Boy, 7, fed live zoo animals to crocodile

[ShadowV7]

Shame the kid didn't get eaten up. Even if he is seven, he should that giving the crocodile other live animals was killing for a start. Then there's the question of why no security was stopping him and he was un-supervised. He should get charged with something though, even if it's small like a fine to the parents and get sent to a mental health unit. Especially if he was smiling about it.

[McPhee]

WTF! Why did he do that?

 

Alice Springs

 

Problem solved. It's America, they're all fucked up over there.

 

In all seriousness though maybe the kid simply thought he was feeding the croc? I doubt he had any idea what he was feeding it. As for the beaten Lizards, i guess he tried to grab them and they pissed him off somehow. Sever year-olds can throw pretty good temper tantrums.

[Haden]

Didnt you guys ever squish out ants or anything? I remember putting insects into bottles and making them fight each other or chucking insects into spiders webs or my pond for a laugh.

 

So like honestly I dont see whats so disturbing about him chucking lizards for a crocodile to eat I mean sure its bad and he should be told off but its hardly the end of the world. On the other hand bludgenoning some of them to death is kinds different. As thats him murdering something wheras chucking it to a croc is him feeding the croc in a sick way but killing lizards by beating them to death is kinda screwed up.

[Cube]

Problem solved. It's America, they're all fucked up over there.

 

It's Australia...

[Kirkatronics]

Didnt you guys ever squish out ants or anything? I remember putting insects into bottles and making them fight each other or chucking insects into spiders webs or my pond for a laugh.

 

So like honestly I dont see whats so disturbing about him chucking lizards for a crocodile to eat I mean sure its bad and he should be told off but its hardly the end of the world. On the other hand bludgenoning some of them to death is kinds different. As thats him murdering something wheras chucking it to a croc is him feeding the croc in a sick way but killing lizards by beating them to death is kinda screwed up.

Thats like saying beating someone to death is murder, but throwing them to a croc isnt?

[Dan_Dare]

they're fucked up too

 

Thats like saying beating someone to death is murder, but throwing them to a croc isnt?

 

dude, what!?

[MoogleViper]

Granted, by that age, he probably didn't really know what he was fully doing, or the implications.

 

i mean kids have no real conception of what they're doing, so where were his parents?

 

I hardly think the child knew exactly what it was doing. Why he wasn't supervised for 35 minutes in a zoo is the real crime.

 

If he'd been 11 or over, I'd say what a little shit... But he is just 7.

 

This is all bollocks. I work with children as young as 7 and trust me they know exactly what they are doing. They know how to get their own way and they know what will happen if they do things.

[Eenuh]

Surely at 7 you know that something like this is absolutely wrong. This is seriously messed up. And how on earth did a 7 year old manage to feed a 1.8m long reptile to a crocodile? O.o

[Kirkatronics]

Surely at 7 you know that something like this is absolutely wrong. This is seriously messed up. And how on earth did a 7 year old manage to feed a 1.8m long reptile to a crocodile? O.o

If they are what i think, they are quite light and its their tails which make up the length.

 

Can't find a picture of one =/

[Eenuh]

If they are what i think, they are quite light and its their tails which make up the length.

 

This is a picture of what comes up when I searched for goanna. Looks big and heavy to me. Plus they have claws. =O

 

[Kirkatronics]

This is a picture of what comes up when I searched for goanna. Looks big and heavy to me. Plus they have claws. =O

 

Thats not what i remembered :s He might have dragged it, and it probobly is only aggressive to insects or something. Thats only a guess though so..

[Slaggis]

Thats not what i remembered :s He might have dragged it, and it probobly is only aggressive to insects or something. Thats only a guess though so..

 

No, they are mighty agressive. I've worked with some lizards like that before and one swing of their tale scan do some serious damage. But then again, if he managed to grab their tale before they knew what was happening, it's perfectly plausible that he didn't get injured. But then again, if they have been bought up in captivity, they would of not worried about a person entering into their cage, and therefore would not have tried to injure the boy.

[Kirkatronics]

No, they are mighty agressive. I've worked with some lizards like that before and one swing of their tale scan do some serious damage. But then again, if he managed to grab their tale before they knew what was happening, it's perfectly plausible that he didn't get injured.

Do they hibernate or anything like that? Are they alert when they bask?

He may have taken it by suprise.

[jayseven]

I'm sorry but this thread is so full of naivity and ignorance, clearly on my own part too, that it literally made me facepalm.

 

I really don't see why this is seen as such a big deal.

[Slaggis]

I'm sorry but this thread is so full of naivity and ignorance, clearly on my own part too, that it literally made me facepalm.

 

I really don't see why this is seen as such a big deal.

 

Erm, read Moogle's post. Just because it's a seven year old, doesn't make this not a big deal. How can people say he wouldn't of known what he was doing? I would of known at that age that bludgeoning animals to death was wrong, and surely any sane child would too?

[Shino]

It's an age where kids have a big imagination about the things that surround them and they get curious about everything (and they start saying "Why?" all the time. "Why?Why?Why?Why?" BECAUSE I SAID SO, you annoying godson, so STFU!). The kid could have the most bizarre explanation for what he's doing with out it being necessarily evil.

 

Also, many kids try to stretch it a bit by doing things they were told to be wrong, but don't know exactly why.

[jayseven]

erm i read moogles post, and replied after it, so shh.

 

Wouldn't have. Would have. It's not that hard to remember.

 

I disagree with all of this "he's clearly insane!" prattle. For a start; remember we are reading a report of the incident from the not-so-objective media, who know how to spin a story to make it sound more intriguing. What precisely is 'bludgeoned'? does it amount to one hit? Did he kill them separately, or all at once? Did he intend to do so? Did he then feed them to the croc? Did he bludgeon them because they were fighting back? Did he use his fists, or just drop a rock on them?

 

You can still argue that wrong is wrong, no matter which way you look at it, but then you would protest if I started making comparisons to, say, a friend who throws up in your sink and forgot to take the plug out you would say "oh, but that's different". So I say that unless you know the full reasoning behind not only what the boy did but also what the journalist has chosen to cover, you cannot truly cast judgement.

 

The kid smiles as he sees a croc eat an animal. OH MY GOD HE IS SMILING. Yet is that any surprise when we pervert such natural acts and portray them as entertainment. Are you telling me that you've never laughed or smiled or enjoyed watching an animal eat another animal? Can you be sure? No movie? Lake placid? Oh but that's different because it's not real. But then, how real is a movie to a child of 7 years old? To what extent do kids understand special effects? To what extent do children see mock-violence as separate from real violence? Aren't you doing psychology, haggis? Shouldn't you think beyond the surface?

 

Blah. Whatever. It's not a big deal because they're animals in captivity who probably would've been eaten long ago if they were in the wild. Context, context, context. Social and cultural conditioning. Mankind's god complex. WHATEVER.

[MoogleViper]

I was merely making the point that it's quite likely that the kid knew exactly what he was doing.

 

As for whether it was wrong or not. Would you consider it wrong if a 12 year old did it? 18, 28, 68?

[Slaggis]

erm i read moogles post, and replied after it, so shh.

 

Wouldn't have. Would have. It's not that hard to remember.

 

I disagree with all of this "he's clearly insane!" prattle. For a start; remember we are reading a report of the incident from the not-so-objective media, who know how to spin a story to make it sound more intriguing. What precisely is 'bludgeoned'? does it amount to one hit? Did he kill them separately, or all at once? Did he intend to do so? Did he then feed them to the croc? Did he bludgeon them because they were fighting back? Did he use his fists, or just drop a rock on them?

 

You can still argue that wrong is wrong, no matter which way you look at it, but then you would protest if I started making comparisons to, say, a friend who throws up in your sink and forgot to take the plug out you would say "oh, but that's different". So I say that unless you know the full reasoning behind not only what the boy did but also what the journalist has chosen to cover, you cannot truly cast judgement.

 

The kid smiles as he sees a croc eat an animal. OH MY GOD HE IS SMILING. Yet is that any surprise when we pervert such natural acts and portray them as entertainment. Are you telling me that you've never laughed or smiled or enjoyed watching an animal eat another animal? Can you be sure? No movie? Lake placid? Oh but that's different because it's not real. But then, how real is a movie to a child of 7 years old? To what extent do kids understand special effects? To what extent do children see mock-violence as separate from real violence? Aren't you doing psychology, haggis? Shouldn't you think beyond the surface?

 

Blah. Whatever. It's not a big deal because they're animals in captivity who probably would've been eaten long ago if they were in the wild. Context, context, context. Social and cultural conditioning. Mankind's god complex. WHATEVER.

 

I love your post (No, that's not sarcasm). Yes, I am doing psychology but to be honest that's not the point. I totally get what you are saying, yes he's only a young child and yes the story obviously tries to put a spin on it by repating the fact he was "smiling" whilst watching them get eaten. I get that. But I also know that children of that age aren't as stupid or ignorent as people seem to make them out to be, he would have known that throwing things into the crocodile would have most likely killed them. Or at least if not the first time, but every time after that.

 

It also says he "bludgeoned" three of them, not just one. So the self defence thing is a bit of a far cry. I mean, yes, if he went into a cage not knowing how an animal would react and when it tried to hurt him he killed it then ok, I get that. But by repeating this, he obviously had the intention to kill the creatures, however he went about doing it. That's what worries me slighty.

[Jimbob]

As the kid can't be prosecuted at 7, i say wait until he is 12 or 13 then put him in a juvenile facility for what he done at 7.

 

Fine the parents is what i would do, why leave the kid un-supervised like this for 35 minutes. And fire the security guards.

[jayseven]

I was merely making the point that it's quite likely that the kid knew exactly what he was doing.

 

As for whether it was wrong or not. Would you consider it wrong if a 12 year old did it? 18, 28, 68?

That's what I said in my first post, only the other way around :P I would seriously consider it more wrong if it was an elder child that did it. I will admit that I don't hang around 7 year olds a lot since I got put on that list *cough* but there is definitely a difference between a 7 year old doing it and an adult doing it.

I love your post (No, that's not sarcasm). Yes, I am doing psychology but to be honest that's not the point. I totally get what you are saying, yes he's only a young child and yes the story obviously tries to put a spin on it by repating the fact he was "smiling" whilst watching them get eaten. I get that. But I also know that children of that age aren't as stupid or ignorent as people seem to make them out to be, he would have known that throwing things into the crocodile would have most likely killed them. Or at least if not the first time, but every time after that.

 

It also says he "bludgeoned" three of them, not just one. So the self defence thing is a bit of a far cry. I mean, yes, if he went into a cage not knowing how an animal would react and when it tried to hurt him he killed it then ok, I get that. But by repeating this, he obviously had the intention to kill the creatures, however he went about doing it. That's what worries me slighty.

I know it was three -- it was poor semantics on my part. "Did he kill them separately, or all at once?" was meant to cover all three squishees.

 

 

If we're going to look at what's 'wrong' with the child then what would we look at? Inability to perceive other points of view? Lack of empathy? You say he 'would have known that he was killing them (paraphrasing a little, but point maintained), well if we focus on a couple of things here; I would say that we are arguing he should have known what he was doing. I would also argue that knowledge of death isn't something that is inbuilt, nor something that occurs to all people at the same age. So we can only infer that he knew that he was killing them after the first one, to what extent that he knew that he was killing living, sentient beings is another matter.

 

But I agree. There is certainly a lot of intent involved. He broke into a closed zoo. He killed, what, 13 animals? That suggests some sort of planning, perhaps fantasizing. One could argue that the kid showed empathy when he smiled while feeding the croc; perhaps the kid saw the croc before and thought it looked sad, or he never saw it eating and remembered the ones on telly ate stuff.

 

We are distressed because the boy apparantly enjoys some form of violence, but then we are labelling it as a vicious act. You can easily argue (callously) that the kid loved the crocodile. You can argue that he 'bludgeoned' three lizards in self-defense.

 

The reason it's not a big deal to me is that lizards are shit :P if it was thirteen puppies or kittens, I would be bothered. If it was 13 rats or pidgeons, nobody would care. Social conditioning tells us what we can and cannot accept. My genetic conditioning also tells me that I'd probably only really be bothered if he fed the croc babies or people, y'know? Then that'd be insane.

[Supergrunch]

I think most 7 year-olds would probably do something similar if they had the free opportunity to do so.

This. However, I think many of you are underestimating the intelligence of a 7 year old - this one, like many other probably just didn't care too much about the consequences of his actions, which is the problem that needs to be resolved. But that's part of growing up.

 

Also, I think the situation is slightly twisted by our societal norms. I'd imagine, for instance, that people feed the crocodile meat, maybe even live animals. (this is definitely true in the case of many snakes, where you have to feed them live mice or similar) Is what the kid is doing really that different? Sure, the lizards are rare or whatever, but the kid doesn't care and neither does the crocodile. And neither does "nature", which is why things are rare in the first place. Are we to blame the crocodile for needing to eat meat?

 

It still remains that this is needlessly destructive, but from our point of view only. Kids need to learn why it is we think like this by, as I said, growing up.

[Jonnas]

Why he killed those 3? I have no idea. Maybe it was an accident or self-defense. Maybe those 3 were the only ones that attacked the kid.

 

The point is, this is not a matter of the kid not knowing what he's doing. It's a matter of him not having any boundaries. He wanted to feed the crocodile, and did what he could to accomplish that goal. An adult probably wouldn't have done this for several reasons:

 

-An adult knows very well that a crocodile may easily ignore the lizards and attack a human;

-An adult knows that the crocodile is fed regularly;

-An adult knows that security guards are competent, and that he could easily be stopped, and get into legal repercussions (while the 7-year old may not even know about said repercussions).

 

Having said all that, it's still surprising how neither guards nor his parents saw him do anything for 35 minutes. And, of course, his parents should pay a fine.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think what bothers most people isn't if he knew it was wrong, but that she should have known it was wrong. Oh, and J7, this comment ...

or he never saw it eating and remembered the ones on telly ate stuff.

... is really just pissing on the intelligence of a 7 year old. The intelligence level many of you believe him to have is more fitting for a 3-4 year old than a 7 year old.

[Paj!]

He should be charged with something like juvenile hall or something.

 

That'll learn him.