Crocodile Hunter dead at 44 - Stung by Stingray

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2006-09-04 04:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:
SAMAS wrote:Honestly? Yeah. We're talking about a guy who's been around those things since he was that age. He knew, often from personal experience, more about a crocodile's reach, reaction speed, and behaviour patterns than just about anybody else.
Tell me, have you ever been responsible for anything really important in your entire fucking life?

Thankfully, only myself.

SAMAS · Post by **SAMAS** » 2006-09-04 04:34pm

Broomstick wrote:
SAMAS wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: What if his kid had died, or been mauled and horribly disfigured for life? Would you still say that? Oops, it was just one mistake? That's the risk he chose to take.

Honestly? Yeah. We're talking about a guy who's been around those things since he was that age. He knew, often from personal experience, more about a crocodile's reach, reaction speed, and behaviour patterns than just about anybody else.
Uh-huh.

Did he have his Magical Anti-Trip Shield +4 installed and activated? He's human, he can make mistakes, fall down, whatever.

It's rather like Ray Horn - a man who spent his life raising and training tigers. Oops! Shit happens. No matter how knowledgable and careful you are, shit can still happen.

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.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-09-04 04:36pm

The fact is that what he intended to do itself was fucking stupid. Taking precautions to make that stupid thing as safe as possible does not change that it's fucking retarded from the outset.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-04 04:43pm

SAMAS wrote:I'm not saying that what he did wasn't dangerous for any of the parties involved.

Then you agree that he was deliberately endangering his child.

But the man was taking all the proper precautions for what he was intending to do.

So? Even the most radical daredevils always take "all the proper precautions", but that doesn't change the fact that they're unnecessarily endangering themselves and they're idiots as a result. If they endanger others, you can add "asshole" to that categorization.

SAMAS wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Tell me, have you ever been responsible for anything really important in your entire fucking life?
Thankfully, only myself.

Then don't comment on a thread where parental responsibility is an issue, because you obviously don't fucking get it.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-04 04:45pm

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.

And walking the child along the lip of the crocs pond, was that needed for the childs development? What safety procedures where in place to keep the croc from eating the kid then? Would he have been able to react in time to keep the croc from snapping up the kid if it wanted too? And how is introducing a baby to a dangerous animal needed for it's development when it won't remember the act in question?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-09-04 04:48pm

Here's a thought, lunatic pedophiles might consider fucking a child up the ass a neccesary part of a childs development...particularly if it was done to them...and I've no doubt that they'd take whatever precautions they felt were neccesary to do it properly...

Doesnt make it something they should be doing now does it?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2006-09-04 05:07pm

Well, at least he he loved crocodiles like he loved his wife.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-04 05:26pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:I always wonder why being dead instantly means someone needs to be treated with respect.
It's one thing to go to a guys funeral and scream that he's a tool, thats a little over the top but I see no reason why we should have to treat the dead with any particular reverence on the net.
It's something of a derailment, but I was just struck by that remark and the phrases such as "dont speak ill of the dead" and so on.

1) So you don't blurt out something hurtful in the presence of loved ones/family/friends/whatever.

2) Many religions/cultures have taboos surronding the newly deceased and some of us are, perhaps, entirely too well-trained in following certain customs ingrained in us with the purpose of avoiding friction with others.

3) It's unfair to beat up on someone who can't fight back, and the dead certainly fall into that category.

4) And finally - while tempting to launch into a tirade at times, it is bad form to do so before all the facts are in.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-09-04 05:30pm

Does that mean Australians can? I mean, most Australians were 'speaking ill' of Steve Irwin years before his death. His death doesn't make him less of a dumbass.

And as an Australian, I've got to say this event setting the internet idiot network afire is really surprising. Forums and communities everywhere seem to give a shit... for ... some reason. It's excellent when Americans care more than Australians.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-04 05:39pm

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.

Bullshit.

Crocs aren't that smart. It's all meat to them - chicken, Irwin, baby... If Irwin went down there would be nothing to stop the croc from killing and eating BOTH him and the kid.

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.

"Proper precaution" is leaving the baby on the other side of the wall. The kid was totally defenseless.

Like I said - I choose to take risks that aren't necessary because I enjoy the acitivies that have those risks. I am trained and qualified to pass judgement on the equipment I use and the environment in which I use it. That doesn't make me infalliable. Likewise, I don't care how much of an authority Steve Irwin was on crocodiles or anything else, that doesn't make him immune from mistakes or accidents. Granted he knew more about large, dangerous, flesh-eating lizards than I ever will, you don't need to be an expert to realize that a croc that can grab and eat an adult human would consider a baby a tender morsel of a snack. It makes absolutely zero sense to get your kid any closer to such a creature than you absolutley must, and even then a good, stout croc-proof barrier is most advisable.

If the kid had been old enough to comprehend danger and mobile enough to have even a chance of getting away your argument might have some (small) merit, but under the circumstances it was just arrogant foolishness.

Battlehymn Republic · Post by **Battlehymn Republic** » 2006-09-04 06:02pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:I always wonder why being dead instantly means someone needs to be treated with respect.
It's one thing to go to a guys funeral and scream that he's a tool, thats a little over the top but I see no reason why we should have to treat the dead with any particular reverence on the net.
It's something of a derailment, but I was just struck by that remark and the phrases such as "dont speak ill of the dead" and so on.

Certainly harassing the living is out, but automatically respecting someone just because they got themselves killed doesnt make much sense to me. Everyone dies eventually, but that doesnt mean everyone is eventually worthy of some respect.

I think the whole thing is taboo because:

1. The victims' friends and family are griefing, and don't need to hear ill of somebody they love who is gone to them forever.

2. The dead aren't around to defend themselves.

1. doesn't matter on a forum here, and the closest thing to 2. is to see what the recent dead actually did and said to redeem themselves from their mistakes.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2006-09-04 08:31pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:And how is introducing a baby to a dangerous animal needed for it's development when it won't remember the act in question?

It wasn't a one-off, Steve just made sure cameras were never around the other times he did it. In a BBC interview he said his daughter's favourite animal, out of all the ones he'd exposed her to since one month of age, was the snake.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2006-09-04 09:04pm

At least his spirit lives on.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2006-09-04 09:29pm

Stark wrote:Does that mean Australians can? I mean, most Australians were 'speaking ill' of Steve Irwin years before his death. His death doesn't make him less of a dumbass.

Oh, by all means, go right ahead - you're allowed to blurt out shit about your dead "relatives" and he is, after all, one of your own.

Me, I've been largely indifferent to him. I'm sorry a human being is dead. I feel bad for his family who will no doubt miss him. But I'm hardly shocked that he was killed by a wild animal. He struck me as being a total asshat at times. At other times, he seemed alright.

As for the internet buzz - he typified, for better or worse, many peoples' stereotypes of what they think Australians are. If it makes you uncomfortable... well, I can sympathize, I'm none too happy with even "positive" stereotypes of Americans.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-04 09:35pm

People, for some reason, have a hard time accepting that someone can be an excellent conservationist and an irresponsible dumbfuck at the same time. Everywhere I go, people try to polarize him into either a "good guy" or a "bad guy".

Frankly, I think he simply treated his kids to the same experience that his father gave him as a child, not realizing that it was as idiotic then as it is now.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-09-04 10:13pm

According to CNN today (sorry for the vagueness of the source), the Australian police did an investigation on the baby-carrying incident and concluded that the baby was never in any danger whatsoever. Perhaps they decided that simply because of who he was, but that's apparently the official government position.

Regardless of that, a person might at any time slip and fall over. If they're holding a baby, that baby would then drop to the ground and probably be seriously injured and killed without any crocodile involvement. It seems to me that simply holding a baby while standing was the most dangerous thing he did. Taking a baby for a car ride and letting it ride on your shoulders also come to mind as rather risky behaviors that parents constantly partake in.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-09-04 10:32pm

Lots of love in the thread...

Sorry to see the guy go.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2006-09-04 11:04pm

I was shocked to hear of his death earlier today. I liked his on screen character and admired his skills with the utterly vicious wildlife he was able to closely interact with. If their was ever a man with a pair of depleted uranium testicles I would say it was probably him.

Its strange because just a few days ago I was actually thinking about him and how I hadn't seen him on TV or heard anything about him for quite awhile now. I had never heard about him taking his baby with him when he fed a crocodile. While definately not a wise thing to do, I can forgive him for it knowing his skill.

Either way, I feel sorry and sad for his family.

RIP man.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-09-05 12:47am

It's sad that he's gone and leaving a wife and children behind, but there's a potential good to come of this, in that fewer people might follow in his footsteps now and get themselves killed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-05 12:50am

Seggybop wrote:According to CNN today (sorry for the vagueness of the source), the Australian police did an investigation on the baby-carrying incident and concluded that the baby was never in any danger whatsoever. Perhaps they decided that simply because of who he was, but that's apparently the official government position.

I'm sure they came to this decision in much the same way that the California police decided that Mel Gibson didn't deserve anything more than a misdemeanor charge for driving at twice the speed limit while drunk after a long history of similar offenses.

Regardless of that, a person might at any time slip and fall over. If they're holding a baby, that baby would then drop to the ground and probably be seriously injured and killed without any crocodile involvement. It seems to me that simply holding a baby while standing was the most dangerous thing he did. Taking a baby for a car ride and letting it ride on your shoulders also come to mind as rather risky behaviors that parents constantly partake in.

You must be on some serious drugs if you think that taking your kid for a car ride is comparable to walking around with him in a crocodile pen.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-09-05 01:11am

Just saw on my local news that Irwin's death was indeed caught on tape. According to the report, Irwin pulled the barb out of his chest before he died.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/w ... 22801b.htm

Two or three times a year I receive some variation of the following:
My wife and I have been hearing disturbing rumors for over 6 months that Steve Irwin, 'The Crocodile Hunter,' was killed in some horrible accident. We checked some Internet bulletin boards and we noticed that this rumor has been circulating since 1997 (or before!). However, we can find no official rebuttal. Is the Croc Hunter alive or dead?

Irwin has had to deny this rumor for years. On his Discovery.com Website he writes: "I've never been bitten by a venomous snake, and I recently heard that I'd been killed. Ha ha! I've been killed by crocodiles, venomous snakes, spiders. I've even had a beetle crawl in my ear and kill me once. Nah! I'm here to tell you Steve Irwin lives!"

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-05 01:52am

Lord Poe wrote:Just saw on my local news that Irwin's death was indeed caught on tape. according to the report, Irwin pulled the barb out of his chest before he died.
<snip>

Jesus Christ, thats fucking horrible. I can't say I approved of alot of what he did and he pulled alot of damned irresponsible stunts over the years so I can't exactly say this is all that surprising or even particularly sad, but I genuinly liked his TV persona, and respect alot of the good things he did (even if they may be outweighed by the idiotic).

As for the video, the morbid part of me really wants to see it, but I do hope whoever owns it will put it somewhere safe, or destroy it so his family won't have to deal with it ever beaing aired on TV or put on the internet.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-09-05 02:27am

The actual chance of Irwin's infant being hurt by the animal is something we can't determine, since no one else is known to be silly enough to do something like that. However, we do know that Irwin was probably more knowledgeable about the exact level of risk the animal presented than anyone else. He ought to have had a much better idea of what the threat was than any outside observer lacking his expertise. Given his supposed level of awareness, the infant ought to be safer with him than inside a car, which kills more children than any other cause. On the other hand, his excessive machoness may have overridden his judgment.

In any case, having seen the clip several times today, the way he was holding the baby was a lot more alarming than any proximity to the animal. One-armed baby grab fails.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-05 02:49am

Seggybop wrote:The actual chance of Irwin's infant being hurt by the animal is something we can't determine, since no one else is known to be silly enough to do something like that. However, we do know that Irwin was probably more knowledgeable about the exact level of risk the animal presented than anyone else. He ought to have had a much better idea of what the threat was than any outside observer lacking his expertise. Given his supposed level of awareness, the infant ought to be safer with him than inside a car, which kills more children than any other cause. On the other hand, his excessive machoness may have overridden his judgment.

In any case, having seen the clip several times today, the way he was holding the baby was a lot more alarming than any proximity to the animal. One-armed baby grab fails.

I don't think it really matters that he was a professional or what level of compitance he has around the animals. The kid should not have been in there with him and the crocodile, bottom line.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2006-09-05 03:12am

I feel sorry for his family and I feel sure that they miss him terribly.