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?)

If two carers were required to take this man out we can assume his needs went beyond requiring help to go to the toilet? As evidenced by the fact he attempted to kill a child.

Given the attack on the child, we can guess that two carers were needed because of known behaviour towards other people.

But in general you can't assume needing two carers means danger to the public, because there are many people with disabilities who need 2 to 1 because of personal care or toileting, because they don't or can't "go to the toilet".

When you have a full size adult who uses continence aids (you may know them better as nappies), it may take two carers to help them safely, simply to keep the person safe from rolling off the bed and falling on the floor.

Or it may be possible to support the person with their hygiene safely with one carer at home in a known environment with all optimal prescription equipment to hand, but need two carers to do so out in the community.

I can think of one person who uses incontinence pads but who can access the toilet at home with one carer, depending on the skill of the carer and the strength of communication with the carer, because of the specialised equipment at home. However out in the community, you'd need two carers, and a fully equipped Changing Places accessible toilet with adult size changing bench.

Hear hear @Eastie77Returns

It was not, as a pp said “just one of those things”. The man may have previously been a complete lamb, but why did the carers try to run away?

Of course we don’t know the facts yet but Norfolk Council were quick to say they were not in charge of this man. The extent of a proper risk assessment needs to be investigated.

Of course this doesn’t help the toddler, but this man henceforth does need to be “locked away”. If, as some posters are keen to state, he had no idea what he was doing and completely lacked mental capacity, then surely it follows that he is not going to “recover” and will present a lifelong risk to the public.

Unfortunately this man was a danger to others, but you can’t make the assumption that two-to-one care when out and about means that @Eastie77Returns.

The man who did it is clearly dangerous and unpredictable, for the safety of others he should be locked up and not allowed out again.
He’s done the most horrific thing possible it really doesn’t get much worse.
Only by the grace of god is that boy still alive. Crocodiles terrify me I don’t even like seeing them on TV and he was thrown into a pit full of them. 😟

Oh that’s awful, poor little thing. As pp said no he won’t have nice stories to tell when older.

Which is where he should’ve been in the first place.

I sort of struggle with, the man knew the crocodiles were very dangerous, he knew the child was very young, yet he threw the child into the enclosure. Surely he knew these things but still threw the child into the enclosure. And what on earth were the carers doing?

How do you know he knew those things? He was not fit for questioning.

Here we go again (eye roll).

And, again, if the man is so lacking in capacity that he had absolutely no idea what he was doing, then it is patently obvious that in that case he should never again see the light of day as he would present a severe and ongoing danger to the public, especially children.

In the fullness of time, the investigations (I assume there is going to be some kind of safeguarding review by the local borough council, as well as the police investigation) will release information to the public about exactly what level of intellectual capacity he has, and we'll definitely hear more if he's fit to stand trial. For all we know, the reason why he wasn't fit for questioning was strictly temporary because he'd been sedated.

The previous arrangements for his care were clearly not sufficient and I really hope investigators can determine what led to this, so nothing like this will happen again.

He wasn’t fit for questioning ok, so that’s been reported. Why then didn’t he pick up and throw him in with the monkeys? Why the crocodiles? He obviously knew a 3 year old would be easier to pick up and throw than say an 8 year old.

Why do you think you know his reasoning and motive? Even the police could not get that out of him.
Some random on the internet will know even less.

So he didn’t know what he was doing apart from picking up a child and throwing it into an enclosure.

I’m sure psychologists will get the truth out of him eventually one way or the other, or they won’t.

Maybe they will, maybe they wont. If he is non-verbal and has profound LD then they are going to struggle to get anything out of him.

Profound learning disabilities generally mean the person doesn't progress much in development beyond the level of a 12 month old baby, I thought?

My instinct is that if he has a learning disability, it's not to the extent of profound because he was independently walking, has the coordination to pick a child up, and the carers were relaxed and on their phones, and allowing him to walk at a distance. That suggests to me that they thought they could call him back if he went too far away, or went in a direction he wasn't supposed to. So I conclude they trusted him to respond to his name and follow simple instructions like, "wait" and "come this way".

You don't delude yourself like that about walking children under 12 months or adults/older children with learning disabilities who operate at the level of a child under 12 months. But I can envisage bored staff being lulled into a false sense of security about the level of watchfulness needed for an adult with severe learning disabilities (development on par with a child between 3 and 6). It would also make sense with the police statement that he wasn't fit to interview. I imagine it takes great skill to interview a three year old, or someone operating on the level of a three year old.

You can have a profound learning disability but not be physically disabled. So it’s possible, not to mention the fact that having a profound learning disability doesn’t mean you don’t also have the strength of a grown man. They just aren’t going to understand how strong they are.

It’s also possible that the carers were simply negligent and should’ve been watching him much more closely than what they are reported to have been.

I didn't say someone with profound learning disabilities wouldn't have adult strength. I doubted that he or she would have the level of coordination required. Stooping to pick someone up, and lifting them up over a barrier demonstrates some level of gross motor skills.

It is already obvious that the carers should have been watching him much more closely than reported, because no-one has a care plan saying "needs 2-1 support in the community, but it's okay if the carers are trailing metres behind and have their attention on their phones". Just doesn't happen. So if you think I'm saying they weren't negligent, think again!

However, their negligence wasn't random. They thought they could relax and there wouldn't be any consequences, and their confidence was founded on something. To me, their inattentiveness suggests he doesn't have profound LDs and he's functioning at a level slightly higher than that.

The perpetrator should never see the light of day again. However I imagine his life is carrying on as it was whilst his victim and family come to terms with their new reality.

their inattentiveness suggests he doesn't have profound LDs and he's functioning at a level slightly higher than that

His LD has been stated on social media. I won’t repeat it here, but no, I wouldn’t categorise it as profound, if what has been revealed is correct.

Speculation, supposition and imagination. Not facts, or knowledge, or insight.

Gee thanks, how sweet of you.

That's probably the first time anyone has thought I had an imagination, so I think this must be personal growth.