I don't think that the right stance is 'why doesn't the media talk about how much more dangerous dogs are?" The media does go after dogs. Anyone ever heard of a pitbull? doberman? Surely they are more dangerous, but that doesn't mean they should be banned either. It would be nice if the media would focus on exactly what the problem is: irresponsible people.

Quote Originally Posted by Spookitie View Post
Okay..so we know theres no way the snake could have given the baby bruises and scratches...I'm concerned about where the bruises DID come from. It seems farfetched but could the snake have been a scapegoat?
It is possible for the snake to have given bruises and scratches - I've been scratched by snake teeth, and I've also had bruises from even tiny kingsnakes have given me bruises. It's unlikely that a snake would have gone in and attempted to actually eat the baby, or even coiled other than just for warmth. It's still possible, just highly unlikely. I agree with a previous poster. It's probably more of a case that there aren't any bruises or scratches at all.. the snake was probably in the crib, or even near by.. MAYBE wrapped around the legg (for warmth), and the parents freaked out, and then the sensationalism took over.