3 year old injured by crocodiles - man arrested

[DecisionTime123]

So I assume the man deliberately placed the child into the crocodile enclosure. Psychopath? Sounds similar to the man who threw the boy off the Tate?

(And also, not connected but these places are shit for the animals and should be shut down)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czx50n2vj74o

(& apologies if thread already started?)

With rights (to be out in public etc ) come responsibilities . Most people who violate the law with acts of violence would face consequences and have to accept responsibility for their actions and possible curtailment of their rights, eg prison. Those who are dangerous and unable to accept those responsibilities should logically not be afforded the same rights.

But surely they could have given such information without naming any place or type of institution? Eg “X has been released on bail into the care of an appropriate unit.” That gives nothing away about where or what kind of unit.

I’m not keen on the title of this BBC report. It looks like it’s downplaying the actions of the man and pretending the issue is crocodiles attacking the boy. It goes on about the crocodiles not being seized blah blah, but the issue is this tiny child was allegedly thrown from height into the enclosure, sustaining broken bones, including a broken pelvis.

However, the BBC article appears to confirm what I suspected - that the two carers were women. It would be very hard for two women to restrain a 30 year old man and stop him from doing what he was doing, especially as his actions would be unexpected and probably very fast:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9l2278m8no

.

It says two women but then they go on to say ''The witness said she overheard one of the carers ask: "Should we go to the crocodile house next?". The man replied: "Yeah."

So it is still quite unclear.

ETA: Nevermind, I think I have misread and the man is the man with special needs.

They are referring to the perpetrator as the man surely rather than the other carer

I edited.

That BBC article is definitely dwelling on the crocodiles as if it’s their fault rather than the man who threw the child over the barrier and his inadequate carers.

It’s not good reporting but to be expected ! They are shameful the BBC

I agree, it would.make much more sense and avoid adding to the public anger.

Yes, you’re correct. The man referred to is the one with SN. I notice they felt he understood enough to be asked a question rather than them just leading him around.

I'm honestly not a hang 'em high type but I'm amazed the bloke has been bailed. As @BreatheAndFocus stated, we should be told without further details that he's safely confined away from the public, as he's clearly a danger to others. What if he's still allowed out with carers - it worked so well before! - he could just shove a child into oncoming traffic walking down the street. The attempted murder charge is a sign they think he could have homicidal intent. And he's free?

According to local news a Norfolk Man was arrested with attempted murder, 30 yrs old. Unfit for interview and bailed until 18th September. He was on an organised visit with one carer. The poor toddler was attacked by one of the crocs. There is more info in our local paper.

Round of applause for the woman who jumped in to save the child !!

Yes brava to her. It's just horrific even thinking about it.

I'm surprised the man was out with just 1 carer. Unless they were part of a larger group? And was it a female carer. What if she needed the loo or he did? It doesn't sound right at all.

Sorry that was in reply to the post about the woman who jumped in to save the child.

Completely agree with this. Rights without responsibilities leading to monstrous behaviours.

Yes, I’m sick of rights. And sick of “Oh, he’s harmless.” There was a naked man locally leaping out at lone women shouting “I’m going to kill you!” Response. “He’s known to the police and does not present a danger” - oh, great. It’s his right to terrify women. Marvellous.

We had similar - a man was walking round the local area dressed as a naughty schoolgirl (🙄) and he would hang around at the end of the school day trying to chat to the kids - one primary and three secondaries in close proximity. School emailed us to let us know and that the police had told them they had spoken to him but couldn’t do anything else because he hadn’t done anything yet. Lasted about 6 months so don’t know what happened

Oh dear @MaturingCheeseball and @BeardySchnauzer now now….its beeee kind remember, if they’ve not been charged with anything then they can’t be doing anything wrong, now or ever 🙄

No one is saying you can't be afraid. But your solution can't be to lock people up/deny them the same rights as everyone else because theyre male and make sudden noises...
Im aware you didnt exactly say that before you jump down my throat but the dismissive tone that people "insist on human rights", its thinly veiled what youre implying.

Its a you problem as in you can adapt your behaviour, avoid interactions that you find frightening, get to know someone who communicates non verbally perhaps to understand.

Oh no, me too. I love wildlife parks too:(

How do I adapt my behaviour, get to know and communicate with a man twice my size who gets on a bus and begins screaming “I’m going to kill you cunts” whilst pacing up and down? This is the episode on the bus I referred to in an earlier post. It’s a ‘me’ problem that I felt concerned for my safety and that of my son and other passengers? No-one had any idea if this man had a knife or some other weapon on him.

What do you mean “avoid interactions that you find frightening”? I didn’t interact with this person but again, what am I supposed to done if he is suddenly in an enclosed space with him?

We absolutely can and should deny certain rights to violent men with no impulse control.
And yes, some should be under lock and key such the mentally ill who refuse to take their medication and then go on murderous killing sprees because of the voices they hear in their heads.

No thank you.

It's not a me problem if they stab me, chuck me over a fence or hit me, is it? They don't just "make sudden noises", they do hurt and kill people, a matter of record. Regularly. Yesterday in fact.

I cannot "adapt my behaviour" against any reasonable person's expectations if I meet these people around a country walk or in a cafe I have travelled to eat, as I do. Others have simply been walking down the street (Calocane is a good example).

In a concert venue a few years back, should I and a large number of people around me have adjusted our expectations not to be able to hear an elite orchestra play over the noise being made by the profoundly disabled young man out with what looked like his parents?

Why, exactly, do the rights of the minority override the rights of the majority?