hypothetical situation

DNS, again you assume a person has been standing around long enough to read signs. Again, I say a person that observant, who is there at the start of this scenario, should have interceded as soon as the mother started placing the child on the rail. So, either your theoretical observer is not that observant, or else your theoretical observer did not arrive early enough for the luxury of time to read signs.

Or else your theoretical observer is the type to read signs while toddlers are under attack...

Now, I am in Afghanistan at the moment, and MWR bandwidth does not support video that well, so I did not see 11 dogs because I did not see the video, and the articles I read did not mention numbers.

With 11, I would shoot a few first, assuming one can carry at the zoo, and drop in after they started to scatter and retreat. Take them out of feeding mode, and into flight / retreat mode as it were. As others noted, gunshots plus yelps and fear pheromones would probably create more panic than gunshots alone. But, ultimately, somebody has to get in there and see if the kid is alive.

In my mind, based on both crowd studies and past experience with crowd reactions to dangerous events, if I do not take the lead - the odds are we will wait for official first responders. Ergo, I am in the habit of taking the lead.

I get that others look for reasons not to act, instead of means and methods by which to act. Really, I do.
 
DNS, regular feedings do not emulate "kill and eat, or die." Really, they don't.

Check Aesop's "The Hound and the Hare."

When the man chastises the hound for letting the hare escape, the hound says,

"You must understand, I was only running for my dinner. The hare was running for his life."

The willingness of regularly fed, healthy zoo animals to face a threat rather than flee is not likely to be the same willingness a pack in the wild, that must kill or die, is likely to have.
 
Jump in and shoot? Oh really?

Let's see - eleven wild dogs in a feeding frenzy. Joe Q. Public decides to jump down 11-14 feet and take 'em on with a 9mm, or similar.

Hmmm. Well - I've been to Africa four times on Safari (I'm a gun writer), seen my share of wild dogs. They go in a feeding, killing frenzy, you get within 10 yards, you become the center of attention. They aren't real scared of a gun; they don't have an off switch, and I've seen the results/remains of a 300 lb wildebeest that ran across them. Plus, they're very fast. By the time you hit the ground ...

You fall heavily to the ground, breaking a bone. You take 10 seconds to recover. Ummm, bye for now. Dog chow!

Ok, I know all you super shooters can leap tall buildings and come up shooting, but I've seen the dogs in Zimbabwe and Botswana - stick to your daydreams and shoot with your keyboards.

BTW: I carry a Ruger .375 in Africa. A 9mm will mostly get you in trouble in very short order.
 
So we have another one who opts to leave the toddler with the dogs.

Do you have kids, poprivit? How would your answer change if it were your child?

Do you think a .375 is needed for animals in the 37 to 80 pound range? That is pretty close to the description for coyotes, which are often as not hunted with .22's and varmint rifles. Maybe these painted dogs are more wolverine than dog? People are sure making them out to be tougher than Rottweilers and Argentine dogos.

By the way, what's the difference in ground impact velocity between an 11' drop and a typical landing from static line with a 24' canopy? I suspect not much, but maybe one of our airborne types can answer that one. (Edit: Just looked it up; a paratrooper under a round chute hits the ground with an impact equivalent to that from a 9 foot drop. He does that with equipment on his person, too, so...)

Also, having not seen the video, as noted, were all 11 dogs in a "feeding frenzy?" Or were some of them attacking while others were on the outer periphery? Somebody who's seen the video, please describe the actual activity amongst the 11 dogs.
 
Last edited:
MLeake, there might or might not be another video. The one I saw just showsa good view of the viewing area and dog area. There is a net, unfortunately the child didn't get saved from it for whatever reason.

poprivit, my post(s) do not advocate jumping in. With that in mind, MLeake didn't say he would blindly jump in during a feeding frenzy when their 'on button' is running. He was saying if he was able to send them in flight mode. First off, one can get in that area without breaking a bone....some of the older folks obviously have more of a concern, but one does WHAT HE CAN). Obviously people on this forum have experience with ankles and such. I am being serious, as I have the same experience from my youth when I wasn't worried about it. It's a small price to pay to save a child in my opinion though. The bottom line is if someone had broken the "mentality" this pack was in the boy could've been saved. Eventually personnel did just that and only had to shoot the one remaining aggressive dog.Nobody was able to think quick enough(AKA: they sat there in horror and shock while this boy was pretty much eaten alive or at least ripped to shreds). I have seen this happen to cats. This was an unfair situation.

the first order of business is DOING SOMETHING! I know women who would've jumped in to their deaths trying to save their baby. I bet if a different mother did this, men might have followed. Speculation and other unnecessary deaths don't help. I am just making a point.

Besides all of that though, immediate emergency dictates immediate response. This thread started off with people worrying about shooting a dog or zoo animal. That stuff is worried about later...a child is about to be killed and you have the means to possibly save a life. I do believe this boy could've been saved; I also believe the 'window' for this was very small...
 
I would not advocate jumping in with the dogs. The fall is likely to kill or seriously injure you, making it impossible to help the child and leaving yourself vulnerable to attack from the dogs. The question for me is: If I had been there, legally carrying a firearm, would I have fired shots in defense of the child. I don't know that any of us can really answer such a question unless we were actually there.

I would hope that I would have fired at the dogs farthest from the child. But it is quite possible that I would have stood there and yelled for help, just like the the rest of the folks who were there.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I know all you super shooters can leap tall buildings and come up shooting, but I've seen the dogs in Zimbabwe and Botswana - stick to your daydreams and shoot with your keyboards.

Translation: do nothing while a small child is mauled to death. Nice.

Stick to the guided hunts.
 
poprivit, a question for you: You say the wild dogs weren't afraid of guns, when you were on your safaris - but was anybody shooting at the dogs?

My guess is the dogs in the area where you had your guided tours associate the noise of a gunshot with soon-to-be-available carrion leavings after the hunter field dresses the kill and departs. (Kind of like how, in some areas where bears are not hunted, bears associate gunshots with a buffet to come investigate.) Gun shots in such scenarios aren't scary - they mean their will be wildebeest or kudu parts for the taking.

My guess is the dogs would respond differently if they associated gunshots with the smell of wild dog blood, urine, and scat, and the sounds of yelping, whining, and screaming.
 
Having offered my understanding of the legal aspects of the question (really no problem with shooting the dogs in this case) I'll confess that I wouldn't have jumbed in the pit. I'm not 18 any more, weigh considerably more than I did then and a 14 foot drop would more than likely leave me unable to do anything useful.

Opening fire with a legally owned and carried pistol seems much more useful. Modern warfare is all about fire and movement. I'd fire. Someone else can move.

As to what I would do if it were my child, well that's different. I'd jump in and die gloriously. Hopefully I'd think to hand the pistol to someone who could use it before I jumped.
 
As to what I would do if it were my child, well that's different. I'd jump in and die gloriously. Hopefully I'd think to hand the pistol to someone who could use it before I jumped.
Click to expand...

Best quote here. And one I agree with.

But I'll take it a step further, I happen to agree with MLeak on this one. Even to the point of jumping in and dying like a gallant fool. I studied psychology quite a bit in college and you never really get over traumatizing events, you merely learn to live with them. Psychologists equate it to learning to live without an amputated limb. Arms and legs I can part ways with, but learning to live with yourself after sitting on your hands while a child is eaten before your eyes?!

Hopefully I'd think to smear myself with barbeque sauce before I jumped...
 
Being a psychologist, I have to once again argue with the layperson view of trauma.

We can debate the tactics involved but you can deal with the trauma.

I suggest you ask all the soldiers and police who have had critical incidents because something went awry. Give them the choice of death covered in sauce and eaten by dogs vs. living and seeing their families again.

This is why we have programs for stress disorders for police, fire and soldiers. We help them deal with it and avoid suicide. We help rape victims.

Please spare us from the psychobabble. You don't know of what you speak. A person can recover from horrendous psychological trauma - it is preferred over death.

You will need the strength to deal with having to make the choice to deal with your trauma and having made the rational choice.

Amazing about the self-proclaimed trauma experts here.

If you want to talk about tactics, go ahead. Armchair psychology will cease.
 
Glenn, academics are not everything, unless one lives in an ivory tower.

You can own the psychology arguments. You can refer to case studies about large samples of average Joes from a given profession. You could refer to conditioning painted dogs to fear gunfire, or little Albert to fear stuffed elephants and other plushy toys, if you want.

But, telling any given one of us how we would or would not feel, without your having thorough knowledge of how we were raised as children, what core beliefs we hold, what our families' values were or are, what our professional training or ethics have been and are - that is psychobabble.
 
I beg to differ at least slightly mleake

MLeake, I am not gonna take sides either way on that plus I'm gonna steer away from the pyschobabble as noted, but I wanted to respond when I saw the last two posts before I saw your and Glenn's posts...I wasn't able to:

basically I got to call BS here, agree with Glenn, whatever you want to call it if I am incorrect in how I am labeling it. All I wanted to say when I read those two posts is that I can't conclusively say what you woody or you tickling would do but, that being said, I can hazard a guess that you wouldn't have done anything. First of all, you are both 'romanticizing' the event...AKA BBQ sauce, handing off the handgun, and so-on. Chances are its just romance and wouldn't have compe to pass.. just my two cents. again, I can't conclusively say what you would or would not do. Of course one romance was started with common sense and truth - I wouldn't jump in. the other enjoys the convo and agrees with the best qoute ever(one I disagree with), and I think you would think about your family when it came time to pass and then well you wouldn't have jumped in anywhere tickling...

only a small percentage of people would have had an immediate response to this calamity(at least one that was calm enough, not just based on emotional drama and so-on).
 
younggunz4life, you make a valid point with regard to some posts being over the top.

Glenn, I respect you, and don't wish to start a flame war, but sometimes strong words merit strong responses.

With regard to the various problems and risks posed in the incident under discussion, some feel their points are "end of discussion" show-stoppers. They may be, for them...

Again, I haven't seen the video, but whether the wall is 14' or 11', it has a fence on top of it. Based on that description, I am not suggesting a flying leap over the top. I am suggesting climbing over the rail, using the rail and its uprights to lower ones body down the wall until one's hands are at bottom of uprights, top of wall, and dropping from there. If the wall is 14', and I do that properly, my hands above my head, my feet are nearly 8' below the top of the wall. Is a 6' drop unsurvivable?

Of course, if I screw that up, I could fall 14', but the plan would not be to screw it up.

(Edit: Realized that, since I haven't seen the video, the fence could be solid plexi-glass. If so, hanging by hands from a 4' fence, with a 14' wall - what I assume to be worst case - the drop is now 10-11', so we are in PLF territory; not fun, probably hurt later if not injured then, but still survivable.)

I have gone over tougher obstacles than that. I can still do a fair number of pull-ups, and sometimes climb ropes. I have good grip strength.

So what is so impossible about that?

Next challenge: the dogs.

As noted, I had thought the numbers were smaller. So, it's 11 dogs. As modified, I'd shoot at the outer ones, assuming a safe angle; this would hopefully scatter them, and get the pack in general moving toward their den before I climbed over, clambered down the fence, and dropped off the wall.

Given that the other option would be watching a toddler get eaten alive, the risk does not seem unreasonable.

Then again, I am the type who believes in intervening, if there is a reasonable chance of success. Others believe in being good witnesses. It is a basic but major philosophical difference.

As to whether my family could get along without me, I'd hope they would not have to. But, due to the nature of my job, I already have life insurance policies for over $1M, and my wife is an RN with a job that pays well, so I am not quite as concerned about this as others might be. If I were really worried about it, I would not be in my current line of work, or in my present work location (Afghanistan; my insurance is valid in combat zones, too).

Now, if a situation were truly one where I had no chance of success - say a 20 foot or greater drop; or crocodiles instead of a dog pack; or a house already fully engulfed in flames - then, no, I would not charge in. I don't believe in dramatic, romantic, but pointless gestures.

I do believe in taking direct action where it has a decent chance of working.

I do not believe in letting a child die, horribly, while I do nothing, if there is something I could do that has any reasonable chance of success.
 
Last edited:
MLeake, the 'getting in the arena' part is easily feasible but I do think that shots would have to be fired before getting in due to time constraints, safety, pack mentality, etc. I would guess 11 feet by the video and there is a net to at least assist. There isn't too much room to have flexible entrance choices though.....the fences have the sightseeing bldg or lodge in between with a big, big open window with the railing. One's height obviously makes a difference, but basically for the average adult you have an unrestricted viewpoint of the dogs to say the least and they are below you. The child was directly below the window at least to start.
 
from what I can ascertain, that is the only viewing point for at least the up close encounter andor a way in where the boy fell.
 
I do not believe in letting a child die, horribly, while I do nothing, if there is something I could do that has any reasonable chance of success.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to do whatever you want in that hypothetical situation as long as you don't endanger anyone else. (Let's be honest: none of us will ever find ourselves in similar circumstances; this was a freak accident, with a set of facts not likely to ever be repeated.)

A very limited number of people (maybe 4 or 6?) were at the railing on the observation deck in a position to jump in immediately. At least one, and perhaps two, of them were probably the parents.

By jumping in, you'd be betting your life that gunshots will scare the dogs off. If that worked, you could more easily and safely do that from the observation deck. If you jump in and gunshots don't work, you are left next to a now-certainly-dead 2-year-old fighting for your life against a pack of up to 11 painted dogs. Best of luck to you, but I will not be putting myself in a similar situation by choice.

Insinuating that anyone who doesn't jump in "believes in letting a child die" is simply absurd.

Perhaps the zookeepers ought to have had guns, and ought to have been the ones to use them, since they were most familiar with the dogs' behavior, and most likely to take appropriate action if gunfire could have helped the situation.

Consider another plausible scenario: you decide to attempt to shoot at the dogs (but shoot wide of the child) from the observation deck. The two parents and others are probably screaming incoherently, "Help!", "Help our child!", etc. You're shooting at something. Suppose there's an off-duty anti-gun Philadelphia police officer close behind you, unaware specifically that a child has fallen into the exhibit, only aware that there's a child in danger, lots of screaming, and that you're shooting at something. I wonder what happens next.

Worst case, you could end up dead along with the 2-year-old, the parents feel even more guilty because you died trying to rescue their child, and maybe 3rd parties feel guilty or traumatized if they were involved or involved through inaction in your fate. While they'd be happy that you tried to rescue a child, your loved ones would have lost you. If you have kids yourself, would you jump into that exhibit at the risk of leaving your own children without a parent?
 
Last edited:
You don't need an off duty cop, anti or not.

My bet would be the sound of gunfire would be enough to stop the (trained) zoo people dead in their tracks and they'd just hunker down until the police arrived.
 
Well, I've read everything between my last post and this one. I've thought about it. I've come to this.

In the past, when confronted with something sudden and new, no matter how well trained I was there was always a pause. It might not be obvious - tenths of a second - but it's there. So, in this case there would be a brief period of thought.

Unless it was my child (see below) I'd hope I'd remain logical enough not to want to close on and engage in close combat with a bunch of dogs that are hell of a lot batter at that than I am when I have a weapon that works at a distance. And you can add to the fact that because of the drop, I might not even get close enough to attack them with hands, feet and whatever. Why would you give up the only advantage you have?

I think I'd give that advantage up if it was my child because I'm a coward. I couldn't face my wife and kids if I didn't live up to what I and they think is my obligation. I know this is true because I've taken risks before because I was more concerned about what my comrades would think than what would happen to me. I guess cowardice can be a tool.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top