Remember the Pittsburgh Zoo example of retarded parenting?

HiTempguy wrote:

nocones wrote: There does not seem to be evidence that the woman was actively trying to place her child in the cage by circumventing all possible prevention methods.

That's actually exactly what the lady did. Personally, if I was the owner of the zoo, I'd just close up shop. "This is why you can't have nice things, shiny happy people". Your arguments are circular logic, and as pointed out everywhere, there is only one inevitable end (bubble wrapped and not allowed to go outside). Of course, I'd institute a waver policy that just like in motorsports, people sign their lives away as soon as they enter.

Exactly.... just don't look at the man behind the curtain. You put your child in a dangerous position and they died. You berkeleyed up. The only person to blame is yourself. IMO, your ass should have been locked up for Child Endangerment LAST YEAR.

People don't go to the zoo to see tame house cats and puppies. They know that what they are seeing are wild animals. How you would think that accidentally dropping your child into a cage with a pack of wild dogs would not end in death is inconceivable to me. You know that the rail is there to keep you from falling to your death. Yet you ignore that and put your child above that rail unprotected.

I'm sorry.... how your sorry ass hasn't gotten locked up I'll never know.

cutter67 wrote: .......the mother tried to jump down to the pit but she was restrained by other people........

so is she suing those other people too?

AngryCorvair wrote:

cutter67 wrote: .......the mother tried to jump down to the pit but she was restrained by other people........

so is she suing those other people too?

I wondered that as well, but didn't want to go there.

yamaha wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote:

cutter67 wrote: .......the mother tried to jump down to the pit but she was restrained by other people........

so is she suing those other people too?

I wondered that as well, but didn't want to go there.

I will. Hell... I'm already a terrible person.

4cylndrfury wrote:

I can't believe a thread with "retarded" in the title went six whole pages before someone called trolling.

And now this happened

I couldnt love grm the magazine more, and I dont like being the pc police, or the guy who has a problem with everything, but I do have a problem with this...

I have a problem with overly sensitive people. But you don't see me complaining.....

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I can't believe a thread with "retarded" in the title went six whole pages before someone called trolling.

It had a good run, but the title was to refresh everyones mind on what it was about......

In all honesty, trying to profit over your mistake that killed your child isn't even remotely what I would consider "retarded" at this point. I can think of a few other choice words/phrases that would more accurately describe her.

Dayumn. Musta been a LOT of unreported deaths/injuries in this exhibit.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/05/23/parents-sue-pittsburgh-zoo-over-mauling-death/

PITTSBURGH (KDKA/AP) – The parents of a 2-year-old boy who was fatally mauled after falling into a wild African dogs exhibit last fall have sued the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium, claiming officials had ample warning that parents routinely lifted children onto a rail overlooking the exhibit so they could see better.

The lawsuit filed Thursday in Common Pleas Court on behalf of Jason and Elizabeth Derkosh seeks unspecified damages in the Nov. 4 death of their son, Maddox.

According to the paperwork, Maddox was at the zoo last November for zoo school. The suit includes pictures from the visit.

The boy fell from a wooden railing after his mother lifted him up to get a better look at the African Painted Dogs.

In all, Maddox had more than 220 injuries.

According to the lawsuit, other zoos across the country have more and better safeguards in place to keep children safe while viewing the dogs.

The suit goes on to argue not only did the zoo fail to protect Maddox, but every other visitor to the African Painted dog exhibit.

The lawsuit claims the zoo’s management was warned before the tragedy, by at least one employee, that parents would lift their children to see the viewing enclosure “at least ten” times every day.

The suit claims that employee was told, “This is not your concern, go back to work.”

Philadelphia-based attorneys representing the family say the suit based on: •A litany of institutional lapses in exhibit design, safety and security. •Zoo management ignored warnings. •Zoo lacked an adequate emergency response plan.

The zoo released a statement saying, “We are unable to comment on any pending legal case.”

Curious. What are the parents seeking? A buttload of money?

Or, are they suing the zoo, to make them put up better safeguards around their animal exhibits?

In reply to RealMiniDriver:

*Undisclosed damages........which 99.9% of the time means buttloads of money

This has brought out the worst in people. I'm sorry, make that embarrassed, to be a part of this board sometimes. Congratulations to all of you who are without sin.

Never called for this before, but lock this bitch, before more stupid leaks out.

Teh E36 M3 wrote: Congratulations to all of you who are without sin.

Nobody here but us "non-hanging children dangerously over drop offs" people!

I'm going to find these people and release wild dogs in their homes.

Lawyers too.

E:

Teh E36 M3 wrote:

This has brought out the worst in people. I'm sorry, make that embarrassed, to be a part of this board sometimes. Congratulations to all of you who are without sin.

Never called for this before, but lock this bitch, before more stupid leaks out.

Sorry, but no.

This is someone who did something pants on head retarded, caused the death of her child THROUGH HER OWN NEGLIGENCE, and decided someone else had to pay for her berkeleying mistake.

It's akin to a drunk driver suing someone they hit because clearly the other person should have known better to be on the road while drunky was E36 M3faced.

Teh E36 M3 wrote: This has brought out the worst in people. I'm sorry, make that embarrassed, to be a part of this board sometimes. Congratulations to all of you who are without sin. Never called for this before, but lock this bitch, before more stupid leaks out.

Please go back and read my post where I said I do idiotic things all the time. I am far from "without sin", and make no claim to be.

But my mistakes are MY mistakes, not somebody else's.

You guys have shown me how wrong i was looking at this. This woman was a unfit parent, she has to be retarded, she is no better than some drunk that runs people over. You guys are right the zoo shouldnt have torn down the exhibit they should of left it the way it was there was no problem with it if bad parents wanted to pick up their kids to show them the animals and dropped them so be it............. thanks again for showing me how i had this all wrong and my vote goes to throwing her in with the dogs she deserves that

cutter67 wrote: You guys have shown me how wrong i was looking at this. This woman was a unfit parent, she has to be retarded, she is no better than some drunk that runs people over. You guys are right the zoo shouldnt have torn down the exhibit they should of left it the way it was there was no problem with it if bad parents wanted to pick up their kids to show them the animals and dropped them so be it............. thanks again for showing me how i had this all wrong and my vote goes to throwing her in with the dogs she deserves that

And so, the internets was made a better place today with the help of the GRM board; spreading the cure of personal responsibility, one dickish post at a time

glad you finally understand what 7 pages of BS has been trying to convey to you

cutter67 wrote: You guys have shown me how wrong i was looking at this. This woman was a unfit parent, she has to be retarded, she is no better than some drunk that runs people over. You guys are right the zoo shouldnt have torn down the exhibit they should of left it the way it was there was no problem with it if bad parents wanted to pick up their kids to show them the animals and dropped them so be it............. thanks again for showing me how i had this all wrong and my vote goes to throwing her in with the dogs she deserves that

Finally you get it. What took so long?

Since I know this was pure sarcasm and you refuse to actually talk about the issue, I have to ask. What is it you're against, holding her responsible for her reckless actions? Or should every place have to do everything to protect everyone all the time? I'm curious.

I have a great idea, shoot the dogs and stuff them with animatronics. That way there wont be a mauling the next time someone drops their womb goblin.

"womb goblin" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bobzilla wrote: Finally you get it. What took so long? Since I know this was pure sarcasm and you refuse to actually talk about the issue, I have to ask. What is it you're against, holding her responsible for her reckless actions? Or should every place have to do everything to protect everyone all the time? I'm curious.

Bobzilla i wasnt going to reply again but one more time and thats it

the zoo knew they had a problem and choose not to do anything about it. when you have a problem with people repeatly doing a stupid thing you fix it one way or another period you dont wait till someone dies.

going by how you judge parents a year or so ago a father and his daughter were killed by a car crossing the street. the driver got charged with man slaughter, not having control of his car and a couple of other items. the driver is in prison. now the father broke the law he was Jay Walking across the street when there was a crosswalk 300' down the street. this was the drivers defense a witness said they seen the driver looking down doing something. the father was a hard working guy and was raising three great kids nice home had the american dream but going by how you judge parents if he survied he should be in jail. he even broke a law while putting his child in danger.