I said earlier that four kids is hardly clowncar status. Nt

[Sherman A1]

3. Good

This is what should happen.

[trumad]

4. Yep...

Wonder if they'll find the zoo negligent?

[avebury]

7. The Gorilla World Exhibit had been in place for 38 years

with no incidents until Saturday.


http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/05/30/usda-review-gorillas-death-zoo-look-safety-exhibits/85165924/

Gorilla World's barrier setup exceeds required protocols and has been in place for 38 years without incident, Maynard said. Exhibits are inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture twice a year and by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums every five years for accreditation, he said.

"The exhibit is safe, the barrier is safe," he said. "The zoo was not negligent."

[trumad]

9. So should they fix the barrier so a 4 year old can't climb through it?

Simple question: Yes or no?

[avebury]

16. Yes for one simple reason -

The zoo now knows that they cannot rely upon all parents/adults providing proper supervisions of the children under their charge.

With a 38 year clean record it demonstrates that the majority parents/adults do a good job supervising their charges. But now they have to make adjustments for the adults who exhibit poor judgement. Once again society has to protect children when parents fail to do so.

Just imagine if this had been a daycare field trip and it was your child that went into the gorilla moat and was injured because the adult in charge failed to keep track of your child. How much support do you think the woman would have received in that situation. The parent would be suing the day care.

It is a matter of responsibility. If an adult cannot properly supervise the children under his/her care then the adult should either a) not take them to a public highly distractive environment or b) get the number of adults necessary to make sure that they remain safe. This is not an unreasonable expectation. I cannot tell you how many field trips that my mother chaperoned (and also volunteered a friend to help who didn't even have kids in my class). I have a co-workers who, if one of their kids have a field trip, will take the day off from work to help chaperone. Most parents deem safety a high priority when it comes to their children.

[trumad]

33. You said yes..

Well there you go.

[avebury]

38. Police investigationis focusing on parents

http://www.tmz.com/2016/05/31/cincinnati-zoo-cops-investigating-parents-gorilla/

Cincinnati police are zeroing in on the parents of the 3-year-old boy who fell into Harambe the gorilla's enclosure ... a strong sign they could still be charged with a crime.


Cincy PD says they are reviewing "the actions of the parents/family that led up to the incident." Cops make it clear they're NOT focusing on the Cincinnati Zoo -- since that falls under the United States Department of Agriculture's jurisdiction.

[mythology]

34. Simple question, yes or no

Should cars not be able to go more than 5 miles an hour since car accidents claim tens of thousands of lives a year, many of them children? We would save tens of thousands of lives with that change. Simple right?

Your question isn't simple, it's simplistic and displays a stunning lack of depth in understanding of just how infrequently this happens. The Cincinnati zoo set a record attendance in 2009 of 1.2 million visitors. So let's say over the last 38 years, they averaged 750,000 visitors to account for population growth. That gives a total of 28,500,000 visitors over 38 years. One of them managed to defeat the barrier. 1 out of 28.5 million. That is a hell of a safety record.

The parents didn't watch their kids well enough. They got lucky and the gorilla paid the price. The barrier was enough to stop millions of visitors over the years. It's not the barrier's fault. It's the parents and their lack of paying attention and personal responsibility.

[Blue_Tires]

11. Does anybody have an actual photo of the barrier and where the child got in?

[LisaL]

22. They are not investigating the zoo, which they have made crystal clear.

So, no, they will not find the zoo negligent.

[braddy]

10. Normally a zoo letting a 3 year old in with Gorillas, would be sued, they would not blame the 3 year

old and his mother.

[avebury]

12. The problem with this country these days

is that people are not willing to take responsibility for their actions (or lack there of ) and want to blame someone else. The mother showed a gross lack of judgement thinking that she can managed 4 young children in a public area that is chock full of distractions. She should have had at a minimum one more adult with her. Would it have been the zoo's fault if all the children went in separate directions? What would the mother do if they had all taken off in different directions? Adults have a duty to act responsibly when they have children in their care. There is no way that you can give the mother a pass because her lack of judgement created a situation where the little boy could dart off and do exactly what he told her he was going to do. She had ample notice of his intent and she did absolutley nothing to stop him. Telling the boy no doesn't count. You cannot expect a 4 year old to have impulse control. That is why you have adults in charge of children. Had the child never said a peep about his desire to get into the gorilla exhibit I probably would be willing to cut her some slack. But the fact is that she did have notice.

Due to the contributory negligence on the part of the mother I would never vote in favor of the family if they were to sue the zoo. The zoo had a spotless 38 year record where the Gorilla exhibit is concerned.

"Normally a zoo letting a 3 year old in with Gorillas, would be sued." Where was it ever said that the zoo allowed the 4 year old in with the gorillas? Where was it ever said that the zoo was notified that the 4 year old wanted to go in with the gorillas? With a 38 year spotless record what would make the zoo think that a carless mother would create a situation where a 4 year old could get close enough to even enter the gorilla enclosure?

The mother was given several notices of the boy's intent, the zoo was not. The zoo never gave the child permission to play with the gorillas. In fact what the child did could be deemed tresspassing at a minimum or even harrassing an endangered animal (which in some places is often in and of itself a crime). While you couldn't charge a minor child, parents are legally liable for the actions of their children.

I don't find any fault with the zoo. The did the best they could with a bad situation.

[braddy]

13. Normally a zoo letting a 3 year old get inside the Gorilla exhibit would be sued by the parents

that goes for these black parents as well.

We will just have to watch how the case goes, already the feds are looking into this.

[avebury]

17. The problem with your theory is that the zoo did not let the

4 year old in to the gorilla exhibit. The child tresspassed when he entered an area where the public is not allowed. The zoo had a 38 year clean record where the gorilla exhibit is concerned in which nobody ever attempted to enter the exhibit. This demonstrates that most adults are responsible in monitoring children under their care at the zoo. They would have had no reason to think that a parent would at minimum, show a total lack of common sense and keep hold of a child who repeatedly talked about going into the exhibit to play with the gorillas.

For the zoo to allow the child entry into the gorilla exhibit would be contingent upon the zoo being given prior notice of the child's intent and taking an active action in concurrence with the boy's actions. They did neither.

The mother, on the other hand, had ample notice of the boy's intent and failed to act in a responsible manner and is thus complicit in the death of an endangered animal.

The zoo will not take additional actions to safeguard the gorillsa in the exhibit because, yes, there are actually stupid people out there.

[braddy]

18. LOL, sure, the 3 year old was trespassing into the zoo's Gorilla display, I don't think the jury

will rule against the 3 year old and the mother.

[avebury]

19. You cannot in any way shape or form say that the zoo allowed

the boy into the exhibit because that denotes consent which was never granted. With a 38 year spotless record, the zoo failed to take into account that idiots do exist and that some parents fail to actually parent and control their children. I don't blame the zoo for the fact that idiots do exist. I blame a society that fails to hold adults accountable for their actions when they fail in their job to take care of children under their care. How many times do you see gun owners charged when they leave loaded guns around, a child gets ahold of the gun and shoots/kills himself/someone else? Rarely because people go oh what a tragedy instead of holding the idiot who left the loaded gun out in the first place liable for his negligence.

If that child had been adult you had better believe that he would be facing charges (unless he failed a psych eval). Why should the mother get a pass just because the kid is 4 years old? That makes it worse. An adult know better, a 4 year old has not matured enough to understand the consequnces of his actions. His mother failed him and he paid the price.

[braddy]

20. A mother turns her head for a second and a 3 year old is in with the gorillas?, there will be

repercussions, and they won't be against the 3 year old who within a couple of seconds, penetrated their protections with adults all around him and trying to grab him.

[avebury]

25. If the kid keeps telling you that he wants to go play with the gorillas

no sane parent would turn their back on that kid. That is asking for trouble, which she got in spades.

If you tell a 4 year old no do you really expect that we will listen? You can't count on that. A kid that young cannot be counted on to have impulse control.

You can say whatever you want but that will not change the facts.

1. The kid made is intentions well known not only to his mother but those around him.
2. She knew, she failed to take appropriate action.
3. And Mom says "Accidents happen." How can you claim it is an accident when you knew what the boy wanted to do?

I cannot get past the fact that she knew what the boy wanted to do and yet turned her back on the boy. A rational person wouldn't have done that. A tragedy occured that did not have to happen. There is reall nothing to discuss.

[braddy]

27. LOL, you sure have it all wrapped up, why do you keep calling him a 4 year old?

[avebury]

30. I thought they corrected his age to 4. If it is

actually 3 then that cements my position. A 3 year old cannot be expected to understand consequences now would he have impulse control. He would be more apt to be a runner. What could possibly go wrong?

I have a friend whose younger boy is 4 and has no fear of anything. If you tell him not to do something he would look at you with a twinkle in his eye and grin on his face and then do it anyway. If I heard him say what that boy said you had better believe that I would't take my eyes off of him. It is a miracle that he hasn't broken a limb --- yet. Parents need to pay attention and act accordingly.

[tblue37]

53. I think you meant "now," rather than "not." nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

21. What does being black have to do with it?

Didn't even know they were African American until about twenty minutes ago when I see DU has decided to declare it an issue. I couldn't tell the kids race from the grainy brief footage I saw and when I posted her Facebook babble yesterday I didn't see her picture.

[braddy]

23. You say DU has declared her race as being an issue, I didn't know that.

I do know that the normal situation for a 3 year old getting in with the gorillas and almost killed, would mean the zoo gets sued, instead this black 3 year old and his mother are being blamed for the death of a gorilla.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

24. There was zero discussion of the family's race until today

....and people were still blaming the mom yesterday and the day before....

[braddy]

26. Actually it was brought up since at least Sunday when there was a thread on it, and how

it would have been different if the mother and child were white.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. Funny, because there were posts yesterday saying

"If the mother was black she'd have been arrested by now"

So apparently a number were like me and didn't know or assumed they were white.....

[braddy]

29. Why are you telling me all this, I'm not interested.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

31. Because you just acted like everyone knew they were black....

....and were basing opinions on it!

I have/had very strong opinions on it mainly yesterday and I did not know the family was black until today. And they haven't changed one damn bit! The zoo, bad parents and humanity has failed nature once again!

Have a good day.

[braddy]

32. I have no idea what you know or don't know, you are the one who posted to me.

[Coventina]

14. Thank you. Said much more eloquently than I.

This story is aggravating in the extreme.

Horrific that taking care of children is not just her duty as a mother, but others actually PAY HER believing that she is a reputable professional caregiver!!

[mythology]

35. Millions of people have visited the zoo and they haven't had an issue in 38 years

Not until this kid showed up. If the barrier worked for millions and millions of people, but not this one, it's not the barrier that's defective. It's the parents and their lack of responsibility for their kids.

[braddy]

36. Something may have changed over the years, until we learn more we don't know, but we do

know that something is wrong when a 3 year old is in with the gorillas before the adults standing around him can grab him.

This wasn't a 14 year old boy, or an adult, this was a 3 year old.

[kwassa]

37. The barrier shouldn't require parents to be responsible.

It should work on it's own.

[maxsolomon]

58. should every barrier be child-proof? adult-proof?

10 feet of plexi topped with spikes?

it wasn't designed to PREVENT access. it was designed to hold the crowd back from the edge, provide a bit of greenery to calm the animals, and still allow prime viewing.

the spacing of the verticals was <4", so the kid couldn't go through it. regardless, the kid "flopped" over the rail in a flash. the kid is an idiot and a demonstrable danger to himself. by rights, he should have died - from the fall or from the gorilla. even 10 years ago, he probably would have - I doubt they'd have pulled the trigger so quickly in a less litigious era.

this reminds me of people saying the WTC should have been built to withstand jet airline impacts.

[kwassa]

61. Every barrier should be child-proof. Adults should be on their own ...

[maxsolomon]

62. So how high should it be then? 36" is obviously inadequate.

42" is the current standard at any change in grade >30". That's easily climbable by a 4 year old. 60"? that's deer-fence height, but now there's people that can't see over it.

Its like removing all diving boards from pools because one kid breaks their neck diving off a pier into a lake. Or the TSA making us all take our shoes off, again and again. Its an over-reaction, and ruins everyone else's fun.

[roamer65]

59. Bingo.

You da winner!

It is the obligation of anyone entering that enclosure to be highly respectful and responsible, whomever they may be. That means small children need to be highly supervised in it. It is NOT a "Playland" at McDonalds.

[me b zola]

39. Right?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the witch hunt for the mother. I like most people am sickened my the death of the Ape. But this hatred for the mother has so much in common with the rwers view of the world.

It seems to me that the onus lies with the zoo to prevent a toddler~or older~~from falling or climbing into the enclosure. If an adult had climbed into the enclosure on purpose, would they have not shot the Ape? Under what circumstances would they have allowed the Ape to live? If the climber was a drunk adult, would they have just sat there if the ape was ripping the drunk's limbs off? If it had been an adult who somehow fell, what about that?

I don't like that on a progressive message board that some here are ready and willing to ruin this mother's life.

[braddy]

40. Wasn't this the same weekend that more than 700 people drowned from a single boat?

Yet this 3 year old and his mom are the obsession for the week.

I notice that the person who posted this thread removed his opinion that the mother is in trouble with the law.


"""It will be interesting to see what will be their findings. I would guess that the mother might have more to be concerned about then the zoo."""

[pnwmom]

46. I agree. And I read that the accreditation board will be inspecting the zoo

enclosure for violations that could have led to this.

I think the police have just announced this in response to the outcry, and it's ridiculous.

[librarylu]

51. Thank you

A witch hunt on the mother will not bring Harambe back.

I had four kids and accidents even when I was standing right there watching. They all survived but it's a wonder how. I'm not sure I did.

Is anyone concerned the kid may develop PTSD? Will he have learned what "No, you're not" means from all this?

[Jim Beard]

55. Thank you for your reasonable post.

[sendero]

48. No jury...

.. that has actually raised multiple children will convict her.

The level of idiocy surrounding this event is astounding.

[Jim Beard]

56. I agree

[gollygee]

54. I'm curious about why they'd investigate someone who wan't there. Nt

[Jim Beard]

57. Very good point

[dembotoz]

60. 3 yr olds are short little things and he prob could not see over the railing and bushes etc

so the 3 yr old did what 3 yr olds do.....tried to get a better look
so lets condemn the mom for having a kid that is curious

the display was not designed for 3 yr old sight lines
shit you can not think of everything....

the animal paid with his life, lets not add to the pounds of flesh we desire to take