• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Croc Hunter develops new twist on Jackson's Baby Dangling Stunt

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
S
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
PEOPLE (USA) 02 January 04 Croc Hunter Irwin's Stunt Outrages (Stephen M.
Silverman)

"The Crocodile Hunter" star Steve Irwin fed a 12-1/2-foot-long crocodile
with one arm while holding his one-month-old son Bob in the other on New Year's Day at the Irwins's Australia Zoo reptile park in Australia's
Sunshine Coast, NBC reported Friday morning.

(truncated) full story is in url below:
http://people.aol.com/people/news/now/0,10958,570169,00.html


Anybody actually see this?
 
From the article:

Terri Irwin also supported her husband's stunt with Bob, telling the paper: "When I put him back in the pram he had big eyes, and he was smiling and it was a wonderful sensory experience for him. He dug it."


Awwww.... it seems the 4 week old baby enjoyed himself. So who can find fault with THAT? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Some people are just too stupid to procreate.
 
SO?! B.F.D. The baby wasn't hurt. He's an expert, and he knows what he's doing. If the crock gone attacked, he probly wuld have throwed the baby away and the mom wuld catch him I bet.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Anybody actually see this?
Click to expand...

They showed this on our local news. From what I saw, he had the kid tucked in tight to his side and never took his eyes off the animal. My first impression was that it was a typical stunt in that it looked more dangerous than it actually was.
 
How dare we suggest that anyone should interfere with someone's freedom to feed their child to a large reptile?
 
American said:
SO?! B.F.D. The baby wasn't hurt. He's an expert, and he knows what he's doing.
Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY why I believe Nascar drivers should be allowed to take their infants for drives in cars.... without child seats or any restraints.


Funny thing, I feel like people would be MORE upset if Irwin was holding a small puppy instead of his own child.
 
Yes, people WOULD be more pissed if he was holding a puppy than his kid... and for good reason.

No, not that they care for animals than for babies. It's simply that the fact that he took the baby is very good evidence that it is far less dangerous than it seems... and more of a publicity stunt than anything.

Michael Jackson's case is different... first, rightly or wrongly, people believe he IS nuts enough to put REALLY recklessly risk his child's life without considering the possiblity the child will get hurt, and second, he is not a professional acrobat or anything else that would make us believe what HE did was a planned stunt.
 
Skeptic said:
Yes, people WOULD be more pissed if he was holding a puppy than his kid... and for good reason.

No, not that they care for animals than for babies. It's simply that the fact that he took the baby is very good evidence that it is far less dangerous than it seems... and more of a publicity stunt than anything.

Michael Jackson's case is different... first, rightly or wrongly, people believe he IS nuts enough to put REALLY recklessly risk his child's life without considering the possiblity the child will get hurt, and second, he is not a professional acrobat or anything else that would make us believe what HE did was a planned stunt.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree that putting an infant in POTENTIAL danger is evidence of anything.

It might be evidence that he (and wife?) was willing to gamble that nothing would happen to his baby or his career.

I think you are letting people's PERCEPTIONS of certain celebrities dictate whether something is appropriate or not. If Joe Blow held his infant like that to introduce him to a pitbull, I doubt it would seem as harmless a "stunt."
 
I have to disagree that putting an infant in POTENTIAL danger is evidence of anything.

The question is what was the potential danger? It SEEMS that the woman sewn in half by the magician is in danger, but she isn't really.
 
Mel said:

I have to disagree that putting an infant in POTENTIAL danger is evidence of anything.
Click to expand...

There are millions of bad drivers who put their children in potential danger everytime they stick them in the car.
 
Skeptic said:
I have to disagree that putting an infant in POTENTIAL danger is evidence of anything.

The question is what was the potential danger? It SEEMS that the woman sewn in half by the magician is in danger, but she isn't really.
Click to expand...

The potential danger lies in the variables....

The baby doesn't suddenly cry out & divert YOUR attention for a split second.

Somebody in the audience does something to antagonize the croc & diverts YOUR attention.

Counting on a wild animal to NOT lunge out faster than YOU can step back WITHOUT falling.

Walking an infant in a pool of dirty water (at least it LOOKED like the baby's feet were in the water)... YUCK.

Handling RAW CHICKEN and handling an infant. YUCK.


As far as the woman being sawn in half or whatever stunts she wants to be part of.... she's an adult & old enough to make her own decisions in life.

Edited to add:

I can't really address the comparison of the woman & baby since I don't know whether there has NEVER been a case of a woman being hurt during that type of stunt. If it is 100% safe, then the comparison doesn't seem valid. If there IS a history of accident, then the 'age of consent' would kick in..... imo.
 
Roy Horn (of Siegfried and Roy) had been working with large cats (tigers, white tigers, cheetahs, etc.) since 1957, had performed over 5,000 shows in front of 25 million people in Las Vegas for over 30 years, and despite this vast body of experience was savagely attacked just the same by one of his white tigers.

In my opinion, Steve Irwin, regardless of his experience whether measured in years, hours, performances or numbers of animals, was absolutely wrong to endanger his child the way he did, regardless of how small he or his wife thought the chance for danger was. He obviously places his own ego, showmanship, arrogance and perception of mastery over crocodiles, etc., ahead of the welfare of his son, and that is shameful.

Babies, and for that matter other humans, face a number of potential dangers each day, true, but many of those dangers are arguably necessary or unavoidable. I do not feel being dangled over a balcony or being held in close proximity to a full-grown hungry adult crocodile can be counted among any reasonable list of necessary or unavoidable dangers.
 
I was just as disturbed by his complete lack of understanding of the importance of Head support in a 1 month old baby. He was failing to provide any head support and in a situation where he may have had to swing around move or change direction rapidly.

He is an incompetent Idiot..
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:


There are millions of bad drivers who put their children in potential danger everytime they stick them in the car.
Click to expand...


Well, you've convinced me. This is the perfect defence for putting your baby inside a crocodile pen. ;)


On a more serious note. Irwin's defence rests on the educational value to his children of doing such absurd things. If so, why doesn't he let everyone go into the pens with the crocs so they too can "learn of the dangers"? :confused:
 
Im always shocked by people who let their babies play with large family dogs. I think its reckless behavior.

I like dogs, I just dont fully trust them around small kids. Ive heard people say that the dogs are part of the family and wouldnt hurt a fly but it still freaks me out to see a tottler climbing all over a 80 lb Rottie.

My worry has more to do with the baby poking or pulling on somthing he shouldnt, causing the animal to lash out.
 
Dorian Gray said:
In my opinion, Steve Irwin, regardless of his experience whether measured in years, hours, performances or numbers of animals, was absolutely wrong to endanger his child the way he did, regardless of how small he or his wife thought the chance for danger was. He obviously places his own ego, showmanship, arrogance and perception of mastery over crocodiles, etc., ahead of the welfare of his son, and that is shameful.
Click to expand...

What is shameful is that the human race seems to have lost it's zest for life... :rolleyes:

Parents are always taking chances with their kids in an effort to teach them the ways of life. Some parents insist on coddling their kids and then wondering why they are so rotten. Other parents recognize that kids need a certain amount of exposure to interesting things in order to become interesting themselves. The Irwins appear to be giving their kids (the baby is their second) an appreciation of the wildlife that they themselves appreciate. Those people that believe the Irwins did this on a lark and without proper care don't understand what the Crocodile Hunter is about.
 
dsm said:

Parents are always taking chances with their kids in an effort to teach them the ways of life.
Click to expand...
I agree. My wife and I had a discussion about this very subject last summer.

My house backs up to the back of an abandoned resteraunt that has an empty lot next to it. There were some kids playing in the empty lot when their ball got caught on the roof of the resteraunt. There were about a half dozen of them ranging (I'm guessing) between 12 and 15 years old. Roof of the resteraunt extended several feet out away from the wall of the restaunt so, in order to climb on to the roof, the kids started to hoist one of their number up onto the roof.

At this point, my overly-protective wife was ready to send me out there to stop them, but I said no. Right there, we had a lesson in problem solving, teamwork, and self-reliance that would have been utterly ruined had an adult come out to help.

Yes, it was a dangerous situation. Yes, someone could have been hurt. But, no one did get hurt and the kids got their ball back on their own.

I would not have done what Steve Irwin did, not with a crocodile. But, then, I'm not Steve Irwin and I don't have his experience. I might have tried that "stunt" with one of my two dogs, and probably will at some point, should the situation arise, and I won't think twice about it.

There are a lot of things that could happen. Robert Irwin could have been attacked by that crocodile. The boy on the resteraunt roof could have been fallen. I could walk outside and get hit by anything from bird droppings to a piece from an old satelite. So what? It didn't happen and it hasn't happened.

Since when do we blame people for things they might have done?
 
Upchurch said:
My house backs up to the back of an abandoned resteraunt that has an empty lot next to it. There were some kids playing in the empty lot when their ball got caught on the roof of the resteraunt. There were about a half dozen of them ranging (I'm guessing) between 12 and 15 years old. Roof of the resteraunt extended several feet out away from the wall of the restaunt so, in order to climb on to the roof, the kids started to hoist one of their number up onto the roof.
Click to expand...

When I was young (6-12 years old), my family lived in a small development that really had not been developed very much and only had about 10 families in the area. Our road cut into a woodsy area and my house backyard was pretty much in the woods. By grown up standards, the woods were not all that big, but, by my young standards, they were big enough that I and several friends spent years exploring them. In the process, we encountered snakes and bugs, drank from running streams, fell into murky water, encountered a ground hog, climbed many different trees and old abandon buildings and even a sand pit (a steam shovel dig out).

Looking back on it some 30 years later, I realize that there were many things that we did that were moderately dangerous (particularly trying to handle the snakes in rattler country), but I learned so much about the local flora and fauna (I taught it to some of the other kids). My parents didn't know the half of what we did, but the training of shows like "Wild Kingdom" ensured that I never tried anything really dangerous (like eating potentially deadly mushrooms). I also received the trust of my parents who probably felt this was a good way for me to get out of the house. I miss those times.

Obviously, the Irwins have much more experience in this than me or my parents ever did. The incident in question took place at the very controlled location of their own zoo. In the end, who is more reckless with the safety of their kids -- Steve facing one well-understood croc or a parent in New York City who lets their kid walk to school?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom