Thread: Should they have let the bear eat her?

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Once upon a time there was a little girl called Goldilocks who lived at the edge of a great zoo. She was called Goldilocks because she had very beautiful curly blond hair which gleamed like gold in the sunlight.

But although Goldilocks looked so pretty she could sometimes be very stupid. Every day as Goldilocks went out to play her mother would remind her: 'Now Goldilocks, you may go and play in the meadow but don't go into the zoo or you will get your ass bitten by one of those big mean polar bears.'

One morning Goldilocks began to get tired of playing in the meadow.
'I know,' said Goldilocks to herself, 'I'll go exploring in the zoo.' She looked back at the house to make sure that her mother wasn't watching then ran off accross the meadow and into the zoo.

Goldilocks wandered deeper and deeper into the zoo until she became completely lost. She felt very frightened and was about to cry when she saw a strange little enclosure amongst the pathways. Goldilocks tapped on the door but there was no answer. Then she peeped in through an open window. There was no one at home so Goldilocks climbed down a fence, over a wide hedge full of thorns and got past a concrete wall before swan diving into the murky moat where the polar bears swim*.

What Goldilocks didn't realise was that it was feeding time ** for the three bears. When they attacked her, rescuers threw down some life belts on ropes to pull her out.

Goldilocks started to realise how painful it was being attacked by a polar bear, so she tried to get out. First she tried the smallest lifebelt, but it was too small for her portly frame and it split in half. Then she tried the largest lifebelt, but it was too loose and she slipped out when she foolishly reached out for a pole being used to ward off the bears. Then she tried the middle lifebelt and it held her just right and they lifted her right out.

Police issued Goldilocks with a citation for trespassing, and keepers have no plans to change the zoo's setup. The concrete wall protecting the polar bears' enclosure will not be built up higher than its current three feet (90 centimeters), nor will more guards be posted.

And the three bears lived happily ever after.

* Berlin Zoo: No changes to polar bear enclosure even after woman jumped in -- chicagotribune.com
** Polar bear attacks woman at Berlin Zoo - CNN.com

Goldilocks was blonde... what do you expect?

I of course think that in cases like this, and any other where people shouldn't be and have no reasonable expectation of safety, that there should be no consequences to the animal. yes, the argument is made that once they eat easy human prey, in the wild, they become dangerous. but these bears are probably never getting out, and likely would like a different climate given a choice, so I doubt consumption of one stupid biped would harm them in the long run.

Cold? No. our problem is that we protect EVERYBODY from everything, including themselves. What does it cost to institutionalize somebody like that? what if she reproduces and her stupidity or chemical problem is hereditary.

gets me into a huge thought process about reproduction (see octo-mom) restrictions and other such. It is just natural selection trying to re-assert it herself. besides, she's been cheated out of her darwin award now.

Red

The problem, as I understand it, is that once an animal mauls a human it is more likely to do it again. Meaning the handlers and other staff are put at a greater risk. Not sure where that line is drawn (tastes flesh, kills, etc) but I know I've seen reports on it. So animals fault or not, assuming that is true, the safest route is to put them down.

As to population control... I'm all for it. Prove your stupidity and/or incompetence and you should be sterilized. Then again I'm all for the death penalty and putting debtors/welfarers to work on the side of the road instead of giving them a free ride or wiping the slate clean.

I think letting the bears kill the woman would have created much much more problems than it would solve. Not to mention the lawsuit that would inevitably follow. They got her out pretty quickly, I doubt she'll succeed in a negligence claim, assuming she purposefully jumped into the pit. However, if she died, there is no proof that she purposefully jumped unless someone saw her do it and/or recorded it. Then the family can sue the zoo for improper safety.

Plus, the family could sue for pain and suffering during her final moments of being torn to shreds. Its not quick so there'd be a big award for that. They could even sue for an intentional tort, the zoo intentionally let her die. That would bad for the zoo.

So, looking at the bigger picture, clearly the zoo did the only logical thing. Save the dumb ****.




That said...yeah. They shoulda let the bears eat the dumb ****.

There clearly would have been a &%$*-storm if they didn't save her.

But I do kind of wish we lived in a world where it was acceptable. And then the headline could have read "Woman Commits Suicide at Berlin Zoo" instead.

I hate the way people sue and win for things that should be proof they warrant euthanasia, it absolutely amazes. Probably the reason I've not yet gotten on a Jury, I WANT to be on one. and I want it to be for a really idiotic case like a woman tripping over her own kid in a store and suing, or the guy that got locked in a garage during a burglary and sued for pain and suffering because he had to live on dog food for days.

I think that during the committing of a crime you should have no rights, sure, afterwards when you surrender to police your rights to fair treatment etc. should come back into play. but say you're breaking into somebodies house and on the way out trip over the sprinkler and get hurt. you shouldn't get to sue.

with animals involved it does go to the stupid side of things quite often. because although I believe the dumbest animal is worth more than a stupid human (because of their infinite ability to be a drain on society) the fact remains that a normal human is worth more than any animal (excepting maybe my little dog).

a case a few years ago happened I watched all about on news. woman and her 2yo son were outside a store, a dog came up and unprovoked jumped on and mauled the boy, laying into his face very good. while the child was in surgery the understandably distraught and angry father took a bat and went looking for the dog. he found it chained in somebodies yard. he walked up, the person told him to get away and TOOK THE LEASH OFF, the dog went towards him and he went Babe Ruth on it.

animal rights group was after him, wanted him in jail. Personally I feel he was justified, further that he was likely in danger, or had good reason to believe so considering the dog approaching just mauled his son. AND the person letting it off the leash should have been beaten for being an asshole.

now, onto stupid people and reproduction. local case where woman abandoned two kids, age 3 and 2 at separate locations because she "had no family, was stressed, etc." and she may be currently pregnant. Uh huh, I say tie her tubes, DONE.

my cousin, 20yo, already done time, drunk driving, domestic abuse, petty theft etc. has a 1.5yo with his stupid as him girlfriend. she has previous kid by different guy. court has restraining order against him, she lets him live with her anyways. the reason I heard, "I want to be with the father of one of my kids."

yeah, tie her tubes and knot his pipes.

Red

Originally Posted by Big Red

Probably the reason I've not yet gotten on a Jury, I WANT to be on one. and I want it to be for a really idiotic case like a woman tripping over her own kid in a store and suing, or the guy that got locked in a garage during a burglary and sued for pain and suffering because he had to live on dog food for days.

I've served on two juries and the reason there are twelve people is to cancel out extreme opinions like yours and, hopefully, come up with something that's reasonable.

As for letting her be eaten, is it really reasonable to ask the people on the site to make all kinds of calculations during an emergency, such as, "She jumped in so we shouldn't save her" or "She was pushed, so we have to save her"? In a crisis, you have to act quickly to save human life and then sort out what happened later.

When I read some of the Neanderthal opinions in this forum, my first reaction is that there's just too much testosterone floating around and there's a bunch of adolescents competing to demonstrate who has the biggest testicles.

I think it is a good thing that she was rescued and not eaten. Polar bears deserve better food than fat stupid blonds. I have heard that polar bears (as do all bears) consider young blond children named Goldilocks to be a delicacy.

"Life is tough,it's even tougher if you are stupid" John Wayne

shoulda let it eat her. anyone dumb enough to rush a bear while it's eating deserves to be eaten... hopefully before they can reproduce.