Pittsburgh Zoo death...

[mrsklamc]

I remember this being discussed here; Some wondered if the mom had set her son on the railing, this clarifies it a bit:

http://news.msn.com/us/mother-avoids-charges-after-dogs-kill-son-at-pittsburgh-zoo-1

Here's the part about the article I just can't believe though:

The child may have believed there was a Plexiglas barrier as he appeared to lunge forward, the prosecutor said.

The kid was TWO. He didn't 'believe there was a plexiglass barrier.' He just doesn't understand gravity, or dangerous wild animals!

 

[luvmy3]

His mother, Elizabeth Derkosh, 34, had lifted him on top of the railing to give the boy with poor eyesight a better view. Holding him by the waist, she lost control, Zappala said. The child may have believed there was a Plexiglas barrier as he appeared to lunge forward, the prosecutor said.

She lost control and they are still determining if the zoo is at fault? Sorry, she put her 2 year old up on a railing, didn't have a good enough grip on him and he fell. Totally her fault.

 

[MrsDuck]

She lost control and they are still determining if the zoo is at fault? Sorry, she put her 2 year old up on a railing, didn't have a good enough grip on him and he fell. Totally her fault.

Agreed.

A tragic situation but mom is still the one who made the mistake. Not the zoo.

 

[jrmasm]

I see no point in charging the mother so I'm glad that didn't happen. But I really hope they don't sue the zoo now that she wasn't charged.

 

[happygirl]

She lost control and they are still determining if the zoo is at fault? Sorry, she put her 2 year old up on a railing, didn't have a good enough grip on him and he fell. Totally her fault.

 

[mrsklamc]

It was pretty well discussed in the other thread by people who have been to this zoo that it was entirely the mother's fault. The new details were that she did have her hands on him and he 'lunged' forward.

I just question a prosecutor who thinks a two year old knows that a glass barrier makes him safer.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

I also see that there is no point in charging the mother. She lifted the kid up and stood him on the railing, then she couldn't hold onto him.

Had she not lifted up the child and stood him on the railing, he would not have fallen into the enclosure. From those who have been there, there are plenty of signs warning against climbing on the railing, so I'm not sure how foreseeable it would be that someone would lift their kid up and put them on top of the railing. She just thought she could keep hold of her kid, and she was mistaken.

Not sure how the prosecutor knows what a 2 year old is thinking. Not sure about the involvement of the prosecutor, are they considering charging the zoo with a crime? Manslaughter, really? I would still bet there's a big civil suit coming up.

 

[FireDancer]

Yeah, I am not surprised the mom isn't being charged but I don't think the zoo should be held liable either. I will be sad to see the zoo get fined and I will be appalled if the family tries to sue them though I haven't heard any indication of that as of yet. It was an easily preventable tragedy and only the mother is to blame. Not the zoo and surely not the dogs, one of which was killed because of doing what it does naturally.

 

[kate_wdw]

What a sad story. The part about her lifting him up because he had poor eyesight really broke my heart.

 

[EMom]

There IS a point to charging the mother. More than one, actually.

Prosecuting a person for actions such as this sends a message to the community. Do something as incredibly stupid as this and not only will you endanger your child, you may lose your freedom. It's up to the jury to decide if the defendant has suffered enough or if what they did was so jaw dropingly bad that they want to put all parents/caregivers on notice. Whether you agree with this approach or not, the "send a message" school of thought is often considered by prosecutors.

Also, if the mother was prosecuted (and especially convicted), it would pretty much kill ANY chance she has of suing the zoo and winning/getting a settlement. For this reason especially, I think she should be charged.

 

[EMom]

What a sad story. The part about her lifting him up because he had poor eyesight really broke my heart.

Ummmm......I always just lifted DD up on my hip so she would see at my height. Of course, since I barely cleared 5 feet, that wasn't a huge help. But what's wrong with holding your kid so they can see better?

 

[sunshinehighway]

Yeah, I am not surprised the mom isn't being charged but I don't think the zoo should be held liable either. I will be sad to see the zoo get fined and I will be appalled if the family tries to sue them though I haven't heard any indication of that as of yet. It was an easily preventable tragedy and only the mother is to blame. Not the zoo and surely not the dogs, one of which was killed because of doing what it does naturally.

If they zoo gets fined or any blame is placed on the zoo, it will probably help the family decide to sue. I don't think she should be charged. She's lost more than anyone ever should but, if any blame is placed on the zoo it takes her blame away.

I can't even imagine the guilt she lives with. Putting blame on the zoo could easily give her an excuse to turn that guilt into anger and sue the zoo. Sort of a "sue them to prove it wasn't my fault" type of thing.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

I don't understand how lifting him up higher would help him see better because his eyesight is bad. Does it really bring him that much closer to make a difference?

I agree that a 2 yr old has no concept of anything to do with plexiglass.

And I'm torn about prosecuting the mother. I remember a case many years ago where parents were taking their sick child to the emergency room, with the child sitting on her mother's lap, and they got in an accident and the child died. IIRC, they considered charging, or did charge, the parents for not having the child seatbelted (as was the LAW), but in the end, the parents got off. I feel sorry for the parents having lost a child, but I absolutely believe they should have been held responsible for breaking a law which ultimately led to the death of their child. I mean, when do you hold a parent responsible for not having their child restrained in a car...only when they child DOESN'T get hurt or killed?

 

[kate_wdw]

But what's wrong with holding your kid so they can see better?

Nothing. It's sad to think that this poor child was visually impaired and that his mother, out of a sweet and understandable impulse, ending up doing something that contributed to his death.

I really don't understand the urge to vilify this mother. She did something stupid and ended up paying the ultimate price.

Many parents have, at one time or another, done something or failed to do something, that could have potentially cost their children their lives (lost control of a hand in a parking lot, given kids unsupervised access to water, thrown a kid in the air). But most get lucky. She didn't.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

People lift their kids up onto railings when they aren't supposed to all the time, and it has nothing to do with the kids "poor eyesight". Heft them onto your hip where they belong. If memory serves me correctly, they put signs up that state do not put kids on the railing.

 

[LisaR]

I don't understand how lifting him up higher would help him see better because his eyesight is bad. Does it really bring him that much closer to make a difference?

I agree that a 2 yr old has no concept of anything to do with plexiglass.

And I'm torn about prosecuting the mother. I remember a case many years ago where parents were taking their sick child to the emergency room, with the child sitting on her mother's lap, and they got in an accident and the child died. IIRC, they considered charging, or did charge, the parents for not having the child seatbelted (as was the LAW), but in the end, the parents got off. I feel sorry for the parents having lost a child, but I absolutely believe they should have been held responsible for breaking a law which ultimately led to the death of their child. I mean, when do you hold a parent responsible for not having their child restrained in a car...only when they child DOESN'T get hurt or killed?

In your car accident example, the parents actually broke the law. In the zoo example, the mother disregarded the signs, but no laws were broken. I'm on the side of not charging her in this situation. I'd prefer to leave room in our prison systems for mothers who set out to kill their child so they can go on to have a "beautiful life."

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

I don't think she should be charged, she's going to punish herself for the rest of her life for a moment's poor decision.

Let's face it people, who of us hasn't made a boneheaded decision or other with our kids? She just got caught out. I feel for her and the family. What a tragic thing to have to live with.

 

[sissy_ib]

In your car accident example, the parents actually broke the law. In the zoo example, the mother disregarded the signs, but no laws were broken. I'm on the side of not charging her in this situation. I'd prefer to leave room in our prison systems for mothers who set out to kill their child so they can go on to have a "beautiful life."

My husband and I were talking about this earlier. In our minds it is negligence and child endangerment. However we don't work for any state agencies that deal with this sort of thing but that is just our opinion.

 

[shinysparklybubbles]

The kid was TWO. He didn't 'believe there was a plexiglass barrier.' He just doesn't understand gravity, or dangerous wild animals!

Seriously. We were in the shark tunnel at our aquarium and my 3 year old whacked his head on the tunnel as he leaned into to see the fish better. First thing out of his mouth was "why is there glass there?!" So if my kid didn't realize there was a giant fish tank all around him keeping him dry, this 2 yr old didn't think there was a barrier.

 

[LisaR]

My husband and I were talking about this earlier. In our minds it is negligence and child endangerment. However we don't work for any state agencies that deal with this sort of thing but that is just our opinion.

In my opinion, it is plain old stupidity. I've seen people do the exact same thing at other zoos, from high places like hiking trail bridges, over large bodies of water, etc. Thankfully, most are able to hang on to their kid. We can't prosecute everyone that is stupid or there wouldn't be any room left in the prisons.