Author Topic: Parents sue Pittsburgh Zoo over toddler's mauling death even when it was THEM.  (Read 3763 times)

At least the dogs ate well

and you all know that everyone is going to over react to this and it is going to end up just like Gritty Grapnel or columbine. everyone, quick, overreact for 2 weeks then no one give a stuff about it afterwards!

Anyways, I bet you that child is in a better place now, and is watching the animals and his/her parents and smiling.

that 'better place' doesnt exist. im sorry
 :cookieMonster:

At least the dogs ate well
you are a richard.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 09:16:31 PM by Pass »



We should ban zoos.
Might as well ban Pittsburgh while you're at it

also, the mother already feels extremely guilty, she's doing this to try to spread the blame away from herself
that's how this kind of thing works
And blaming others while trying to get money out of it totally makes it okay.

I must say, the mother must feel awful. I mean, seeing her kid get torn up by vicious dogs? God, I can't even contemplate how scared, confused and painful the boy felt in the situation, it's surreal. And his mom watched it.

But again, suing the zoo? Goddamnit, NO.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 09:32:36 PM by Acerblock »

At least the dogs ate well
Go die in a pit with fire.

It'll be like hell, before you go to hell.

At least the dogs ate well
Ok forget you, forget you hard.

zoos cause school shootings

This is crap. Thousands of people go to zoos yearly and aren't eaten by animals. Very few parents drop their children into animal pits. Do the math.

dat stuff cray cray  :cookieMonster:

God's not reeeallll
Reference or not, you sound like an starfish for reason of nobody pointing it out beforehand.

bull loving stuff
that 'better place' doesnt exist. im sorry
 :cookieMonster:

Go forget yourselves.

Even in a regular topic that had nothing to do with a death, you'd still be seen as going out of your way to be a richard to someone because you don't share their belief.

Now; based on the story, I'd say the parents are more at fault, a fence was placed there to keep people outside of the enclosure, not create a "stand" for the parents to rest their children atop.

And while one could probably say the zoo employees did not mind this fact; I'd think it still lies more on the parents to at least have sufficient handling of the child, it isn't like the employees encouraged it or instructed the parents in any way.

You can't really blame the parents for suing the zoo. The zoo isn't at fault for anything, but you have to look at it from the parent's viewpoint.

Their child is dead, he's gone gone forever and there's nothing they can do about it. There's really no closure or compensation for them if they never filed a lawsuit.  Think about that.

They're trying to pin the blame on the zoo because they don't want to believe, or do not believe they're at fault.

This isn't some small blame of any sort either; it is a child's death.

The area in which a persons actions are considered innocent to some degree is sort of a grey area in this case, but ultimately, it is what it is, blame for a very serious crime is being placed on an innocent.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2013, 05:53:13 AM by Conservative »

At least the dogs ate well
it is destined
that you die from african wild dogs

Plot twist:
She pushed the child over the railing because they can get a new one in a year and desperately need money.