A thirty two year old circus performer plunged to her death at Ringling Bros. over the weekend. At the moment, no criminal prosecution is being looked at, and it’s seen as a tragic accident (although why the hëll there was no net under her remains totally bewildering. Then again, even when used, nets can be missed or you can land wrong, break your neck, and adios.)
She has (had) two young children who are being trained to join the act.
Sooner or later, somehow, somewhere in this country, luck is going to run out and a child circus performer is going to be killed.
At which point no one will say there’s no investigation of criminal prosecution. No one is going to say, oh, it’s a tragic accident in a high risk profession.
Instead there’s going to be a thundering of outcries over child endangerment. Investigations will be launched. Social services will be brought in. Children will be taken from their parents. And anyone under the age of eighteen will be banned from any act more hazardous than juggling. All the safety harnesses in the world don’t matter because, sooner or later, something’s gonna break.
So circus families might as well take the initiative now and stop using kids in anything remotely high risk…before the odds, and the law, catches up with them.
PAD
• 
Of course, it’s always possible that her death WASN’T an accident, and that one of her two kids will decide to don a gaugy costume replete with green shorts in order to avenge her death and wage a neverending war on crime. But, really, what are the odds of THAT happening…?
interesting point peter, but where does your opinion fall?children doing this kind of thing… probably not cool. adults…free will. an old Devo quote comes to mind…”freedom of choice is what we got, freedom from choice is what we want…”
Sadly this same senario will happen if Bill Jemas’ children ever attempt to write a comic.
sorry.
Shortdawg – “But, really, what are the odds of THAT happening…?”
The same as the odds that the dead circus performer will return as a ghost to avenger her own death by possessing the bodies of the living.
Honestly, Peter, I disagree with you on this one. You’re right about the inevitable public outcry, of course, but in spite of that, the children do know the risks. I’m not much for circuses, myself, but as long as there are children living with the circus (which will likely be as long as there’s a circus in existence) there will be children up there performing the hazardous stunts with their parents. Sure, the public appearance of circuses have become little more than a novelty in years past, but the circus itself hasn’t really changed much in the sense that they operate much like an extended family. If the kids living with the circus troupe are going to have any sense of belonging, they’re going to have to learn the trade. Reducing them to glorified hangers-on will hurt the children more than any fall.
Figuritavely, of course.
As long as the kids are forced to perform, it’s really ABSOLUTELY NONE of the government’s or anyone’s gøddámņ business.
We should be supporting less intrusion into people’s private lives rather than more…
“As long as the kids are forced to perform, it’s really ABSOLUTELY NONE of the government’s or anyone’s gøddámņ business. We should be supporting less intrusion into people’s private lives rather than more…”
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you meant to say “aren’t forced.”
And I hardly think that children risking their necks in front of thousands of audience members qualifies as “private lives.”
PAD
interesting point peter, but where does your opinion fall?children doing this kind of thing… probably not cool. adults…free will. an old Devo quote comes to mind…”freedom of choice is what we got, freedom from choice is what we want…”
It’s called the “Age of Consent” for a reason. If you advocate that children under 18, in a performing family situation, are not subject to the same laws against child endangerment that other children are, then you open up a staggering can of worms.
PAD
That was supposed to be aren’t, yes…
Their choice, and as long as their parents support their choice, that’s all that really matters.
Anything else is the government interferring in people private lives, and even a “public performer”‘s choice to be in that field is a “private matter”.
Where will we be as a society if we teach all kids not to take risks, not to take chances all through their formative years? We’ll wind up with a society indoctrinated not to take chances, to eschew risks.
And then where will we be when comes time to make hard decisions on where to go next as a people? Sheep mildly following the same path because we don’t want to take a risk to better ourselves?
Your right Peter, and I’m sure those animal rights people will be trying to get the Bear off the giant balls and those poor poodles off the little bikes as well.
Wonder how many fleas die in the flea circus every year?
Let’s pull back a bit.
Kids, shmids. Circus, shmircus.
Why the heck should anyone — acrobat or stuntman — risk their neck in a circus or on a movie set for other people’s entertainment.
I want to be specific about my gripe here. If someone can perform complicated gymnatics in mid-air, they deserve applause whether or not they have a safety net below.
Stunt people who have been trained in how to safely do stage fighting, falls, etc., prevent the harm and injuries that would be inevitable if untrained, unathletic people were doing it. But whatever entertainment value may exist in having cars crash just ain’t worth risking human beings in ’em.
There’s a nasty little idea at the back of my nasty little mind. The population’s thirst for blood in entertainment may be of a piece with the thirst for blood that’s driven more than one military effort.
I’m going to wander off now..
Mitch, et al.:
I don’t think it’s a “thirst for blood” per se, but more a thirst for excitement and adventure.
Especially in the summer, the blockbuster extravaganzas are getting more spectacular in the stunt/special effects areas to the point where we have movies that are nothing more than one gigantic special effect to begin with.
Just how much of a crowd do you think that performer would have drawn if she had worked with a net?
A tragic situation, yes. But can we blame the circus for trying to keep up with the rest of the world’s demands for “entertainment”?
How many people say they go to the races for the wrecks, to hockey for the fights? A lot of people secretly hope something horrible happens to someone at an entertainment event, and that they are present to witness (and be horrified by) it.
I’ll cop to some of that Dave, but I don’t want anything to happen to the viewers in the stands.
Personally, I’d like to see prison inmates (or for that matter, anyone-else willing to particpate) star in the newest reality sports show: “Gladiator”, with death of a contestant as a real possibility…
I’ve had a very similar thought.
I remember a few years back when there was a story about the youngest kid ever attempting to get his pilot’s license. Just the most adorable little human interest story.
As could have been easily foreseen, the plane crashed and the child died.
For weeks after, the papers were filled with stories and outraged editorials from peopl who never said Word One when the story was first announced and it might have done some good.
But of course, this also brings up another point. It *is* called the Age of Consent for a reason. Kids shouldn’t be regularly required to perform life-risking acts and if it’s irresponsible to put kids in that position, maybe they shouldn’t even be doing it in fiction. Like, say, a book where a bunch of kids put on costumes and fight folks, many with guns or worse, who are trying to kill them. But what are the odds of a book like *that* happening? And who would they find to write it…?
(Yes, I’m kidding…)
Just to clarify: I meant that I had a similar thought to PAD’s. Not the horrible wish Bladestar expressed to see human beings fight to the death. (Which ended up directly before my post.)
Sick. Really sick.
The key point for me in this is the Age Of Consent.Realistically even if a kid grew up around the circus lights and had an idea of the danger they may still want to perform to either please or be like the parents.I have seen parents
get thier kids in to certain activities so they can live thru the kid.Also lets be honest we all wanna please our parents on some level or at least get the approval of them.
Recall a few months ago when Steve Irwin had his kid(s) around a HUGE crocodile with the defense of “my kids grew up around them,im an expert”Yeah, and its a wild animal JÃÇKÃSS!One slip and your kids a snack.They dont know better ,just want to spend time with Dad.
With apologies to Mr.Grayson,and Mr.Drake kids should not be put in certain situations no matter how much training or supervision.Apologies to Mr
Wayne also:)
Another reason to keep your kids out of danger,do you really want the government more involved in you life than it already is????
By the way,
the circus accident happened the day before the 5-year anniversary of Owen Hart’s death at a WWF pay-per-view show.
People castigated the WWF at the time for continuing the show, after the gave excuses like “Owen would have wanted us to continue” and “We didn’t want to start a riot.” I heard yesterday the circus people basically fell back on “the show must go on” mantra.
How can you apologize to Bruce, don’t you remember Jason Todd? Bruce is completely irresponsible and it is completely understandable that he never forgave himself. I just wish I knew why he made the mistake all over again. I mean, this is his third Robin (not counting spoiler) and he is also on his second Batgirl!!!
Kansas City: March 23, 1999
Owen Hart falls to his death during the early moments of the Over The Edge pay-per-view. The reason? The safety harness had interfered with the costume he was wearing, and it came unhooked, causing him to plummet to his death.
Since then, there have been dangerous other matches, but none where the wrestler has descended from the ceiling. If there was a chance to try it again and under better safety regulations, I’m sure the WWE would try to do such a stunt again.
Despite such incidents happening, there will always be a pause between troubles. There will be investigations, but things often keep going on.
“The same as the odds that the dead circus performer will return as a ghost to avenger her own death by possessing the bodies of the living.”
So it is going to happen then?
Ben Lesar (possesed by the ghost of Bostin Brand.)
**Honestly, Peter, I disagree with you on this one. You’re right about the inevitable public outcry, of course, but in spite of that, the children do know the risks**
You do realize that child molesters use an argument very close to “they know they risk” don’t you? “Sure she was only 14 but hey, she knew what she was getting into”.
Children do not intellectually process information the way adults do, telling a child or even a teenager something is dangerous is not the same as telling an adult something is dangerous. This is why we have age of concent laws in this country and while we restrict many other things by age even outside of the general age of concent laws.
That should say (possesSed by the ghost of BostOn Brand.) This proves nothing! I know how to spell my own name, it was a typo! Just like the missing “s” in “possessed.” Whatever happened to bolding things anyway; I want that back!!! (Leaves body to go possess someone else.)
Bladestar,
Wasn’t it you not that long ago that ago that vehemently opposed children having the “choice’ to wear religious garb at school “because kids do NOT have the same right as adults”.
Yet now, these kids have not only the mental capacity but the RIGHT to risk their necks?
You state that even though these stunts are performed to entertain an eager public the CHOICE to do so is still a “private matter”? As if a parent/child relationship is ever truly equal in terms of power?
So, in your opinion the CHOICE to risk their lives in pointless entertainment is cool, but if they want to CHOOSE to wear a yamulke to school, that is no longer a “private matter”?
What, if anything, goes on in that head of yours?
Ben ,Ben leave Bruce alone .Its true i forgot about Jason todd but i actually wanted him gone anyway.As far Bruce taking on more apprentices ,if you notice he is extremely hard on Tim as of late,and is pretty much a pain in the ášš the work for as a result of Jason.
Also if you checked out the Batman Beyond cartoon
He drove EVERYONE away after the Joker tortured and broke Tim in “Return of the Joker”.Not to mention the way he stays on Huntress and the new Batgirls butt.(that last line didnt sound good did it?)Anyway ,its just a fictional character ,not a real guy with real kids .I dont believe i just went on rant defending Bruce wayne
Mitch: “There’s a nasty little idea at the back of my nasty little mind. The population’s thirst for blood in entertainment may be of a piece with the thirst for blood that’s driven more than one military effort.”
******
Or, to quoth Ray Davies: “Give the people what they want/The more they want, the more they need/And everday they get harder and harder to please.”
A lot more than goes on in yours Jerome. Religion does NOT belong in public schools. PERIOD.
Sorry if your mind isn’t developed enough to understand that.
So if it’s unacceptable to have child performers at the circus is it equally unacceptable for those under the age of 18 to….
rock climb
learn to fly
engage in motorcross racing
perform skateboard tricks
white-water raft
We allow parents to determine for themselves what amount of risk is acceptable for their children in most cases, why are you singling out performing families? I assume it’s the performing aspect you object to rather than the work aspect, else you’d have to object to kids working with dangerous farm equipment, risky chemicals……
Life is full of risk:reward tradeoffs and I think you’re applying a personal bias as well as failing to consider the plethora of activities we allow parents to choose to allow their children to engage in. Take a look at the numbers at http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/orthopaedics/stats.html and tell me, how do the circus injury rates compare to 10% annually?
“Results: A football-related fatality has occurred every year from 1945 through 1999, except for 1990. Head-related deaths accounted for 69% of football fatalities, cervical spinal injuries for 16.3%, and other injuries for 14.7%. High school football produced the greatest number of football head-related deaths. From 1984 through 1999, 69 football head-related injuries resulted in permanent disability. Sixty-three of the injuries were associated with high school football and 6 with college football. Although football has received the most attention, other sports have also been associated with head-related deaths and permanent disability injuries. From 1982 through 1999, 20 deaths and 19 permanent disability injuries occurred in a variety of sports. Track and field, baseball, and cheerleading had the highest incidence of these catastrophic injuries. Three deaths and 3 injuries resulting in permanent disability have occurred in female participants.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=155424#B8
If it matters, for the “record”:
The Joker shot (and wound up crippling) BARBARA GORDON during ‘The Killing Joke’ because she was Commissioner Gordon’s daughter, not because she was Batgirl.
Some joke, huh?
**So if it’s unacceptable to have child performers at the circus is it equally unacceptable for those under the age of 18 to….
rock climb
learn to fly
engage in motorcross racing
perform skateboard tricks
white-water raft**
Don’t know about rock climbing but plioting an airplane and motoercross racing and white water rafting do have age reguirments that are enforced by law and many comunities also have laws regulating the age you need to be to buy or use a skateboard, (they may not be strictly enforced but they are there). Not all age requirments go by the default of 18, but the law has determined that some things are to dangerous for children under the age of X to do, and these laws change all the time usually under public pressure. (Putting it in perpesptive, it wasn’t all that long ago that kids could work in a coal mine, you’d never see anything like that today without the words child endangerment being brought up.) Kid breaks his neck skateboarding and suddenly the comunity decides that you need to be 18 to use a skateboard, (such incidents have happened, there are towns that have banned skatboarding outright in reaction to such incidnets).
Bladestar,
I think Jerome makes a valid point. You can’t get huffy about government intrusion in our private choices if you are so vehemently opposed to any choice that has a religious connotation.
There’s a world of difference between allowing kids to engage in dangerous activities and wearing a yarmulke. The only way to absolutely guarantee that there is no religion in public schools would be to keep out any and all religious minded kids–after all, the sneaky little bášŧárdš might try talking religion during their walks between class or saying a prayer before lunch and THEN where would we be.
Me, I say a prayer EVERY time I have to eat at the cafeteria but that’s because ours serves these semi frozen fries with everything. EVRYTHING. Pizza? Have some fries. Spaghetti? Fries. BAKED FRIKKING POTATO? FRIES! It’s like some kind of Dr. Atkins nightmare.
Anyway, going after kids who wear yarmulkes or crucifixes or any other religious items will surely backfire. You’ll have kids who wouldn’t have thought about it at all finding ways to be religious behind your back, forcing you to be ever more the petty dictator until you get finally end up in The Happy Home. You’d be better off ignoring it.
Then how about this, ditch the public schools entirely and make parent pay to send their kids to school and quit using other people’s property taxes to fund public schools.
I think that’s a valid choice, especially since you’re argument could apply to fdrugs, those sneaky kids using and selling drugs in schools behind the teachers backs? Can you imagine how horrible that would be, especiallysince drugs are illegal everywhere, not just schools… (although drugs should be just as legal as cigarettes, cigars, and alcohol…)
(Wanna take the money and violence out of the drug trade? Legalize drugs, no way the street gangs can complete with Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and Rite Aid..)
Darren,
Yeah, and those communities are stupid. It’s not skateboarding per se that’s the problem, it’s the way the kids do it and the safety equipment they use.
You don’t hear cries of “Ban all the Automobiles!” everytime someone dies in a traffic accident.
Plus, the major objections to skateboarding in most cities is that kids do it wheer it doesn’t belong, like in parking lots and on buisinesses property where they don’t belong. That and went some moron kid who feels the need to slide down a staircase’s handrail on his skateboard and falls and hurts himself, the pathetic legal system in this country lets his parent sue the property owner for $Millions even though there’s No Tresspassing and No Skateboarding signs posted and even though the cops have chased the kids away and warned them not to skateboard there anyway. THAT’s so many communities really enact skateboarding bans, but the kids refuse to use them responsibly and more importantly, they tresspass and when their stunts hurt them, the property owners get sued instead of the courts being intelligent and saying “It’s your own fault, stupid! Case dismissed, no money for you!”
Similar issue, kids who put up their mobile basketball nets/hockey nets in the street. On the one hand: They’re a nuiscance that blocks traffic. On the other: Where else can they play? The parks are all shutting down and/or have signs posted and sometimes cops chasing them away because they aren’t authorized to play ball there. There’s always plenty of money for big corp tax breaks and pork barrel projects and government worker “business” trips, but somehow none for giving kids a place where they can play safely…
The point remains, Blade, that government intrusion is government intrusion. Your position seems to claim that aerial stunts without a net, risking one’s neck for the entertainment of onlookers, is a choice that is somehow morally superior to the wearing of a yarmulke, or a cross – that it’s okay for a child to make the decision that mortal danger is fun (despite the well-known proclivity of even intelligent children to believe they’re immortal), but it’s bad to leave a child with the option of displaying his or her private religious beliefs, even if said child is making absolutely no attempt to force said beliefs on *anyone* else.
I sincerely hope this is a matter of knee-jerk reactions on your part, not an honest attempt to think the situation through. I think you’re a lot smarter than this…
“Then how about this, ditch the public schools entirely and make parent pay to send their kids to school and quit using other people’s property taxes to fund public schools.”
That’s a valid libertarian argument but like so many it sounds better than it would probably be in practice. To make it work you would need a complete overhaul of the entire socail sytem of the country–no welfare, virtually no government except for national defense and maybe roads.
Since that is NOT going to happen…ever…it isn’t worth spending too much time contemplating. Life is only so long…
“You do realize that child molesters use an argument very close to “they know they risk’ don’t you? “Sure she was only 14 but hey, she knew what she was getting into’.”
Actually, the defense is a lot closer to “he/she wanted to, and understood what was going on.” The defense being that there was no harm done to the child, not that the child was aware of the risks.
“Children do not intellectually process information the way adults do, telling a child or even a teenager something is dangerous is not the same as telling an adult something is dangerous. This is why we have age of concent laws in this country and while we restrict many other things by age even outside of the general age of concent laws.”
Which is why I wouldn’t use this argument for the most part. In the case of circus kids, it’s a part of the lifestyle. No kid’s going to watch mom and dad fall during a practice run and bounce harmlessly into the net without wondering why the net’s there. Further, once they get up in the air, eventually they’ll hurt themselves. It’s statistically impossible to practice feats of acrobatic acuity without some manner of injury. A sprained ankle, a broken leg, a twisted shoulder; at some point the kid is going to experience pain and learn on the most rudimentary level to equate an imperfect performance with pain. Then they either get out if they don’t think they can hack it, or keep plugging away at it if they think they can.
This isn’t the mental ramifications of sex or the responsibilities of piloting an aircraft; it’s a purely physical experience. The only risks are injury and death, not something abstract like mental anguish. It’s not that hard to wrap a child’s head around that.
I recall seeing a documentary when I was a kid, that showed Russian high-wire acts. The narrator took great pains to point out that, besides a net, all the performers were on safety wires.
I don’t know if that made anything safer; it seems to me now that it would be very easy for wires to get tangled with each other, or somehow wrapped around people’s necks.
As for kids performing high-wire acts…it may be that those peculiar skills have to be ingrained into performers when they’re very young. As an acrophobe (who nevertheless put a satellite dish on his roof all by his lonesome, thank you very much) it would take me at least ten years to get over my fear of heights to the point where I could swing from a trapeze. Let alone do it well enough to be paid for it.
No Jonathon, they are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issues.
School is mandated, kids have to attend some form of formal education. Choosing an early career is not. If the government was forcing kids to do hire-wire acts without a net, you might have a point, but in a school, where all kids are forced to be, it’s a totally different story.
“Kids shouldn’t be regularly required to perform life-risking acts and if it’s irresponsible to put kids in that position, maybe they shouldn’t even be doing it in fiction. Like, say, a book where a bunch of kids put on costumes and fight folks, many with guns or worse, who are trying to kill them. But what are the odds of a book like *that* happening? And who would they find to write it…?”
Well, they could find me if it’s “Young Justice,” and then I in turn would write a six part story arc (which morphed into a summer wide crossover event) centering specifically on the question of shutting down YJ because kids under 18 were being put at risk. So if you’re subtly trying to call me a hypocrite, you’re not doing a particularly effective job.
And a note to Don: When I was going to high school, the guys who made my life the most miserable were the swaggering football jocks. So if you’re trotting out stats to try and imply that raising concerns about child acrobats would also require one to take the stand that HS Football players should be shut down…hey. I’d shed no tears. No one ever sustained a life-ending injury in a high school debating team.
PAD
I dunno Peter, maybe one of the stat-researchers will find a report of an inner-city school where one debater didn’t like the other and popped a cap in his ášš… wouldn’t surprise me…
I just find this thread ironic on a personal level. Recently my role-playing group was trying to find a new campaign. Nothing had really interested us, untill one of the guys in our group came up with a take on White Wolf’s Hunter RPG. We all play kids between the ages of 10 and 16. Oddly enough, the back of the Hunter Players guide strongly reccommends against this.
It recommended against adult players playing 10-16 year olds, or recommended against letting kids that young play?
(I don’t play any of the White Wolf games, but I notice in most of the hobby shops there’s usually signs posted saying they won’t sell the WW stuff to anyone under 18…)
As a player of “Vampire: the Masquerade”, and occasional reader of matters relating to White Wolf’s other games, I’d recommend against both, especially for “Hunter: the Reckoning”. Teenage gamers often have a real problem leaving out metagaming knowledge, and part of the fun of being a Hunter is supposed to be the misinformation you’ve been filled with (vampires hate garlic, silver means instant death for werewolves, you can always kill a zombie with a head shot, etc.). Meanwhile, sticking a teenager with the ability to pierce the Veil at will is just disturbing. Aren’t these kids’ lives bad enough, especially in the World of Darkness?
I also don’t want to meet any teenagers gaming Vampire, especially if they can play Malkavians correctly. That would be *really* disturbing…
I think it all depends on the age of the “child” performing. If the kid is fifteen or sixteen, s/he’s probably been training since they could walk and knows what they’re doing and the dangers involved. There are different ages of consent/age restrictions. Cigarettes, alcohol, driving [which, until recently, you only had to be 14 to do around here], sex, movies, whatever. Should a ten year old be forty feet off the ground, swing from a trapeze? No. But, if s/he’s been trained, understands the risk, and is fifteen, sixteen years old, let them. There could be restrictions. Can’t go higher than thirty feet, must have a safety net, etc. Just like a driver’s license.
“Then how about this, ditch the public schools entirely and make parent pay to send their kids to school and quit using other people’s property taxes to fund public school.”
Now that idea truly is radical, and not in a good way.
“(Wanna take the money and violence out of the drug trade? Legalize drugs, no way the street gangs can complete with Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and Rite Aid..)”
Now that, I can almost agree with.
“School is mandated, kids have to attend some form of formal education. Choosing an early career is not. If the government was forcing kids to do hire-wire acts without a net, you might have a point, but in a school, where all kids are forced to be, it’s a totally different story.”
Isn’t this all the more reason to let kids wear religious symbols. They have to go, so let them wear what they would be wearing if they stayed at home. (Obviously there are some exceptions, such as a pornographic shirt.)
“No one ever sustained a life-ending injury in a high school debating team.”
I don’t know Peter; some of those debates can get pretty heated. In fact, a debate I’m planning on doing next year should stir up some strong emotions. The Debate: Murder is wrong. (I’ll be on the negative.)
Ben, just remember an ancient truth:
Some people are alive today only because it’s illegal to kill them.
Posted by: Jason Henningson at May 24, 2004 05:55 PM
Kansas City: March 23, 1999
Owen Hart falls to his death during the early moments of the Over The Edge pay-per-view. The reason? The safety harness had interfered with the costume he was wearing, and it came unhooked, causing him to plummet to his death.
Since then, there have been dangerous other matches, but none where the wrestler has descended from the ceiling. If there was a chance to try it again and under better safety regulations, I’m sure the WWE would try to do such a stunt again.
__________________
The WWE may not have done it again but a wrestler by the name of Sting did get lowered from the ceiling after Owen’s death in former rival WCW (who the then-WWF was parodying with Owen’s stunt).
Owen’s stunt was totally unsafe the way they did it and according to the trial, the harness could have been released by Owen taking a deep breath as it only took six pounds of pressure to open the snap shackle used.
I doubt the WWE will even to something like that stunt again to keep attention away from them.
“will even to something like that stunt again to keep attention away from them.”
That should read “will ever try something . . .”
And now for something _really_ depressing…
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/25/clown.pørņ.charges/index.html
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Spanky, a clown with the renowned Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, has been arrested on charges stemming from a child pornography investigation, law enforcement officials said Tuesday.”
Is it me, or is a consequence of age the transition from suspension of disbelief to stringing it up by the generative organs?
Pfui.