CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I just read this in Reader's Digest. Someone had a pet python and a baby. As you may expect when they left the baby unattended, the python killed their baby. They've been charged with involuntary manslaughter.
But of course, we know the real question: What idiot would have a pet python in the first place?

To me this almost sounds like a Looney Toons cartoon, but in the cartoon(That I made up in my head, there may be one of it, I dunno.), the baby is actually a super baby and slings the snake by its tail untill the snake is slung far from the house.

Honestly, those people are just dumb. However, did the Python have an aquarium tank, cage, or something to keep it locked up? If not, then I have no sympathy for the parents.

Um...
*thinks back to friend who recently sold her two ball pythons*
*then thinks of same friend who wants a different type of python*

Y'know, she doesn't want kids anyways. And she takes really good care of them, I've handled them before and they're not bad at all. Actually, I think I remember her mom mentioning having a large snake as a pet, and it would slip out of its cage a lot. But they must have kept it happy, because all it really did was look for a warm place (Usually a hot shower or a bed, where it would just fall asleep again.).

I hear a lot about pets getting out and killing owners/children/other pets. I'm sure a lot of it happens when owners neglect to actually feed the animals. Yeah, pythons are really strong, they can lift the top of their cage off if it's not secured well enough. If they're hungry, it's just instinct to find something to eat, be it human or otherwise.

So I have to say that the question should be, What the heck were these people thinking? If they can't keep a snake fed and in its cage, I don't think they were exactly ready for a baby.

Python Victim’s Mom Declared Indigent
Mom In Toddler Python Death Heads To Court

Few articles I found on it.

Pet snakes are perfectly fine though I don't like potentially dangerous ones being in the same house as a child. However, the snake being able to slip out of its cage in the first place just goes to show the irresponsibility of the snake's owners. Pythons are predators and it is natural for them to kill and eat when they are hungry. They do not kill for any other reason which means the snake may have not been fed properly as well. Clearly this would not have happened if the owners cared for their pet.

The same people who have pet chimpanzees. The result is equally gruesome.

Police Shoot Chimp after Rampage wounds U.S woman:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51G4BZ20090217

Hohenheim (post: 1394810) wrote:The same people who have pet chimpanzees. The result is equally gruesome.

Police Shoot Chimp after Rampage wounds U.S woman:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51G4BZ20090217

This is a fairly old story and I would not put the owner of the python and the owner of the chimp on the same level. I've read up on this and she thought of the chimp as her son and was equal to a human being. The owners of the python obviously did not think the same thing.

I tihnk the onion made a parody of this somewhere down the line.

But as far as I am concerned, babies and python pets don't mix well together.

The poor parents! It's easy to be callous towards people for making mistakes when we are on the outside with 20/20 vision about the whole thing, but the reality is that this couple made one mistake, and payed for it dearly. I cannot imagine what kind of grief and guilt they must feel, and to top it off their mistake is getting widespread media coverage.

I doubt that they would have ever left the toddler and snake alone had they had any idea that such a thing could happen. The python was a beloved pet, one that they may not have had any trouble with previously. My heart goes out to this couple, regardless of their negligence or "deserving" what has happened.

CrimsonRyu17 wrote:This is a fairly old story and I would not put the owner of the python and the owner of the chimp on the same level. I've read up on this and she thought of the chimp as her son and was equal to a human being. The owners of the python obviously did not think the same thing.

Fair enough. Its just that chimps have quite a fearsome strength. Even if the chimp was well-treated, you wouldn't know when something might happen to set him off.

In any event, both matters are very tragic for the people involved.

rocklobster (post: 1394794) wrote:I just read this in Reader's Digest. Someone had a pet python and a baby. As you may expect when they left the baby unattended, the python killed their baby. They've been charged with involuntary manslaughter.
But of course, we know the real question: What idiot would have a pet python in the first place?

The baby thing is pretty terrible, but having a ball python is not that uncommon, nor is it particularly that stupid. They approximate the concept of affection pretty well, liking to cuddle people (and I don't mean in the "with their stomachs" sense), and are fairly easy to keep making them a pretty attractive pet to people who are broke and can stand snakes.

Hohenheim (post: 1394816) wrote:I suppose so. Its just that chimps have quite a fearsome strength. Even if the chimp was well-treated, you wouldn't know when something might happen to set him off.

I agree, chimps and big cats as pets are a pretty terrible idea. Not only do they have several different triggers for "attacking" but they're fairly aggressive and territorial in the wild in the first place. Even to display the wrong body language towards them and they'll put you in your place. Heck, even turning your back on them is something you should NEVER do as big cats see this as a chance to strike. It's in their instinct and that's how they are.

Herein lies the difference between snakes and chimps. Snakes are independent creatures and have a very simple mindset. They don't care about being at the top of the pecking order nor are they territorial. When they're hungry, they'll kill and eat. Otherwise, they'll lazy about in the sun and maybe get a drink of water until their food digests which takes a very long time. They don't kill for any other reason. They don't even play where potential unintended harm can be done. Some snakes don't want you to touch them and will defend themselves while some snakes will let you do whatever you want to them as long as their belly is full. Heck they'll even curl around you if you're warm. They have no triggers, just the areas "I'm defending myself" or "I'm hungry so I'll eat" where they could harm/kill anything.

This is why I'm not going to defend the parents at all although I suppose I can pity them and feel sorry for the child. It's terrible what happened but as explained in my previous post, this should have NEVER happened if they were responsible owners. Even if they made a simple mistake, you have no room for mistakes if you have a small child and a hungry python in the same house. Then of course there's the evidence of drugs at the house and the owner never had a license to own a python in the first place. All I'm saying is: don't put the blame on the snakes that are kept as pets but the unlicensed and irresponsible owners.

CrimsonRyu17 wrote:I agree, chimps and big cats as pets are a pretty terrible idea. Not only do they have several different triggers for "attacking" but they're fairly aggressive and territorial in the wild in the first place. Even to display the wrong body language towards them and they'll put you in your place. Heck, even turning your back on them is something you should NEVER do as big cats see this as a chance to strike. It's in their instinct and that's how they are.

Herein lies the difference between snakes and chimps. Snakes are independent creatures and have a very simple mindset. They don't care about being at the top of the pecking order nor are they territorial. When they're hungry, they'll kill and eat. Otherwise, they'll lazy about in the sun and maybe get a drink of water until their food digests which takes a very long time. They don't kill for any other reason. They don't even play where potential unintended harm can be done. Some snakes don't want you to touch them and will defend themselves while some snakes will let you do whatever you want to them as long as their belly is full. Heck they'll even curl around you if you're warm. They have no triggers, just the areas "I'm defending myself" or "I'm hungry so I'll eat" where they could harm/kill anything.

This is why I'm not going to defend the parents at all although I suppose I can pity them and feel sorry for the child. It's terrible what happened but as explained in my previous post, this should have NEVER happened if they were responsible owners. Even if they made a simple mistake, you have no room for mistakes if you have a small child and a hungry python in the same house. Then of course there's the evidence of drugs at the house and the owner never had a license to own a python in the first place. All I'm saying is: don't put the blame on the snakes that are kept as pets but the unlicensed and irresponsible owners.

Agreed.

I feel bad for the parents, but I feel it was dumb for them to leave the baby alone with a snake. I like snakes, but that doesn't make them less dangerous. Besides, babies are so defenseless.

How can you people turn on snakes after all they've done for you? Mrs. Glick, who killed all those rats in your basement?

"A snake did."

And you like snakes, don't you, Barry White?

"I love the sexy slither of a lady snake. Oh, baby."

Hooray for snakes!

I feel sorry for the parents, I feel sorry for the child, suffocation and being eaten whole is not one of the best ways to leave, especially after just arriving. We all know why this happened, going after the parents won't eliminate the problem and I highly doubt they'll be repeat offenders, so what is the point of convicting them with anything.

The snake was simply a predator and the child was simply prey, to say the parent wasn't watching enough is silly, snakes have been eating helpless things for God only knows how long, they're well adapted at waiting for the right moment when the parents are away to take advantage of a quick "snack". And I doubt those that have survived till the present species would be willing to display aggressive behavior around a full grown healthy adult, hence giving the impression that said pet was "tame".

In a way, it's kind of like death by "natural causes", genetically or mentally the family was ill-suited for their first child and as a consequence, nature took advantage of them. Maybe they'll adapt better to the next set of offspring.

Pascal wrote:snakes have been eating helpless things for God only knows how long, they're well adapted at waiting for the right moment when the parents are away to take advantage of a quick "snack". And I doubt those that have survived till the present species would be willing to display aggressive behavior around a full grown healthy adult, hence giving the impression that said pet was "tame".

Most of what you said is not true.

First, the snake was a python. Pythons do not eat "helpless" things. Let me put it this way. In Florida, pythons have actually started to appear in the wild (because of people who let their pets go), and they attack alligators. ALLIGATORS. Try and tell me an alligator is helpless. Pythons attack whatever they want, because they're strong enough to kill larger animals.

Second, full-grown adults have been attacked by pet pythons before, so it has nothing to do with "waiting until parents are away." Pythons aren't exactly "intelligent," not to the extent of "Oh the big ones are gone, I'll go after a little one." Pythons will go after anything they think they can swallow if they're hungry. The python would have even gone after a parent if it had the chance.

Quit attributing maliciousness and cunning to the snake. It has nothing to do with "pretending" to be tame. It ate because it was hungry, that's all there is to it. It could easily have gone after the adults, because again, pythons will attack alligators, which are pretty big. Also from the article it seems the kid was a 2-year-old. Not exactly a baby.

The snake's temperament depends on the species. Some pythons are very docile; others are a bit more aggressive. One of the articles says the python was a Burmese python. Burmese, from what I have read, are usually pretty docile, though they do tend to overeat and will eat anything readily available if they can. However, not all pythons are like that. Many only eat about once a month, and don't eat "snacks."

I love it when people completely ignore my posts and snake superstition is pretty funny but not realistic. Nate said what I wanted to say on that.

Most of what you said is not true.

First, the snake was a python. Pythons do not eat "helpless" things. Let me put it this way. In Florida, pythons have actually started to appear in the wild (because of people who let their pets go), and they attack alligators. ALLIGATORS. Try and tell me an alligator is helpless. Pythons attack whatever they want, because they're strong enough to kill larger animals.

Second, full-grown adults have been attacked by pet pythons before, so it has nothing to do with "waiting until parents are away." Pythons aren't exactly "intelligent," not to the extent of "Oh the big ones are gone, I'll go after a little one." Pythons will go after anything they think they can swallow if they're hungry. The python would have even gone after a parent if it had the chance.

Quit attributing maliciousness and cunning to the snake. It has nothing to do with "pretending" to be tame. It ate because it was hungry, that's all there is to it. It could easily have gone after the adults, because again, pythons will attack alligators, which are pretty big. Also from the article it seems the kid was a 2-year-old. Not exactly a baby.

The snake's temperament depends on the species. Some pythons are very docile; others are a bit more aggressive. One of the articles says the python was a Burmese python. Burmese, from what I have read, are usually pretty docile, though they do tend to overeat and will eat anything readily available if they can. However, not all pythons are like that. Many only eat about once a month, and don't eat "snacks."

^ I admit that I didn't do research, although I find it odd to think that a python would go after an alligator, that would be a pretty rough predator. I would expect that they would go after whatever end would minimize the energy usage and I can't help but feel the snakes that would go after a larger animal are more likely to be starving or having a hard time of it in their environment.

As far as attributing maliciousness to the snake though, I believe you're rather mistaken. Its simply a natural event, a snake eating a human is no more or less malicious then a human eating a cow.

In before someone says that all snakes are evil. Stay far away from that topic.

Going off of what Crimmy and Nate already said, like with any wild animal as a pet, you have to know that they won't be the perfect playmate for your kids (whether it was a snake or a tiger). These people obviously didn't know this and many people don't realize that even a docile snake has instincts to kill when it's hungry, or attack if it's agitated in any way. That's the way snakes are. You can't change that no matter how much you try to "tame" them, since that's how God designed them to survive in the wild.

Does this mean that having wild animals as pets is bad? Nope; not for people who know how to take care of these animals and know about the species enough to not treat it like a house cat. :\

[quote="goldenspines (post: 1394911)"]In before someone says that all snakes are evil. Stay far away from that topic.

Going off of what Crimmy and Nate already said, like with any wild animal as a pet, you have to know that they won't be the perfect playmate for your kids (whether it was a snake or a tiger). These people obviously didn't know this and many people don't realize that even a docile snake has instincts to kill when it's hungry, or attack if it's agitated in any way. That's the way snakes are. You can't change that no matter how much you try to "tame" them, since that's how God designed them to survive in the wild.

Does this mean that having wild animals as pets is bad? Nope]
I agree all the way. Still, I find it a rather terrible thing that a poor kid died from being eaten. That's just sad.....I feel bad for the parents, but I also think "Why didn't they get a babysitter too watch the kid while they were away in the first place?" That is just irresposible, seriously.

Just to clear it up, the child was not swallowed and eaten by the snake but strangled to death. The headlines would have specified that if that were the case I assure you.

We used to have some Ball Pythons. One of out snakes got loose and went into the neighbor's garage. She called animal control and they picked it up. They said whoever owned the snake would have to pay a fine. They came to our house and asked us about it, and of course we said the right thing:

"I've never seen that snake before in my life. Take it away!"

xD

CrimsonRyu17 (post: 1394945) wrote:Just to clear it up, the child was not swallowed and eaten by the snake but strangled to death. The headlines would have specified that if that were the case I assure you.

I thought it a little fantastical that a ball python would consume an entire two year old considering the length of most domestic pythons.

The pet was a Burmese python, a species that can get large enough to eat alligators and is one of the 6 largest snake species in the world. If cared for correctly, Burmese can reach nearly 7 feet in length in 1 year. At that size, it can easily kill a child.