Would you shoot ?

[BADUNAME30]

Yesterday in Pgh at the zoo a 2 y/o child was mauled to death by a pack of african painted dogs when he fell into the exibit after his mother stood him up on the top of the fence.

Now, without goin into a tangent about how the parents should suffer the same fate.

If you were to witness something like this and were carrying, would you immediately attempt to shoot these animals in an attempt to save the childs life or would you take the time to think of possible legal ramifications ?

As the story goes. While zoo attendents attempted to distract the dogs away from the child, when local Police arrived they immediately began shooting the one remaining dog.

For the record, to me, a child's life is worth far more than any concern of myself, and I personaly don't think i would hesitate at all and would immediately begain shooting.

 

[Cosmoline]

The problem is there's a kid in the middle of a pack of dogs. Hitting the child is a very real possibility. Particularly with a concealed sidearm.

 

[Apachedriver]

So the choices are A) stand by,listen to the child shriek and get mauled to death, or B) risk hitting the child while trying to save it's life.

In A, the child dies horribly and in B, maybe you save him or maybe you kill him quickly if you miss.

What a horrible situation.

I'll say I would want to pick B. Either way, what a horrible situation for all.

 

[Rob G]

In A, the child dies horribly and in B, maybe you save him or maybe you kill him quickly if you miss. After which you'll be charged with voluntary manslaughter and possibly be sued in to bankruptcy by the child's parents.

Fixed that for you.

NEVER shoot unless you're sure of your target and what's beyond it. Every time you loose a bullet you're 100% responsible for what it does.

 

[7.62 Nato]

I've ran the scenario of a stray attacking a child and came to the conclusion if it seemed that grave I would take the chance and shoot. I imagine my response at a zoo would be the same. I couldn't stand by and do nothing.

 

[leadaddict]

If the child could be dropped over the fence it wouldn't be that hard to get myself (a fit young man ) over the fence. Given what little info I have I'd probably go over fence first, try to get between the child and danger, using firepower as needed. I'd much rather die a horrible death at the teeth of wild dogs than stand by and watch that happen.

 

[9mmepiphany]

As the story goes. While zoo attendents attempted to distract the dogs away from the child, when local Police arrived they immediately began shooting the one remaining dog.

Unless you read a different article than I did:
1. There were 4 dogs that wouldn't leave the child.
2. The officer entered the enclosure to aid the keepers in drawing the dogs off
3. He only shot the dog after it threatened him.

I better question, might be, how good a shot are you?
Points to consider:
1. The child was engulfed by a pack of dogs
2. The dogs were not standing still
3. The dogs are about the size of a small German Shepard
4. The shortest range was about 5 yards and at a downward angle...assuming you could shoot over the barricade without falling in.

While I generally avoid recommending warning shots, this might be a case were a couple of shots placed in a safe direction might have distracted most of the pack long enough for the keepers to respond..this is a very small might

 

[Kiln]

Maybe fire a shot into the ground? Once at my grandfather's place a group of wild dogs 3-4 of them were coming towards me menacingly and all it took to disperse them was the report of the .32 pistol I had with me.

Sometimes a gunshot can scare away a group of animals without risking hitting the person being attacked.

Edit: Above poster beat me to it. The point is, sometimes warning shots work, especially with animals like dogs that are easily startled.

 

[gspn]

Sometimes in life the situation goes to a place where there is no good outcome. That one went there quickly. No idea what I'd do without seeing it. I'm picturing 5 dogs and a kid inside a circle the size of a hula hoop...it's going to be terribly difficult to make that end well. Distance, nerves, moving targets and a short barreled carry weapon all serve to degrade the potential for a great outcome.

I guess I'm thankful I did't have to witness it. Terribly sad for that child. Terribly sad.

 

[CWL]

I wouldn't shoot into a pack of dogs that were mauling a small child, way too much motion to be able to account for your shots. Remember that these dogs didn't start the attack, a child fell into their pack, triggering their hunting instincts.

He're the kicker to this incident. These dogs are classified as Endangered Species. I think that every one you hit may result in unknown legal ramifications.

This is just one of those tragic events that there aren't any real solutions after the fact. We can try to "armchair" it as a "what would you do", but the real question should be asked of the parents who stood their child on that railing.

 

[Skribs]

NEVER shoot unless you're sure of your target and what's beyond it. Every time you loose a bullet you're 100% responsible for what it does.

In that case, you are sure of the target, and are weighing the possibilities of what will happen and the outcomes of those possibilities. Like Apache said, A) is let the child die slowly and painfully, B) is potentially save the child or end his life quickly. In B), you have do deal with the legal ramifications of both action against the child AND against the zoo (they can sue you too, for shooting their dogs) and the family. Morally, however, B is the better decision.

There's also this: by the time you notice and react, (and potentially go through the decision of whether or not to shoot), the kid is probably done for anyway. Shooting the dogs won't save him at that point, you're just executing the dogs for acting in their nature. It's not the dog's fault they ate the kid, it's the fault of whoever didn't put a chain link fence over the railing. (I'm not saying it's wrong to shoot an animal to keep it from eating a child or a pet, just that the dogs are not evil).

And, as harsh as it is: it's not my kid. There is a very different response if you are the child's father and watch it fall in (to where B probably won't even cross your mind) and if you're an innocent bystander. This plays both into deciding between A and B, and deciding whether it is worth the legal effort for a kid that is probably already gone.

The real issue here, as I said, is having a cage where it is possible for a kid to fall into. If the animal is dangerous, then it needs to have barriers that can't be easily penetrated by a climbing third-grader or a toddler on his father's shoulders. The family SHOULD sue the zoo for not child-proofing the exhibit.

As harsh as it is, another factor is: it's not my kid. This would also play into it for 2 reasons. 1) If you are the father or mother, you're not even thinking about B. You want to protect your kid. This means the decision making process is that much faster, and you actually have a chance to save your kid. 2) there is a big moral delimma on this forum as to whether you should use your CCW to help someone else in trouble. Although, in this case you KNOW who you're trying to protect, there is the idea that unless it is someone you are personally responsible for, you are not responsible for their safety. Others believe that if you can help, you should, because the only thing required for evil to survive is for good men to do nothing. Not that those quotes exactly apply in this case.

 

[M-Cameron]

this honestly sounds like a situation where pepper spray would be a better option over a gun. the spray will cover a larger area more quickly and will have less collateral damage.

with a gun, if you hit the child, its a hospital trip AT BEST....

with pepper spray, youll simply need to rinse his eyes with some water.


also, you are a lot less likely to be to face potential legal action from the family, the zoo and the AG.

 

[holdencm9]

Yeah my first instinct (as a response...I can't say this would be my first reaction IRL) is to jump in.

Often one larger predator can scare an entire pack of wild dogs off of their prey. Not saying I would do the job, but a full grown adult male screaming and charging at them may scare them off and buy you enough time to save the kid before they regroup. (And yes they may try to "regroup" and launch a counter-offensive because they are pack hunters). Their normal prey is like, gazelles and stuff...those things max out at 70 or 80 lbs I think, so they may be scared feces-less at an adult human male with a stick and a loud bang-thing. Either way, if they start to attack you, at least you have a clearer shot and more "justifiable" shot since your life is in peril as well.

I definitely probably wouldn't try to take a long aimed shot with any of my carry pistols.

 

[psyopspec]

Legal ramifications wouldn't really be a question for me here. If there were hesitation, it would be in ensuring I wasn't going to shoot the kid. RE 'granting him a quick death,' I don't carry anything that could guarantee that. If you carry a common service caliber, you don't either.

 

[silicosys4]

Screw that, having a gun doesn't mean its your only options. I'd be over that fence in a heartbeat. Give me ten seconds with a pair of steel toes...Ever hear a grown man gone feral with rage and in protect mode? I wouldn't go near, and an 80lb wild animal with flight instincts won't push a meal over it. Get one and the rest would scatter... I'd see myself going feral on them, gorilla style. I wasn't there so I hate to say anything I could have done would have mattered...but if I saw that and there was a way i could get in there...

 

[7.62 Nato]

Skribs "The real issue here, as I said, is having a cage where it is possible for a kid to fall into. If the animal is dangerous, then it needs to have barriers that can't be easily penetrated by a climbing third-grader or a toddler on his father's shoulders. The family SHOULD sue the zoo for not child-proofing the exhibit."


Jim, West PA "Yesterday in Pgh at the zoo a 2 y/o child was mauled to death by a pack of african painted dogs when he fell into the exibit after his mother stood him up on the top of the fence."

Lawsuit? Seriously? The mother put the 2 yr. old on top of the fence! She should be charged. And if she has charge of any more children they should be taken away for their safety.

 

[Bobson]

Yes, I would shoot. I would prefer being charged with manslaughter (which is what this would be, in Arizona, if the shooter ended up killing the child), to knowing I did nothing to save a toddler from being mauled to death by wild dogs.

What a nightmare. I agree the mother should be charged.

 

[Rob G]

Lawsuit? Seriously? The mother put the 2 yr. old on top of the fence! She should be charged.

Truly a common sense answer and one I agree with. Unfortunately even though skribs had the details slightly wrong his interpretation is probably correct. They will sue on the basis that it should not have been possible for them to do what they did with their child. People hate to admit their own stupidity. The fact that their child died as a result of it will reinforce their subconcious need to find a way to blame somebody else.

In other words, the loss of money is more important than having the death of a child on your conscience, knowing you might have been able to save his life.

Actually knowing that I had just shot and killed a child when there may have been an alternative would probably mean much more to me than the money. I would rather find another solution to the problem that doesn't involve potentially killing the victim.

 

[holdencm9]

Well, I somewhat take back my previous statement. It is likely that the damage would have been done before anyone even registered what was happening.

The animals attacked the child so violently and quickly that by the time a veterinarian and other zoo staffers arrived seconds later, they determined it would have been futile to try rescuing the boy, she said.

Source: Chicago Tribune

Of course "seconds later" could be 20 seconds or 200 seconds for all we know, and maybe someone who was there right when it happened could have been more effective. I think if it really happened so fast, and they were already on top of the child and you couldn't quickly get inside, the only option would be to shoot in the vicinity of them, and hope they scatter.

Also I agree with 7.62 Nato, the mom was the one at fault for putting her kid on a ledge overlooking dangerous animals.

 

[Skribs]

In other words, the loss of money is more important than having the death of a child on your conscience, knowing you might have been able to save his life.

If you hit the child, you have the death on your conscience, knowing you killed him. So you would rather potentially go to prison for taking action that didn't change the situation, while at the same time feeling guilty for killing him, (and, depending on how word spreads at the prison, getting beaten for shooting a 2-year-old), than just leave the situation be?

Lawsuit? Seriously? The mother put the 2 yr. old on top of the fence! She should be charged. And if she has charge of any more children they should be taken away for their safety.

Yes, seriously. I am a firm believer in parents being responsible for their children, but at the same time, a proper fence would have made it a LOT harder for this to happen. Any zoo I've gone to, there is a net, window, or chain-link fence that separates the exhibit from the people, to ensure that this won't happen.

The parents can't watch kids 100% of the time at the zoo (especially if there are more kids than parents), and this isn't a situation where if the kid messes up they learn a lesson. Kid accidentally goes into a gator pit or a lion's den, and that kid is gone. So yes, I believe that in order to protect the kids, proper facilities must be in place. Not like a high chain-link fence or a net would be that expensive compared to the landscaping, construction, and climate control for these enclosures.

ETA:

Also I agree with 7.62 Nato, the mom was the one at fault for putting her kid on a ledge overlooking dangerous animals.

From what I understand, she did that so the kid could see.

 

[HoosierQ]

Well I think you need to be very very confident that you're going to actually make a situation better...fix a bad situation...by firing a weapon. Add to that the fact that this was in a zoo with lots and lots of confusion and kids. I just do not see a high liklihood of firing in such a crowded chaotic setting making that situation better. Much more likely to make matters worse...panic over a gunshot starting a stampede...somebody gets trampled. Those zoo enclosures are frequently concrete with a little dirt...so we have a ricochet hitting somebody. Hit the child. Miss the dogs. You might actually shoot somebody or yourself getting over the barrier.

Tough situation. Wouldn't want to make it worse. Worse for the public probably, worse almost for sure for you. Your gun absolutely gets confiscated, you get sued, you get prosecuted, the media hounds you.

Quite frankly it's just a very different situation than defending yourself or your family from a carjacking at a gas station or a home invasion in you domicile...180 degrees really.

 

[herkyguy]

Jump in first. Start shooting shortly thereafter.

 

[Kiln]

Zoo habitats have to meet certain enclosement standards to remain open, obviously the inspector who was checking this one thought that it was safe enough, obviously they can't be held liable for a mother putting her child on top of the fence.

 

[oneounceload]

Is it even legal to be carrying at the zoo? Most I have seen are of the "gun-free safety zone" types. If so, now pulling your gun, even if nothing else, might lead to more complications

 

[mljdeckard]

Pay close attention to posts 4 and 7.

If we weren't there, we don't know if we had a good shot, or if we would have reasonably been able to get closer to be able to help. If I saw dogs RUNNING TOWARDS the child, and I had a good chance of stopping or scaring them before they got there without hitting the child, I might shoot. But if it's a cluster of dogs with the child in the middle, I probably wouldn't reasonably have a safe shot.