Lion tries to eat baby; is stymied by glass wall

[Boom]

http://io9.com/5907294/lion-tries-to-eat-baby-at-zoo-is-stymied-by-plastic-wall

 

[Victarion]

I clicked the youtube link on the first video, and in the sidebar of suggested videos there's another one from the same user. Except this time the baby's in front of a crocodile enclosure.

 

[terry78]

What the **** did they expect dressing it like prey?


After the first few times I would have just moved the kid, because as strong as that glass supposedly is, you never know.

 

[Victarion]

What the **** did they expect dressing it like prey?


After the first few times I would have just moved the kid, because as strong as that glass supposedly is, you never know.

I know. I wouldn't have put him there to begin with.

 

[SuperFerret]

Babies need to know that things are going to try and eat them.

 

[terry78]

Including other babies.

 

[SuperFerret]

Especially other babies.

 

[BrollySupersj]

Kinda feel sorry for the lioness.

 

[SuperBlam]

Wow. That could have ended badly. Hooray for Glass!

 

[The Guard]

I love that the baby is just sort of nonplussed.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I dunno if it's a sign i'm too uptight... but I just don't think it's funny that the mother is laughing about a lion desperately trying to eat her baby

 

[Kane52630]

Meh that's nothing...

 

[POWdER-man]

Even though I would be worried of the lion getting through, I think I would be almost as worried to get a golden shower.

 

[bullets]

Even though I would be worried of the lion getting through, I think I would be almost as worried to get a golden shower.

I dunno if it's a sign i'm too uptight... but I just don't think it's funny that the mother is laughing about a lion desperately trying to eat her baby

I think I would of hightailed it out of that room. I don't know how likely it is for that glass to shatter but i wouldn't take any unnecessary risks with a baby in tow

 

[The Question]

I think I would of hightailed it out of that room. I don't know how likely it is for that glass to shatter but i wouldn't take any unnecessary risks with a baby in tow

If it were even a little likely that the glass would shatter then the zoo would allow people to get that close to it. Or be open.

After the first few times I would have just moved the kid, because as strong as that glass supposedly is, you never know.

Would you let a baby ride in a car? Because, statistically, that's much more dangerous. There are more car accidents then there are structural failures of zoo cages by a very wide margin.

 

[bullets]

Yeah , I'm not saying it's likely but sometimes you have to wonder if it could go wrong.

I'm not saying the mother is negligent but if an animal started pouncing on the glass I'd move away

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

"The only thing that ticks me off about this video, is the teasing of that poor animal through the glass. The lion perceives this child as food and it wants to get to it, natural instinct. Instead of moving and letting the animal be, the parents sit their kid in-front of the glass and taunt her. Nice. Wild animal, wild instincts."

^ This was one of the comments, and I totally agree. Seriously, sitting your baby in front of glass and taunting a hungry lion and recording it on video just has "bad idea" written all over it.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

Its a bad parenting scenario. They are taunting the lion with the baby and laughing about it too. Sure there is a glass there, but that is literally the worst place you can place the baby in the whole area. Not to mention he is placed there alone like a freaking carrot attached to a stick. The glass were to malfunction in any way the baby is chewed to pieces right away. In the commetns someone says that the baby is placed there but its not his choice and the parents should be making the correct choice for him which is safety first. I agree with that.

These people need to get the baby taken away.

 

[Lencho01]

I don't really see a problem with this.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Its a bad parenting scenario. They are taunting the lion with the baby and laughing about it too. Sure there is a glass there, but that is literally the worst place you can place the baby in the whole area. Not to mention he is placed there alone like a freaking carrot attached to a stick. The glass were to malfunction in any way the baby is chewed to pieces right away. In the commetns someone says that the baby is placed there but its not his choice and the parents should be making the correct choice for him which is safety first. I agree with that.

These people need to get the baby taken away.

That's a little extreme.

If you look in the video, you can see people sitting down on a bench two feet from the glass. That's really no less dangerous than having the baby, or anyone for that matter sitting just two feet closer. The enclosure is obviously designed for up close viewing of the animals without risk of injury. Most zoos use a heavy acrylic and/or polycarbonate for their "glass" enclosures - they're DESIGNED for fool-proof maximum protection.

I don't disagree that they should have moved the kid (safety first, regardless of the level of protection), but to call them bad parents or to demand their kids are taken away with extreme. There are FAR WORSE things parents could and have done in zoos then sit their kid close to the glass.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

That's a little extreme.

If you look in the video, you can see people sitting down on a bench two feet from the glass. That's really no less dangerous than having the baby, or anyone for that matter sitting just two feet closer. The enclosure is obviously designed for up close viewing of the animals without risk of injury. Most zoos use a heavy acrylic and/or polycarbonate for their "glass" enclosures - they're DESIGNED for fool-proof maximum protection.

I don't disagree that they should have moved the kid (safety first, regardless of the level of protection), but to call them bad parents or to demand their kids are taken away with extreme. There are FAR WORSE things parents could and have done in zoos then sit their kid close to the glass.

I see where youre coming from and it does sound extreme. I do think children welfare services have a case of parent neglect considering the child is being used as an object to taunt an wild animal.

The child was knowingly placed in the most dangerous location in the room. The role of the parent here is to look for the well being of someone that cant make those choices for themselves quite yet. The fact they find this amusing doesnt play well on their behalf.

Maybe you are right though and removing the child temporarily is not the likely outcome, but an investigation of the parents should be the least a childrens aid lawyer could get on them.

Its the week of ******ed parents. First tanning lady and now this.

 

[Spider-Who?]

How is the location any more dangerous then sitting on the zoo's bench two feet away? There is a thick barrier between the animal and child. Go to the zoo and you'll see COUNTLESS people/kids up against the glass. If the exhibit is too dangerous for people to be that close, then there would be additional barriers to keep more distance.

Yes, the video LOOKS disturbing, because it's a frikkin lion trying to eat a baby. But it isn't dangerous at all due to the protection the zoo put in place so people CAN get "up close and personal" with the animals. You can decry the fact that the parents found it funny - heck I chuckled a few times watching it - but claiming the parents deserve to get their kids taken away (for any amount of time) is above and beyond what is deserved - and would have far more of a negative consequence than their actions at the zoo ever could.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

How is the location any more dangerous then sitting on the zoo's bench two feet away? There is a thick barrier between the animal and child. Go to the zoo and you'll see COUNTLESS people/kids up against the glass. If the exhibit is too dangerous for people to be that close, then there would be additional barriers to keep more distance.

Yes, the video LOOKS disturbing, because it's a frikkin lion trying to eat a baby. But it isn't dangerous at all due to the protection the zoo put in place so people CAN get "up close and personal" with the animals. You can decry the fact that the parents found it funny - heck I chuckled a few times watching it - but claiming the parents deserve to get their kids taken away (for any amount of time) is above and beyond what is deserved - and would have far more of a negative consequence than their actions at the zoo ever could.

Children are not objects of any kind and any type of negligence by the parents is severely dealt with by any type of childrens aid society in US, Canada, etc. The glass protection does not play as big a role, as the intent to use a child as a mechanism to bait/taunt a wild animal is the real offense here. Placing the child at that exact location ,recording it, laughing, zebra,etc has a motif perverse enough for any family lawyer to try to mold a profile out of it.

If a court decides that the childrens best interests are not being kept at any moment, that is grounds to deem the parents as not suitable for looking after the childrens well being. Remember children are not an actual property but a dependent being who has rights it cannot excersice on his/her own. I know it does seem extreme, but that is what the childrens welfare and childrens aid society do and aim for. If this gathers enough attention, there is no doubt they will go for that. They may not get it but they will try.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I certainly can't argue the following:

Children are not objects of any kind and any type of negligence by the parents is severely dealt with by any type of childrens aid society...If a court decides that the childrens best interests are not being kept at any moment, that is grounds to deem the parents as not suitable...Remember children are not an actual property but a dependent being who has rights it cannot excersice on his/her own...

However, I do disagree with your summation that the parents are perverse and unfit simply because of the video, and that they purposefully dressed him as a zebra and used him as "bait". As the parents said, that's his normal hoodie - they didn't even make the "zebra" connection until after the fact - and there were other kids at the glass as well, but the lion only came to the kid when HE crawled down next to the glass. It is a purely innocent incident at a zoo, one that happens countless times every day, by both good parents and bad.

Like I said before, having kids up at the glass happens all the time because, well, that's how the zoos are designed. Allowing a child to get close to the glass at a zoo does not a bad parent make. Now, if it were a fence, or another unreliable barrier as opposed to the 2 inch plexiglass, then yeah, I might agree that the parent's allowance of the kid getting close was dumb.

I really think a lot of the issue has to do with context. We see one child sitting next to the glass and people are in an uproar, but in the videos below, we see several kids next to the glass and no one bats an eye. Do you perceive these kids to be in grave danger, or their parents evil?

[YT]F8GZHx36Dd8&feature=related[/YT]
[YT]POvC21RW_7Y&feature=related[/YT]

 

[bullets]

This is probably an everyday occurrence. I wouldn't go so far to call it bad parenting... just ill advised.