AIBU to think a man accused of throwing a child into a crocodile enclosure should not get bail?

[YourKeenOliveNewt]

Aibu to think the man who threw an unknown 3 year old into a crocodile enclosure shouldn't be out on bail?

If anyone could provide any insight into the reasoning behind why was granted bail I would be very interested to hear it.

AIBU: He's a danger to society
AINBU: Innocent until proven guilty

This is right.

We also don't know if the Police/Prosecutor asked for Remand or what the Bail Conditions are.

I got called racist for mentioning the carer wasn’t British. A lot of carers are paid minimum wage, a lot of foreign workers for this reason. I wanted to contact someone but I was told I was being unreasonable and that I didn’t know the full picture. I witnessed the young man run off whilst the carer casually strolled after him whilst chatting to a mate on his phone (laughing and chatting away). I found it really upsetting.

I briefly worked as a carer for a man with schizophrenia, I left because I felt unsafe working 1:1 with someone who obviously needed 2:1. I didn’t want to be a part of it if something went seriously wrong.

Everybody agrees with this. Some of us are just saying that the system quite rightly does not usually agree that prison is the right place for people like him.

It is a rather unpalatable fact that some people with special needs do present a danger to the public due to violent and/or inappropriate sexual behaviour. My husband used to work with a person like this that needed constant supervision of 2 people when out. He was classed as being dangerous to children in particular and had to be kept away from them at all times which severely curtailed his life.

If the man in question cannot be charged is it acceptable to bring charges against the carers?

When someone lacks the mental capacity to comprehend the consequences of their actions, it's self-evident that they can't be held responsible for those actions.

And he almost certainly will face "consequences". His risk assessment has probably already been revised, and I doubt if he will be allowed out into the community again any time soon, if ever.

Don't you understand this is utterly irrelevant?
Prison / secure mental health unit isn't about education or for the benefit of the inmates. It's societal justice and protection of society.

What do you mean it curtailed his life to be kept away from children as a ‘sexually dangerous’ man?

We don’t know enough about the situation but I’d assume if he lacks capacity and has two carers there is a high chance he has very profound disabilities. He may well be non-verbal, doubly- incontinent and working at a similar level to a young toddler, but with the size and strength of a man. He may not understand that he has caused harm or the severity of what he’s done. When my DN was around 18-months old his sibling brought over their hamster and he grabbed hold of it by the head and squeezed tight*. He had no idea what he was doing could harm/ injure the animal, toddlers don’t have the capacity to understand that and neither does somebody with severe learning difficulties.

Many people with severe learning disabilities don’t like their space invaded, young children run around with little regard for other and it could be the child ran into his space and the man grabbed him and threw him to get him out of his space with no awareness of the harm that would cause. He may never have meant to harm the child and may not even understand that now.

Obviously this was a tragic incident and if the man is cognitively similar to a toddler the carers absolutely should have been paying closer attention, been nearby and they should have asked others nearby to give the man space if he does not have capacity which it does not sound like was the case. Holding the man in prison or even in a section may not be in his best interests, especially if he needs specialist equipment - many people with severe learning difficulties need things like specialist beds, toileting equipment, sensory equipment etc. People with learning difficulties are more likely to have complex medical needs, he may well have severe epilepsy for example. It may make more sense to keep him in a familiar environment with familiar carers than to have him in prison or a psychiatric unit which can’t meet his needs and increases risk to both this man and those required to care for him.

The decision to release the man on bail will have been made by professionals with all of the information, everyone here has very little information and therefore can only speculate on what the man’s needs or motives may or may not have been. To me it feels more likely that the professionals with all of the information have made the correct decision than to think anybody on Mumsnet who’s only had a fraction of the story and no experience of dealing with these kinds of decisions knows what the outcome should have been.

*Hamster was fine by the way as my sibling intervened immediately.

I imagine she meant it severely restricted the places he could be taken ie nowhere where a child would be present. And she didn't say "sexually dangerous" but rather prone to sexually inappropriate behaviour " which is not necessarily the same thing.

Have read about 5 answers - this

Prison would work just as well too

I’ve been in a situation years ago where a large teen was in a specially designed disabilities park with other children of all different ages. It was fairly quiet. In the blink of an eye he absolutely rag dolled my 3/4 year old. I can’t tell you how fast it happened. I could have been inches away and it still would have happened. However his carer was inside the provided cafe, chattering away with the others.

We took DD straight to the hospital, luckily she just had bruising and nothing serious.

I felt for him. He was left alone in a situation where he was triggered by the mere existence of a little child in his path. No one took responsibility. It could have been much worse.

It has always been in my thoughts, what was best for him . Should he have been there? Was it really a safe space for him too? Was it a carer issue. I do believe in the latter, anyway. They knew his behaviour

Yes. Surely this is negligence. Yes you can watch people constantly, that is what their actual job is.

Obviously they can't keep someone in custody with special needs. What they should have said is bailed and will be staying in a secure facility for further assessment. If he's gone back to whatever residence his hapless carers were based at it doesn't exactly give confidence that he'll be kept away from the public.

This is an incredibly distressing situation for all involved. Whilst I can understand why some are surprised he has been released on bail - I am sure there will be significant and stringent bail conditions which will mean changes to what he is able to do and access as well as a major review of risk assessments and staffing needs. I imagine that there would not be a remand option that could safely meet whatever needs he may have and so this is the only option.
I hope the poor child will make a full recovery and that the family, the zoo staff and the carers who were with the person who was arrested get all the support they need.

Do you understand UK criminal justice law and the concept of ‘fitness to plead’?

Presumably the carers didn't take a homicidal maniac on a day trip knowingly

Sadly we can no longer rely on that. Decisions made on his care may change depending on the colour of his skin. There are a growing number of situations where skin colour has meant that dangerous men are not being prevented from being free to harm.

Valdo Calocane is one high profile example where he was known to be dangerous and at risk of committing severe harm to the public but was not prevented because the decision makers were worried about too many black men being sectioned. This has been raised as a wider issue where skin colour trumps high risk so there are more cases.

Obviously we don’t know the circumstances around this case but I’m making a general observation on prevention of harm to the public and it being prioritised below certain ideologies.

Mmm I'm sure it'd be a piece of piss getting carers in for that one.

@completelylostagain

He was not allowed to go to many places because the risk of him coming into contact with children was so high. He couldn't for example be taken to the shops or for a walk. On one occasion my husband and colleague took him to a family event and were given instructions to call the police if any children were present because he was classed as being at such high risk. He only attended clubs/ events that were adults only. This usually meant events that were organised for people with special needs.

All the posts saying the carers should be held accountable, locked up or whatever: are you suggesting this is a solution to the problem of incidents like these?

Result will be: it's a million times harder than it already is - which is very hard - to recruit anyone to do a carer's job. System collapses. Everyone with care needs is severely limited in where they can go. That is a solution but a very unsatisfactory one.

Before we get to that point, it would be more practical to admit that a small number of people are a danger to others. And for those people, security for the good of the public is prioritised over trips out. The alternative is to curtail the liberty of a much larger number. That's not being suggested here in the way that some posters want to make it it is ('you're saying all LD people should be locked up!'). But, ironically, it may well be a consequences of taking the position that blame is to be laid at the door of minimum wage, minimally qualified care staff.

I think it must be something to do with him being a vulnerable adult. He was actually in the care of two carers at the time I believe. The police will have bailed him to his facility. I know it doesn’t sound like they are very good at looking after him but it’s probably better than having him in jail.

This response combines such a lack of imagination with and ignorance of basic legal principles that I'm embarrassed for you.

Exactly thank you for putting this into words my brain is failing me this morning lol!

Also, if I had a relative at the same facility as this man I would want him removed asap as he is clearly dangerous.

This possibility also worries me.

’classed as dangerous to children’ ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’

sounds sexually dangerous to me