Gorilla ...

The inherent safety issues regarding the zoo, exhibits and 4 year old children are obvious and should be properly addressed and administered to by the parent.

So?
The mother failed to meet the standards required to keep her son, the gorilla and others safe. While she has no duty to "others" her negligence placed her son in "grave" danger.
What "standard" are you speaking of? I hope you dont mean your opinion. No one is paying any attention to that.
If it were "my" opinion you are paying keen attention to my every keystroke.

The standard is reasonable care and speaks to the "Best Interests of the Child" in addressing the the health, safety, and/or protection of the child. The mother's conduct falls far short of this standard.
Actually your claim of a "standard" was the only thing that caught my attention. Otherwise i ignore people like you that are obviously under educated.

The mother provided reasonable care. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

"The mother provided reasonable care."

No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"

The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.

If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.

In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others in another dangerous situation.
 
The mother failed to meet the standards required to keep her son, the gorilla and others safe. While she has no duty to "others" her negligence placed her son in "grave" danger.
What "standard" are you speaking of? I hope you dont mean your opinion. No one is paying any attention to that.
If it were "my" opinion you are paying keen attention to my every keystroke.

The standard is reasonable care and speaks to the "Best Interests of the Child" in addressing the the health, safety, and/or protection of the child. The mother's conduct falls far short of this standard.
Actually your claim of a "standard" was the only thing that caught my attention. Otherwise i ignore people like you that are obviously under educated.

The mother provided reasonable care. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

"The mother provided reasonable care."

No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"

The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.

If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.

In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others another dangerous situation.
Yes the mother provided reasonable care.

The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure.

The authorities are supposed to ask that question. If the mother was telling the kid to jump in then they should arrest her.

No one connected to and working on the incident has read my opinion on the matter just like no one takes your opinion as anything other than ramblings of someone that doesnt have clue as to what they are talking about.
 
The mother failed to meet the standards required to keep her son, the gorilla and others safe. While she has no duty to "others" her negligence placed her son in "grave" danger.
What "standard" are you speaking of? I hope you dont mean your opinion. No one is paying any attention to that.
If it were "my" opinion you are paying keen attention to my every keystroke.

The standard is reasonable care and speaks to the "Best Interests of the Child" in addressing the the health, safety, and/or protection of the child. The mother's conduct falls far short of this standard.
Actually your claim of a "standard" was the only thing that caught my attention. Otherwise i ignore people like you that are obviously under educated.

The mother provided reasonable care. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

"The mother provided reasonable care."

No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"

The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.

If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.

In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others another dangerous situation.
Yes the mother provided reasonable care.

The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure.

The authorities are supposed to ask that question. If the mother was telling the kid to jump in then they should arrest her.

No one connected to and working on the incident has read my opinion on the matter just like no one takes your opinion as anything other than ramblings of someone that doesnt have clue as to what they are talking about.
Asslips said" "Yes the mother provided reasonable care"

No, where was the child when the gorilla was killed?. Even you cannot dismiss that glaring fact.

Asslips said: "The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The police are not asking that question, they are examining the mother's negligent behavior.
 
What "standard" are you speaking of? I hope you dont mean your opinion. No one is paying any attention to that.
If it were "my" opinion you are paying keen attention to my every keystroke.

The standard is reasonable care and speaks to the "Best Interests of the Child" in addressing the the health, safety, and/or protection of the child. The mother's conduct falls far short of this standard.
Actually your claim of a "standard" was the only thing that caught my attention. Otherwise i ignore people like you that are obviously under educated.

The mother provided reasonable care. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

"The mother provided reasonable care."

No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"

The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.

If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.

In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others another dangerous situation.
Yes the mother provided reasonable care.

The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure.

The authorities are supposed to ask that question. If the mother was telling the kid to jump in then they should arrest her.

No one connected to and working on the incident has read my opinion on the matter just like no one takes your opinion as anything other than ramblings of someone that doesnt have clue as to what they are talking about.
Asslips said" "Yes the mother provided reasonable care"

No, where was the child when the gorilla was killed?. Even you cannot dismiss that glaring fact.

Asslips said: "The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The police are not asking that question, they are examining the mother's negligent behavior.
Dont get emotional. Basically youre saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. That is the thought of someone that hasnt had any higher education.

I never claimed the police were asking questions about the zoo. Your sad attempt at deflection is noted. They are interviewing witnesses to make sure the mother didnt do something negligent like tell the child to jump in.
 
Why couldn't the zoo keepers hit him with a tazer or sleep arrow?
Time maybe, the gorilla was dragging the kid around like a doll. I supposed you think that was ok and the kid should have died instead right? Why not, you all kill babies hourly in the country.
 
Last edited:
If it were "my" opinion you are paying keen attention to my every keystroke.

The standard is reasonable care and speaks to the "Best Interests of the Child" in addressing the the health, safety, and/or protection of the child. The mother's conduct falls far short of this standard.
Actually your claim of a "standard" was the only thing that caught my attention. Otherwise i ignore people like you that are obviously under educated.

The mother provided reasonable care. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

"The mother provided reasonable care."

No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"

The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.

If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.

In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others another dangerous situation.
Yes the mother provided reasonable care.

The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure.

The authorities are supposed to ask that question. If the mother was telling the kid to jump in then they should arrest her.

No one connected to and working on the incident has read my opinion on the matter just like no one takes your opinion as anything other than ramblings of someone that doesnt have clue as to what they are talking about.
Asslips said" "Yes the mother provided reasonable care"

No, where was the child when the gorilla was killed?. Even you cannot dismiss that glaring fact.

Asslips said: "The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The police are not asking that question, they are examining the mother's negligent behavior.
Dont get emotional. Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. That is the thought of someone that hasnt had any higher education.

I never claimed the police were asking questions about the zoo. Your sad attempt at deflection is noted. They are interviewing witnesses to make sure the mother didnt do something negligent like tell the child to jump in.
AL said: "Dont get emotional"

I cannot help it every time I read one of your posts I break out into uncontrollable laughter:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


AL said: "Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. "

No that is what you are saying. Those are not the facts.:itsok:
 
Actually your claim of a "standard" was the only thing that caught my attention. Otherwise i ignore people like you that are obviously under educated.

The mother provided reasonable care. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure. If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

"The mother provided reasonable care."

No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"

The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.

If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.

In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others another dangerous situation.
Yes the mother provided reasonable care.

The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure.

The authorities are supposed to ask that question. If the mother was telling the kid to jump in then they should arrest her.

No one connected to and working on the incident has read my opinion on the matter just like no one takes your opinion as anything other than ramblings of someone that doesnt have clue as to what they are talking about.
Asslips said" "Yes the mother provided reasonable care"

No, where was the child when the gorilla was killed?. Even you cannot dismiss that glaring fact.

Asslips said: "The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The police are not asking that question, they are examining the mother's negligent behavior.
Dont get emotional. Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. That is the thought of someone that hasnt had any higher education.

I never claimed the police were asking questions about the zoo. Your sad attempt at deflection is noted. They are interviewing witnesses to make sure the mother didnt do something negligent like tell the child to jump in.
AL said: "Dont get emotional"

I cannot help it every time I read one of your posts I break out into uncontrollable laughter:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


AL said: "Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. "

No that is what you are saying. Those are not the facts.:itsok:
I know you cant help but get emotional when I obliterate your puerile opinion. Everyone knows thats why you called me Asslips. You were enraged.
itsok.gif


Of course they arent facts. Its a comparison. Your further deflections show you just havent decided to accept you didnt know what you were talking about. :laugh:
 
"The mother provided reasonable care."

No she did not the child was in with the gorilla.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The Best of Interests of the child standard eclipses the Reasonable man standard in child safety cases like these. The question you should be asking is what reasonable person would not pay enough attention to the 4 year old child so they can place themselves in harm's way.

"No reasonable person believes a zoo would make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure"

The question the authorities are asking is whether the mother exercised reasonable care not whether the zoo is negligent that is another issue all together.

If one can prove the mother knew the ease at which the child could get into the enclosure you would sorta have a point. Since no one can prove it you simply dont.

You are attempting to introduce an constructive liability standard on the mother to help her avoid any penalty for her negligence.

In the end all you are doing is trying to make excuses for poor parenting and enabling her to place the child and others another dangerous situation.
Yes the mother provided reasonable care.

The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure.

The authorities are supposed to ask that question. If the mother was telling the kid to jump in then they should arrest her.

No one connected to and working on the incident has read my opinion on the matter just like no one takes your opinion as anything other than ramblings of someone that doesnt have clue as to what they are talking about.
Asslips said" "Yes the mother provided reasonable care"

No, where was the child when the gorilla was killed?. Even you cannot dismiss that glaring fact.

Asslips said: "The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The police are not asking that question, they are examining the mother's negligent behavior.
Dont get emotional. Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. That is the thought of someone that hasnt had any higher education.

I never claimed the police were asking questions about the zoo. Your sad attempt at deflection is noted. They are interviewing witnesses to make sure the mother didnt do something negligent like tell the child to jump in.
AL said: "Dont get emotional"

I cannot help it every time I read one of your posts I break out into uncontrollable laughter:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


AL said: "Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. "

No that is what you are saying. Those are not the facts.:itsok:
I know you cant help but get emotional when I obliterate your puerile opinion. Everyone knows thats why you called me Asslips. You were enraged.
itsok.gif


Of course they arent facts. Its a comparison. Your further deflections show you just havent decided to accept you didnt know what you were talking about. :laugh:
I deflect nothing, my position is as follows:

The mother failed to act in a way that prevented or acted in a manner which "exposed the child to an imminent risk of serious harm". I am using the federal definition.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/define.pdf
 
Yes the mother provided reasonable care.

The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure.

The authorities are supposed to ask that question. If the mother was telling the kid to jump in then they should arrest her.

No one connected to and working on the incident has read my opinion on the matter just like no one takes your opinion as anything other than ramblings of someone that doesnt have clue as to what they are talking about.
Asslips said" "Yes the mother provided reasonable care"

No, where was the child when the gorilla was killed?. Even you cannot dismiss that glaring fact.

Asslips said: "The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The police are not asking that question, they are examining the mother's negligent behavior.
Dont get emotional. Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. That is the thought of someone that hasnt had any higher education.

I never claimed the police were asking questions about the zoo. Your sad attempt at deflection is noted. They are interviewing witnesses to make sure the mother didnt do something negligent like tell the child to jump in.
AL said: "Dont get emotional"

I cannot help it every time I read one of your posts I break out into uncontrollable laughter:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


AL said: "Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. "

No that is what you are saying. Those are not the facts.:itsok:
I know you cant help but get emotional when I obliterate your puerile opinion. Everyone knows thats why you called me Asslips. You were enraged.
itsok.gif


Of course they arent facts. Its a comparison. Your further deflections show you just havent decided to accept you didnt know what you were talking about. :laugh:
I deflect nothing, my position is as follows:

The mother failed to act in a way that prevented or acted in a manner which "exposed the child to an imminent risk of serious harm". I am using the federal definition.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/define.pdf
Youve done nothing but deflect.

"which presents an imminent risk of serious harm"

Looking at the gorilla enclosure is not an imminent risk of serious harm.
 
Asslips said" "Yes the mother provided reasonable care"

No, where was the child when the gorilla was killed?. Even you cannot dismiss that glaring fact.

Asslips said: "The question i asked was what reasonable person thinks the zoo is going to make it easy for a 3 year old to get into a gorilla enclosure."

The police are not asking that question, they are examining the mother's negligent behavior.
Dont get emotional. Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. That is the thought of someone that hasnt had any higher education.

I never claimed the police were asking questions about the zoo. Your sad attempt at deflection is noted. They are interviewing witnesses to make sure the mother didnt do something negligent like tell the child to jump in.
AL said: "Dont get emotional"

I cannot help it every time I read one of your posts I break out into uncontrollable laughter:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


AL said: "Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. "

No that is what you are saying. Those are not the facts.:itsok:
I know you cant help but get emotional when I obliterate your puerile opinion. Everyone knows thats why you called me Asslips. You were enraged.
itsok.gif


Of course they arent facts. Its a comparison. Your further deflections show you just havent decided to accept you didnt know what you were talking about. :laugh:
I deflect nothing, my position is as follows:

The mother failed to act in a way that prevented or acted in a manner which "exposed the child to an imminent risk of serious harm". I am using the federal definition.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/define.pdf
Youve done nothing but deflect.

"which presents an imminent risk of serious harm"

Looking at the gorilla enclosure is not an imminent risk of serious harm.


After discussing this issue with you, you have offered nothing except hyperbole, parlor tricks and hypotheticals

Therefore I will offer my condolences to you for the following:

19dc80df1770b9069fc443cb93d53980.jpg


Oh wait my bad your ass and your lips are one in the same hence the name AssLips:uhoh3::rofl:
 
Dont get emotional. Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. That is the thought of someone that hasnt had any higher education.

I never claimed the police were asking questions about the zoo. Your sad attempt at deflection is noted. They are interviewing witnesses to make sure the mother didnt do something negligent like tell the child to jump in.
AL said: "Dont get emotional"

I cannot help it every time I read one of your posts I break out into uncontrollable laughter:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


AL said: "Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. "

No that is what you are saying. Those are not the facts.:itsok:
I know you cant help but get emotional when I obliterate your puerile opinion. Everyone knows thats why you called me Asslips. You were enraged.
itsok.gif


Of course they arent facts. Its a comparison. Your further deflections show you just havent decided to accept you didnt know what you were talking about. :laugh:
I deflect nothing, my position is as follows:

The mother failed to act in a way that prevented or acted in a manner which "exposed the child to an imminent risk of serious harm". I am using the federal definition.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/define.pdf
Youve done nothing but deflect.

"which presents an imminent risk of serious harm"

Looking at the gorilla enclosure is not an imminent risk of serious harm.


After discussing this issue with you, you have offered nothing except hyperbole, parlor tricks and hypotheticals

Therefore I will offer my condolences to you for the following:

19dc80df1770b9069fc443cb93d53980.jpg


Oh wait my bad your ass and your lips are one in the same hence the name AssLips:uhoh3::rofl:
I accept your concession contingent on you forgiving me for hurting your feelings.
 
AL said: "Dont get emotional"

I cannot help it every time I read one of your posts I break out into uncontrollable laughter:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


AL said: "Basically your saying that if a dog attacks a child walking with its mother the mother is at fault if the child gets bitten. "

No that is what you are saying. Those are not the facts.:itsok:
I know you cant help but get emotional when I obliterate your puerile opinion. Everyone knows thats why you called me Asslips. You were enraged.
itsok.gif


Of course they arent facts. Its a comparison. Your further deflections show you just havent decided to accept you didnt know what you were talking about. :laugh:
I deflect nothing, my position is as follows:

The mother failed to act in a way that prevented or acted in a manner which "exposed the child to an imminent risk of serious harm". I am using the federal definition.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/define.pdf
Youve done nothing but deflect.

"which presents an imminent risk of serious harm"

Looking at the gorilla enclosure is not an imminent risk of serious harm.


After discussing this issue with you, you have offered nothing except hyperbole, parlor tricks and hypotheticals

Therefore I will offer my condolences to you for the following:

19dc80df1770b9069fc443cb93d53980.jpg


Oh wait my bad your ass and your lips are one in the same hence the name AssLips:uhoh3::rofl:
I accept your concession contingent on you forgiving me for hurting your feelings.
I actually do enjoy discussing issues with you. We have some fun and talk some serious stuff.:thup:
 
Oops, I thought you knew what a soccer mom was.

Think clueless busybody ... who knows more about how to raise other peoples children than the parents of those children. Soccer moms like to tell every one's children what to do.

They would be at home in the North Korean Politburo.

The inherent safety issues regarding the zoo, exhibits and 4 year old children are obvious and should be properly addressed and administered to by the parent.

So?
The mother failed to meet the standards required to keep her son, the gorilla and others safe. While she has no duty to "others" her negligence placed her son in "grave" danger.

And it is now your job to fix this problem. Have you contacted the authorities and put in the adoption papers? What kind of home will this child live in when they bring him to your door step?

They are going to ask these questions.
percysunshine I am very surprised you usually make well prepared, thought provoking posts. This one falls far short for reasons I have already posted.

That is what all the soccer moms say.
 

Forum List

Back
Top