So you believe the safety inspections cover every possible way for a child to enter? Doesn't this case actually prove that inspections are not fullproof?

 

No, it proves that the Zoo took every reasonable and rational measure to prevent this from happening.

Why is that illogical? If their safety procedures are up to current standards, then why would the zoo be held liable?

If they are up to current standards, then the standards suck.

So you believe the safety inspections cover every possible way for a child to enter? Doesn't this case actually prove that inspections are not fullproof?

 

If there is an overseeing body who determines whether or not the zoo and its exhibits are safe, the zoo cannot be held accountable if that body says the zoo is up to code. The issue would have to be with whoever decides that the zoo is safe. JMO.

If they are up to current standards, then the standards suck.

 

Is that the Zoo's fault? Also, talking to a friend who has worked their several years, he said that it would have taken a concerted effort for the kid to get in the cage, and would have taken more than a few seconds for him to be able to do so. If this was an adult that did this, the person would be criminally charged and would likely be facing serious jail time.

As hoops said, these exhibits are designed to keep the animals in, not to keep humans out.

Is that the Zoo's fault? Also, talking to a friend who has worked their several years, he said that it would have taken a concerted effort for the kid to get in the cage, and would have taken more than a few seconds for him to be able to do so. If this was an adult that did this, the person would be criminally charged and would likely be facing serious jail time.

 

So your friend is saying this "concerted effort" involved adults?

Is that the Zoo's fault? Also, talking to a friend who has worked their several years, he said that it would have taken a concerted effort for the kid to get in the cage, and would have taken more than a few seconds for him to be able to do so. If this was an adult that did this, the person would be criminally charged and would likely be facing serious jail time.

A 3 year old did it. How hard could it be...

So your friend is saying this "concerted effort" involved adults?

 

How could you possibly get that from what I posted?

A 3 year old did it. How hard could it be...

 

I didn't say it was hard, I said it took a concerted effort, meaning, for some of you who seem to be lost on this, that the kid set out to get into the cage. This was not a result of him falling into the cage or the result of a damaged or sub par safety barrier.

So your friend is saying this "concerted effort" involved adults?

 

I get it now. I wrongly used "concerted". I should have said determined effort.

How could you possibly get that from what I posted?

 

I guess when I read/hear "concerted effort" I assume more than one involved.

 

You're saying it couldn't happen easily and quickly?

I guess when I read/hear "concerted effort" I assume more than one involved.

 

You're saying it couldn't happen easily and quickly?

 

Exactly. The kid bypassed numerous obstacles designed to keep people out. Those security obstacles had been inspected "frequently" and determined to be adequate/ up to current standards. If this was an adult, there would be criminal charges and jail time. Because this is involves a child, the parents assume the responsibility for the child's actions.

Exactly. The kid bypassed numerous obstacles designed to keep people out. Those security obstacles had been inspected "frequently" and determined to be adequate/ up to current standards. If this was an adult, there would be criminal charges and jail time. Because this is involves a child, the parents assume the responsibility for the child's actions.

 

Again, it's a 4 yr old child. I'd say "obstacles" is a bit overstated.

I didn't say it was hard, I said it took a concerted effort, meaning, for some of you who seem to be lost on this, that the kid set out to get into the cage. This was not a result of him falling into the cage or the result of a damaged or sub par safety barrier.

So basically you're saying a bottle of Flintstone vitamins has better safety measures than this gorilla exhibit.

Again, it's a 4 yr old child. I'd say "obstacles" is a bit overstated.

 

If you think that the standards for Zoo security are to lax, maybe you should petition to be on the board that determines where the standards are set.