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

Broadmoor exists.

If you don't think he is fit for Broadmoor then Strangeways.

You are the one who should be ashamed of yourself and I am certainly disgusted with you.

Yes, this thread is awash with reactive, unintelligent and uninformed comments. At least have a basic knowledge of the law, mental capacity and the resources out there before making sweeping comments.

I heard this week a banker pushed a woman in front of a bus…I think we must lock away joggers, bankers, males and millionaires….I’ll get back to you on their other characteristics ..get busy getting mad frothing though

Meanwhile the main danger to 3 year olds anyone???

This thread is for simplistics

But we can say that his carers/ care team deliberately, with intent, purpose and understanding of the potential consequences took him to that place. What were they hoping to achieve and to whose benefit? They were criminally negligent and I hope they are investigated and charged. But I won’t hold my breath…

Very well said.

A lot of people have automatically jumped the gun here and assumed he needs carers to protect other people, but it is usually because of elopement and inability to follow adult led tasks, as well as intimate care needing supervision.

We just don't know what the risk assessment says or whether he has a history of interactions that could lead to plausible harm being on his care plan or risk assessments.

It is truly awful that this has happened and in these circumstances everyone always looks for someone to blame. There could be someone genuinely to blame. Equally it could have been so unforseen that nobody could predict this.

We can't just lock up people with learning disabilities and profound needs as a precaution as that could be an unlawful deprivation of liberties.

We just won't know the facts at all, possibly ever, but at the least until this has fully been through the system.

I care about the different between trying to kill a child and not knowing the consequences of his actions.
If you don't care that's up to you but I hope you never have to make evidence based decisions, in court or not.

Do you think most people who murder someone just do it out of the blue with no history of aggressive or controlling or violent behavior that might give some clues that they’re not a particularly safe person to be around?

Absolutely, it seems many posters do not understand mental disabilities. They cannot grasp that it is highly likely this man meant no harm and actually had no idea it would cause harm, that there was no violence or intent to harm here, it is hugely possible he thought he was helping the kid who wanted to see the crocodiles. He saw the little boy on tip toes trying to look so put him in the enclosure, not realising the drop could harm or the animals.

and again, it could be done in seconds, this will not have been preplanned or a prolonged act. It’s likely he did it, by swooping in , and a max of 10 seconds, before anyone could act.

the police have said he is not able to be interviewed, he may be completely non verbal, and it shows that he has no concept of the reality of what he’s done.

And is that supposed to reassure the public? He is clearly dangerous through no fault of his own, but for the safety of everyone else he needs to be kept away from the public.

Exactly, whether it’s a history of aggressive behaviour or a history of impulsive risk-blind behaviour, it’s exceeding unlikely that this just came out of the blue and nobody could have foreseen any danger.

and no impulse control

Awwww don’t be embarrassed for me

No of course not. I didn’t speak to reassurance, I was responding to the poster I quoted on that specific issue. That’s how chat forums work.

He doesn't even have capacity to be interviewed. What will locking him up help. You'd need to lock up full time carers too.

exactly

Fair enough, if his learning disabilities are that severe that he doesn’t understand what he’s done then his carers need to take responsibility. He shouldn’t be allowed near children again. The tate modern case involved a teenager that had autism and a personality disorder and he was on tape saying he wanted to kill a child by throwing them height. They still took him to a building where he was able to throw a 6 year old boy off. Somebody needs to be held responsible for what happened to a 3 year old child

@tommyhoundmum

Of course. But that doesn't mean he can't be released on bail. In his case, being on bail will most likely just mean that he's not being kept in jail, which is appropriate, considering the likely extent of his incapacity.

I can't imagine that after this incident, he will be free to walk the streets. He's most likely restricted to his care facility.

What strikes me is that he didn't jump in with the crocodiles himself did he? So he clearly understood the risk on some level.

A couple of years ago at a fair there was a woman on the same session as my children for the bumper cars. They were the only ones on with her and my kids were in tears. She just kept aiming for them and was vicious with it. My daughter's neck hurt for days. The staff didn't know what to do with her. She did not have a single carer and so obviously had learning difficulties, I don't know who decided she was safe to wander alone.

My children have additional needs themselves and I know that they can be unpredictable. However, there are warning signs before they get meltdown/get overwhelmed and I, and their schools, have to be proactive rather than reactive. I can say certainly though, that if they became dangerous enough with their autism that it was evident that they were going to harm people (I'm thinking of the Stockport case here) then I'd be fighting tooth and nail for a residential facility with good outside space. People with responsibilities need to act responsibly.

The issue is I guess, everything has been stripped away and public institutions don't work right anymore, particularly in the disability sector. In my opinion no, the police probably couldn't have interviewed him. I do hope that he's been placed in a secure outlet and I do have hope he will be placed in a mental facility when he's found guilty.

He had carers with him, we don’t know the specifics of what happened yet.

It’s impossible to say. All the residents at my brother’s home are individuals with different quirks, likes dislikes and triggers. As I said upthread, my brother is aggressive a lot of the time, and sometimes violent but can present as charming and childlike. I’m in awe of the carers who work with him day out. They know him very well and handle him with humour and kindness, yet still manage to get him showered and to his GP appointments which is no mean feat

Minute by minute isn't practical at all, they need to be able to concentrate on the person they are caring for.

My son has 2:1 support, we had police involvement as carers had left him unsupported and sat some distance away on their phone, police became involved (not because he did anything wrong but because a member of the public was concerned for his safety). LADO investigated and they were fired with their names being put on the baring list as it was classes as neglect.

We have refused PA support for the time being now as we don't have trust in the standard of care provided by LA agencies (the LA still use this company, I appreciate that they were adults and responsible for their own actions / not everyone will do this but believe they found it acceptable due to the culture in the organisation).

The poster did not say "all people who have intellectual disabilities". The poster was referring to this particular individual who has thrown a child into a crocodile enclosure, so yes, he is a danger to society so shouldnt be out in public. I agree he should be locked up, if not in jail, then in an institution where he doesn't get an opportunity to hurt anyone else again. He has proven himself to be dangerous in public settings.

You don’t need to be patronising. I’d venture to say that most people understand everything you said about the man’s mental capacity and still want him to be kept away from the public for everyone’s safety, including his own.

Well said! I’ve worked in care too and we also had an incident where a care user attacked the driver. They tried to strangle them. The front passenger had to steer the car off the road. It took the force of three adults to prise this care user’s hands off the driver’s neck. It was terrifying. Another time, one of the care users suddenly had a massive meltdown in the car and started attacking the carer sitting beside her, scratching her face and grabbing her hair so hard she couldn’t move. She then bit another carer who tried to help. We had to lock her in the car until help came. It was terrifying and the meltdown was totally unpredictable.

These incidents took place in a car with one care user and either two or three carers. We were very close to the care user and we weren’t on our phones, but even then we couldn’t stop the attacks. People blaming the carers or saying that all carers should be held responsible, should try spending a week looking after some of these care users. It’s quite normal to be scratched, kicked, punched, bitten, have faeces rubbed in your face or on your clothes, or have clumps of hair pulled out. Yet the manager, who had very limited contact with the care users used to send us out with them to public places. We didn’t make the decisions or do the risk assessments.

On the other hand, a previous care job I worked in never took the care users out in public. This did not mean they were locked away. They lived in a beautiful house with large grounds and had a lovely schedule of things to do. Their lives were full and they were treated with dignity.

To my mind, this second option above, should be used more widely. There is a huge tranche of people with complex needs who shouldn’t be at zoos or in shops. They don’t benefit from it and it puts others at risk. The options aren’t let them go out everywhere or lock them in a grey room and forget about them. There’s a solution where we’re all safe and treated well.

My 16 year old with profound multiple leading difficulties and disabilities has just gone out today with his two carers.
I know though that they will protect him from any harm. That includes any encounters with the public who could hurt him. He's 16 but the size of an 11 year old with a 3 year olds brain.
We though pay his carers well and they know him inside put, including if he's happy, sad, anxious, in pain, distressed.....
Some carers are paid minimum wage and don't know the person that they are put with..... because the government northern NHS do not give a shit about disabled adults. Yes my 16 year old is an adult. He's just gone off to watch some people dressed as dragons. Watched some Handyman Hal & Bluey before he left. Played with his Thomas trains and we had a show with his Sooty puppets (the funniest thing ever)
How did any adult ever no matter what manage to get hold of a 3 year old?

This is the fault of those who are supposed to be looking after the vulnerable people ..... not just the carers but the parents too!!