Sadistic boy, 7, feeds live reptiles to crocodile

Hendrix89

Duzzie wrote: »

I grew up surrounded by wild animals, snakes, spiders and other creepy crawlies. At no time did I ever think it was ok to act in such a way, but then I was bought up to respect animals. As I said, we are meant to be the civillised ones. Animals dont know any better, we do.

There is no way that a child of that age should have been left un supervised but it is the apparent pleasure that the boy took in his actions that is so shocking. As for playing Steve Irwin, I have never seen any Steve Irwin show that in anyway contains such animal cruilty like this and very much doubt that anyone would get the idea that such behavior is ok from a Steve Irwin show.

Very well said.

Respect for wildlife is what makes a good human being.

Duzzie

TelePaul wrote: »

Not all seven year olds do.

They should be properly supervised then.

TelePaul

Duzzie wrote: »

They should be properly supervised then.

Agreed. The kid wasn't. Doesn't mean he deserves to die, as someone said.

CDfm

Duzzie wrote: »

I grew up surrounded by wild animals, snakes, spiders and other creepy crawlies. At no time did I ever think it was ok to act in such a way, but then I was bought up to respect animals. As I said, we are meant to be the civillised ones. Animals dont know any better, we do.

There is no way that a child of that age should have been left un supervised but it is the apparent pleasure that the boy took in his actions that is so shocking. As for playing Steve Irwin, I have never seen any Steve Irwin show that in anyway contains such animal cruilty like this and very much doubt that anyone would get the idea that such behavior is ok from a Steve Irwin show.

I am not condoning animal cruelty .

Just pointing out that the world from a 7 yos perception is very different to an adults.

AS for no animals being hurt on Steve Irwins show - what do you think the feed the crocs on - baby rice:P

Now can you see the connection -give a kid a hose and he is putting out firesand he is Fireman SAm - a rope swing and he is Tarzan - lizards and crocs and he is........

AS the Duke of Wellington said "Because you are born in a stable -doesnt make you a horse"

Duzzie

CDfm wrote: »

I am not condoning animal cruelty .

Just pointing out that the world from a 7 yos perception is very different to an adults.

AS for no animals being hurt on Steve Irwins show - what do you think the feed the crocs on - baby rice:P

Now can you see the connection -give a kid a hose and he is putting out firesand he is Fireman SAm - a rope swing and he is Tarzan - lizards and crocs and he is........

AS the Duke of Wellington said "Because you are born in a stable -doesnt make you a horse"

No crocs dont eat baby rice. What has feeding humanely culled meat, which is usually carved and generally unreccognisable from the living animal got to do with animal cruelty?? In my post I said " I have never seen any Steve Irwin show that in anyway contains such animal cruilty like this". Feeding animals in such a way is not animal cruetly. So no, the shows do not show any animals being hurt.
Are you suggesting that if a kid sees someone eating a steak on TV, they are going to get the idea that it is ok for him to go out and kill an animal and start eating it?? Kids are not as stupid as you seem to think they are. That kid knew what he was doing and he took great pleasure out of doing it. Feeding animals was a very small part of the Steve Irwin shows. Did the kid try to wrestle with the croc lile he saw on Steve Irwin, a much more common theme on his shows??

How often do you hear storys like this?? It is a very rare event, hence the publicity. Most kids know that such behavoir is wrong and would not contemplate doing it. At the same time, what parent in their right mind would let a 7 year old child run around a zoo by itself in this day and age?

CDfm

Duzzie wrote: »

No crocs dont eat baby rice. What has feeding humanely culled meat, which is usually carved and generally unreccognisable from the living animal got to do with animal cruelty?? In my post I said " I have never seen any Steve Irwin show that in anyway contains such animal cruilty like this". Feeding animals in such a way is not animal cruetly. So no, the shows do not show any animals being hurt.
Are you suggesting that if a kid sees someone eating a steak on TV, they are going to get the idea that it is ok for him to go out and kill an animal and start eating it?? Kids are not as stupid as you seem to think they are. That kid knew what he was doing and he took great pleasure out of doing it. Feeding animals was a very small part of the Steve Irwin shows. Did the kid try to wrestle with the croc lile he saw on Steve Irwin, a much more common theme on his shows??

How often do you hear storys like this?? It is a very rare event, hence the publicity. Most kids know that such behavoir is wrong and would not contemplate doing it. At the same time, what parent in their right mind would let a 7 year old child run around a zoo by itself in this day and age?

a 7 year old does not often think of their actions as having consequences in the same way as an adult does.

They dont know that if they hold a puppy to tightly they can crush him or if the pupply dies its gone awy to puppy heaven.

To understand it put yourself in a 7 yos shoes -has a child ever run off on you in a shopping centre ?

Yes children born on farms and in the country make the connection between living things and food. Kids are the ultimate consumers thats what they do.

At the same time what ef**** eejit left the zoo so f****** accessable for one child and its great it was only one to get access and run around for 35 minites with child eating crocs undetected. They released the CCTV footage -what about the muppet how was supposed to be monitoring it and his boss where are they.And will they get the same prominance.

Believe me -that it was only lizards that got eaten was the best outcome.

carwash_2006

Holding a puppy too tightly is a very different thing to deliberately taking a rock and bashing in the brains of any animal.

I do feel sorry for this child that noone has ever paid enough attention and interest in his life that he is firstly able to break into a park like this - I do not believe that the security is poor on a place like this, just not designed for small personages like this that should not be running around near there on their own. Then having gotten into the place is capable of the acts committed.

The parents shouls be held responsible, but the child should be assessed by the appropriate authorities and action should be taken so that we won't in 15 years time be seeing headlines of how the depraved serial killer of umpteen people broke into a zoo when he was 7 and killed these animals.

CDfm

where does the jump to serial killer come from?

where does the info on the child come from that no-one is interested in him. Im just interested -do you have anything to substantiate this?

Stheno

Personally I'm interested in the fact that this happened in Australia, home of Steve Irwin who went on tv with his young kids, and showed them feeding crocodiles at one point.

How much did that influence this young boy?

Seeing a child his age on tv feeding crocodiles, versus what he did?

Now I'm against what he did, and do agree that in many many circumstances if not all, it's one of the signs of sociopathy, but given the footage of Irwin and his kids, is this not a mitigating factor???

I've a beardie of my own who loves to sit on my shoulder and watch tv, can't imagine an end like those poor animals suffered, but lack of parental supervision, plus Steve and Bindi on tv feeding crocs?

The parents have a part to play no doubt imo, but tv also is liable here, rather Steve Irwin et al are.

CDfm

I must agree here -didnt Steve Irwin meet his untimely end by being too friendly to wildlife.


They dont show his final moments - that would stop repeats of the show. You want your animals cuddly but they are not.

Steves kids do it why cant I.

Are the Irwin kids sociopaths-should be by your definition -they feed dead animals to crocs.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

Steves kids do it why cant I.

Are the Irwin kids sociopaths-should be by your definition -they feed dead animals to crocs.

Two points here

Firstly Steve's kids fed dead animals to crocs, so sociopathy doesn't come into it, if I feed pinkies to my beardies am I a socio/psychopath?

Secondly I agree with the *if Steve's kids do it why can't I* from a kids perspective, but I question the lack of adult supervision.

CDfm

but the kids dont see that

at leat WWE wrestling gives warnings Crocadile Hunter doesnt.

whats a beardie?

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

but the kids dont see that

at leat WWE wrestling gives warnings Crocadile Hunter doesnt.

whats a beardie?

Well that's more spreading the responsibility then, down to the broadcasting authorities who allow such stuff to be shown before the watershed, if indeed it's shown then?

A beardie is a bearded dragon

CDfm

nouggatti wrote: »

Well that's more spreading the responsibility then, down to the broadcasting authorities who allow such stuff to be shown before the watershed, if indeed it's shown then?

A beardie is a bearded dragon

it is I watch it

your point?

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

it is I watch it

your point?

If it's shown before the watershed, then if I were a parent I would expect it to be suitable

That said the current watershed is nine pm, which is after most seven year olds are in bed, so does the watershed need to be reviewed, or do parents need to rely less on regulatory standards and more on reviewing what their children are watching??

The argument is now probably O/T for pets and animal issues, apologies to the mods, I'll move over to parenting if there is a similiar thread there.

thanks

Clare Bear

I have a 7 year old nephew. If he did something like this I would kill him! He kicked a dog when he was 3.....believe me after a few words with me he didn't do it again (don't worry I didn't beat the crap out of him or anything!) and I made sure he had a dog so that he would grow up with animals and have respect for them. This child seriously needs help. It's horrific. I'd hate to see that CCTV footage....smiling while he was attacking those innocent creatures? I'd like to know what kind of upbringing he has because a well brought up child would not do something like that.

junkyard

It's the parents are at fault here from where I see it, if the kid and his brother were shown any respect for animals by their parents this kind of thing wouldn't happen. Some people shouldn't even have kids never mind animals, they should be sterilised and protect other people from them and their offspring.

togster

lol at people wishing he was eaten limb by limb.

Perspective for god sake.

I do agree the kid should be punished. His parents too.

CDfm

what about the security at the zoo?

I have never told my kids not to break into the zoo at night - and if they do - not to take some some small animals and drop them in the lion enclosure.

Frankly,there has never seemed to be the need.

AS for pulling legs of spiders - thought it better not to give them ideas.

On a related issues in Malahide Ive often seen kids crab fishing and invariably crabs get killed and sometimes "escapees" get terminated parents watching and all. That doest make the kids sociopaths and no-ones putting them into care.

Kinda think there are a lot of double standards here.

Whispered

When the seal hunters died you had people on saying thats it Karma and stuff like that. People need to realise that statements like that lead to everyone with an interest in animal rights, being laughed at and not taken seriously.

I would be of the opinion that the parents should be punished, how do you not notice your child missing for 35 mins? If parents were punished for what their underage kids do then you can guarantee that there would be a lot fewer little b****rds going around.

The zoo itself should take some responsibility for the lack of security. Or at least review their security.

Most importantly IMO, the child should be made understand beyond any doubt that what he did is wrong. If he gets away with it, who's to say he wont do it again.

CDfm

helena.ryan wrote: »

When the seal hunters died you had people on saying thats it Karma and stuff like that. People need to realise that statements like that lead to everyone with an interest in animal rights, being laughed at and not taken seriously.

I would be of the opinion that the parents should be punished, how do you not notice your child missing for 35 mins? If parents were punished for what their underage kids do then you can guarantee that there would be a lot fewer little b****rds going around.

The zoo itself should take some responsibility for the lack of security. Or at least review their security.

Most importantly IMO, the child should be made understand beyond any doubt that what he did is wrong. If he gets away with it, who's to say he wont do it again.

I have no doubt that if the child didnt know what he did was wrong then he is under no illusions now.

How do you not notice a childs gone missing - I thought he was with you and vice versa.

I dont know if you have kids but they could be playing outside in front of your house and wonder off or he was in next door with the kids there. When my son was 2 and a half he could climb over a 2 metre tall fence enclosing the back garden and had been doing so for weeks.

Surprisingly easy even for a good parent to temporarily mislay a child.That said - parents do leave kids run riot and that is wrong too.

If this was a parenting board I might bring up the case in Portugal.

On an aside you cannot be prosecuted for what your cat does but can for what your dog does. Should we bring in a law for all cat owners to be prosecuted for the birdlife their cats killed. That has about much practical sense of lowering the age of criminal prosecution etc as people are suggesting here.

IM not condoning it but its a 7 year old .

Whispered

How can you be in no doubt? It depends on what the parents are like, the child could know that "doing x will get me in trouble" that is very different to knowing "doing x is wrong".

I suppose the general consensus is that the parents MUST be bad parents if their child can do that. I'm not saying I agree with this by any means, but as the childs rolemodels and guardians, they have to take some responsibility for whatever the child does. I don't mean they should be tarred and feathered, but maybe fined for the loss of the animals. Taking good or bad parenting out of the equation, they are responsible for their child, their child caused damage. Damage needs to be paid for.

Looking at the fact a 7 year old derived pleasure from killing the lizards, whatever about him feeding them to the croc, bashing their heads? That is not at all normal behaviour for a well adjusted child of any age. If the child thought he was not doing wrong then a psychologist needs to look at his apparant lack of empathy.

EDIT: On a side note LOL at your 2 year old son being able to climb a 2m fence! Must have cut the heart out of you! I don't have kids, but I would have thought thats a very rare talent.

lostinnappies

Im sorry he is seven not three. I knew right from wrong at the age of seven as did every member of my family. Thats a poor excuse. The fact of the matter is i know where my children are when i take them on an outing, these parents should have too.

CDfm

helena.ryan wrote: »

How can you be in no doubt? It depends on what the parents are like, the child could know that "doing x will get me in trouble" that is very different to knowing "doing x is wrong".

I suppose the general consensus is that the parents MUST be bad parents if their child can do that. I'm not saying I agree with this by any means, but as the childs rolemodels and guardians, they have to take some responsibility for whatever the child does. I don't mean they should be tarred and feathered, but maybe fined for the loss of the animals. Taking good or bad parenting out of the equation, they are responsible for their child, their child caused damage. Damage needs to be paid for.

Looking at the fact a 7 year old derived pleasure from killing the lizards, whatever about him feeding them to the croc, bashing their heads? That is not at all normal behaviour for a well adjusted child of any age. If the child thought he was not doing wrong then a psychologist needs to look at his apparant lack of empathy.

EDIT: On a side note LOL at your 2 year old son being able to climb a 2m fence! Must have cut the heart out of you! I don't have kids, but I would have thought thats a very rare talent.

If it was a 10 yr old or a teenager I would fully agree with you hands up.

But as a 7 year old I think its sensationalist.

You dont need to be a psychologist to play with a 7 yo -they are in a world of their own half the time.Its hard to gauge a 7 year old as kids dont develop evenly.Their sence of reality and cognitive development is not as defined as older kids or adults.So I wouldnt judge.

The 2 year old learned to climb from TV watching Fireman Sam and was making his way down to a building site to "work" - good times and great days.

lostinnappies

It is not until the age of 7, give or take a year or so, that your child's conscience begins to mature enough to guide her actions. In fact, there is typically a marked surge in moral and mental maturity at that special moment in development (child psychiatrists Theodore Shapiro and Richard Perry first described this in 1976 in an article titled "Latency Revisited: The Age of Seven, Plus or Minus One"). It's been called the "Age of Reason," since these children have a newly internalized sense of right and wrong. They are no longer focused simply on not getting caught or displeasing adults. They have made up their minds about what is right or wrong, identifying with their primary caregivers' expressed values and applying them quite rigidly.

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=7241

I know it says a year or so but come on, there is a difference between sharing and killing

Galvasean

CDfm wrote: »

You guys are unreal - he could have been playing Steve Irwin crocadile hunter.

Steve Irwin, one of the world's greatest conservationists gets the blame for a kid bashing a tortoise's head in with a rock?
I must have missed the show where Steve did that. :rolleyes:

CDfm

lostinnappies wrote: »

It is not until the age of 7, give or take a year or so, that your child's conscience begins to mature enough to guide her actions. In fact, there is typically a marked surge in moral and mental maturity at that special moment in development (child psychiatrists Theodore Shapiro and Richard Perry first described this in 1976 in an article titled "Latency Revisited: The Age of Seven, Plus or Minus One"). It's been called the "Age of Reason," since these children have a newly internalized sense of right and wrong. They are no longer focused simply on not getting caught or displeasing adults. They have made up their minds about what is right or wrong, identifying with their primary caregivers' expressed values and applying them quite rigidly.

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=7241

I know it says a year or so but come on, there is a difference between sharing and killing

I must have missed that - but statistically your plus and minus one is highly significant with reference to a childs age.

I suspect the reason why 7 is the age of the study is that it was traditionaly the age of criminal responsibility.Studies of this kind are normally sponsored by some crowd or other but assuming it wasnt I would have classed 7 as being at the lower end and not the median these days.

In Ireland it is now 12 - I think the age can be lowered to 11 or 10 for murder or manslaughter.

So if you say that the child was criminally responsible I am inclined to say on balance no and I would extend the same to his parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy

PS I read the article and it says that the development of this stage is from 7 to 11.

I am not condoning what happened but I find there is an over generalisation here and that neither the child or parents should be assumed wilfull or bad.

I am just pointing out that people should not judge harshly. Maybe the child has problems or is undeveloped or has special needs. Then age alone is a very crude indicator.

lostinnappies

CDfm wrote: »

I must have missed that - but statistically your plus and minus one is highly significant with reference to a childs age.

I suspect the reason why 7 is the age of the study is that it was traditionaly the age of criminal responsibility.Studies of this kind are normally sponsored by some crowd or other but assuming it wasnt I would have classed 7 as being at the lower end and not the median these days.

In Ireland it is now 12 - I think the age can be lowered to 11 or 10 for murder or manslaughter.

So if you say that the child was criminally responsible I am inclined to say on balance no and I would extend the same to his parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy

Im sorry but if someone with psychology degrees and training would say this very same thing to you I think you would also poo poo their "factual" studies on the grounds that it maybe sponsored by some one with an angle. What quailifications do you have exactly to know better then trained psycologists? Im not being argumentitive id really like to know. Admittently it was written based on a study from 1976 but seriously children ave matured quicker now-a-days then in previous years because of the more open exposure they have to the real world. Im not sure what psychologists would say if they undertook the research today because i dont have that information. If you have it please share.

CDfm

lostinnappies wrote: »

Im sorry but if someone with psychology degrees and training would say this very same thing to you I think you would also poo poo their "factual" studies on the grounds that it maybe sponsored by some one with an angle. What quailifications do you have exactly to know better then trained psycologists? Im not being argumentitive id really like to know. Admittently it was written based on a study from 1976 but seriously children ave matured quicker now-a-days then in previous years because of the more open exposure they have to the real world. Im not sure what psychologists would say if they undertook the research today because i dont have that information. If you have it please share.

I am not a psychologist but have done an awful lot of study in the area as part of my marketing qualifications and have a post grad. I am also a parent of teenagers.

Also- psychology is a very subjective subject and I doubt any competent psychologist or psychiatrist would give you an opinion based on the coverage of the subject matter.

Thanks for posting a balanced article - I only posted as I thought the views posted were extreme.

jacool

BeansMeansHynes wrote: »

Most serial killers started off killing animals when they were small.

statistically true - i wouldn't like to be any where near this kid anytime in the rest of my life !