Crocodile Hunter dead at 44 - Stung by Stingray

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-09-05 05:31pm

Stark wrote:I've heard a lot of 'zomg only two people have ever been killed by stingrays' stuff going around. However, when you're training for a scuba license, stingrays are one of those things they keep telling you to watch out for. They hang around close to the seabed and they're camoflaged. If you step on one or disturb it, it's tail swings up in a reflex, and like Ando says they're pretty fucking mean things. So are scubadivers really careful, or aren't they that dangerous?

Quite a number of people get stung regularly, but its usually an extremity which can be fucking painful apparently, but non-lethal. And yeah, you do tend to be careful, but for the most part, rays will see you coming and just go: "Fuck this, I'm outta here. Goddamn fucking humans, ruining the neighbourhood." Then again, in the case of some of the monster rays that I've seen, they just look at you as if you say: "Oh yeah? YOU MOVE... Bitch."

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-05 05:52pm

The really ironic thing is that he died not in a life-or-death struggle with some dangerous beast, but in a way any slightly careless scuba diver could go. He doesn't die when he intentionally provokes animals, but he does die when he unintentionally does so.

I like to think of him as Aussie redneck; he was a fuckwit at times due to his unusual childhood, but he meant no harm and was a decent environmentalist.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-05 06:15pm

Who here thinks the recording of the fatal sting will be released to the media? Frankly, I hope it is not released, or leaked. I for one will not watch a recording of this man (or any other) die, and I hope his wife finds a way to secure this tape and have it destroyed before it shows up on Ogrish or some other shithole.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-09-05 06:17pm

Why do people keep saying that? I had to watch the damn WTC collapase a thousand times on every news channel for days: what's so special about Steve bloody Irwin?

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-05 06:20pm

That's fine for you Stark.. I for one have gone out of my way to avoid watching people jumping to their deaths and the towers collpasing.

Destroy the tape.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-09-05 06:20pm

Stark wrote:Why do people keep saying that? I had to watch the damn WTC collapase a thousand times on every news channel for days: what's so special about Steve bloody Irwin?

Perhaps, it was impersonal to see a building go down.

The resident pyschologists here can give a better answer though.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-09-05 06:25pm

Battlehymn Republic wrote:Leads me to wonder how much flak Evel Knievel will be taking here when it's his turn.

Knievel is an asshole, though. That's the difference. Irwin didn't go around beating the shit out of people with baseball bats.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-05 06:25pm

Lord Poe wrote:Agreed. With the exception of that idiotic stunt with his kid, I didn't find him too objectionable.

So? With the exception of the fucking stupid or assholish things that famous people get caught doing, none of them are too objectionable.

I can only hope Charles Manson receives even half the venom demonstrated in this thread when he kicks.

What's that supposed to mean? Charles Manson got (and gets) plenty of venom while he's still alive.

The fact is that Irwin took his hobby more seriously than his parental responsibilities, and that's a bad thing.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-09-05 06:26pm

Knievel did that? I thought he was some 80s cultural icon or something.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-05 06:30pm

It's all a matter of taste, I suppose. What is served by releasing the video? What good does it do? Is the shock "value" worth the emotional damage to his family that may be done by having recordings of this man's death floating around the media ether? Yes, there are surely other deaths caught on camera, but as it stands now, the tape is under control. Is it news worthy?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-05 06:36pm

Stark wrote:Knievel did that? I thought he was some 80s cultural icon or something.

He's a rather famous motorcycle stuntman/daredevil from the 70's and is in the Guiness Book of World Records for several stunts and I believe breaking the most number of bones at 40. He also beat up an author with a bat for writing a less than favourable book about him claiming that he abused his wife and kids and used drugs.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-09-05 06:40pm

FSTargetDrone wrote:It's all a matter of taste, I suppose. What is served by releasing the video? What good does it do? Is the shock "value" worth the emotional damage to his family that may be done by having recordings of this man's death floating around the media ether? Yes, there are surely other deaths caught on camera, but as it stands now, the tape is under control. Is it news worthy?

This is just bizarre. The film will simply be a regular documentary involving an accident: it's not going to be a CSI-esque multiple angle exploration of his death. You know funniest home videos, how millions of people love to watch kids hit their heads on concrete? The same people will want to watch this.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-05 06:51pm

There is no way any such show will run in its entirety, only to end with the presenter's death!

The video of his death itself may get out, but I don't think The Discovery Channel or whatever will release anything like that!

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-09-05 06:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:So? With the exception of the fucking stupid or assholish things that famous people get caught doing, none of them are too objectionable.

Ok....and?

I can only hope Charles Manson receives even half the venom demonstrated in this thread when he kicks.
What's that supposed to mean? Charles Manson got (and gets) plenty of venom while he's still alive.

It means that Irwin was a decent man, didn't harm anyone, and wasn't an overbearing asshole. Comparing him to pedophiles and the other shit I've seen in this thread is out of place.

The fact is that Irwin took his hobby more seriously than his parental responsibilities, and that's a bad thing.

It wasn't a hobby; it was his job. The fact that he did one stupid thing doesn't (to me) give everyone carte blanche to rake this guy over the coals. He raised three kids the way HE saw fit. Who the fuck judges someone's parental responsibilities on ONE incident? Who the fuck dictates how someone SHOULD raise their kids now? He was enough of a professional at what he did to keep his kid out of danger. He didn't toss his fuckin' kid into the croc pond and have him swim out.

Someone who is recognized as one of the leading wildlife conservationists, a national icon deserving a state funeral, and who never hurt anybody doesn't deserve the kind of shit thrown at him here.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-09-05 06:54pm

FSTargetDrone wrote:There is no way any such show will run in its entirety, only to end with the presenter's death! The video of his death itself may get out, but I don't think The Discovery Channel or whatever will release anything like that!

I know, I was saying that it's hardly a snuff film. It's just a take from a documentary that went wrong, it's hardly going to be full of Hollywood gore etc.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-09-05 06:59pm

Stark wrote:I know, I was saying that it's hardly a snuff film. It's just a take from a documentary that went wrong, it's hardly going to be full of Hollywood gore etc.

Agreed. I'm just afraid that the most sensational part of this, his dying, will be exploited and spread around by all kinds of unsavory types.

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-09-05 08:11pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Stark wrote:Knievel did that? I thought he was some 80s cultural icon or something.
He's a rather famous motorcycle stuntman/daredevil from the 70's and is in the Guiness Book of World Records for several stunts and I believe breaking the most number of bones at 40. He also beat up an author with a bat for writing a less than favourable book about him claiming that he abused his wife and kids and used drugs.

He's another example of a reckless daredevil, as well as a semi-national icon. What other country lionizes people who jump over great distances with motorcycles?

Did he ever put people at risk, like jumping over them as the Vegas daredevil that Homer screwed over in the Simpsons episode where he corrupts Flanders?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-05 08:18pm

Battlehymn Republic wrote:
He's another example of a reckless daredevil, as well as a semi-national icon. What other country lionizes people who jump over great distances with motorcycles?

Did he ever put people at risk, like jumping over them as the Vegas daredevil that Homer screwed over in the Simpsons episode where he corrupts Flanders?

No but he put himself at significant risk, jumping large numbers of cars and at one point the Snake River Canyon where he ended up in the river.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-09-05 08:35pm

Well he dealt with crocs and snakes ON LAND where Steve was in his element so to speak. But the open ocean was certainly not Steve's element, he was much more exposed to attack and that is why that stingray got the drop on him. And I always thought Steve Irwin was fucking crazy ever since I first saw him on that snake documentary (and he allowed the most venemous snake on the planet to lick it's tongue on his face. I'm fucking surprised he lasted this long).

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-05 08:41pm

The same daredevil impulse/drive that lead to Irwin carrying his month-old son into a crocodile enclosure is the exact same drive that prompted him to dive into a rough ocean to rescue a total stranger, a scuba diver stranded and injured on rocks (said rescue was successful, by the way). Both actions posed considerable risk to himself (and others - his son in one case and the rest of the crew on the boat in the other, who also wound up involved in the rescue). In one case he's a goat, in the other a hero.

It's the same damn person.

The species needs a certain number of people who are able to proceed despite fear, who are willing to take risks. The downside is that those are also the people most likely to die by misadventure or doing dumb shit. If the daredevil is lucky, he will have enough intelligence/wisdom to channel his impulses into areas that are constructive more often than not, but even the most careful and intelligent daredevil can still get killed because shit happens.

Then there are the really stupid fuck-ups, but they don't tend to last long.

I guess what I'm saying is that Irwin must have had some knowledge and smarts or he wouldn't have survived his 20's, but it was, to a degree, bad luck that killed him in his 40's.

I don't think Irwin was a bad man, but he was a risk-taker. There is no way you could have put a man like that behind a desk - he'd wind up addicted to drugs or comitting crimes for the excitement because he's fucking bored just plain blow his brains out. People like that wind up in professions like firefighter and lion-tamer and astronaut becuase they require the thrills in a way that normal people don't. You can't separate the daring/exploring/expanding horizons from the adrenalin seeking.

The difference between Irwin and a lot of those other guys is that Irwin was much more in the public eye. That's the only difference. He's no better and no worse than a lot of other people.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-09-06 12:09am

SAMAS wrote: Yeah, accidents do happen. And the way he was in that situation, he would've come to harm long before his son did. Futhermore, he made sure the real food was first and foremost in the crocodile's vision and mind, and didn't bring the kid close until those jaws were fully preoccupied with the meal.

I'm not saying that what he did wasn't dangerous for any of the parties involved. But the man was taking all the proper precautions for what he was intending to do. Now, that intention in and of itself certainly wasn't wise, but it was done with what safety precautions were possible in mind. It wasn't just done as a lark, but what he considered to be a part of the child's development.

Yeah, and that's bullshit. I'm a father myself, and I'd never in a million years dream of taking my little two-year old anywhere near the edge of a croc pit at a zoo even if the croc was busy devouring a fully-grown Black Angus steer when I'd do it. This is because I know, even without the benefit of the late Mr. Irwin's "experience", that there's a reason why dangerous wild animals are kept in cages.

The only "proper precaution" when you've got a kid is: you don't take him up to the edge of the fucking croc pit. That's Parenting 101. Anybody who doesn't understand that doesn't deserve kids.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-06 01:05am

Lord Poe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:So? With the exception of the fucking stupid or assholish things that famous people get caught doing, none of them are too objectionable.
Ok....and?

Exactly. It's ridiculous to say that someone seems OK except for the parts of him which are not OK.

I can only hope Charles Manson receives even half the venom demonstrated in this thread when he kicks.
What's that supposed to mean? Charles Manson got (and gets) plenty of venom while he's still alive.
It means that Irwin was a decent man, didn't harm anyone, and wasn't an overbearing asshole. Comparing him to pedophiles and the other shit I've seen in this thread is out of place.

Irwin recklessly put others at risk. That's the same thing a drunk driver does.

The fact is that Irwin took his hobby more seriously than his parental responsibilities, and that's a bad thing.
It wasn't a hobby; it was his job.

Are you saying it's OK to put your job before your parental responsibilities?

The fact that he did one stupid thing doesn't (to me) give everyone carte blanche to rake this guy over the coals.

Why not?

He raised three kids the way HE saw fit. Who the fuck judges someone's parental responsibilities on ONE incident?

Give one reason NOT to do so, other than your personal incredulity and your vast experience as a parent. It's not as if we're saying he's a New Hitler, which is how you seem to be misrepresenting us. We're just saying he's a grossly irresponsible father, and like it or not, that's a black mark against him.

Who the fuck dictates how someone SHOULD raise their kids now? He was enough of a professional at what he did to keep his kid out of danger.

His kid was not "out of danger". His kid was in danger but he felt he could manage it. So do all of the drunk drivers who tempt fate in much the same manner, often with similar histories of getting away with it.

He didn't toss his fuckin' kid into the croc pond and have him swim out.

Ah, the "X is not as bad as Y, therefore X is not bad" non sequitur. Hate logic much?

Someone who is recognized as one of the leading wildlife conservationists

Red-herring.

a national icon deserving a state funeral

Red-herring.

and who never hurt anybody

One word: "risk".

doesn't deserve the kind of shit thrown at him here.

Based on what? Your personal refusal to recognize the infliction of undue risk as a legitimate form of irresponsible behaviour unless it actually kills someone?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-09-06 01:11am

You know Mike, maybe I'll stay the fuck out of this room of your "house". You and Alucard continue to spread the love.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-06 01:16am

Lord Poe wrote:You know Mike, maybe I'll stay the fuck out of this room of your "house". You and Alucard continue to spread the love.

Maybe it would be nice if you came up with a logical argument. You seem to have two completely different standards of logic, depending on whether you're talking about sci-fi or politics. In sci-fi, every argument has to be backed up with evidence, every non sequitur has to be attacked. In politics, it seems like you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the "your position just feels ridiculous to me" approach.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2006-09-06 01:45am

Darth Wong wrote: Irwin recklessly put others at risk. That's the same thing a drunk driver does.

No, it's not. A drunk driver is not trained in drunk driving. It was stupid, and I don't think anyone here is contesting that. What people are contesting are remarks like " but frankly he was a fuckwit and I'm not sorry to see him go.", "Frankly, I think his kids are probably safer with him dead.", "Here's a thought, lunatic pedophiles might consider fucking a child up the ass a neccesary part of a childs development". Mostly things posted by Keevan.

Your position is that he's a bad father for endangering his child. I think everyone agrees with that. However, being a bad father does not mean things are better off with him dead.

Based on what? Your personal refusal to recognize the infliction of undue risk as a legitimate form of irresponsible behaviour unless it actually kills someone?

Perhaps, based on the fact that it only happened once. He took a risk, but there is a difference between risk taking, and calculated risk taking. If anyone could be considered a calculated risk taker around crocodiles it would be him. Does that make it acceptable? Hell no. He should have faced charges for that, but does that mean things are better off dead, or that his children are better off without him? Hell no, and that is my position, and if I'm not mistaken also Poe's.