I hope she doesn't - and you're right that it will impact other for years. Where else can you go to see a child mauled to death by a pack of African Dogs? Certainly that wasn't worth the cover charge.... I'd be seeing that repeat in my nightmares.

Spot on that it was the mother's fault entirely: no accidents like that in 40 years, just passed their safety standards... there just isn't a way to idiot-proof EVERYTHING.

If the exhibit is designed properly according to law, custom, and training, then the parents will not have a valid lawsuit. I hate to call the mother "stupid" because I know she is probably suicidal right now. The father...

I agree she is to blame, but I think she is already paying a high enough price for her mistake. Yeah she will likely sue and win...it makes me think, maybe the cages should be around the visitors at zoos and not the animals.

Yes, putting him on there was ridiculous and this is in no way the zoo's or animals' fault at all. There was a net and she used horrid judgement doing that.

I see parents do this type of thing a lot. They break safety rules and then complain when bad things happen. Don't let your child stand in the grocery cart and don't let them wander off in dangerous places. And DON'T set them up on obviously dangerous places where common sense will tell you not to set them. And don't blame animals from acting like animals when humans do ridiculous things.

And I am sorry for her loss and for how traumatic it would be for everyone watching. How sad for all involved.

I'm surpirsed nobody jumped in after the kid.

@Brenda -I'm hoping you just failed to finish your sentence instead of implying that the father was stupid or to blame. There's absolutely no indication in this article that the father was even present at the zoo.

I agree it sounds stupid what the mother did, on the other hand the zoo did put safety netting to prevent this type of accident. It may require a slight modification to make these exhibits safer so this type of accident does not happen again. I think people have to realize that not everyone is always so safe, but that hardly means that they should die. For example, have you ever sped, tailgated, talked on a cell phone while driving, texted while driving, wore headphones while biking or listened to loud music on headphones while crossing the street, stayed out in the sun too long, gone skiing on a slope above your ability (skiing period), smoked a cigarette, ate unhealthy, drank in excess, took drugs, which are all behaviors that lead to health problems and untimely deaths, but people get mad if we talk about preventing many of these behaviors, and you probably don't feel that all these people should die.

Glad to see an innocent WILD ANIMAL that we IMPRISONED was shot because of a STUPID mother who doesn't understand the purpose of a RAILING. FYI, it's not so that you should LEAN OVER it.

God I hate people so much sometimes.

Wow, Alex. REALLY? You really need to seek counseling. That self hatred you have going on there is really out of hand.

@JFC, I couldn't agree with you more. If It had been my baby, I'd have been over that railing in a heartbeat. What happened there?

My heart goes out to the family of that poor baby. I sincerely hope that they don't try to sue the Zoo. And if they do, I hope it gets thrown out. I'm sick of hearing about people doing stupid crap and blaming someone else when they or the ones they love get hurt. Sort of like the idiots that kept climbing over the safety fences at the polar bear exhibits. Why should the zoo or the general public have to pay for your stupidity?

What's wrong with Alex's response? It's spot on. Oh wait, do you mean the first Alex, or Alex Le (above you)?

I also echo your question, why did that mother not leap over the railing after her child? I'd have gladly run the risk of being mauled to death in order to protect my child, and I cannot imagine a mother that wouldn't do just that.

If they sue the zoo, I hope they get laughed out of court as well. Makes me sick to think that they could get a pay day out of this.

This idiot mother decided to hoist her little kid up on top of the enclosure barrier so he could have a better view and lost her hold on him. I imagine that the mother will try and sue the zoo and try to claim that there should have been something to prevent her from committing this idiotic act. Unfortunately, the odds are that some bleeding hearts on the jury will award her a pile of money instead of holding her responsible for her own stupidity. I feel sorry for the poor kid who lost his life through the negligence of his mother. I am also a little outraged that some ignorant cop shot one of the dogs for simply doing what it does naturally. The kid was already dead and there was no reason to kill the dog. They could have simply waited for a qualified zookeeper to get there with a tranquilizer gun to subdue the dog and retrieve the body. Shooting and endangered animal when the animal has done nothing wrong is a crime itself and I hope that the cop is disciplined for his unwarranted actions. I figure the mom has enough punishment in having to live with the guilt of knowing that she is responsible for the death of her child, so I will not call for her to be prosecuted as well, but there is no doubt that she is the one ultimately responsible for this tragedy.

As soon as the baby was dropped someone should have gathered a few adults and jumped in. I am surprised just as the above poster said. Why didn't anyone go in right away? Terrible all around. I really hope the parents don't blame themselves. As for the animals well they are locked up and probably going crazy. Animals are animals.

, but I think she is already paying a high enough price for her mistake.

I dislike this type of response, I don't believe parents should get a free pass when their negligence kills someone.

Wow, Alex. REALLY? You really need to seek counseling. That self hatred you have going on there is really out of hand.

Who's fault was it the child fell down there and was killed? It wasn't the animal, he was just doing what came naturally. It's not the animal fault he's not in his natural environment, that the child fell down. Why did the animal have to die? Should we kill all eleven of them?

I just hope they don't destroy the animals. They were just acting true to their nature. The mother was a nut job, putting that baby in harms way. Perhaps they should administer IQ tests to zoo visitors prior to admittance.

I hope they don't put up glass or mesh fencing over the viewing area as a result of this. Maybe they'll add another railing to keep some other idiot mother from doing this. They try to create a safe viewing area where you can actually see the animals, and someone has to ruin it. As for those who equate this with other potentially-dangerous activities, like letting your kids steer, I think this action goes beyond that. Some people sit their kids on railings (also stupid) and wrap their arms around the child's body to prevent a fall. In this case, the child's center of gravity is low and it is easy to pull the child back if he/she squirms. STANDING a child on the railing is very different. The child's center of gravity is high and it's harder to prevent the child from falling. I pity her for the pain she is going through, but it was 100% her fault. I, too wonder why no one else jumped in, but if they went for the neck, the child might not have survived long enough for anyone to help.

drano: I remember when I was a kid being jealous of my younger brother because he was still short enough to stand on the seat of the truck while my dad drove us around. Yeah, a lot of times paren't don't recognize stupid until it bites them in the @ss or they lose a kid over it. Poor mom, and poor dad. Losing a kid is the worst, and now their marriage will suffer, too.

Those of you complaining that no one jumped in: Have you been to this zoo? I haven't. I would imagine that jumping in was pretty near impossible with the safety netting and all. Plus, who knows how high of a jump it was? It's more likely that anyone trying to jump in would have bounced around on the net and then tumbled into the enclosure off their feet only to find a dog immediately at their neck. It's easy to judge after the fact.

Thank you drano for that fresh dose of common sense. It was a BAD decision that the mom will regret for a lifetime. Many other parents have probably propped their children on the same railing without experiencing that horrible outcome. Tragic things happen all the time. Let's not judge too harshly... unless she sues.

Accidents can always be blamed on someone. Horrific events like this one are always held up to the spotlight, and the vultures swarm down and place blame. Are you people parents at all? You do know that everyone is imperfect, right? Everyone makes mistakes? You really think this is the time to blame that poor mother? If so, you are as bad as you accuse her of being- if not worse.

What's wrong with you people? Don't you have any sympathy or a feeling sorrow for the mother? She just lost a child, being devastated and here you're calling her stupid, idiot and all the names. Like you never did any things that you intended not to do. I know what she did was a bad judgement but do you have to be so mean and cruel? Have a heart.

Well, this mother will be paying for this for the rest of her natural life, I'm betting the marriage will be in jeopardy too....I think the divorce rate in sudden deaths of a child runs around 70%, that is just in a sudden illness or accident, not in a horrendous ...and avoidable.....accident like this. I hope to God that they don't sue.....it won't help anyone and will only make things worse for this poor mom and dad, grandparents, siblings...aunts uncles....what a aweful, and sad thing.

I agree with the others. I'm very sorry for this women's loss and would never wish this on anyone but she has no one to blame but herself. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, oh and in case you missed it STUPID! Call it cold hearted but it's the truth. This is about placing blame where it belongs not about the loss of the child (which is devastating and she will have a hard time recovering from, if at all, and yes we have all done something risky with kids at one time or another though I can say I've never done anything this risky, and the fact is the child died as a result). There was/is a railing in place that met all safety requirements. You can only do so much. As for the net, that was not there to catch a person; child or adult. I've seen them at other zoos as well. The point is to catch cameras and other smaller objects that a visitor might drop to try and keep them from getting into the enclosure.

I agree to with JD, while she probably should be prosecuted in some way for what she did, I'd say the loss of her child and living with that guilt is far worse than anything the courts could do.

She will likely sue, I'm sure there are deadbeat lawyers pounding on her door and blowing her phone of the hook, but in no way is the zoo at fault here. It is 100% her. Exactly the type of cases that need to always be thrown out, the ones that try to absolve all personally responsibility and common sense from the individual.

Kraus said there was nothing to prevent visitors to the Pittsburgh Zoo's painted dog exhibit from jumping into the exhibit area.

Yeah that maybe the case but like I said you can't protect against everything. I'd say its a pretty straightforward reason as to why there was nothing there, because most people aren't stupid enough to try to jump the fence where a pack of wild african dogs are kept. The article also points out about how one of the dogs got out in an area that usually isn't open to the public. So? Try to find some fault here or something? Likely that area had no visitors at the time and to be safe the zoo shut down and was likely following an emergency action plan. That is also different than someone falling in because the went over an approved safety rail vs the animal just finding a way out. Sounds like to me this Zoo has and does everything right.

I think one of the other posters was right, going to have to put the visitors in the cages from now on.

Again sorry for the loss and sad this happened but this was completely avoidable and in no way is the zoo responsible.

It is time

DNFTT

full frontal stupid on the Mom's part...

I wasn't there, and a pack of 10 wild dogs between 40-80 lbs sounds pretty daunting, but it was only 11 feet... if some adults jumped onto the net and then to the ground... who knows, maybe the kid would be alive... tough call..

No one jumped over the fence, most likely, because of the mesh barrier. Adults would have been caught in the barrier, but because the child was small and light, it just bounced off the barrier. So, even if the mother tried to jump after the child, she wouldn't have been able to get into the enclosure.

This is such a tragedy, but in no way should the family be compensated for their negligence and lack of common sense.

I work at an amusement park where we have goats in a feeding/petting area. I can't believe all the ignorant people who let their little ones in the area without adult supervision, armed only with a milk bottle. Sometimes, the kids will be screaming and crying, not wanting anything to do with the goats. But, the parent will totally ignore it. The goats, of course, being anxious for their milk, can easily knock a little kid down. We always encourage parents to let the little kids feed the boats through the fencing, as that is much safer for them. However, even if a goat knocks a kid down, the worst they will do is eat their clothes.

As to why no one jumped the fence to scare off the dogs... I think our society is "breeding" that out of us. Ask any police or fire spokesman and they now teach you to call 911 and wait for assistance. You don't go downstairs when you hear someone in your house. You don't get a fire extinguisher and go put out the small fire in the office, you don't confront a thief if you are a retail clerk.... so much they don't want you to do that we used to do when I was growing up.

Yes, I know that a rash response can result in more tragedy, but so often these days, "they" don't want to even teach how to respond except to sit and wait for the authorities.

Sad, really.

While I agree it's the mother's fault and her behavior was negligent, mothers do stuff like this all the time. It's typically because they want their child to enjoy the zoo, not because they wish him dead. I think the zoo should pay for grief counseling for the parents because the net failed to prevent the fall of the little boy. I also understand shooting even an endangered animal, if there is any hope of saving the boy, and also to discourage the dogs from attacking people in the future. The zoo should adjust the net so it can catch a small child, and possibly put up a sign which essentially reads "for your own safety, please don't be stupid", but I agree that this type of thing is frustrating, because half the reason intelligent people can't enjoy such exhibits is because zoos have to idiot-proof everything, in order to protect zookeepers from lawsuits. By the time the zoo finishes putting in enough barriers to protect the least intelligent visitors from accidents, it will be impossible to see the animals.

I think the mother relied too much on the net she saw, and I suspect that will be a key part of her lawsuit. It's disgusting, because the zoo needn't have even put up a net, to begin with, but if you were a mother whose small child couldn't see the animals, and you saw that you could lift him onto a rail which had netting below it to prevent falls, you might be tempted to place him up there, temporarily. She might have thought she could hold onto him and lost her grip. I don't even have children, so I've never done anything like that, but the minute you teach a small child to ride a bike, you are risking his life in hopes he will get the simple enjoyment of riding a bike. Kinda stupid, eh? I won't berate the mother, though I hope she has learned her lesson from the loss of her child. Of course, this is primarily her fault, but I do think the netting gave a false sense of safety.

I think the zoo should pay for grief counseling for the parents because the net failed to prevent the fall of the little boy.

No.

I also understand shooting even an endangered animal,

I don't.

if there is any hope of saving the boy,

By that time the child was already very dead with no hope of return, they were only trying to retrieve what was left of the body.

and also to discourage the dogs from attacking people in the future.

Sorry, that won't discourage anything. The animals don't possess enough reasoning for that.

I think the mother relied too much on the net she saw,

I really hope that's not true, because if it is, she's stupider than I thought. What kind of idiot thinks "Well if my child falls off the railing I've put him on, the net will save him"?

I hate to call the mother "stupid" because I know she is probably suicidal right now. The father...

Brenda-251440 - according to the first report that was published, the father was not at the zoo when this happened.

I think people have to realize that not everyone is always so safe, but that hardly means that they should die.

Matt - who said that anyone deserved to die? Jeez! Get a grip.

Mother should be criminally charged.

Sometimes there are tragedies where no one is at fault.

Sorry, drano. This is not one of those tragedies where no one is at fault. This was the mother's fault. Period.

The article said the net was to catch small objects-like cameras. Mom is totally at fault and the zoo should not have any liability-no problem for 40 years. I do think the mother will suffer enough from this not to be criminally charged-unless there is a history of child endangerment. Very sad.

I remember that 4 year old boy that fell in with gorillas and one picked him up and held him while he was unconscious and then carried him to the door where zoo keepers could help. This 2 year old was not so lucky.

The mother will pay the rest of her life knowing a 2 second laps in judgement cost her son his life. God rest his soul, thoughts and prayers to both parents.

Kraus said there was nothing to prevent visitors to the Pittsburgh Zoo's painted dog exhibit from jumping into the exhibit area.

Um... yes there is, it's called common sense...

I can see this zoo getting sued because of a poor safety design that didn't save this child from his mother's stupidity.

But seriously, I guess we live in a world where zoos need to protect us from our own stupidity, like something that prevents people from jumping off of a train so they can "be with" the tigers. Maybe a glass wall between us nutty and ignorant humans and those wild and hungry animals. Or better yet, maybe we should be the ones in the cages and let the animals roam free!

JFC3426249 Post 1.5

I have to say I agree. 11 dogs could easily have been fought of if 3 or 4 men had jumped in Immedeiatly after the child.

I'm 44 now, when I was 18 yrs old I was at my grandmothers house cutting her huge lawn. My 10 yr old cousin was ridding his bike up and down the dirt road my grandmother lived on. Her neighbor had 4 guard dobermans. 3 of them got out and attacked my cousin. I ran to help and killed one, the other two were so badly injured they were later put to sleep.(the lady then stated that if I didnt leave her dogs alone she would sik the other one on me, and later tried to counter sue us for her vet bills) My cousin had 48 stitches on his face and arms, I had 56 on my left leg and left arm and still have huge scars. So does my cousin mentally and physically. But at least he's still alive.

Im not bragging, cause I love dogs and have two rotties myself, I'm just saying that if its my child or my girlfriends child and its only dogs(not tigers or bears) Im going in after my child, RIGHT AWAY! Im not waiting around for someone else to try and save my child. As soon as one person jumped in many more would probably have followed suit.We would now be talking about heros instead of a mothers stupidity or an innocent childs death.

The article doesn't say if the mother sat him on the railing and he leaned forward and fell. If that was the case, why was she not holding on tight to him? He should never have been put on the railing in the first place. I can't imagine what she and the boys father are going through. She will blame herself the rest of her life and perhaps the father will, too. Someone on here asked where the father was at the time. I heard on the news that he was at work and raced over to the zoo when he got the call.

I have to say I agree. 11 dogs could easily have been fought of if 3 or 4 men had jumped in Immedeiatly after the child.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME! 11 Wild Pack Dogs against 3 or 4 men would be toren appart. These are not Fido next door,Diet: African Painted Dogs are carnivores and hunt large prey like wildebeest, zebra and impala. They have a strong enough bite to break bones and teeth to rip flesh.

@only - these aren't the type of dogs you purchase at Pet Smart. These are wild animals not tame. They have millions of years of evolution making them into fierce predators. Domestic dogs have had most of that bred out of them. That's why we can keep them as pets. These dogs are like our wolves. They are killing machines. And it really didn't matter how many men could have gotten down into their exhibit, it's most likely the first dog who reached this infant had his throat ripped out within half a second. No one could have saved him except for his mother if she were only smart enough not to have put him on the railing. They need to put Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom back on TV.

There is no recourse for stupidity and negligence. IF you think anyone should have gone in after the child, how about the mother?

These are dogs from the wild - they hunt in packs. They go for the throat. That is their nature. That child had NO chance, no matter who might have gone in.

People are calling the zoo and inquiring as to why no one went in in. They tried to call of the dogs. Ever tried to break up a pack of coyotes who have secured their kill. Give it a try sometime. People should be calling the mother and asking her what she was thinking! There are reasons the railings are there!

And I agree, Alex, there is no future in being stupid as some of these people you read about in the news, or encounter in daily life. Some might say "When God was handing out brains, they thought he said trains - and missed theirs.

RIP, little one - your death was unnecessary. Condolences to the family.

Im sorry that the child died in such a horrible way but i dont see alot of difference between this and leaving your kid in a hot car. The mother was negligent. especially since all zoos ive been to have signs up telling you not to do this kind of stuff. Charges should be filed on the mother.

My dog(on a leash) got into it with a "free-range" pitbull that got out of a yard. It ate its leash, then chewed through the fence.

Pooder was a shephard, lab, doberman mix.

By instinct, I shortleashed Pooder and got the pit by its collar/leash.

I got bit in the process....by my dog, not the pit thank god.

It was reflex...if I had given it half a second of thought...

With that in mind...I don't think I'd care to make it 2 dead instead of 1 by jumping into a pack of wild dogs.

Oh yeah, not everyone sues. I am grateful it was me and not the dogs. Hurt like hell, though. I used every 4 letter word I knew.

Here is another tragedy that didn't need to happen. For some reason American citizens seem to have an overblown sense of entitlement. They think it's ok for them to sit their child on the counter at the bank (ew, dirty diapers!), let their child yank dresses off the racks in stores because someone else is paid to put them back and stand them on top of a fence (where there were probably signs warning people not to do so) because "nothing ever happens." Well, now something tragic has happened and I can't imagine how the witnesses, the zookeepers and of course the mother will ever be able to put it out of their minds completely.

I have worked in a small local zoo (as a keeper and a docent) where all the animals, native to the state, have been injured or orphaned (and unintentionally imprinted) and are not able to be returned to the wild. That doesn't mean that they aren't still wild animals. It is amazing to me the stupidity of some people! They would sit their children on the safety fencing bars to an open concept bear exhibit where two black bears, about 350 pounds each, could tear a child limb from limb in a heartbeat. Then, when asked to remove the child for its safety they get all huffy.

Most zoo animals have a certain amount of conditioning that makes them more tractable for zookeepers to care for. Some of the animals such as raccoons, coyotes and mountain lions develop "relationships" with their keepers and may seem downright tame but safety precautions still must be taken. That's why when keepers "called" the wild dogs most of them responded and went to their housing. The others were too caught up in the hunt and didn't respond. I will always wonder if adult people (authorative figures) had jumped into the pen if they could have saved the child. I know I would have tried.

I do feel bad fo the mom. I'm sure when she put her child on the fence she just wasn't using good judgement and a tragic death happened. I feel sorriest for the zookeepers who witnessed this attack by the animals they care for every day. I think they will have a very hard time getting over this

The safety net should have been engineered to control the weight and bounce of the child, thus preventing ejection and the fall into the pen. The constitutes negligence on the Zoo's part, regardless of the actions of the mother. It is the zoo's responsibility to protect patrons from the danger of wild animals.

"The plaintiff will show that the zoo was negligent."

"We rule in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of four million dollars."

Suddenly, the grief is gone! Let's make another baby.

The rest of this tragedy is yet to come. How does a parent tell the other parent about the senseless death of a child?

Not sure the marriage will survive. There will blame, and anger, etc.

There are no winners here. I am not sure that any responsible court / jury will find fault with the zoo. The attention will be on the mother.

How do you know the parents are married?

Bob, the net was never made for people. It was made to catch stuff like hats and cameras so the dogs wouldn't eat them and die.

Exactly. No attribution or statement. Yep, and nothing but a fence and common sense to keep someone from leaping in to a pit with a pack of wild African dogs. If they sue the zoo and win then we'll have to gate off every subway train platform and highway for fear someone will step in front of something and get themselves killed because there was "nothing there to stop them".

You forgot there was also a net, so nothing but a fence, a net, and common sense (or at least parenting sense) to keep someone.... etc.

The part I don't get...Why do the headlines have to state the dogs killed the baby and not the fall? Does this seem a little insensitive?

I also agree that it's the mothers fault, not the zoo! I hope there is a judge out there that throws the parents and any lawyer who takes the case in jail.

It's called common sense. If more people used it, there would be a LOT less issues in the world.

Seriously, there was something to keep people out. She chose to put her child up on a dangerous railing and he fell. Why would anyone do that? Geez. There was a net and he was so small he bounced...but it comes back down to her putting him on that rail. It is sad and awful, and it is her responsibility.

Quote: "Kraus said there was nothing to prevent visitors to the Pittsburgh Zoo's painted dog exhibit from jumping into the exhibit area."

What is it about "wooden rail" and "not accessible pen at very different altitude" that this mega-brain mom didn't understand?

Yes Kraus, everybody goes to the zoo to jump in and play with the wild animals. Dumb a$$! Throw momma in the pit and let her suffer the same fate.

Railing, visitors up higher than the enclosure, and probably signs every 10ft saying don't climb or sit on (the ones for stupid people), not sure what else the zoo needs to do.

BTW the was a net but that is for small objects like cameras ect, not to catch people.

The net is meant to keep small items such as cameras and hats from falling into the enclosure. It is not there to prevent children falling into the wild dogs' area. This information comes from an earlier article on the subject.

A similar tragedy occurred at the Saint Augustine Alligator Farm a few years back. A gentleman held his 4-year-old son at the top of the rail so he could see the alligators in the pit. The boy wiggled and fell into the area and was immediately eaten.

Sad but true. The SAAF immediately closed down and put slanted tops on all their rails so that no child can stand on them. Problem solved forever.

The alligator who ate the child was destroyed and his remains were recovered. I was glad it wasn't Jumper. He's been at the SAAF since I was a child. He's an institution here.

Many years ago when my mare had her first foal I came out to feed after work and found t couple (who did not live up the hollow and had no business being up there as it is a private road) putting their 2 yr old daughter over the gate (which was padlocked and has a "No Trespassing" sign) because she wanted to "pet the baby horsie." My mare was walking back and forth between them and her foalwith her ears pinned back, her tail switching, and a clearly agressive demeanor. When I pointed this out, the couple said, "But she's tame, she's not supposed to hurt people!"

I then proceeded to point out that she was also a mother with a brand-new baby and didn't know these people or their child and that I wouldn't allow even my kids around her under the circumstances unless she was tied and I was there to supervise. I also pointed out that an 1100-lb horse could easily kill an adult with a single kick to the head or chest, and never mind what that kind of blow would do to a child. I politely requested that they get off our property and not come back.

The natural world doesn't operate by Disney rules. Wild animals do not view us as their overlords and in fact many of them see us as items on the menu. Domestic animals, even after thousands of years of breeding, are really never very far removed from their wild ancestors. Animals should all be treated with respect and due caution, and humans ought to use some common sense.

Just throw Momma to the dogs....

Amen, Allison. Just pass away in your house and the cops will see just how soon YOUR lovable housepets see YOU on the menu.

Yes

Gregg, it's never too soon for "dingo ate my baby."

Poor taste, but it does fit.

I agree, it's never too late. Especially when said in an Australian accent.

It was an accident: she didn't 'throw him to the dogs' if that what you mean. The only thing she could possibly be convicted of is wrongful death through sheer stupidity. And since this was her child, that would be a bit harsh....

@choptop -- No, she doesn't need to be charged and convicted. She has to life with the consequences of not using common sense for the rest of her life. This woman will be tormented by the sight of her child being mauled to death because of her (preventable) actions.

Call me a bleeding heart, but I think punishment should only be exerted when a person could commit a similiar crime again. Yes, I acknowledge the mother is responsible. But think of the impact of seeing her own child killed in such a way will have on her. It is not going to change her future behavior if she goes to prison or not.

I have to agree with choptrop. Sorry the rest of her life? She may first, as others suggest, try to Sue the Zoo.

She'll second, illustrate two things to the rest of us ...

a) that her forgetting this tragedy is probably easy when a person is too mentally defective to put a baby on top of a lightweight fence in the first place;

and b) she will reveal, I believe, that if she can sue for oodles of zoodles money, that she has a character as challenged as her brain.

How come? When my son, in another city was killed by a woman driving a BMW, ignoring his right of way in a clearly marked walk-across on a street that was his turn, I did not sue, although his brothers pushed me to.

Lawyers they got urged me to. Even the officer phoning me to tell me the bad news of his death, gave me information from their witnessed reports and said it was available to me if I so wished. They were already charging her with driving without a license.

In spite of pressure from family, friends, and information volunteered (without my asking) from law enforcement, I elected not to sue.

Why? It agonized me ... even the thought ... of accepting money from the death of my son.

I believe strongly that in this case, the child's mother irrevocably proved she is incompetent to raise children, and any children she has still surviving should be removed from her presence. There seem to be laws which provide for this.

It was not just her negligence cost her the baby's life. I think that her profoundly inept intelligence is, to my mind, horrendously untrustworthy.

I believe that she should be arrested for manslaughter and spend time in prison. There, at least, she should be given in-depth training in right and wrong. I have read that on staff social workers are highly qualified to help the perps who are truly aware of their responsibility for a baby's death. It's not just for this incident; its for getting her to learn about Common Sense if no other skill.

Her sorrow? She can at least deal with that by learning how to avoid future problems by those same hard core social workers while in prison.

She has to take responsibility for this matter; she is to blame, not the zoo.

Sorry, the mother needs some kind of punishment. Her reckless and irresponsible actions DIRECTLY caused the death of her child. Don't give me the whole, "Oh she'll be so sad forever" nonsense. Yes, she will. But at some point we have to start holding people responsible for their actions and not just patting them on the back and saying, "It's ok honey, it was an accident."

She intentionally put the kid up there on a high railing that she HAD to know was NOT there for a toddler to sit on. She may not have intended for the child to die, but that's what happened.

I agree with your Melanie that people need to be held responsible, but I just don't know. Wouldn't a mother who cares about their children will see themselves as responsible though? I would imagine she would be filled with a self-destructive regret. Or am I just blinded by a bleeding heart? I also have to consider that the boy was loved by other people than just the mother and now they are in pain due to her actions.

Did she take her hands off of him? I can't imagine anyone doing that in the first place, but how did he fall if her arms were around him? Nobody saw it happen, I mean who knows what happened here.

Sometimes accidents happen. 20/20 hindsight is always perfect and it's arrogant to judge the actions of others.

Not everyone knows how dangerous these animals are. Did you?

I agree, she should stand trial for negligent manslaughter. The child was perfectly safe until she took it upon herself to bypass the safety mechanisms put into place to prevent such an event from happening. If it was not for her negligent actions, this child would still be alive. This is no different than someone speeding and hitting someone in a crosswalk because they could not slow down in time.

Charged and convicted for littering.

But at some point we have to start holding people responsible for their actions and not just patting them on the back and saying, "It's ok honey, it was an accident."

This country incarcerates a higher percentage of it's population than any other country on earth. Stop spending my tax money to pursue your old testament justice.

Putting her through a trial and locking her in prison serves no purpose what-so-ever, other than pandering to your self-righteousness. Kind of like an old-fashioned witch burning. It won't bring the kid back, won't make her a "better parent", won't protect society in any way.

it may not serve a purpose but she is just as negligent as someone who leaves thier kid in a hot car. They get punished. she should too.

Well that depends Lynn,

Are you talking about the ones who intentionally leave their (not thier) kid in the hot car so they could go in and play video poker for 3 hours? Or do you mean the tired, frazzled dad who forgot to stop at daycare on the way to work?

As someone pointed out above, at least this woman was taking her kid to the zoo. She made a mistake, misjudged her ability to secure her child in that situation. Thousands of other parents have undoubtedly made exactly the same mistake in judgement and nothing happened. They were praised for spending time with their kids.

Fifty years ago my brothers and I used to ride across country stretched out in the back of a station wagon playing cards and boardgames every summer. We survived, others didn't. Now every child has to be strapped to a seat (except in a school bus of course.) These days a parent would be vilified for allowing that.

Fifty years in the future the state will probably take your kids away if you are so negligent as to let them out of their $50,000 government approved protective cocoons during the first 5 years of their lives.

People make mistakes all the time (like not using the spell checker). Usually they don't result in a death, but sometimes they do. Perhaps we should just put everyone in jail now, think of all the lives that would be saved.

It's easy to understand why this happened. The mother was careless.

A lot of people are careless. It's called being human. If anyone is to fully blame its the zoo for not having up to date railings with signs saying DO NOT PUT CHILDREN ON RAILS.

Why would the Zoo need a sign to tell an adult not to put children on a rail to lean over to see dangerous animals? It should have been common sense. That what's wrong with this country: one minute we are decrying the nanny state mentality and in the next breath, crying we should devise obstacle so that stupid people will be unable to do stupid things.

Indeed, Lenci.

Well you know, if SHE had been wearing her sign other people could have stopped her.

I raised two children to adulthood and I NEVER-EVER put them in harm's way. They were always in a child care seat, I never let them ride in my lap. They weren't allowed on dangerous rides at carnivals/fairs. They were not allowed to ride their bikes to a friend's house after dark or even in the daytime if it was more than next door. I never lifted them over a safety railing to see anything and neither one was allowed a cell phone until they graduated from high school. No driving after dark, etc.

In other words, I may have been over protective, but my kids are alive and well today.

It's up to parents to exercise good judgement as the child cannot. This mother unfortunately DID NOT exercise good judgement and now a small innocent child has lost his life but the one who endangered it still lives.

Prosecuting the mother will do nothing more than she and her husband will do to themselves. Unfortunately 10-1 her marriage does not even survive this tragedy.

It is DEFINITELY not the zoo's fault, but I'd be my last dollar they try to sue instead of accepting personal responsibility for her actions.

Huh? Where is the 'neglect'? All I see is endangerment at most, accidental death (no countersuit, if not just a straight up 'accidental death' w/ no zoo culpability) at least.

I see parents at our zoo stand their little kids up on the wood fences all the time. I've probably done it myself when my kids were little. When a kid is three feet tall, they can't see anything without being lifted up. Setting them on a fence (and holding tightly onto them) makes it easy for parent and child to watch the animals. I don't think I would have done it up that high, though, even with a net.

I don't think the mother is an idiot. I think people are just too trusting in public areas. We assume all structures around us at a zoo make us completely safe from the animals. And, in most cases that's true. The mother should have thought twice and evaluated what would happen if her child fell - that's what I would do. Realizing that even if the child fell into the net, and the net held, it would be very difficult and dangerous to rescue the child.

The definition of idiot is a foolish or stupid person. As sorry as I am for her loss, I'd say that pretty much covers this woman.

I agree with the second point Wendy made. Remember when Michael Jackson (of all people!) held his baby over that hotel balcony railing? Remember how he was endlessly slammed for doing that? What if the baby slipped? everybody complained. Well, THIS baby DID. You can't jump all over the man, but forgive the woman by saying 'she has to live with it for the rest of her life'. Jackson would have had to also.

People saying,"This mother will have to live with this for the rest of her life." and "I know she's probably suicidal right now" are taking a helluva lot for granted.Not everyone is wired to be able to feel remorse.Not everyone is capable of feeling empathy.

She may live with it if she remains in that town,in the sense that she may lose a lot of friends,and her husband may leave her.But as for the legal system forcing her to take any responsibility for her actions-that's not going to happen.She's the FEMALE spouse of an architect. She's got a free pass.

I do see rule violations all the time when I go: but there is never anyone around to get them to stop and set a good example for their (and everyone's) kids.

The only substitute for good manner is fast reflexes, and apparently she had neither.

At the San Diego Zoo, I have seen parents lift up small children and put them near the top of a fence or enclosure wall, where they cling to the edge and peer over; lift them over a barrier so they can pet a wild animal; and throw things at the animals so their kids can get a better look at the animal. On top of that, the parents spend most of their time yapping on their cell phones while their children run wild. It would be cost-prohibitive to have a zoo employee at every exhibit to babysit these bozos and their offspring, but for the animals' sake, I wish they would. As I've said before, no amount of planning and engineering on a zoo's part will stop a determined child or a foolish parent.

@Alex - agree. And then if you do say something to someone, they tell you to mind your own f-ing business. It's not worth the hassle anymore to try and help people.

I always speak to the parents about the rules. Sometimes they tell me to go to hell, but I've done what I can to help the children. The hassle's irrelevant because the safety of the children is what matters.

And littering.

Agreed: God had nothing to do with this.

Disagree: Do you know a PACK of African dogs well enough to be certain that your jumping down there was not going to succeed in just creating another fatality? Let me put this another way that you might understand: if you lost a mate over the side that began to be consumed by sharks, would it be you jumping in to 'save' him then? Just wondering.....

No I do not. But I would die trying rather than watch a toddler being mauled.

And you probably would have died as well, not saved the child, and all the dogs would have had to be shot. Much better, right? I understand what you mean, but it doesn't make sense.

First of all, a mate is FAR different from a child. I might love my mate, but there's no words that explain the love I have for my daughter. I assure you, I'd jump into a lion pit if my daughter fell in one. Yes, even knowing that the odds were very much against me. No way could I live with myself anyway, knowing I looked on and did nothing. ESPECIALLY if I caused the fall in the first place with my own stupidity and ignorance.

First of all, I would have never put my child on that rail to fall in in the first place. However, if my daughter had found her way in that space with those dogs, I'm going in after her. Hopefully I could have saved her, but if not, we would have had to die together. I wouldn't want to live knowing that my daughter is dead, it was my fault and I did absolutely nothing to stop it.

Packs of African wild dogs bring down cape buffalo and eat them alive. A couple of adult humans would be no challenge.

Everyone would be dead.

TPUF.....Your an idiot!!....those dogs would have chewed you a new A$$hole before you would have hit the ground....I've see wild dogs IN the wild take down 500-800 pound animals....they just swarm over them...very brutal, but thats nature...brutal

Yeah, maybe you think that, but that doesn't mean a thing, does it? You have no clue.

She could have. Nobody really knows since nobody saw it happen.

I would throw the mom in on purpose and not think twice about it!

Talk about dumb as a box of rocks! I wouldn't let a 2 year old balance precariously on the railing above a pack of wild dogs but if it were my child I would have been over that railing in a heartbeat and covered my child's body with my own.

Unfortunately, jumping in and covering his body with your own would have just given them more to eat. However, if, hypothetically, it were possibly to save the boy by shooting all 11 endangered dogs preemptively, what would be the best choice in that case? Better to save the boy, or not punish the dogs for just being what nature intended them to be, and let them eat?

Don't know the real timeline of events, but it sounds like most commenters would have preferred letting the last dog finish his meal rather than stop him by shooting him, based on the opinion that he was clearly a goner. If there were any chance of survival, wouldn't it have been best to sacrifice the dog and possibly save the boy? Nash survived the horrific chimp attack beyond all odds, possibly from some intervention. Was it worth the chance?

PB...

1. Let's ease off of the loaded comments

2. In this hypothetical situation, what would you have done after jumping in and covering up your child? That means "two birds with one stone" for the African Painted Dogs.

3. Here is why I don't like hypothetical statements: Hypothetically speaking, if I would have been at that zoo I would have jumped down there and fought off the dogs with one hand while simultaneously throwing the baby up to the mother with my other hand.

4. As of right now, we know it was a careless accident that the mother will never forget. Until told otherwise, let's treat it as such. No hypothetical remarks, no "what if" statements, and no "if that were me, I would have done..." comments.

This goes for everyone: Just read the article and say a prayer or the equivalent (I'll be choosing the latter), but above all please stop the irrelevant talk and try to contribute something of substance.

Some news sites have meaningful discussions, and I still have hope for newsvine, albeit a very small glimmer.

@markutk, are you the thought police? This is an internet discussion which means you are not always going to get the brightest bulbs in the lamp nor will everyone be a rocket scientist. Seems to me that unless someone is saying racist comments or just plain filth they should be allowed to make their point (even though they may not have one!). "This goes for everyone" - sounds like you want to control the board. Perhaps you should apply for a position as internet board monitor. Good luck.

That sounds like a fruitless job so I guess I'll just grin and bear it.

If we never explore the what-if situations, I guess we'll just be doomed to repeating things, and never learning. No one here was there first hand, so instead we should just sit around and wait for information to be fed to us. Officially.

Otherwise, why not try to review what actions and options were available with the liberty of doing so, after the fact, as opposed to the few seconds during the event, and standing transfixed in incredulity.

Here here JT: and that does include the humans (not that I want to talk about that). Apparently, TUPF has never been outside the boarders of his own state, let alone his country.....

Mr. Blade, I do not know where your comment comes from but I have lived in about 10 different states and have traveled to all but a hand full; lived in 3 foreign countries and have traveled to every continent except the coldest one.

And the expression is: "hear, hear".

Of course the Number 1 predator on the planet is a species called Homo sapiens.

tupf....your still an idiot...

Coyote: YOU'RE entitled to YOUR own opinion... as long as you know that YOU'RE an idiot as well.

The fence rail was 11 feet off the ground according to an earlier article, but your point is well taken, and I had/have the same question.

I once read that in a crisis, 10% of the people do nothing and usually get killed, 10% may take decisive action, and the other 80% wait for somebody to take charge. Looks like the 80% watched the mauling.

TUPF, you aren't getting the picture here. You seem to be insinuating that the people watching should have been responsible for saving that boy, and you are just wrong. This is all about the mother putting an innocent child up high on a rail and him falling. This is NOT about any unfortunate spectators and all they would have done is get in staff's way, perhaps get killed themselves, and make things worse. Your insinuation is offensive.

No, I wouldn't jump over a railing and jump in with wild dogs when it makes no sense at all and I couldn't do anything really for him. Do I love kids? Of course. Would I die to save one in a different situation? Yep. But no, but not in this case.

Too bad you weren't there tupf....then we'd be reading and commenting on the stupid mom who let her kid fall in to the pen, and the brave bystander who jumped in and was killed along with the kid....

No....

Yes, there would be blame and medical examiners can't lie without being held accountable. What are you thinking on this? How can they have an accurate picture of any changes to be made, cause of death, and yes, it does make a difference. MEs aren't there to comfort families by making up whatever they think will make everyone feel good. They are there to scientifically find out what happened and report on it. That doesn't even make sense.

No. No, no, no, that's no, no, never, just no.

@Tar

You're an idiot.

If a physician lies about a cause of death and it is later proven he or she lied then that constitutes medical malpractice . Not a wise choice.

The sad tragedy of this child dying this way is unfathomable but it is always better to know the truth.

Of COURSE, let's leave them in the wild - where nobody else in the world can ever see them in the flesh! Picture books should be enough for everyone!

Seriously, the "animal rights" people (long before PETA was even established) screamed bloody murder when zoos kept all the animals in cages. So the larger (and better funded) zoos started creating "habitat" exhibits, where the animals were relatively free and spectators could look at them only from the outside. But you STILL get morons like this mother who balances a toddler on a railing, or the mutant who jumped into the tiger enclosure at the Bronx Zoo so he could "be one with the tigers." So now we've got idiots clamoring to ban zoos altogether, so that 99.9% of the people on Earth will NEVER get to see these animals in the flesh...! What's the answer? Well, one answer is to never reward someone financially for doing something stupid that causes injury or death, no matter how sympathetic you are (as a member of a jury) to their loss. The zoo didn't cause this child's death; the mother did.

I've never understood why it's necessary that we see these animals "in the flesh". I've never seen a narwhal in the flesh nor a cuttlefish but I've seen a couple amazing documentaries about both. I don't feel cheated in the least that I've not seen them "in the flesh". I also know more about them due to the documentaries than I would from staring at them in a zoo. I did see a silverback gorilla "in the flesh" at the Cleveland Zoo. It was sickening seeing that magnificent creature in an enclosure that more resembled a parking garage than its natural environment. The gorillas in the numerous documentaries I've seen seemed much happier than parking garage Magilla. An added bonus...if I don't see the animal "in the flesh" I've got zero chance of seeing my flesh "in the animal".

What a great idea! So the animals whose habitats have disappeared, what about those ones? We'll just humanely euthanise them. Never mind that they'll be extinct in the wild and in zoos now, right?

Elephants are disappearing in the wild rapidly now that ivory's being traded legally again. Pressure on their habitat by growing human population causes similar problems. Elephants must travel hundreds of miles each season to find food due to human encroachment. They may not survive in the wild.

PETA's ideas are pie-in-the-sky unrealistic. Anyone who has this idea who has more than a one child family is a hypocrite. It's human population pressure that's destroying the environmental habitat for the every single animal in our zoos.

And the African sanctuaries also allow hunting of certain animals on their land as well. A lot of people think they just save animals completely, but they will allow hunting if there are certain animals with too high in population.

Pittsburgh zoo has a great breeding program over the past few years they have had baby beavers, baby elephants, baby painted dogs, baby seals, baby tigers, and baby gorillas all made possible by there breeding program. If it wasn't for a place like this most species would be extinct by now. So zoos are good so don't bash zoos they help keep animals on the earth. BTW if you want to see videos of the babys born at the pittsburgh zoo look for them on youtube or wpxi's website.

I agree animals are better left in the wild. however we have problems with lack of habitat and poachers. if it were not for zoos many animals like tigers and pandas would of already been extinct. Would it not be nice if people would just use thier heads and not do stupid things.

Sure. So she could hang in the net watching him die? Maybe be the animals' next meal? What good would that have done?

Seriously, what makes you think a woman stupid enough to let her child fall into the pit with the dogs in the first place would jump in and try to save it?