Crocodile Hunter killed

[RationalBiker]

Would it follow then that he should have known the cause and effect of the stingray's spike?

I don't think that's analogous to what Ian said. The proper question would be "Would it follow then that he should have known the cause and effect of a stingray's behavior?" That is not an unreasonable expectation for someone who was going to be swimming around them. I would think he probably knew that getting to close to stingrays or stepping on them can result in injuries, but it's been mentioned by several sources that deaths from stingray attacks are almost unheard of. It would not have been reasonable for him to expect to die from that experience.

Edited September 9, 2006 by RationalBiker

[LaszloWalrus]

The odds of getting killed by a stringray are close to zero. The odds of getting killed while living with grizzly bears and treating them as human is A LOT higher than that. Irwin and the grizzly guy are not comparable.

[RSalar]

The odds of getting killed by a stringray are close to zero. The odds of getting killed while living with grizzly bears and treating them as human is A LOT higher than that. Irwin and the grizzly guy are not comparable.

The point being made in the Grizzle Man comparison was in regards to the statement: "If Irwin believed that 'he had some mystical shield,' then he would have been dead long ago." What I meant was that if the quoted statement were true then the Grizzly Man would also have been dead long ago. In other words, just because a man manages to escape death for a period of years does not mean that his beliefs are not irrational.

If Irwin was such an expert and knew all about how animals respond in particular situations then he would have had to know that there was a possibility (regardless of how remote) that a stingray could react in the manner that it did. If he didn't know that a stingray could do what it did then he was not the expert that some would like to believe.

In addition it should be noted that either wild animals are predictable or they are not. They cannot be both predictable and unpredictable at the same time. If they are predictable then Irwin should have known how they would respond in particular situations. If they are unpredictable then Irwin should have known that some possibility did exist that he could be killed even if he were as knowledgeable as humanly possible.

If Irwin were in fact rational and very knowledgeable about wild animals then he would have fully accepted the risks and the consequences that ultimately led to his death. I’ll give him that much and as I stated he certainly had the right to dispose of his life his way, but he should not have ever placed his child or any other unsuspecting person at risk. That was wrong and yet we know he did it—and that is why I believe he thought he had a “mystical shield” that protected him and those people who he placed in harms way. This “mystical shield” was his evasion of the actual risks involved in dealing with wild animals. It is what Irwin and the Grizzle Man had in common--and it is why the comparison is appropriate.

[RationalBiker]

If Irwin was such an expert and knew all about how animals respond in particular situations then he would have had to know that there was a possibility (regardless of how remote) that a stingray could react in the manner that it did. If he didn't know that a stingray could do what it did then he was not the expert that some would like to believe.

The likelihood of the risk is entirely relevant in any risk assessment. I know that every time I go out in public, I risk the chance of being shot or robbed but those probablilities are so remote that it does not dissuade me from leaving my home.

I'm trying to find where I read it, but I understand that Irwin acknowledged that he was more knowledgeable and more comfortable dealing with land creatures than sea creatures, with being on land as opposed to be in the water. He recognized that he was more vulnerable in the water than on land. I'm not sure who is claiming that he was an expert in all creature's behavior because I haven't seen that claim. That's obviously not the case. However, his behavior was not necessarily irrational as he may have known enough about the situation to deem it relatively safe in light of his purpose for being there. The fact that he had an accident that resulted in his death does not automatically imply his actions were irrational.

[Sam Brown]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Stingrays are not typically "killer" animals.

You imply in the above that Steve was behaving in a responsible manner with the stingray. According to news reports, he was deliberty close to the animal when it speared him through the heart. To me, that was reckless. This man did not just take "businessman risks" that all of us are forced to take in everyday life, eg driving a car . His risk taking was on a higher plain, and finally basic maths prevailed ie if you do something very risky over and over, eventually your number will come up. His high risk taking amounted to "selling his soul to the devil" for fame and fortune. Being kind to the man, he did reinvest all of his 20 million dollar per year income back into conservation. Some consolation to the family he left behind and should have considered with his dangerous life style. After having children, he should have played a much more conservative hand.

Regards

[RationalBiker]

You imply in the above that Steve was behaving in a responsible manner with the stingray. According to news reports, he was deliberty close to the animal when it speared him through the heart. To me, that was reckless. This man did not just take "businessman risks"

It's unclear, but I'll assume you were replying to my post.

Getting close to animals, even dangerous animals, was a "business risk" for his business. Walking on girders on high rises is a dangerous for construction workers, but I've never had to do that myself. For me, that is reckless behavior. Driving a car in a big oval at over 200 MPH is dangerous, but NASCAR drivers do it all the time. For me, that would be reckless behavior. Rock climbing cliff faces is dangerous and in my mind typically unnecessary, but folks do that.

The man understood that risks come with his job, and he accepted those risks without complaint. I'm reasonably convinced that he typically took all the precautions he thought he could to minimize those risks, and still accomplish what he thought his job demanded. I accept that it's your opinion that he behaved recklessly. I disagree, but it's hardly worth going around and around on anymore. Bearing any convincing argument otherwise, I'll let my position stand as is.

[LaszloWalrus]

The point being made in the Grizzle Man comparison was in regards to the statement: "If Irwin believed that 'he had some mystical shield,' then he would have been dead long ago." What I meant was that if the quoted statement were true then the Grizzly Man would also have been dead long ago. In other words, just because a man manages to escape death for a period of years does not mean that his beliefs are not irrational.

If Irwin was such an expert and knew all about how animals respond in particular situations then he would have had to know that there was a possibility (regardless of how remote) that a stingray could react in the manner that it did. If he didn't know that a stingray could do what it did then he was not the expert that some would like to believe.

In addition it should be noted that either wild animals are predictable or they are not. They cannot be both predictable and unpredictable at the same time. If they are predictable then Irwin should have known how they would respond in particular situations. If they are unpredictable then Irwin should have known that some possibility did exist that he could be killed even if he were as knowledgeable as humanly possible.

If Irwin were in fact rational and very knowledgeable about wild animals then he would have fully accepted the risks and the consequences that ultimately led to his death. I’ll give him that much and as I stated he certainly had the right to dispose of his life his way, but he should not have ever placed his child or any other unsuspecting person at risk. That was wrong and yet we know he did it—and that is why I believe he thought he had a “mystical shield” that protected him and those people who he placed in harms way. This “mystical shield” was his evasion of the actual risks involved in dealing with wild animals. It is what Irwin and the Grizzle Man had in common--and it is why the comparison is appropriate.

I agree with you insofar as you condemn him for putting his child in that situation. Irwin was not killed in a risky situation, unless you stretch the term so far it loses all meaning. Irwin did know how animals respond in certain situations, which is why he never got killed except in a freak abberration. If I walk outside and get hit by a meteorite, does it mean I am evading the actual risks involved in walking outside? No. It means that we cannot account for EVERYTHING that could go wrong in ANY situation. This fact does not make us evaders who pretend to have a "mystical shield."

[DarkWaters]

Incidently, at least ten mutilated sting rays were found on Australia's east coast, possibly as a reprisal for the murder of Steve Irwin.