What About The Parents?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

A 7 year old boy broke into an Australian zoo, killed several animals and the fed them, and several live ones, to the resident crocodile. Because of his age, the little boy cannot be charged with a crime in the Northern Territory. The zoo plans to sue the parents, but I wonder if there should be some sort of charges filed against them as well.

Sovereign Court

Damn!
What a little monster, probably a future serial killer...

Liberty's Edge

Where the f+%@ were this kid's parents? And why are they trying to sue the zoo?

Sovereign Court

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Where the f&~! were this kid's parents? And why are they trying to sue the zoo?

The zoo is going to sue the parents, and rightfully so.

Liberty's Edge

Callous Jack wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Where the f&~! were this kid's parents? And why are they trying to sue the zoo?
The zoo is going to sue the parents, and rightfully so.

Oh, f$#%, sorry. TOTALLY misread that sentence. My bad there....

Scarab Sages

Force the brat to community service until the damages have been worked off. Also stick the monster in psychotherapy for rest of his life. The kid sounds like a sociopath and may turn into a psychopath later in life if not watched and/or medicated carefully.

Dark Archive

Feed the kid to the crocodile. Problem solved.

Liberty's Edge

Alex Draconis wrote:
Feed the kid to the crocodile. Problem solved.

Even more gruesome: feed the crocodile to the kid. Raw. And alive.

Dark Archive

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
Feed the kid to the crocodile. Problem solved.
Even more gruesome: feed the crocodile to the kid. Raw. And alive.

I'm trying to figure that one out and failing miserably. Huh?

Liberty's Edge

Alex Draconis wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
Feed the kid to the crocodile. Problem solved.
Even more gruesome: feed the crocodile to the kid. Raw. And alive.

I'm trying to figure that one out and failing miserably. Huh?

I'm not entirely sure, but it would involve lots of spreaders and clamps. This little f&@%head would be feeling some PAIN when I'm done with him.

Dark Archive

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:
Feed the kid to the crocodile. Problem solved.
Even more gruesome: feed the crocodile to the kid. Raw. And alive.

I'm trying to figure that one out and failing miserably. Huh?

I'm not entirely sure, but it would involve lots of spreaders and clamps. This little f~!!head would be feeling some PAIN when I'm done with him.

Ok just so far as you leave the croc alone.

My thermally challenged friends get a bad enough rap as is.


David Fryer wrote:
A 7 year old boy broke into an Australian zoo, killed several animals and the fed them, and several live ones, to the resident crocodile. Because of his age, the little boy cannot be charged with a crime in the Northern Territory. The zoo plans to sue the parents, but I wonder if there should be some sort of charges filed against them as well.

I don't think they could criminally charge the parents with anything the kid did at the zoo, but I have to wonder if there's some kind of neglect going on that could lead to charges. It's a very warped story.

They say the kid's expression is pretty blank the whole time, not even gleeful and mischievous. So I'm really thinking the kid's got some serious emotional issues.

Sovereign Court

I guess they would sue for trespass and trespass to chattels? For the cost of replacing the animals and a vet looking over the croc? So like 6 grand + vet. Sounds like it would be easier to mediate or negotiate some kind of therapy / beatings for the kid and parents.

I'll have to ask in torts class what the standard of parental negligence is down there in australia.


Question... How the heck did a seven year old infiltrate a zoo and kill / capture animals? A seven year old? This sounds like a crazy story.

Yeah, sounds like a future sociopath. I'm for feeding him to the crocodile.

Liberty's Edge

David Witanowski wrote:

Question... How the heck did a seven year old infiltrate a zoo and kill / capture animals? A seven year old? This sounds like a crazy story.

Yeah, sounds like a future sociopath. I'm for feeding him to the crocodile.

It's like a Calvin and Hobbes story written by Satan, pencilled by Charlie Manson, and inked by Hitler.


David Witanowski wrote:

Question... How the heck did a seven year old infiltrate a zoo and kill / capture animals? A seven year old? This sounds like a crazy story.

Yeah, sounds like a future sociopath. I'm for feeding him to the crocodile.

Well, the picture looks like it was in the day, so he was probably just there with his parents, but that just raises more questions, such as "Don't they have locks in Australia?" and "WHAT WERE THE PARENTS DOING THAT THEY DIDN'T NOTICE THEIR KID WANDERING OFF FOR 30 MINUTES!".


If you're going to feed the kid to the crocodile (I'm all in favor), can I throw the chromosome donors (so-called "parents") in after him?

Scarab Sages

It's sad how so many lives can be ruined so quickly. There were probably warning signs, too.


Smurf!!!!

Sovereign Court Contributor

I noticed that the reporter said that the zoo was suing the kid's "guardians," not parents.

Putting two and two together, I'd say the kid has probably already had some problems and clearly needs more help than he's getting.

What he did is pretty screwed up, but a seven-year-old with a bad situation and insufficient parental guidance can't make that kind of judgment.

It's a bad situation all round.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
It's sad how so many lives can be ruined so quickly. There were probably warning signs, too.

WARNING: KEEP YOUR BLOODY PSYCHOTIC LITTLE BASTARD ON A F*++ING LEASH, OR WE'LL FEED THE LITTLE PRICK TO THE CROCODILES.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Wow. This little boy definitely needs therapy. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say future sociopath, but there's obviously some stuff going on his little head that shouldn't be there. And damn, I love reptiles... Bearded dragons rock. This is really disappointing and disheartening.

Major bummer dude.


The kid needs professional help at the least. The zoo needs 7 year-old proof security. The parents or guardians need to be caned.

I think he was trying to get into the crocodile enclosure when they got him, right? Just think how different this story would have been if he had; the crocodile would have been the villain of the story.

It always starts with torturing animals.

Liberty's Edge

It's often so, but I knew a kid who did mean stuff to animals, (not going to get into it) and all he turned out to be was a total wanker, which is all he was anyway.
Definitely needs psychotherapy of some sort, though.
I don't know what to do about the parents. I don't know where to begin. Spaying and neutering comes to mind.


Okay this is going to sound like a troll post given everyone else's views on this thread, but I am truly struggling to understand why this little boy's actions have caused so much outrage and shock around the world. He is only seven years old. Lots of kids hurt animals, and people, when they are young simply because they don't know any better, and because of the thrill of experimentation. As they grow older, their system of values develops, or they learn that those types of actions cause negetive consequences for themselves, and they become non-dangerous functioning members of society.

Sure the fact that the lizards were killed is regretable, and it is probably resonable for the zoo to seek some sort of compensation from the parents, but why are so many people demonizing the boy?


By seven years old, you expect a developed sense of empathy and some degree of morality; enough to know that torturing animals is wrong. If this were a toddler, there would be more of an excuse.

For me, I love animals and I don't eat meat, so it upsets me to see them killed to serve no purpose. If you're going to eat them, fine, but brutally killing caged animals for entertainment is fairly sadistic by my measure. On another level, there's a major lack of responsibility on the parents' behalf: why weren't they watching the kid and keeping them in check?

Liberty's Edge

James Keegan wrote:
On another level, there's a major lack of responsibility on the parents' behalf: why weren't they watching the kid and keeping them in check?

I really don't know, but having kids now myself, I see it time and again. It's like nobody watches their damn kids.

I took my kid to kindergarten orientation a month ago. The teacher's talking. This little "Aso" was up front, growling like a dog. The teacher looked; kept talking; the kid kept growling. Now this kid was at most 5. He didn't drive there himself. The parents were in the room and none of them got up and made their kid act right. I don't even know which ones were his parents. It's like, "well I brought him here. Now teach him. Do your job."
I see this so often, that I'm not really surprised by it any more. My kids were at a deli or something, and my wife scolded them for putting their grubby hands on the counter glass, because somebody has to eventually clean that, it's hard work, and it's rude. The staff was astounded. They gave her free stuff.


Heathansson wrote:
James Keegan wrote:
On another level, there's a major lack of responsibility on the parents' behalf: why weren't they watching the kid and keeping them in check?

I really don't know, but having kids now myself, I see it time and again. It's like nobody watches their damn kids.

I took my kid to kindergarten orientation a month ago. The teacher's talking. This little "Aso" was up front, growling like a dog. The teacher looked; kept talking; the kid kept growling. Now this kid was at most 5. He didn't drive there himself. The parents were in the room and none of them got up and made their kid act right. I don't even know which ones were his parents. It's like, "well I brought him here. Now teach him. Do your job."
I see this so often, that I'm not really surprised by it any more. My kids were at a deli or something, and my wife scolded them for putting their grubby hands on the counter glass, because somebody has to eventually clean that, it's hard work, and it's rude. The staff was astounded. They gave her free stuff.

What CAN your kids touch?

I don't know about this story..I think something's off in the reporting. A kid sneaking into a zoo and doing stupid stuff, even at 7, I can believe(I live in brooklyn, and the bronx zoo episode was plastered all over the news when I was about that age), but killing several animals and then feeding them to the croc...In the space of half an hour? Especially since he climbed the fence to get closer to the croc to feed it? Something's up. If the story is up to snuff, then yeah, the kid is going to need therapy. Just because he should have developed a sense of empathy by now, doesn't mean he has...or possibly ever will. Not that he and his parents shouldn't be punished, however.

Liberty's Edge

They pretty much need to leave everything alone, that's what they can touch.
AND they need to not get in the way of people in the store, or run in front of people with shopping carts and then stop, AND, the LAST thing they need to be doing, is standing there in the grocery cart swatting veterans with a tiny American flag. So definitely they can't touch American flags.
Like I said, nobody watches their damn kids. I'm not saying go out in the parking lot and beat the crap out of your kid for the surveillance camera, just show a little damn common courtesy. You feel a little less disrespected if a kid runs in front of you, stops, and a parent picks him up and says "watch where you're going."

[edit]I don't mean to sound like a dick; this is simply altogether too cathartic to pass up. I'm just grumbling and enjoying the sound of my own voice. Maybe I need therapy.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Heathansson wrote:

They pretty much need to leave everything alone, that's what they can touch.

AND they need to not get in the way of people in the store, or run in front of people with shopping carts and then stop, AND, the LAST thing they need to be doing, is standing there in the grocery cart swatting veterans with a tiny American flag. So definitely they can't touch American flags.

Daddy? Is that you?

Liberty's Edge

In my own defence, the kid swatting me with the flag, I didn't say nothing. I threw up my hands and lamented the end of my civilization, and went to buy Star Wars figures.

Dark Archive

Lucas Baltasar wrote:

Okay this is going to sound like a troll post given everyone else's views on this thread, but I am truly struggling to understand why this little boy's actions have caused so much outrage and shock around the world. He is only seven years old. Lots of kids hurt animals, and people, when they are young simply because they don't know any better, and because of the thrill of experimentation. As they grow older, their system of values develops, or they learn that those types of actions cause negetive consequences for themselves, and they become non-dangerous functioning members of society.

Sure the fact that the lizards were killed is regretable, and it is probably resonable for the zoo to seek some sort of compensation from the parents, but why are so many people demonizing the boy?

Amen.

Let's try to remember the child so many of you seem to be in favor of torturing and killing is 7! Yet you would punish this child by doing to him or her exactly what the kid did to caged zoo animals? You would teach other children not to torture and kill animals by torturing and killing a child? This is instructive how? This kind of ethical hypocrisy is the worst kind of group think, in my opinion.
Holding the parents legally responsible in some way is both appropriate and acceptable. Suggesting the torture and execution of a child, even in jest, is objectionable in the extreme.

TtO


I wouldn't advocate harming the kid, but there is definitely something majorly wrong with his little noodle. I will chime in with Heathy about the seeming lack of responsibility a lot of parents show towards their children. I don't know where it comes from, but I work in a showroom filled with expensive outdoor furniture. The tables are covered in place settings to show what the furniture would look like in a real setting .

Many is the time that a mother will waltz in with 2-3 kids. This woman will be chatting on her cell phone, and looking around. The children run off (the showroom is huge) and she won't bat an eye. All of a sudden I start to hear cutlery and glasses clinking as the kids decide to play house with the place settings. Then they will start climbing on the fence samples we have on the floor. I had one woman actually hand her children things off our tables to play with just to keep them occupied!

These parents don't seem to care what their children are doing. Then if the kid hurts themselves (which has happened) they round on the sales staff and start complaining that the store is 'dangerous' and you should be ashamed that it isn't 'childproof'. We had one kid who jumped in our koi pond and the father yelled so much at us I was convinced he was aiming for a tort lawsuit!

There seems to be no desire to discipline children for their actions or even to hold them accountable. I'm not sure if the parents are worried about looking mean, crushing their children's egos, or they just dont shiv a git. They aren't doing them any favors. I tell my teenaged daughter that she can act like an ass all she wants until she is out of school, but after that, no one puts up with it. When you head out to Reality no one cares about your feelings, self esteem or how hard you tried to do something. If you don't produce you are gone.

Liberty's Edge

"Shiv a git." heh heh....*yoink*


The kid's actions were quite extreme however I don't believe that they show that he is a sociopath or that that he needs therapy. I have had friends who used to air rifle toads, and strap fire crackers to grasshoppers and things, even into their mid teens. Is that sadistic? Absolutely. But they certainly were not sociopaths and fuctioned well in society and held human life and well being to the same high standard as most people. So I am somewhat baffled by the assumption that a lot of people seem to have that the kid is going to grow up to be a future serial killer, or need medication.

Anyway...smurf.

Liberty's Edge

Then again, I don't think a little therapy could hurt either.

Liberty's Edge

James Keegan wrote:

By seven years old, you expect a developed sense of empathy and some degree of morality; enough to know that torturing animals is wrong. If this were a toddler, there would be more of an excuse.

For me, I love animals and I don't eat meat, so it upsets me to see them killed to serve no purpose. If you're going to eat them, fine, but brutally killing caged animals for entertainment is fairly sadistic by my measure. On another level, there's a major lack of responsibility on the parents' behalf: why weren't they watching the kid and keeping them in check?

I totally agree, and I'm coming from the opposite end of the spectrum-

I love meat, and I'm perfectly fine with animals being killed when there's a clear-cut objective (I'm a hunter. And there's nuthin' like fresh-cooked pheasant). However, wanton, pointless distruction absolutely perplexes me, especially in this case.

I present this case: the same kid flips s$## in an antique store, and runs around smashing priceless antique china and ripping apart books. In my opinion, it's the same basic scenario. What does everyone think?

Liberty's Edge

TorctheOrc wrote:

Let's try to remember the child so many of you seem to be in favor of torturing and killing is 7! Yet you would punish this child by doing to him or her exactly what the kid did to caged zoo animals? You would teach other children not to torture and kill animals by torturing and killing a child? This is instructive how? This kind of ethical hypocrisy is the worst kind of group think, in my opinion.

Holding the parents legally responsible in some way is both appropriate and acceptable. Suggesting the torture and execution of a child, even in jest, is objectionable in the extreme.

TtO

Kids are vicious little bastards sometimes- I should know, I could have been that kid. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but speaking as one of the younger dudes on the boards (three years out of high school), my own childhood is a bit fresher in my own memory than some.

I remember when I was seven-ish, if I pulled some d##!*#@ move (real-life examples include beating the neighbor kid over the shins with a baseball bat and throwing rocks at a dog), one of my parents (usually my mom) would inflict harm upon my youthful person. Little Davey's attempting wrestling holds on the neighbor's cat, and he gets backhanded across the jaw. Plain and simple. After several hits of the hand/belt/rolling pin, my little deviant brain got the message: If I do X, I get hit. Therefore, X is bad, and I shouldn't do X.

In short, I was a violent little prick when I was a kid, but by about the time I was ten or so, the judicious, sparing use of violence managed to straighten me out.

Right now, I don't smoke, drink, or do drugs. Aside from a warning/free ride home from the cops due to anger-induced graffitiing, I have no criminal record. I had a 3.9-4.0 GPA in high school, and pretty soon, I'm going to have enough money for college. I think I turned out OK. A little violence goes a long way.

Liberty's Edge

Heathansson wrote:
Then again, I don't think a little therapy could hurt either.

No s&#~...

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Just had a little look at the Northern Territory papers....

The break-in happened at 8am (the zoo was not opened), the child scaled the rear fence to get in. The next day the police talked to the boy and is mother, but the zoo is speaking of suing the Guardian. By that we can infer that he does not actually live with his mother.

Now for the twist in the story....people (not the zoo) are talking of "getting rid of" Terry the Crocodile as he represents a danger to small children who break into zoos....

The Exchange

David Fryer wrote:
The zoo plans to sue the parents, but I wonder if there should be some sort of charges filed against them as well.

If I was the zoo owner, I'd be fine with being reimbursed for all my expenses. However, if they couldn't pay up, I'd be for imprisoning them.


sanwah68 wrote:

Just had a little look at the Northern Territory papers....

The break-in happened at 8am (the zoo was not opened), the child scaled the rear fence to get in. The next day the police talked to the boy and is mother, but the zoo is speaking of suing the Guardian. By that we can infer that he does not actually live with his mother.

Now for the twist in the story....people (not the zoo) are talking of "getting rid of" Terry the Crocodile as he represents a danger to small children who break into zoos....

Okay, that's just stupid. STUPID. God.

I still think there's something more here. A seven year old scaled a BACK fence(notorious for being high) at 8 in the morning(sun's high and bright by that time)? Too many gaps there for my skeptical little mind. Then again, maybe I'm the stupid one.

Liberty's Edge

No, I think you have a point. Little 7 year old ninja; at most he was with some older kids that left him there to be caught.
This is kinda a more advanced, 13 year old's crime here.


sanwah68 wrote:

Just had a little look at the Northern Territory papers....

The break-in happened at 8am (the zoo was not opened), the child scaled the rear fence to get in. The next day the police talked to the boy and is mother, but the zoo is speaking of suing the Guardian. By that we can infer that he does not actually live with his mother.

Now for the twist in the story....people (not the zoo) are talking of "getting rid of" Terry the Crocodile as he represents a danger to small children who break into zoos....

It's always the animals and the zoo that pay for the foolishness of people. In my home state several years back, we had kids enter the zoo at night and injure the polar bear so badly that it had to be put down. I believe they had it cornered in its confinement and threw things at it. The remains were donated to the Science Museum with an attached plague saying that vandals had destroyed it and that the zoo donated the bear. It was put on display with other polar bears.

Then there is the more recent attack in the news about the tiger that was put down because teens were throwing things/taunting it. From my understanding one of them got a leg over the fence and the tiger attacked after being taunted. The only thing that was in question was that the confinement didn't conform to what most zoos had in barrier height/distance walls.

As I said, its always the animals and zoo that pay. The 7 year old incident is no different. I hope the zoo successfully receives damages from the adult(s) who were responsible for watching the child at the time and yes...I believe he knew right from wrong at this age. Kids know right from wrong at an earlier age then we want to give them credit for.


Anyone- and I mean ANYONE, that dead kid in the bronx included- who waltzes up to an animal and acts like an idiot and ends up dead because of it has only themselves to blame. I understand that animals that snack on long pork need to be put down because yes, it COULD happen again at the animal's own volition, but that first time is NEVER the animals fault. For the love of god, the animal is WILD! W_I_L_D! It WILL attack you if you provoke it, and most shaved apes are NOT equipped to go toe to toe with something CR 2 or above unless you have some serious weaponry backing you up.

Liberty's Edge

Honest to god, though,....
when I was in sixth grade, I touched the paw of a caged lioness.
My line of reasoning was "when the hell am I ever going to get a chance to touch a lion again?" Nothing happened, but...
Kids, don't mess with lions.


Heathansson wrote:

Honest to god, though,....

when I was in sixth grade, I touched the paw of a caged lioness.
My line of reasoning was "when the hell am I ever going to get a chance to touch a lion again?" Nothing happened, but...
Kids, don't mess with lions.

I laughed so hard after reading this, I literally ruptured. Thank you, Heathy. My wife does not appreciate cleaning up after you, however.


Heathansson wrote:

Honest to god, though,....

when I was in sixth grade, I touched the paw of a caged lioness.
My line of reasoning was "when the hell am I ever going to get a chance to touch a lion again?" Nothing happened, but...
Kids, don't mess with lions.

Ok, you got lucky with the lioness and I can understand the tempatation to touch because they are beautiful, but when exactly did you first touch a wolf....this lycanthropy thing suggest maybe you got a little too...close!

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
Heathansson wrote:

Honest to god, though,....

when I was in sixth grade, I touched the paw of a caged lioness.
My line of reasoning was "when the hell am I ever going to get a chance to touch a lion again?" Nothing happened, but...
Kids, don't mess with lions.
I laughed so hard after reading this, I literally ruptured. Thank you, Heathy. My wife does not appreciate cleaning up after you, however.

Like my wife does?

I swear, god strike me dead, it's the truth. I know there's lotsa bullcrap on the interweb...it's just my way of illustrating that kids ain't got a lick o' sense.

1 to 50 of 75 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / What About The Parents? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.