Hypocrisy???

Off Topic
21

Dr. D-Lo,

I only have one question for you. Is this my business? Hahaha.

Okay seriously, I have never been accused of being a socialist before. Actually, I have more of a libertarian bent than any sort of socialist streak.

However, when something so obviously wrong is thrust into the spotlight I think we all need to pay attention. As I stated clearly in my prior post, “What purpose does this stunt serve?” To expose the child to animals? Couldn’t have this been done by junior watching daddy feed the crocodile through a plate glass window?

You stated, “Statistically speaking, driving your kid to the grocery store is reckless endangerment.” Not true. reckless endangerment laws in most states, concerning minors, read something like this:

“Whoever wantonly or recklessly fails to take reasonable steps to alleviate such risk where there is a duty to act. Acts or omissions are ‘wanton’ or ‘reckless’ within the meaning of the statue if the person is 'aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his acts, or omissions where there is a duty to act, will result in serious bodily injury, or sexual abuse to a child.”

The sort of danger that you describe in taking your child for a ride in your car is more of an “accepted risk” of life. I named others in my first post. The baby could choke if you begin to feed him. If you take the child out of it’s cradle you may drop him. Etc.

What the crocodile man did was in fact place the child in a risky situation that he did not have to be in. Unlike the examples that we both gave in prior posts. See the difference?

Let’s put it another way. Let’s say that I can safely barbell squat 400lbs. I have done it hundreds of times, no problem. Would it be fine then for me to place an infant underneath my body when I squat? Is it safe if you are an ace mechanic to jack up a car and place your baby underneath the vehicle with you when you work on that car?

Matters not the task or vocation. If you look at this on a risk benefit level. You have a zero sum gain by placing the child in harms way. I am sure most agree that the crocodile probably will not strike and harm the child.

However, we can all agree that the child will never be harmed by the reptile if he is watching through a window. He then has the experience of seeing his father feed the animal, and none of the danger of potentially becoming crocodile food! It’s called “good parenting” and there is less of it today than even 20 years ago!

Now we can argue all day about whether what the big “crocodile hunter” did was in fact reckless endangerment. I think it might have been from what I have read so far. Others, will argue that it may just fall short of it. The fact remains that it was at least risky and foolish!

By the way, I could feel the steam from your last post. Have you had a bad experience with the child welfare department in your area, or know someone who has?

22

The problem is the law, its technicalities, and the attitude that people have the right to butt into everyone else’s business without any accountability for it. Its the technicalities that have to go. We can’t be putting mothers in jail and trying to take their kids away because come cop saw that they were sunburned at a state fair (yes, this really happened). This lady wasn’t dipping them in a donut fryer.

The stunt doesn’t serve any purpose other than to demonstrate something about animals that this guy thinks he knows; its his life. Sure, its an unnecessary risk, but it sounds like this guy’s life is an unnecessary risk. Its his loss if the child is killed by his bad judgement, not the World’s (please don’t go off about the next Thomas Edison or something silly like that).

Here’s what I’m talking about; I don’t know if you’ve heard this, but there is going to be this committee elected in the NFL by interested parties that amounts to about 4 people per team. Their first rule change is to bring in highly qualified referees that not only know the game, but have the ability to assist player’s needs. They are going to bring in enough referees to have 40 at each game. The purpose is to make sure that everyone is playing fair and that nobody is getting away with anything. The problem here is cost, but it was decided cost was going to be solved by simply deducting pay from the players because this, in fact, is for their own good. Because there are so many people making sure that the players are being fair, the amount of rules is going to increase proportionally to the number of referees to improve the ability to catch any infraction and maintain a productivity level for each referee keeping in line with their career goals. These rules changes are meant to add a layer of safety for the players and since fairness is improved, will increase the game’s popularity and excitement levels. If a player is injured or has been victimized by another player in any way, along with dealing with the infraction and the offender, counseling services will be rendered immediately. I know this committee is going to feel pretty good about this and any other improvements they can offer.

23

i dont care where your from, or what political party you choose to affiliate with. if you dont know better than to put an infant in harms way, then you are a dumb muther fucker!

24

This is a great idea. If the crocodile comes for you, just throw the baby, and the crock will go after the baby while you get away. You can always make another baby.

25

“Its his loss if the child is killed by his bad judgement.”

I guess that should apply to the woman in Texas who held her 5 kids under water too long. Bad judgement indeed. Our rotten government should let her out of jail. Using bad judgement should not be a crime. Right?

Doc, you get me vote anyday. How can one argue with such logic, especially when backed up by some whacko football “analogy.”

Put a cork in the bottle Doc. New Year’s Eve is over.

26

Dr.D-Lo,

I think I understand your point a bit better. You are against interference from the “authorities” over trivial matters between a parent and child. And I agree! Unfortunately, you have expanded “trivial” to mean placing an infant so many feet from the mouth of an obviously hungry crocodile.

My question to you is this: When should the authorities step in? Neither of us wants the authorities to step in because “some cop saw that a kid was sunburned at a state fair.”
Should the authorities step in if a child is being severely beaten about the head and face, and bleeding?

How about if the child is sexually assaulted by one or both parents? What if the child is forced into a life threatening situation, that, if he were older, would normally have the good sense to avoid? According to you, you are claiming that these things are fine. You stated “It’s his loss if the child is killed by his bad judgement.” Does that mean that it’s okay to severely beat your child? Is it okay to sell that child? Would it be alright to not feed that child and completely neglect him. No one loses but the parent according to you.

Where is your sense of justice? Are we supposed to allow anything to occur in our society as long as it does not directly affect us? We can then allow bank robbers, as it’s not our money that was stolen. DWI, as it was not our relative who was killed in the accident. Rape has to be alright as well, because it is not our wife, mother or daughter. Are these things alright with you, or is it just children who have no rights in your world?

Your argument is weak! It is the states job to enforce the law. Even if that law is only protecting a "mere infan"t who will probably never grow to be “the next Thomas Edison.” Would you really want to live in a society where no one intervened when a wrong was committed against the helpless? You have no idea how helpless you may seem to a stronger larger force!

There is a time and a place for the law to step in. As far as I am concerned it comes at the point where a parent places their child in harms way on purpose, for no legitimate reason! I am not suggesting that the child be removed from his home for this one incident. What I am stating is that the crocodile hunter receive a stern warning. Hopefully all of the negative publicity will also help.

This is not a football game, or a sunburn. You may like the crocodile hunter and think he is a great T-man, and maybe he is. But, even T-men make mistakes now and then, and this guy just made a beauty!

27

The system is supposed to be there for public safety; with that in mind, there needs to be acceptable rules for behavior. There needs to be protection for people of all ages; that means laws governing acts of violence, harmful intent, murder, sexual violence, etc.

Using examples of child abuse and murder comparing it to what this guy did is nonsense. This guy had no harmful intent; intent is the problem here. He’s not criminal because he wasn’t trying to feed his kid to the crocodile. You are talking about a guy who’s life is animals, many are dangerous. Is it crazy to do something like this? Maybe to you or I. What’s next? Maybe someone thinks its ok for their kid to start lifting weights at a young age; lets say 12. Lets say the kid gets injured because he messed up on something; do we charge the parents with a crime? The “common knowledge” is to not touch weights until you are 16; at least that’s what a CPT will tell you.

He didn’t intend to hurt his kid and this guy’s life is putting himself 2 feet away from what would be considered very dangerous animals. If you’ve never done that then you don’t have any business commenting on it; your attitude about it would probably be quite different if you were around crocodiles every day.

Most people have an irrational fear of snakes. I own a python and its a beautiful animal; does it bite me? No, but there’s always a chance so I use my experience handling snakes to limit the chances. Yes, I’ve fed the python with my hands before. Yes, I was bitten the first time I tried it. Now I know the python smells the rat but senses the heat from my body and I’m more careful about doing it; most of the time I would use tongs. The crocodile doesn’t smell the kid, it smells the chicken.

Maybe this guy should have used 6 foot tongs and everyone wouldn’t have freaked out.

28

You stated, “this guy had no harmful intent.” Firstly, without a full investigation I am not so sure we can come to that conclusion. He may not have had any harmful intent. However, do you know the frame of mind that he was in prior to placing his baby in jeopardy? Did he have an argument with his wife and try to get back at her by this act? Was he drinking, and actually meant to do the child harm? No one knows for certain!

Secondly, whether “this guy had no harmful intent” or not, it still could have ended in tragedy! That’s why they have laws on the books in every state that speak to the issue of “Reckless Endangerment.” Many state laws look something like the following:

“A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he, or she engages in conduct which creates a substantial, unjustifiable, and grave risk of death or harm to another person.” Almost sounds like placing your infant child a few feet away from a hungry crocodile would fit!

Intent only makes the said crime worse. It does not determine whether or not a crime was in fact committed!

A good example would be reckless endangerment with a motor vehicle. If you swerve your car back and forth on a typical city street in America, causing someone to jump out of the way, you can be charged with reckless endangerment.

It may not have been your intent to harm anyone. However, the fact that someone had to jump out of the way of your moving vehicle, because you were not obeying the rules of the road can cause your incarceration. You might scream “I was just leaning over to grab a CD that slipped out of my hand” matters not. In that one instant of poor judgement you could have killed someone.

Back to Steve Erwin. While as a television star his job maybe dangerous: “this guys life is putting himself two feet away from dangerous animals.” It is his job as a parent (which any reasonable adult would claim is the most important job) to make sure that his infant child is not placed in harms way for no good reason. Otherwise, he risks the full rath of state laws.

If you want to feed your python and take the chance of being bitten, as you have in the past, that is your business, and yours alone. The day you decide to hold your infant son in one hand while you are feeding your python with the other, then it not only becomes a matter of poor judgement, but could also be a matter for a judge and jury!

29

Whoa. What’s this thread about?

30

You know stunts like that are designed to look more risky than they are don’t you? Crocs aren’t built to be able to lift up off the ground or jump. They hold the chicken up at about it’s maximum range of reach for a reason.

If the croc had any reasoning skills at all it would run forward (one of it’s strengths) and grab the guy’s leg but they don’t. So every day at the show the croc does the same thing and goes for the chicken over it’s head (one of it’s weakest attacks). It gets a smaller but easier meal.

Hell, if he grabbed Irwin he’d have to stuff him under a log and wait a week to get any food off of him anyway, not that the croc is capable of processing that thought. Was there some risk there? Sure but not nearly as much as the perception. I guess that’s why they call it a show.

31

If I have kids and they are interested in the feeding patterns of pythons, I’ll allow my kid to see it happen. The simple fact that you think I should stand in front of a judge and jury for that is analagous to standing in front of a judge and jury for hand feeding Fido with a kid in your hands. Get a life. I’m done with this convo, thank god.

Justice was already done in this case. Common sense ruled and no charges will be filed.

32

Steely, I think I love you. Excellent posts.

33

Intent determines the DEGREE of criminal liability. The guy who is merrily speeding along thinking about his next workout and crashes into a stopped school bus and kills 28 kids is still guilty of negligent homicide, but not first degree murder. Had Stevo dropped the child and it was eaten by the croc, would it still be just “his loss?” BS, he would be charged with a crime even though he did not mean have his child killed. Stevo does not “own” the child. It is not a plastic doll. It DOES have rights.

34

I did not say you should be in front of a judge and jury if you held your baby while feedking your python. I stated that you “could” be in front of a judge and jury.

As to the Erwin situation, as previously stated, it becomes a matter of risk vs reward. Why would anyone put their infant child at risk without good cause? Certainly not a good parent!

While there might not be any charges pending against Steve Erwin, I can assure you that he is being watched for any more behavior that may be dangerous to his child.

I can see by your personal attack “get a life” that you have run out of ideas to substantiate your point. Perhaps by now you can see that your original idea, “it’s not that dangerous” is sort of weak.

Okay, fine.

35

For the record ZEB, I agree completely with what you’re saying.

Doc said: This guy’s love is animals, some can be very dangerous. This guy is used to playing around with snakes and crocodiles and whatever else happens to be out there. He’s a nature freak and he is absolutely fascinated by these creatures and wants his kid to be involved in it. Is this somewhat of a circus stunt? Sure, but what I think he’s trying to show is that he can be around these animals and trusts his ability to deal with them. So what?

Now, wait a second. Does anyone here remember being a few weeks old? Or 1 or 2 years old? This kid was clearly an INFANT that will NEVER remember what the hell went on here, or even know what a crocodile is for that matter…A BABY isn’t cognitively advanced to understand what his dad was doing…It’s ridiculous to bring an infant that close to a Crocodile.

36

I tried to substantiate an idea to a wall once. I had to give up. Nice chat, its over and the guy will probably do it again.

37

“Steely, I think I love you. Excellent posts.”

i’m gonna have to go with tommy gun on this one, please father my children?

38

It’s never really over is it?

  1. No good parent puts their infant in harms way for no reason.

You cannot justify this action so you got angry, I understand.

39

ZEB,

First off, I agree with you most of the time. Generally our point of view runs pretty much the same.

Not this time. If Steve Irwin carried his child into the outback, and walked right up to a wild crocodile, then yes, he would be placing his child in danger.

The croc in captivity is different. It is subjected to the free meal routine every day. Even a “stupid” reptile would learn some repetitive motion. In my opinion, the child was not in any real danger.

Some of the comparisons that you have made are at best unfair, and at worst absurd.

Nothing personal, just my .02

40

Scott,

I respect your opinion. But still have to think that no contact with a crocodile, even a “domesticated” one, is safer than contact with one, especially for an infant!