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

i do wonder though why he threw the child into the crocodile pit rather than any other less dangerous animal enclosure if he had no idea of what he was doing or how dangerous his actions were.

He may not have legal capacity. I expect there will be a huge inquiry into his supervision and support on that day.

Absolutely this!

Because he had no idea?

That has not been established.

Haven’t you answered your own question? He didn’t know how dangerous they were.

how are people struggling to grasp this. He likely has no concept of danger, no understanding of this.

Yes, I take your point. The clients I work with are charged £120 per day for our service. They (or their advocates) use their disability payments to fund this. In addition, the charity does a lot of fund raising and raises millions. The local community are very generous and most visitor attractions allow us in for free.
I'm old enough to remember when the local councils provided sheltered workshops and day centres which were much better ran and better for the clients because they weren't spending half the day (sometimes most of the day) strapped in a car, being herded round visitor attractions that they have no interest in, every single day. It must be exhausting and so bloody frustrating for them.

By investment I guess I mean, investing in properly run facilities, like day centres and sheltered workshops rather than sham charities.

Ours doesn't even have a base. Just a car park.

You’ll be locking him away in a dark pit and throwing away the key in a minute. What is wrong with people? The mark of a civilised society is how it treats the most vulnerable members; I think those with profound learning difficulties who clearly require 2 people to supervise then effortlessly fall into this category.
Of course his best interests and comfort are relevant it’s highly likely he doesn't the capacity understand what he was doing or what he’s done wrong and what the risks were and secondly someone has to care for him so he will be easier to care for in a familiar environment ideally with people who know him where his “comforts” e.g. food warmth a roof over his head hygiene needs are being met activities (distraction e.g. tv games etc is often essential in these situations for his safety and the carers) companionship I could go on are being met.

As I said upthread, it's doubtful that the carers signed off on this trip. IF the man is as bad as we are led to believe there would have (or should have) been some kind of forward planning to facilitate the trip out with people senior to those carers being involved. It's easy enough to say "the carers are to blame for this", but what about those above them? Surely they are just as equally, if not more, to blame. They knew the risk but gave permission for it to go ahead. Why is nobody talking about that?

Those carers wouldn't have been given a say in where to take him. Where I work the decision is made by a 21 year old office lad in scheduling.
So unfortunately you can find yourself looking after say "Ollie" who hates loud noises and crowds but you find out you are visiting the airport.....you are expected to deal with that.

No it wouldn't. Try thinking.

I think you raise some very valid questions here.

Back in the days before "care in the community", adults with severe learning disabilities were often placed in "hospitals for the mentally handicapped" where they were cared for by qualified and trained "nurses for the mentally handicapped". One of my friendship group trained as such a nurse in the early 70s and worked at a such a hospital (St Lawrence's, Caterham; a huge grim place) and there were strict staff:resident ratios. On any shift, the majority of staff had or were studying for the relevant nursing qualification, which took a minimum of 3 years.

Now, people with significant learning disabilities are often accommodated in homes run by commercial or 3rd sector organisations. I don't know if there is a currently recognised qualification for LD workers, but if there is, I bet it's not equivalent to a nursing qualification. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the inquiry into this reveals that risk assessments were inadequate and/or out of date, and that staff lacked relevant training/qualifications. If the LD care sector is anything like the elderly care sector, they could even have been agency staff.

Or he wanted to feed them? The child annoyed him in some way? He felt like it? The why doesn't matter.

It entirely changes the point you made! You said "For all we know his level of understanding is at the level where he wanted to be at point B and something was in his way so he moved it". This man didn't just move something. He wasn't just a man trying to get to something so bulldozing his way past anyone and anything and inadvertently knocking people over and hurting people in his quest. This was a man who deliberately picked up another human being and threw them directly into probably the most dangerous place in the place.

There has clearly been a major breakdown in the care process.

If the man needed two staff with him it’s really quite possible that he doesn’t have the mental ability to stand trial and it may be the care company, commissioning authority (social services or NHS), professionals involved who may need to be held to task.

There are thousands of adults living in the community in supported living or group homes with a LD who are living well and able to go out with support from staff with no incidents (or nothing that affects the wider public). Of course this was horrific and should never have happened but you can’t lock up anyone with care needs just in case this very rare scenario happens again.

Just imagine your son/ daughter/ husband is in an accident today and has a brain injury that leaves them unpredictable at times. So you think they should be locked up forever ‘just in case’? (I know a BI is different to an LD but has some similarities when it comes to care needs).

He has tried to kill a child, why are you on about his vulnerability? We're past that now.

What would you like to happen to him?

How do you know he "tried to kill a child"?

You have no idea what his intentions (if any) were.

Theres so many silly comments and speculation on here.

I used to work with similar adults. For the man to be 2-1 he will have significant issues. He will be in a secure home and will need constant supervision. Prison would never be a suitable place for someone like him. Not only because he will be lacking the capacity to be responsible for his actions. But also the prison would not be able to support him properly. Who would help him with him personal care, i don't think prison guards have the time for this? We are talking about adults who aren't verbal, incontinent etc.

On the flip side this isn't the first time I have heard about violence towards a child or something going wrong in public. It's part on the reason I left my job. My friends little boy was grabbed, head yanked back and scratched by a man with 2 carers. They tried to restrain him and lead him to his car but struggled. The police were involved but nothing could really be done.

In the home where I worked we had a man who nearly caused a car accident after he decided to attack the driver on a trip out. They drove past mcdonalds and decided he wanted one. The passenger tried to restrain him until they could pull over but she was bitten and ended up with a black eye.

We had one resident who was only a 1-1 whilst out as he was deemed to not be a risk to public. But in the home he had bitten 3 different member of staff and broken another's leg. And to be honest 2 members of staff would have made no different because he was well over 6 foot and 250lbs.

Most of the other incidents were minor. Shop displays being knocked over in gift shops (having to go through them before leaving was a massive trigger to one man's behaviour), coffee being thrown etc. But even in those cases I wouldn't want my child anywhere near these individuals. Even with all the training and being on the ball and next to these men I never felt like we had the situation under control. Restraining is a last resort. But it can be near impossible to stop it from getting to that point. And their behaviour can flip in a second.

Theres a lot of speculation about the carers on here. But it could be that this man has no previous issues with children (I would assume this to be the case as he was visiting a place where there were certainly going to be families present). His carers could have been stood right next to him and doing their jobs correctly. This could have been a split second incident.

As I said up post I left the job in part due to worries over my own personal safety and that of others. I don't think we have the balance right. Years ago these people were treated terribly and inhumanly. But I feel that we have swung to far in the other direction. As a staff member it felt like we had nothing to keep us safe.

Most of the men i worked with didn't gain anything from the trips we had out in public.c. It felt very much like box ticking. CQC liked it, the parents liked it but most of these men would have been more settled doing sensory activities or art at home. We all feel we have to be more inclusive but why bother if its not adding value to the individuals lives? Why take some out for a coffee and make everyone sit through ear piercing screams if there no enjoyment for that person.

I want him to stop being centred like he's the victim, he is not. In practical terms I think he has proved he needs to be locked up, secure (locked no one leaves) pyschiatric unit or prison.

Absolutely the carers should be investigated and charged if it turns out they were negligent. Just like any other job that carries responsibility.

Unfortunately I agree that is unlikely to happen.

He "tried to kill a child" because that is what the action of throwing a child into a crocodile pit is. It is attempted murder. We don't need to know his thought process, just the action.

Well you are wrong. Intention is a huge part of proving attemped murder. Please tell me you've never been on a jury.

Wtf. Do you actually know anyone with Down's Syndrome?