hypothetical situation

I understand that there could be great risks involved with any of the approaches (shoot, drop in, or shoot then drop in).

I understand that many do not think such risks worthwhile.

I also know that there are many of us who would still try. Maybe my perspective is skewed. This could be due to me being retired military, and most of my friends being retired or former military or LE, and almost all my current co-workers being retired or former military or current reservists and guardsmen. (Some of those are also volunteer firemen.)

This could be because of the personality traits for which we were selected for our jobs - IE, we are so deluded as to think we can salvage situations involving engine failures, fires, hostile fire, and significant weather events.

I may have just been overly effectively brainwashed by work as a defense contractor, or as a Navy pilot, or even before that by my mother (who, when I was a child, saved a friend's poodle from what would have been an even worse mauling than it received from a large and vicious German Shepherd, when Mom was armed with only a frying pan and adrenaline). But my first thought tends to be "how can I handle this?" and not "oh, well, there is nothing I can do."

Guess I am just sadly deluded.
 
But my first thought tends to be "how can I handle this?" and not "oh, well, there is nothing I can do."

My thoughts exactly. What's that thing on our hips that so many of us carry concealed actually for? Showing off at the range or protecting the innocent from serious bodily injury or death?

Do we think a real world situation is going to be perfect? Do we think that the bad guys will give us enough time to bar the door, grabs the kids, pump the shotgun and call the cops?

What happens when the bad guys are a pack of zoo animals? Well we never thought of that one, so there must be nothing we can do.

Lame :mad:
 
MLeake

I understand that there could be great risks involved with any of the approaches (shoot, drop in, or shoot then drop in).

I understand that many do not think such risks worthwhile.

I also know that there are many of us who would still try. Maybe my perspective is skewed. This could be due to me being retired military, and most of my friends being retired or former military or LE, and almost all my current co-workers being retired or former military or current reservists and guardsmen. (Some of those are also volunteer firemen.)
Click to expand...

MLeake is right, That is why I posted as I did in Post #10. Being a US Navy veteran and retired LEO Lieutenant, I can relate to that mind set. Being 74 yrs old might slow me down a bit, but you can bet I would have tried to save that child regardless of the outcome.
 
An old adage I'm somewhat partial to is "A bad plan executed violently now is better than a good plan later."
Click to expand...

Not such a good plan for Steve Stevenson. A bad plan executed (poor choice of words) violently certainly killed him. However, in looking at pictures of the enclosure, noting the reports that there were 11 dogs, the fear of hitting the child is quite remote if a CCW person wanted to try warning shots. Not only that, warning shots could be safely fired into the ground near the child and dogs with virtually no danger to child or dogs (though I think I would much rather shoot the dogs and let the combined yelps and gun report be more effective than the report alone). If you were that CCW person, were present or heard screams and responded, you could have been within 10 yards of the child and dogs, at the rail. Don't want to shoot too close to the child? At that range, a competent shooter should be able to shoot closely, but in the interest of safety of the child, you could start by shooting circling dogs or dogs on the periphery of the attack, thereby reducing the friendly fire threat to the child, reducing the dog threat to the child, and accomplishing the scare tactics of the report as well.

Lots of people think warning shots are a bad idea, but this is a perfect example where a warning shot could have been employed safely, the round fired into the ground (dirt) of the African Painted Dog exhibit without danger of hitting the child.

John 13:15 states:"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."
Click to expand...

Being a reasonable and responsible family man, the child being a stranger to me, the notion of trading my life for that of a stanger (certainly not a friend) by just stupidly jumping into a pit of attacking dogs is preposterous on several levels. Feel good Biblical passages are exactly that, even when the wrong citation is provided (see John 15:13). The context isn't even appropriate. Being dead for a stranger after been needlessly and horrifically mauled to death by dogs ain't going to take care of my family that depends on me. Part of the reason for having a GUN is that it projects force. I am not flying over the rail and performing an artistic gymnast's bounce off the safety netting to get into the death arena with the dogs.

I don't know why anyone here, being the exceptional tactical and firearms experts that are noted, would consider it reasonable to jump into a pit of dogs, after first needing to negotiate the railing, the 10 foot drop, bouncing off the safety netting, and then onto the ground with the dogs...when all they had to do was to take proper aim from the railing and shoot. You can shoot the ground. You can shoot an encircling dog. You could even shoot the tail end of a dog harming the child, being sure to pick and direction of fire that has the impact and trajectory moving away from the child.

In following up with what Woody55, there would be absolute justification (criminal law) in every state for saving the child's life from dogs. Every state permits the use of lethal force to respond to a lethal threat and every state has self defense laws that extend to protecting others.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. The 10 foot drop alone leads me to think at least one broken ankle. You're useless in that context.
That assumes you can negotiate the net.

Remember there's also a time factor here. These are wild hunting dogs. Killing is how they make their living. Likely by the time anyone can get their act together the child is dead.
 
There were 11 dogs. I want to know who among those who say they'd try to jump in or shoot the dogs thinks they can either
a) fend off attacks from 11 dogs while carrying a possibly fatally wounded 2-year-old to safety, or
b) shoot 11 dogs attacking a 2-year-old, without hitting the 2-year-old.
Click to expand...

My thoughts are the wild dogs would react like a yote, in other words retreat from a full grown man. Maybe I am wrong, as heavy as I am the legs would go out for sure. A shot from their level may scare them away, who knows.

No matter the what ifs, this is a lesson, dont do this, period. Should have a sign up or something but folks do stuff like this a lot. Didnt a guy fall into niagra climbing up on the railing?
 
Folks should do some reference work on the behavioral patterns of the dogs before speculating how they would behave. Esp. if they were already in the feeding and kill mode. I don't know that, do you?

For all you know, if you jump in - the dogs think "Take out " had arrived.
 
Good post, DNS.

As far as jumping from the 14' rail, I'm no tumbler and I'm currently recovering from a fall from 12' that gave me a nasty pilon fracture. Climbing over the rail and climbing down to a height from which you could safely drop would take time. A warning shot or a shot at a dog on the fringes makes a lot more sense.
 
Glenn and DNS, doing research on the dogs is not a bad idea.

Note, though, that you probably did your research after the fact, in the comfort of your study spaces.

(If you knew the habits of African painted dogs from prior research, more power to you.)

My point, though, is that in most such situations, the odds are that 1) we won't be experts on the critters encountered; and 2) we won't have time to look up their habits in the wild. We will most likely have to ad-lib quite a bit.

Another point to consider: the animals in the zoo may be "wild," but they are not kept hungry. They aren't hunting because they need to hunt, so the odds are high that they will behave differently than would a hunting pack in the wild.

And most canids are rather cautious of adult, non-elderly humans. That does not mean they can't take them down, but it does mean they typically do not.
 
You're at the zoo. Read the signs - you know, situational awareness. Apply some simple logic and look at the type of barricade using to keep you safe. Note that the animal is a pack hunting carnivore. It isn't rocket science and when you see the dogs mauling the child, you gotta understand, even at the most basic level, that these are not bunny rabbits licking melted snowcone off the child.

Not kept hungry? Not hunting because they need to hunt? I am fairly certain you have misunderstood the situation. No, the dogs would not be kept starving, but unlike your pet poodle, they aren't going to have a dish out where they have African Painted Dog chow out for on-demand eating. Like the other carnivores, they are likely fed on a schedule that matches their schedule in nature as is most reasonably possible by the zoo. The dogs probably hunt, attack, and kill once a day or when hungry. So unless the dogs have just recently eaten, they may be VERY HUNGRY. For all you know, it is just before feeding time when the animals are their most dangerous. The child falling in may be just like when the zookeepers toss in large carcass chunks.

To make such naive assumptions that the animals are somehow specifically timidly around adult humans would be one of those gross underestimations of one's opposition, especially when dealing with packs.
 
DNS, do you personally feel that you couldn't have saved this child if you were front and center as this transpired andor that it wasn't worth a shot? I'm not trying to be funny here. As for the last part about underestimating the dogs. I believe only one post said that via markj. The pack mentality is the main issue here which is a definite, valid point.
 
Go back and read my posts. No, I would not have jumped in the dog pit. That would have been a blatantly bad thing to do. That is the very reason the zookeepers didn't rush in themselves or anybody else. His own mother didn't either.

As I pointed out, the shooting distance was less than 10 yards. I think this would have been an exceptionally good time to use a firearm. What is the benefit of carrying a projected force weapon if you don't use it to project force at a time when projected force is needed?

Does this mean that I would be Joe Sharpshooter and shoot the brains out of each dog without hitting the child? Not hardly. As in the Steve Stevenson case, it is stupid to kill the victim when you are trying to kill the animal(s) instead. So you don't shoot where you are likely to hit the victim.

As noted, this is one of the few cases where warning shots may have been most appropriate. The African Painted Dog pit is covered in dirt. So you have your backstop from the elevated position where the child fell into the pit.

All 11 dogs were not biting on the child at once. No, I wasn't there, but there isn't room for them to do that and that would not be normal behaivor. Some attempt to attack or feed as others circle. So if you don't don't like warning shots and don't feel you can shoot a dog directly with the child (the child too close or in the line of fire), then you shoot one that is far enough away that you feel safe to try to shoot it. If and when dogs break off from the child in response to the noise, you attempt to shoot them.

So could I have saved the child? That would depend on my shooting skills and how well or poorly the dogs reacted to the noise and being struck.

Is 5 shots enough? This is a question often asked. In this case, that would depend on the dogs. Obviously, you aren't going to kill/incapacitate 11 moving dogs with 5 shots, so your only hope (for 5 shot revolver carriers) is that the reports (warnings or attempted hits) and the yelps (for those dogs hit, if any) are sufficient to keep them at bay. I don't carry a revolver. I carry a 1911 and 1 spare mag. That gives me 17 shots...still maybe not enough to kill/incapacitate that many dogs given the dynamics of the situation.
 
no, all that means is you would watch andor be in shock and someone else would instinctively and immediately act without a second's delay. That is what I spoke of earlier...it is a natural reaction to freeze andor at least hesitate. There are some that would not do this. It is one thing if you are looking at a zoo map 5 feet away or doing something else, but the bottom line if you are there you have time to do something. It is a cop-out to say otherwise. Nobody said you would be be successful or not but when one has an immediate crisis, and immediate response can be an equalizer. the saddest stories(though this one is trying to 'take the cake') are the ones when the two yr old falls in the rushing river. Almost without exception, there is no time for even an instinctive, immediate response in that situation. In this one just watching and hesitating takes time(a short time), but a trained individual andor an individual with the 'gene' or a specific character can automatically go into emergency mode. I for one think the dogs were very quick(as I mentioned earlier: probably already at the gate so-to-speak while the child was at the net part), but honestly it is possible there was a tad more time than you perceive or assume. One might have run over and assessed the situation and smelled before biting. this is all speculation, but something could've been done either way. It is possible nobody had a firearm.
 
DNS, I hear you. Thx for your post and yes as long as you act immediately I believe your range of thought is matching my posts. I would've had less than half the shots as you, and there is no way I am going to shoot the child. Of course that is always 'the risk you take', but there are ways to avoid that as I mentioned earlier(and as you did as well).

I hate to throw speculation out there because I for one believe the response from the animals was immediate especially when it is obvious people have thrown food from there before(common-sense even though it is against the rules....weird how there is no fence or anything):

but how much time is a normal delay(for thos of you who think you had no time to do anything)?

it is dang a possibility a dog ran up to him and someone decided to yell 'shu' doggy and 'good' he isn't gonna do anything(probably the dog that ended up being shot and was the first to bite). I guess emergency mode for some people is when the dog latched its jaws on the child?? emergency mode is before that boy hits the net! like I posted earlier, ermergency mode for my daughter was when the employee put her on the counter and turned her back(she thought it was no big deal and I guess others would've had emergency mode when the child hit the floor falling off the counter going by some posts).

Everytime a child falls off a waterfall in yosemite and I read the articles there are witnesses who claimed they said something to the parents yada yada yada. that child had no business sitting on that ledge but I don't know the circumstances. I'll take a tongue lashing to voice my opinion...I can't control a parent, but after I am tonguelashed he/she will probably decide against doing what I voiced I was against or leave the setting. rant off(ps- TFL taught me that line lol)
 
DNS, you're at the zoo, read the signs. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? Of course, I'd have been standing around with plenty of time beforehand to read signs, we can just assume that...

But, if we are assuming that, we should also assume I'd have pulled the child off the fence before he had a chance to fall, and thoroughly chewed out the mother. So maybe we should not assume time in advance to read signs, eh?

Feeding the animals in such a way that they can "hunt" and "kill"? Really?

I've been to the Central Park Zoo when the polar bears were fed. True, the keepers want to keep the animals from getting too bored. At the same time, they don't seem interested in setting up potential fights amongst the bears, and I doubt most New Yorkers would be thrilled with the keepers tossing in a seal pup or similar.

What they actually did was place fish in polyurethane balls that had the tops cut out, kind of like pumpkins to jack-o-lanterns. They poured water in around the fish, and froze the balls. The bears had to bat and paw the balls around enough to break the ice sufficiently that the ice and fish could fall out of the ball. This was their simulated hunting and killing.

If you've seen a public zoo that actually conducts feeding in a way that would emulate prey activity, and force predators to battle over their food, please cite the zoo, the critters, and the method.

I've only been to the Central Park, National (DC), San Diego zoos, and Busch Gardens (Tampa) preserve and Lion Country Safari. I've never witnessed the type of feeding methods you suggest.
 
DNS, you're at the zoo, read the signs. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?
Click to expand...

I am sorry. I didn't realize you don't pay attention to things like safety signs. My bad. Of course, you don't have to read any signs to see the high fencing around the enclosure, or to look into the enclosure and to see that it contains pack dogs.

Feeding the animals in such a way that they can "hunt" and "kill"? Really?
Click to expand...

I never said the dogs were fed in such a way as to be hunting. That the dogs hunt, attack, and kill once a day is what they do in the wild. So the zoo isn't going to be feeding them their puppy chow in on-demand feeders all day long. They are going to feed them once a day as they would feed in the wild.

So a child dropping in would be like feeding time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top