FRONT PAGE 2 Year Old Pulled Into Lagoon By An Alligator At Disney World

[Mata Hari]

The sign says No Swimming. That is sufficient to keep any reasonable person out of the water.

I disagree. No Swimming to me, does not mean no putting my feet in the water. Beware: Alligators would sure as shit keep me out though. I have been to Disney World many times and never took the no swimming signs to be mean anything more than "there's no life guards here or this water is gross, so don't swim in it"

 

[Kittyskyfish]

Many tourists are not from the area and not familiar with alligator territory. I don't consider wading at the shore swimming. No swimming or wading should be on the signs as well as warnings about alligators. Disney World bears some responsibility here.

I agree with you. "No Swimming" can be interpreted in different ways, like @trojo points out or as you see it. Disney World attracts people from all over the globe and as mentioned in this thread, the wording should not be strictly limited to "no swimming" because that opens up miscommunication. No swimming might be interpreted as don't go out too deep. And guests might feel a false sense of safety because it's a Disney property, as if all bad things are locked out.

The sign should simply say "STAY AWAY FROM THE WATER. ALLIGATORS PRESENT." This explains why the water is dangerous, and why no one should be swimming, mucking about, or wetting their toes in the lagoon.

I still think they should do away with a beach-like shoreline because that's an enticement for the unaware to think it's a place to play in the water. Creating an lovely beach is an enticement and the resort inadequately stated the dangers lurking in the water. I agree with you, Disney World bears some responsibility here.

 

[lithiumgirl]

. No Swimming to me, does not mean no putting my feet in the water.

Seriously...no means no.

No skate boards, no smoking, no dogs, no swimming.

Now they have to get new signs for people like you.

No swimming...no toe dipping either, we have alligators, you could die.

which would be a much funnier sign simply No swimming,

but still ... two other kids are dead in another thread because their parents didn't LISTEN

or otherwise adhere to the signs.

 

[Mata Hari]

or otherwise adhere to the signs.

You guys are cracking me the fuck up. Like you never broke a rule, or didn't follow directions to a T. Shit, I've gone swimming in pools at night when the sign says the pool is closed, does that mean I deserve to die?

The movie was being shown on the beach where the alligator moseyed up to a kid in a foot of water, they weren't swimming. Shit.

 

[spiff]

You guys are cracking me the fuck up. Like you never broke a rule, or didn't follow directions to a T. Shit, I've gone swimming in pools at night when the sign says the pool is closed, does that mean I deserve to die?

Of course the kid didn't deserve to die, but I do feel that if you ignore posted signs and break the rules then it's your responsibility to deal with the fallout. I've done hundreds of things that I'm told not to do but I consider it 100% my fault.

Also, No Swimming almost always has a damn good reason. Not every sign needs to give a justification of why rules exist.

 

[Mata Hari]

but I do feel that if you ignore posted signs and break the rules then it's your responsibility to deal with the fallout.

The kid put his feet in the water at a beach where they were watching a movie. No one expected a fucking alligator to crawl out of the lake! It's not like Disney is known for gator attacks. :hilarious:

 

[spiff]

The kid put his feet in the water at a beach where they were watching a movie. No one expected a fucking alligator to crawl out of the lake! It's not like Disney is known for gator attacks. :hilarious:

I didn't read a story that said this, but Morbid mentioned that he was 10' into the edge of the lake. That's not casually putting your feet in. Also, that's a terrible idea to even just put feet in because often it's bacteria related which is disgusting.

Let's say I come up to an abandoned building that says No Trespassing. I decide that the rules do not matter to me, so I find a way to sneak inside. While I am inside, ignoring the posted warnings, the floors collapse beneath me and I get injured. Would you blame the trespasser who ignored the sign, or would you blame the city?

Warning signs don't have to justify why they exist. If you choose to break them, fine, but there's almost always a reason they are there.

ETA: I do find this incredibly tragic and REALLY crappy luck on top of the poor judgment, but it was just so preventable on the parents' end.

 

[Mata Hari]

Let's say I come up to an abandoned building that says No Trespassing. I decide that the rules do not matter to me, so I find a way to sneak inside. While I am inside, ignoring the posted warnings, the floors collapse beneath me and I get injured. Would you blame the trespasser who ignored the sign, or would you blame the city?

Let's change it a bit....

Instead of the floor collapsing let's say you get raped by construction workers you didn't know were in the building.

You expect a floor collapse, just like if this kid had just plain old drowned or got a bacterial infection. Instead he was drug off by an alligator that NO ONE knew was in there!

 

[Angiebla]

The kid put his feet in the water at a beach where they were watching a movie. No one expected a fucking alligator to crawl out of the lake! It's not like Disney is known for gator attacks. :hilarious:

Yeah there's like 300 different accounts of where the kid actually was. Most articles say he was actually physically in the water-how far out he was, varies. I had also heard the parents lied about him being in the water, so they didn't seem neglectful. Who knows what really happened :shrug:

 

[lithiumgirl]

alligator moseyed up to a kid in a foot of water, they weren't swimming. Shit.

Like I said new signs just for people like you...No swimming...no toe dipping either.

no wading(not the same as swimming) we have alligators, you could die.

 

[spiff]

Let's change it a bit....

Instead of the floor collapsing let's say you get raped by construction workers you didn't know were in the building.

You expect a floor collapse, just like if this kid had just plain old drowned or got a bacterial infection. Instead he was drug off by an alligator that NO ONE knew was in there!

Common knowledge dictates that there is a slight chance the floor will collapse. Common knowledge also dictates that there are gators in Florida that have a slight chance of attacking. Even Nebraskans know that there are gators in Florida.

I honestly can't even find the relevance with your rape analogy here. My analogy is close - a warning sign, entering where you're told not to, and getting injured by a hazard of common knowledge. It's shitty as hell and god awful luck, but nature does that sometimes.

I personally just can't blame Disney for this one. Nature is a massive dick, and the parents did not teach their kid to follow blatant rules. It just happened to be a lethal combination this time.

 

[Angiebla]

This article said he splashing around in shallow water:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/us/alligator-child-florida-orlando-disney.html

 

[Mata Hari]

Common knowledge also dictates that there are gators in Florida that have a slight chance of attacking. Even Nebraskans know that there are gators in Florida.

My analogy is relevant because no one expects for alligators to be in lakes in Disney World. Like I said before, I have been there a bunch of times (and I like to consider myself fairly intelligent) I even lived in FL for a few years and I still would never expect gators to be on Disney property, shit - I went out night hiking with my kid, near water... not in it, but close enough that had I known there were gators around I would not have been that close.

The warning was to not swim, not beware of gators, big difference.

 

[Athena]

I'm from Seattle, where we have no animals trying to kill you, no dangerous pollution levels in our waterways...

"Swimming" is commonly understood to mean you are nearly entirely submerged and propelling yourself through the water. On privately owned property, "no swimming" almost exclusively means because they don't want the liability, and that's it. I'm plenty sharp, and when I encounter a "No Swimming," sign, I assume it to mean just that - don't go propelling yourself through the water. But some feet are fine, because that's not swimming, unless you explain that the reason you don't want me swimming is the same reason you need me to stay out of the water entirely, in which case, you should have said that to begin with.

And actually, the dictionary defines swimming as "to move in water by movements of the limbs", which would obviously include wading, so even that technicality isn't valid.

Get out of here with that technical, semantic BS. Goodness. If we were at a beach, and you said, "Hey, Athena, I'm going swimming. See you later," and I watched you stop ankle-deep in water, I'd think you had been dropped on your head as a baby. :hilarious:

Because, we have this amazing plethora of terms so we can communicate more accurately, not less. That's why we have a separate word for what that kid was doing. "Wading". It is a related but entirely distinct activity.

I didn't read a story that said this, but Morbid mentioned that he was 10' into the edge of the lake. That's not casually putting your feet in.

He or you might have confused the scenario. The body was found about 10 yards from the shore. The boy was playing in only about a foot of water. Unless that's a really shallow grade into the water, the boy was quite near the shore.

Let's say I come up to an abandoned building that says No Trespassing. I decide that the rules do not matter to me, so I find a way to sneak inside. While I am inside, ignoring the posted warnings, the floors collapse beneath me and I get injured. Would you blame the trespasser who ignored the sign, or would you blame the city?

I think that's an inaccurate analogy. If you enter the building, you are only ever trespassing. There is no almost or kind of trespassing like wading is almost or kind of swimming.

If a sign on your structure said, "Do not enter," but someone leaned against it and it collapsed on them, you'd get successfully sued. If there is a danger, you have the responsibility of thoroughly warning against it, if not specifically. Disney did neither.

The damning evidence, as far as I'm concerned, this neighboring resort that had sufficient signage. If "No Swimming" is coupled with "Because Alligators," people get that it means "stay the fuck out of the water for your own good." And no kids have gotten ate on their beaches.

 

[SpQa]

The damning evidence, as far as I'm concerned, this neighboring resort that had sufficient signage. If "No Swimming" is coupled with "Because Alligators," people get that it means "stay the fuck out of the water for your own good." And no kids have gotten ate on their beaches.

"and don't make movie night outdoors".

 

[Mata Hari]

Sheriff Demings noted that Disney had been in business in the area for 45 years and had never had a similar incident

From above link. So, NEVER had a similar incident, why the hell would anyone expect it now?

 

[spiff]

From above link. So, NEVER had a similar incident, why the hell would anyone expect it now?

By that logic, why the hell should Disney expect it now either? If you feel that it's not common sense (which I don't agree with), why should Disney be liable for a WILD animal attacking on its property? You want all private property to be liable for wild animal attacks if they don't have warnings of each potential animal threat explicitly listed on signs every ten feet?

If they determine that Disney is culpable for this gator attack just because it was on their property, and because they don't have explicit signage saying which animals may be an issue, then a small gas station in Montana should also be liable for a random bear attack on their property. It's not reasonable or feasible.

There was a bear in your city recently and you know about it, so there is a threat that a bear will attack someone on your property. I don't think you have signs up listing a bear threat. Should that be your fault? Disney, and other corporations, shouldn't be liable for wild animals on their property, especially when the attacks could be prevented by following blatantly posted rules.

 

[Mata Hari]

why should Disney be liable for a WILD animal attacking on its property?

Because Disney has been aware of their alligator population and claims to have had it under control, all the while not informing their paying guests of their existence on the property.

 

[Athena]

"and don't make movie night outdoors".

Heh. At least not anywhere near the water. I mean, "No Swimming," doesn't even BEGIN to sufficiently protect patrons, because alligators can and will chase shit that's even near the water down if it thinks it can, and those fuckers are quick. Clearly, I watch waaaaay more Nat Geo than most other people around here.

If they determine that Disney is culpable for this gator attack just because it was on their property, and because they don't have explicit signage saying which animals may be an issue, then a small gas station in Montana should also be liable for a random bear attack on their property. It's not reasonable or feasible.

If that gas station was routinely removing bears from its property like that Disney resort routinely removes gators from its, and then failed to warn customers of the danger, yep...

They'd be liable.

They won't "determine" Disney is culpable. Disney is. This will never go to trial, though, as they will settle for millions out of court.

 

[everjaded]

Couple/few things on this...

1) people come from all over the world to visit Disney's parks, attractions, and hotels. Not everyone is going to know what "wading" means. There is something to be said for keeping signage succinct and as understandable as possible.

2) unless you're entering a controlled environment, if you're outside in nature you should have a reasonable expectation that you may encounter the local fauna. Next thing someone is going to get bitten at Epcot by a black widow spider, and everyone will condemn Disney for failure to post adequate "beware of red-hourglassed spiders" signs.

What if this boy was bitten by a diamondback rattlesnake walking from the beach area back to their hotel room? Would we still be saying that there should have been specific warning signs posted?

The sad truth is that this child behaved exactly like alligator prey; venturing out into the water, splashing around which drew attention...

It's a tragedy that he was killed... but I don't think that the culpability is with Disney here.

I've never visited Australia, but I'm well aware of the various things that could kill me should I go there. The family being from the Midwest doesn't excuse their total ignorance and disregard for the signs posted.

 

[Athena]

Couple/few things on this...

1) people come from all over the world to visit Disney's parks, attractions, and hotels. Not everyone is going to know what "wading" means. There is something to be said for keeping signage succinct and as understandable as possible.

All the more reason why the alligator threat should have been specifically communicated. Those people will know what swimming is, as there is a picture on Disney's signs of an individual, horizontal, nearly entirely submerged in water, propelling themselves through it with a breast stroke. So, that is the thing they will know not to do. Not at all thorough. Quite specific, in fact.

A picture of an alligator communicates the threat both specifically and thoroughly, which is how you keep your money in your pockets when you are a property owner.

2) unless you're entering a controlled environment, if you're outside in nature you should have a reasonable expectation that you may encounter the local fauna. Next thing someone is going to get bitten at Epcot by a black widow spider, and everyone will condemn Disney for failure to post adequate "beware of red-hourglassed spiders" signs.

What if this boy was bitten by a diamondback rattlesnake walking from the beach area back to their hotel room? Would we still be saying that there should have been specific warning signs posted?

You're missing the point. This wasn't some rogue, one-off alligator that Disney couldn't possibly have known about or prevented, and they weren't out in nature. This was one of many alligators, and Disney had been removing alligators from their carefully constructed and maintained property routinely for years, because they knew they posed a threat to their patrons. If you cannot sufficiently control the threat, you must sufficiently warn against it. Disney attempted and failed to control it, and attempted and failed to warn.

If black widows or diamondbacks had been routine and abundant threats that were under attempted control, but Disney didn't warn their guests sufficiently, they'd be liable, yeah.

I've never visited Australia, but I'm well aware of the various things that could kill me should I go there. The family being from the Midwest doesn't excuse their total ignorance and disregard for the signs posted.

Oh, totally. If I go to Australia and stay in a hotel, though, I expect that hotel to either sweep their property of the danger, or explain to me which dangers are present and how to avoid them. This is liability prevention 101.

And they didn't disregard the signs. The signs said no swimming. They weren't.

 

[Sudonim]

From above link. So, NEVER had a similar incident, why the hell would anyone expect it now?

Cherry picking. They've never had a death is what they mean. They've had attacks. There are hundreds of videos on youtube of gators in disney world. Disney is well known for gators and you can see at least one almost any given day you are there. A lot of the water rides have signs telling you not to put your hands into the water because there are alligators.

They also had plenty of foolish people who forget that they are in Florida and not in California. And even more foolish people who think you can feed and touch wild animals. You cannot blame the alligator, or Disney or the state (since its the state who removes gators over 4ft). This is a messed up example of people trying to co-exist in the habitat of a dangerous animal. Something is bound to happen sooner or later.

Interesting tidbit for the argument over wading vs swimming. It's been reported multiple times that the boy was the only person in the water at the time. So hundreds of other people understood that no swimming means stay out. Also if you read the link I posted, it was already know an hour earlier that there was a alligator sighting. Yes Disney maybe should have maybe loud speakered a warning, but in all reality I can see why they didn't. At most I'd fault them for having no swimming signs instead of stay out of the water signs. There's no wiggle room with a stay out sign.

Current and former Disney employees say the resort does its best to manage the alligator population, but that's not always easy when so much wilderness lies nearby. Disney World consists of more than 40 square miles, much of it undeveloped land.

"They're surrounded by quintessential alligator habitat," said conservationist and television personality Jeff Corwin, who hosts "Ocean Mysteries" on ABC, owned by The Walt Disney Co.

"The entire property is interconnected via canals so it is difficult to keep them out of the lakes," former Disney executive Duncan Dickson said in an email. "Gators are on all of the golf courses. The team attempts to relocate the gators to the uninhabited natural areas as best they can, but the gators don't understand the boundaries."

Disney said it works closely with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on a comprehensive approach to alligator management, including reducing the potential for interaction with humans. Disney said its employees call in sightings from guests, and technicians from the pest management team are dispatched. Technicians encourage gators back into the water when possible and determine if they need to be caught.

Disney relocates alligators considered a nuisance, meaning they continually show up on the banks of waterways sunning themselves, don't fear humans or have done damage. Disney can catch and release alligators 4 feet or smaller. The state handles larger ones.

"They have people constantly monitoring" the area on the lookout for gators, Corwin said.

One employee at the Disney property who did not want to be identified said in an email "there is such a problem on property with guests feeding the alligators thinking it's cool." Visitors at Buena Vista Palace regularly feed two of them from the balconies, he said.

In 1986, an alligator bit a boy at a pond at Disney's Fort Wilderness campground. The boy suffered knee and thigh injuries. The parents later sued the resort, alleging Disney failed to warn visitors.

Alligators have been spotted in Magic Kingdom. Robert Niles, editor of ThemeParkInsider.com and a former Disney World raft operator, remembers having to delay the opening of Tom Sawyer Island one morning because a family of gators was parked on the dock.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-disney-alligator-history-20160615-story.html

 

[SpQa]

Interesting tidbit for the argument over wading vs swimming. It's been reported multiple times that the boy was the only person in the water at the time

why was so difficult to put a sign "WARNING: Stay away from the water and the shores. Alligators sighting in this area"? Or was it more important the Movie Night Outdoors? If the parents had known this then I'd blame them for even going to this event with a two year old -who, certainly, loved to wander around from time to time. The parents were 6 - 7 ft away from the kid when the alligator grabbed the toddler... I can't and I won't blame the family for their tragedy. A first time incident for Disney to review its safety standards.

 

[Kittyskyfish]

UPDATE 6/16 5:04pm ET

The Orlando Sentinel has confirmed that Disney will be adding signs warning guests of alligators as a reaction to Tuesday’s incident.

http://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2016/06/14/gator-drags-child-seven-seas-lagoon/

>>> <<<

Sourced from the same link, a family reported to the Mirror a gator on the beach at the Disney Polynesian in April of this year.

“We visited the Disney Polynesian resort because we were told you can get a great view of the Magic Kingdom from the beach,” said the litigation executive.

“My wife, our two children and I were sitting on the edge of the beach on the walkway kerb to watch the show. My daughter said, ‘What’s that noise?’.”

Carl said the youngster, who was playing in the sand next to them, told her mum, ‘there’s something in the water’, but they initially dismissed her fears.

“It sounded like a jet ski in the water,” said the dad-of-two, describing how there was a sign telling tourists not to swim in the lagoon, but no warning about alligators.

“We sat there for a while longer and dismissed her concern. The next thing, a Canadian family sitting a little way up ran over and shouted, ‘Alligator!’.

“It was directly in front of us, around 40 feet away. It lurched out of the water and we had to run. It was pitch black with no lighting on the actual beach section.

“Our daughter was screaming, she was petrified.”

He added: “[The alligator] was quite big, at least four-foot-long. It’s quite scary to think that anyone with a driving licence can pull up to the resort.”

Carl said the gator finally ‘slipped back into the water’ as he and his family sprinted away from the lagoon, also overlooked by Disney’s five-star Grand Floridian Resort & Spa.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/terrified-brit-family-chased-alligator-8197003

 

[TheMorningStar]

 

[trojo]

Get out of here with that technical, semantic BS. Goodness. If we were at a beach, and you said, "Hey, Athena, I'm going swimming. See you later," and I watched you stop ankle-deep in water, I'd think you had been dropped on your head as a baby. :hilarious:

Let me see if I have this straight. If you see a sign that says "No Swimming", you consider it acceptable to wade out hip-deep into that water, as far in as you want because so long as one is wading that isn't "technically" swimming? What about chest-deep water? Neck-deep? According to your personal definition, it doesn't matter how deep the water is, nor how far from the edge you go, nor how long you stay in because "wading is not swimming". Really? And you accuse me of semantic BS?

I remember many years ago there was a case where a group of neighborhood kids liked to go swimming in some guy's private swimming pool in his back yard at night. He put up a fence. They climbed over. He put up signs that said "Private Property" and "No Swimming". They ignored them. Then one night a kid climbed over the fence and took a dive off the diving board only to find, much to his demise, that the pool had been completely drained and he and his friends hadn't noticed the lack of water in the darkness. Of course the family of the kid who broke his neck sued the pool owner. I take it you would side with the family of the kid in that case too? Since diving face-first onto concrete isn't technically swimming and therefore the "No Swimming" sign clearly allows it?

Because, we have this amazing plethora of terms so we can communicate more accurately, not less. That's why we have a separate word for what that kid was doing. "Wading". It is a related but entirely distinct activity.

We also have these amazing general terms that encompass a vast spectrum of activities, succinctly. Instead of a list of thirty different specific types of swimming you aren't allowed to do, the sign just says "no swimming", encompassing them all. A reasonable person understands what that means. When the sign on the beach says "no swimming", it means you aren't allowed to bathe, surf, float, or otherwise put one's body into the water.

Imagine if the sign had been something like this...

NO doing the crawl-stroke
NO doing the breast-stroke
NO doing the back-stroke
NO doing the side-stroke
NO doing the butterfly stroke
NO doing the Trudgen stroke
NO doing any Aquaman-style swimming
NO snorkeling
NO scuba-diving
NO swan-diving
NO jack-knife diving
NO cannonballs
NO treading water
NO dog-paddling
NO wading
NO sad attempts at surfing
NO floating in the water with an innertube
NO floating in the water with floaties
NO floating in the water with a pool noodle
NO floating on the water with one of those inflatable chair things
NO floating on the water with one of those inflatable chaise-lounge things

... and if the kid had been floating with a kickboard you would be arguing that it was still the evil corporation's fault due to insufficiently specific signage.

The damning evidence, as far as I'm concerned, this neighboring resort that had sufficient signage. If "No Swimming" is coupled with "Because Alligators," people get that it means "stay the fuck out of the water for your own good." And no kids have gotten ate on their beaches.

It doesn't matter whether the rule is "for their own good" or not. Rules are rules, and the rule there is no swimming. When a reasonable person is on someone else's property they will obey the signs that are posted. They stay out of the areas marked "Employees Only" and won't argue that they are technically "an employee" since they are employed at Acme Widget Factory in Nebraska, nor will they argue that the sign somehow isn't valid because it doesn't explain why only employees are allowed back there. A reasonable person understands what "Employees Only" means, and they don't need to know the reason for the sign in order to obey it. Similarly, a reasonable person would not go for a dip in areas marked "No Swimming" and argue (to the alligators, I guess) that what they were doing doesn't technically constitute swimming according to their own personal definition. But if that person chooses to break those rules and gets hurt, it is their own fault.

In the case of someone too young to read/understand the sign, then it is the responsibility of the parents to tell that kid no. I know obeying rules and telling kids no are not fashionable things these days-- we like to "live dangerously" and "stick it to the Man"-- but the fact remains if these parents had been willing to follow rules and tell their kid no, then that kid would likely be alive today, since alligators greatly prefer the water. It is not reasonable to expect corporations and/or the government to toddler-proof the whole world because parents aren't willing to tell their toddlers no.

Furthermore, even if the sign had said "because alligators" and the kid went for a dip anyway but was bitten and killed by a water moccasin, some would still be arguing that the signage is insufficient. Water moccasins are not terribly uncommon in that part of the country either, after all. So now we will need to expand our sign to cover every possible danger of swimming, no matter how unlikely, just to be on the safe side...

Because alligators
Because snakes
Because bacteria
Because pollution
Because parasites
Because lightning
Because piranhas
Because zombies
Because sharks with or without frickin' lasers on their heads
Because maybe the water is gone and you are too dense to notice before diving head-first
Because maybe the property-owner doesn't want you fouling the water with your E. Coli
Because maybe you ate first and will cramp up even though that's an urban legend
Because maybe you don't actually know how to swim but still need a sign to tell you not to

...And in the end, someone would have ignored the sign anyway, and people would be arguing that the sign was too wordy and no one should be expected to read all that fine print.

Look, I'm sorry this kid died, but "better safe than sorry" is cliche for a reason. If the sign says No Swimming, rather than looking for a loophole that would allow you to "stick it to The Man" and swim anyway, just find somewhere else for you and your kid to swim, where you would have a more reasonable expectation of safety.

 

[SpQa]

sorry @trojo but your interesting analysis doesn't apply in this case. The toddler was wondering (let's remove the "wading" word of the equation) next to his parents on the shore of an artificial beach where a movie was being shown. He happened to wet his feet in the water (and I don't believe it was "a foot" high in the water) when the alligator jumped and grabbed him...

 

[trojo]

@SpQa nobody else on that beach was in the water. I guess I'm just weird, but if there's a sign that says not to do something, and there's a whole crowd of people there and none of them are doing that thing, then I'm not going to do the thing the sign disallows either.

 

[SpQa]

nobody else on that beach was in the water. I guess I'm just weird, but if there's a sign that says not to do something, and there's a whole crowd of people there and none of them are doing that thing, then I'm not going to do the thing the sign disallows either.

(I'm not saying this is how it happened but...): Parents take the kids to the beautiful beach where the Night Movie Outdoor event is going to happen. They sit some, 6 ft from the shore? According to the image below we can see a chair there, some 6-7 ft from the water. Probably during the movie the parents got distracted for a minute when the kid slipped from the "safe" place and wandered thru the water... (just like the same recurring accident-nightmare when one of the kids loose the hand of the father and start running to the traffic...); except that, this is Disney, it is safe! No Swimming! of course not! The kid slip away, "I'm getting him! ... Of course, all the witness are watching the movie.

 

[everjaded]

People keep referencing this being a man-made lake as if this is somehow relevant to their argument.

This is a HUGE lagoon. With uneven shoreline, large boats and ferries that travel across it, etc.

My point being that it's not a glorified wading pool filled with clear chlorinated water, like you'd see at Typhoon Lagoon down the street. It looks like a natural body of water that's been built up around. I don't see why anyone visiting would make an automatic assumption that it's anything otherwise.