89mm Not to point the finger, but . . .
All right. So the stingray that punctured Jamie Cunningham’s chest wouldn’t be convicted by a court of law of attacking him.
Self-defence, your honour. There it was, minding its own business in the 30cm shallows of Oreti Beach, when the Southlander announced his proximity by treading on it.
Cunningham himself is hardly reproachful. He gets it. The ray lashed out defensively, using its protective abilities as nature intended.
No, it was our description that this constituted an ‘‘attack’’, that attracted corrective commentary aplenty, the thrust of which was that we’re not to imply aggression by, and by implication apportion blame to, the stingray.
After all, they are widely accepted to be docile unless they’re feeling threatened.
So without using such a loaded word as ‘‘attack’’, what happened here?
The consensus seems to be an unpleasantness regrettably resulting from marine misunderstanding sensationalised by the media.
Heavy sighs. We don’t wish to perpetuate the negative stereotyping of any sea creatures. Nor land-based ones, lest exonerating the stingray might open us to accusations that we’re now victim-shaming Jamie Cunningham.
Can we even call him a victim, given that the stingray is now off the hook in terms of blame? Considering that hole in his chest, and the excruciating consequences, it’s difficult to think of him as simply the ‘‘recipient’’ of a sting. A victim of circumstance, then.
Days earlier, people nationwide were reading a Stuff report about the delights of feeding stingrays, under supervision, at Tatapouri, near Gisborne. An experience described as so uplifting that it ‘‘felt like we were swimming with friendly labradors’’.
Which is not, exactly, the way even the philosophical Cunningham would tell it. And we wouldn’t want to invalidate his reality, so to speak. Nor that of 80 stingray-related ACC claimants each year.
Nor, we hasten to add, would we want to deny the distress of people who have been injured by labradors, which (we hasten even more hastily to add) are generally regarded as familyfriendly.
It’s just that any animal can be capable of causing injury in certain circumstances.
Like if they have been traumatised by brutal owners.
Oh hell. Look, we’re not suggesting for a moment that any owner of any labrador that has caused an injury has necessarily been brutal. No such meaning is intended or should be inferred.
In fact, we’ve just looked it up and some labrador attacks could instead be . . . let’s see . . . the result of behavioural changes brought about by testicular cancer. For which nobody is to blame. Not even the media. So what have we learned? Cunningham has since learned that if he’d been splashing around a bit more, it would have most likely alerted the ray to make itself scarce. Seems sensible.
For our part we would add that even when you’re splashing around in the shallows (and there are those who say that the news media themselves do quite a bit of this) you’re not necessarily entirely safe. It still pays to tread carefully if you don’t want to attract a few barbs from one direction or another.
The ray lashed out defensively, using its protective abilities as nature intended.