Tammy Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I am wondering if any of you would call this neglect? This is very disturbing (had to put that warning since some of you asked before).... http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/gen/ap/US_Python_Strangling.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OHGrandma Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Yes. If you have a dangerous animal you are responsible for proper precautions to protect others. If it was properly locked in it's cage and something happened to accidently break the cage and it got loose and killed, then it's a tragic accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplain Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Neglect? No, probably not. Neglect has to do with not meeting a child's needs, and the story doesn't suggest that. Reckless endangerment? Could be. But I'd need a lot more detail before forming an opinion. "Even the largest person can become overpowered by a python."Ugh. Add "Does your family own a python?" to my list of questions to ask a parent before I let my kids go over to a new friend's house. (So far they're young enough that I go with them at least the first few times, but I know someday that won't be the case.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunnytracks Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 This is very sad but no I dont think the parents should be prosicuted. I am sure they are hurting right now and probably even blame themselves for it but they shouldn't go to jail for it. They will have to live with the lost of their child forever. What could be worse than having to live with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Not based on the little bit of information the article gave. But I'm glad that the authorities will be looking for whether there was any negligence on the part of the parent which led to the tragedy. If there was any neglect I'm sure they will find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dominion Heather Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionfamily1999 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Not neglect, or even reckless endangerment. I would call it very sad. Reptile owners can be just as silly as cat and dog owners. Something like this, well, I would say you could not have seen it coming and I would bet that the owner would've told you it was the sweetest snake ever, etc etc. How terrible, how horribly terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Only one parent in the situation -- the mother. I wonder if the father may file some kind of suit on his own. I do feel that legal repercussions are in order, against the man, at least. The boyfriend possessed both reptiles without holding the proper permit. The potential dangers were obvious. The snake could have gotten outside and killed a neighbor's child. Negligence? Absolutely. "Meeting a child's needs" includes basic safety in the environment. My heart goes out to the poor mother ! Edited July 2, 2009 by Orthodox6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joannqn Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I think it is a tragic mistake on the part of the parents. I do think they should be cited for the lack of permit and lock as those are part of the law. I think the loss of the child is probably enough punishment for the rest. It's important to be a responsible pet owner, regardless of the type of pet they have. Any animal can be dangerous. There's another disturbing story on the news today that I find much worse than this one. That woman needs the worst punishment we can assign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen sn Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I am wondering if any of you would call this neglect? This is very disturbing (had to put that warning since some of you asked before).... http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/gen/ap/US_Python_Strangling.html Stupidity and tragedy are not always neglect or abuse. I myself would never own a pit pull or a big dangerous snake. But maybe some accident will befall my kids because of the sweet friendly Alaskan Malamute we have. Ya never know. I like to think he prevents harm and wards off bad people....but you never know what fate lies ahead. I certainly would not want to hurt these parents more than they already are hurting. Jail and presecution will not bring back their dead child. I am sad for their loss. What a very sad story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I am wondering if any of you would call this neglect? This is very disturbing (had to put that warning since some of you asked before).... http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/gen/ap/US_Python_Strangling.html No on neglect. Yes on reckless endangerment. Also, it notes they had no licence to keep such a "pet." Prosecution should start with that infraction... at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 How God-awful. I can't even imagine what these parents are going through. Who would have even thought this could happen? I own a Gecko. It can carry salmonella (all reptiles can). Should I be arrested if one of my kids gets Salmonella? Hopefully not! I know the risks...I am diligent about them washing hands after even so much as touching the terrarium. I wear gloves myself to clean out the cage and wash hands after spraying his cage with water. These people had their snake in the cage. If it had never gotten out before, then how were they to ever see this coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree House Academy Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 No on neglect. Yes on reckless endangerment. Also, it notes they had no licence to keep such a "pet." Prosecution should start with that infraction... at least. I agree here. If a permit is needed, then one should have been obtained. Perhaps, it would have carried with it a test of some sort so that, at least, these people knew the dangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Agreeing with previous posters: Neglect, no...reckless endangerment, yes. A python is one of those exotic pets that is fine for an adult to take the risk with their own life, but should NOT be in a house with child, JMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pip Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 No on neglect. Yes on reckless endangerment. Also, it notes they had no licence to keep such a "pet." Prosecution should start with that infraction... at least. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Jenny Flint Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I could have, and did. Before the birth of my first child, my husband kept an 8 ft. Burmese Python. It was in a locked terrarium at all times unless my husband was directly handling it. It was able to kill and eat 8 lb. rabbits. I was about to have a baby approximately that size. I don't think it takes rocket science to see what could happen. He gave the snake away. But I tend to see every negative outcome that can happen 3 steps down the road, and that has its disadvantages, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I don't think anyone should be owning Burmese Pythons without special licenses (wildlife specialist, zoo, etc.) IOW, I don't think they should be pets. I can't imagine living in a house with a python that big--which is probably why so many have been let go in the Everglades. People figger the danger out--but they're hard to get rid of at that size. There are plenty of native snakes to own as pets, which, if they get loose, cannot kill and do not disturb the whole ecological balance as Burmese pythons have done in FL. Yes, I think the man should be charged--just like a gun-owner should be charged who didn't properly secure a gun. What that man did is the equivalent of leaving a loaded gun lying on the coffee table with kids around. I do understand the pet mentality, but a Burmese python could overcome a full grown man, let alone a two year old. Snakes (we own some) do not attach to their owners/humans like pet mammals do. This was a foreseeable danger. And women should consider the risks of certain boyfriends. Women all too often put their kids at risk for the sake of the live-in boyfriend (usually in different ways.) Obviously not all women, but it seems common enough for mama to check her mama instincts at the door if there's a chance at a man moving in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyS/FL Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Well it gets worse..... DCF investigated the family for drugs just a few weeks ago. They determined the snake didn't need to be removed. http://www.wesh.com/news/19925262/detail.html "For us, a big question would be, was this death preventable?" said Department of Children and Families spokesperson Carrie Hoeppner. The DCF also confirmed Thursday that it looked into allegations of marijuana in the home of the 2-year-old girl who was strangled by a pet python Wednesday. The investigation began in May 2009 and closed on June 12. During that time, DCF says its workers went into the home, photographed the large snake and decided it did not need to be removed from the home. At that time, it should have been verified that there was a permit in place, that there was a secure lock and it was microchip'd (apparently, there was no permit, no proper/legal lock and wasn't chipped per the law according to what i saw on the news tonight). So DCF dropped some sort of ball here too - maybe that little girl would be alive. For the further record... this happened about 10 miles from my house (first news reports had it IN my town). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtroad Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Well it gets worse..... DCF investigated the family for drugs just a few weeks ago. They determined the snake didn't need to be removed. http://www.wesh.com/news/19925262/detail.html At that time, it should have been verified that there was a permit in place, that there was a secure lock and it was microchip'd (apparently, there was no permit, no proper/legal lock and wasn't chipped per the law according to what i saw on the news tonight). So DCF dropped some sort of ball here too - maybe that little girl would be alive. For the further record... this happened about 10 miles from my house (first news reports had it IN my town). I am tough on this stuff. I do not think the gov't/agency is at fault b/c it all may have been in order when they visited or they were investigating other issues & missed something (they drop the ball alot on details & are not very effective) etc. I think the man was reckless and selfish for having such a powerful dangerous animal in the home with a child... knowing they can escape (and often do). The child wasn't his responsibility (but should have had his compassion). I do blame the mother for inviting in a man and the snake and putting the welfare of this guy & his snake AHEAD of her daughter's safety. Hmmm... small child, big snake, cute guy. What should I do? HELLO.... the child is your priority ... not the honey & his python. I am sick of hearing of these Moms who have boyfriends causing the death or abuse of their children. If you need a man so much, give the child to a home that will put them first. Edited July 2, 2009 by Dirtroad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I think so. The animal was being kept illegally. Take it from there and see where it leads. He should be prosecuted for that, at least. As an aside, I have two dogs ages 7 and 5. They have never bit anyone and are not the least bit agreessive. However. When we have child visitors, I put them in my room, or in the barn, and latch it up. Few animals can be trusted all of the time, especially when little children, or as I like to call them "prey', are around. Is using extrememly poor judgement wrt letting wild animals mill about small children neglect? Do people think even a 'nice' dog won't ever nip a child who scares it , or a toddler poking it repeatedly? Do people think a python free to roam a house wouldn't do what pythons often do to small prey? Should parents be responsible in any way when a child dies at the hands of a pet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorsay Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It is tragic, but I say it's their own business. I don't want anyone coming into my home and taking away my kids' bearded dragons because they may give them salmonella or filling in our pool because they are afraid my kids will drown. Therefore, I don't want the right to decide what's dangerous for their kid. I also don't want the government to have the right to prosecute them. Just like I don't want to be prosecuted if my kid dies from salmonella or accidently drowns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Yes, it is neglect. The parents neglected to take the child's safety into consideration. I used to pick kids up for child welfare. I would have removed the child from the home just because the snake was living there. (Because the parents had ALREADY shown poor judgment just by having both under the same roof.) What a sad, preventable situation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Stupidity and tragedy are not always neglect or abuse.I myself would never own a pit pull or a big dangerous snake. :iagree: I would add ignorance and foolishness to the list. I never cease to be shocked at the attitude of most people around animals. On the farm, we have many visitors and I constantly have to point out what I think are OBVIOUS dangers to parents concerning their children. Things like - don't let your toddler stand directly in front of that horse. Duh! I would think that the less you know about an animal, the MORE careful you would be around it but I have learned first hand that that is NOT the case. People are just plain ignorant - in the sense that they do NOT know what they are doing. Then you add in a lack of common sense and you get tragedy often enough. We own many large animals that could hurt a person if caution is not taken. I am ultra conservative and do my best to reduce all conceivable risk, especially where my kids are concerned. Visitors to the farm - friends of mine whom I consider to be responsible and intelligent, often don't. It's baffling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyS/FL Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 It is tragic, but I say it's their own business. I don't want anyone coming into my home and taking away my kids' bearded dragons because they may give them salmonella or filling in our pool because they are afraid my kids will drown. Therefore, I don't want the right to decide what's dangerous for their kid. I also don't want the government to have the right to prosecute them. Just like I don't want to be prosecuted if my kid dies from salmonella or accidently drowns. So despite the fact they were breaking the law by not having the proper permit and safety equipment to keep the snake doesn't matter? My feelings aside on whether they should be able to have such an exotic pet, they need to follow the law in order to have it. Permit, locks, chip. The law can sort out the drugs in the house (and, they didn't remove the snake till later afternoon, about 6 hours later)..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyS/FL Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 :iagree: I would add ignorance and foolishness to the list. I never cease to be shocked at the attitude of most people around animals. On the farm, we have many visitors and I constantly have to point out what I think are OBVIOUS dangers to parents concerning their children. Things like - don't let your toddler stand directly in front of that horse. Duh! I would think that the less you know about an animal, the MORE careful you would be around it but I have learned first hand that that is NOT the case. People are just plain ignorant - in the sense that they do NOT know what they are doing. Then you add in a lack of common sense and you get tragedy often enough. We own many large animals that could hurt a person if caution is not taken. I am ultra conservative and do my best to reduce all conceivable risk, especially where my kids are concerned. Visitors to the farm - friends of mine whom I consider to be responsible and intelligent, often don't. It's baffling. The stepsister was on TV saying how much the 2yo loved the snake and played with it, letting it slither all over her...... Definite lack of good judgement going on down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyS/FL Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 When does it become neglect? Would it be neglect if the snake was not secured in a proper containment device? Early reports indicated the snake was just tied in a bag and in the aquarium, possibly no lid on it (or at least not locked). Florida has weird laws too - a lot seems to be missing. I'm always surprised at the funky charges they levy sometimes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in FL Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 So despite the fact they were breaking the law by not having the proper permit and safety equipment to keep the snake doesn't matter? My feelings aside on whether they should be able to have such an exotic pet, they need to follow the law in order to have it. Permit, locks, chip. The law can sort out the drugs in the house (and, they didn't remove the snake till later afternoon, about 6 hours later)..... This was a response you had to Jorsay, but I agree with him and wanted to springboard from your response. (hope that makes sense) Were they breaking the law? Yes, but that law is NOT on the books to keep the snake from killing anyone, yes it's mentioned in the law, but that's not why this law was passed. It's on the books to keep the snakes from being released into the wild. The law has been a law since 1/2008. I've lived in FL longer than that and have never heard of the law (but have learned a lot about it today). If this man bought the snake before that date, he may not have ever known the law came into effect. Also, this is not the law in other states and if he had moved here from somewhere else he may not have known he needed a permit. The law is as follows (the relevant part): Reptiles of Concern (ROCs) are non-native reptile species that have the potential to become established in Florida and can threaten native wildlife, cause economic damage or pose a threat to human safety. Rules for Reptiles of Concern (ROCs) go into effect on January 1, 2008. I have been a snake owner to a ball python. Granted it's a much smaller snake than a Burmese. Most pythons will not attack and wrap around something that is larger than it can eat. And I'm very surprised it would attack a two year old. I'm also surprised (after owning a smaller type of python) that the snake would leave it's cage and go to a human. Our snake would immediately go under the couch and hid there when we let him out. I think this man should be fined for not having the permit, but not for the girl's death. That was a horrible accident, just like so many others that happen. Sometimes accidents just happen. Melissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Well, based on the Fox news report, they were illegally owning the snake because they did not have a license. They also broke the law by not keeping it locked up. Plus, it had already escaped earlier that evening. How can you sleep knowing your snake may escape, and why not lock it if it already escaped? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 How God-awful. I can't even imagine what these parents are going through. Who would have even thought this could happen? I own a Gecko. It can carry salmonella (all reptiles can). Should I be arrested if one of my kids gets Salmonella? Hopefully not! I know the risks...I am diligent about them washing hands after even so much as touching the terrarium. I wear gloves myself to clean out the cage and wash hands after spraying his cage with water. These people had their snake in the cage. If it had never gotten out before, then how were they to ever see this coming? It had escaped -- earlier that day, and they were required by law to keep it locked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I wonder if the snake was hungry, and seeking prey when it escaped its terrarium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyS/FL Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I wonder if the snake was hungry, and seeking prey when it escaped its terrarium. "They" say it was, i guess given the fact that it bit her while it was doing it's thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyS/FL Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 This was a response you had to Jorsay, but I agree with him and wanted to springboard from your response. (hope that makes sense) Were they breaking the law? Yes, but that law is NOT on the books to keep the snake from killing anyone, yes it's mentioned in the law, but that's not why this law was passed. It's on the books to keep the snakes from being released into the wild. The law has been a law since 1/2008. I've lived in FL longer than that and have never heard of the law (but have learned a lot about it today). If this man bought the snake before that date, he may not have ever known the law came into effect. Also, this is not the law in other states and if he had moved here from somewhere else he may not have known he needed a permit. The law is as follows (the relevant part): Reptiles of Concern (ROCs) are non-native reptile species that have the potential to become established in Florida and can threaten native wildlife, cause economic damage or pose a threat to human safety. Rules for Reptiles of Concern (ROCs) go into effect on January 1, 2008. I have been a snake owner to a ball python. Granted it's a much smaller snake than a Burmese. Most pythons will not attack and wrap around something that is larger than it can eat. And I'm very surprised it would attack a two year old. I'm also surprised (after owning a smaller type of python) that the snake would leave it's cage and go to a human. Our snake would immediately go under the couch and hid there when we let him out. I think this man should be fined for not having the permit, but not for the girl's death. That was a horrible accident, just like so many others that happen. Sometimes accidents just happen. Melissa Well, as far as i'm concerned - DCF dropped the ball because they should have checked further on regulations required for owning such an animal. In this case, perhaps, it might have been better secured. Obviously in this case, there was an extreme lack of judgement going on in the home - drug use contributes to that poor judgement. Given other things that would fall under the stereotyping/profiling, which i'm sure i'm doing, there was neglect in this home. I guess i'm just shocked that anyone would NOT consider it neglect if the snake was not properly secured in it's cage. That neglect possibly led to a childs death. Now, if they come out and say that it WAS properly secured and it was a freak thing that it got out, that is another direction. My gut says we aren't going to hear that in this case..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peela Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 We have a small python- native to our state, not a tropical one and it wont get even a metre long. However, they are renowned for being escape artists. This one tries so hard to escape, so we have had to put heavy books on the lid. It is registered and we have to report about it every 3 or 4 months. We got rid of our pit bull terrier when my firstborn came along. Not worth the risk. I would feel the same about a snake of that size- just not worth the risk. But then, I wouldn't wish anything more on the mother, who is suffering enough. It was just a stupid mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen sn Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Yes, it is neglect. The parents neglected to take the child's safety into consideration. I used to pick kids up for child welfare. I would have removed the child from the home just because the snake was living there. (Because the parents had ALREADY shown poor judgment just by having both under the same roof.) What a sad, preventable situation! Well. I think genetically modified foods are a risk. If you feed them to your kid and I don't, can I point my finger at you? Riding in car is a risk we take all the time. Are those who don't better parents? I would not have a big snake. I would not have an aggressive dog. What if my kid chokes on an organic apple? I am then safe from government prosecution. We should learn from the mistakes of others. We should raise awareness. But we can't force our beliefs on anyone. Some people think home schooling is risky....I do not. I will do what I want. You all can do as you see fit to do as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.