Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Child mauled to death by African painted dogs at Pittsburgh Zoo Read more: http://www.post-gazette. [View all]magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Therefore this is the last I'll be writing to you.
1. You're right. "The mom was not holding her child over the balcony of a high rise building to show her adoring fans."
You have mom confused with Michael Jackson. The mom was not holding her child at all. She stood a toddler -- an age *known* to topple over frequently and easily due to still learning balance and walking -- on a railing. And expected that toddler to be able to balance on a railing on his own.
Had she been holding her child, when he lost balance she could have pulled him in toward her and averted this tragedy.
2. Laws and rules are designed for reasonable people. A reasonable person would not have done what that mother did. She very likely broke zoo rules by standing her toddler on the railing. Certainly she broke every rule of common sense. I can't think of a person I know, including developmentally disabled or brain damaged, who wouldn't have seen the inherent danger in her actions.
3. She had other options than standing her child on the railing. She could have taken him to another exhibit where he could see more easily. She could have held him with his back against her and both arms securely wrapped around him and let him look over the railing.
She chose instead to do something incredibly foolish. My neighbor had a wrap around deck overlooking the ravine that their house is built out of. If a visitor to their house stood their toddler on the 4' railing around that deck and the child fell off the railing, down the ravine and broke his neck, the neighbor would not be found at fault. This is no different. The zoo followed the rules. The mother did not follow rules or common sense. Sadly, with such incredibly poor judgement, that toddler was likely doomed even if he never was taken to a zoo.