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

But not all of them and some of them are themselves very vulnerable and open to abuse because they are so docile and soft.

I think that's the likely outcome. I don't think any MH or LD professional would want to recommend returning him to a community setting after this.

'Not all people with profound leaning needs or autism are dangerous. If we start locking up big groups'

I was replying to this comment. Try and read the post in context before jumping in.

Oh please. Can we stop tiptoeing around this distressing situation. We've had posters suggest we shouldn't keep dangerous individuals with LDs or MH issues in secure units. Now others saying he wouldn't have known what or why he was doing what he did. Yet he knew enough to know a 3yr old could easily be grabbed and thrown. He didn't try to murder a strapping bloke did he?

Nobody here has said, AFAIK that the injuries the boy received were caused by a crocodile. They were caused by him being thrown in to the crocodile enclosure.

THIS. My son, although still a child, has very high care needs, and this sounds so alien. My son could absolutely knock someone into a crocodile enclosure as he has no understanding of special awareness, is extremely clumsy and also unaware of his own strength. He might throw an object in his hand from the car window or over a fence for example, whilst stimming, again by accident, but the idea of making the conscious decision to pick up another human being and throw them over a fence is just not something that would remotely occur to him, or any of the 300 or so peers in his specialist setting. They might harm themselves whilst distress, or strike or bite a carer or someone nearby if disregulated, but having the decision making process to carry out an action to cause harm is just not something that you really see. There’s this incident and the case at the Tate, but there’s a big difference between people with SEND and people with psychosis/ psychopathy/ sociopathy.

I’m glad you brought this up because I actually think the comparison with toddlers makes my point.

A 1 or 2 year old can get just as much enjoyment from singing wheels on the bus or playing with a new toy as they can from a trip to the zoo. Often, the outing is more for the adults than it is for the child.

So if this person genuinely had the cognitive capacity of a toddler, would it really make much difference to him whether he was at a crocodile zoo or in a sensory room? If anything, the sensory room would probably be more beneficial and certainly safer.

To take the comparison further, people often criticise parents who bring toddlers into places where their behaviour negatively affects others, even though crying, shouting and running around are completely normal toddler behaviours. We expect parents to consider the impact on other people.

So why is it unreasonable to ask whether taking someone with the mental age of a toddler, but the strength of an adult man, into a place full of vulnerable children was the right decision? I'm not saying people with cognitive disabilities should be locked away. I'm questioning whether the benefit of this particular outing outweighed the risk, and whether there were safer alternatives that would have provided the same enjoyment.

Who actually benefited from this trip, and was there really no safer activity available?

I just hope nothing happens to the crocs. They have needs too.

You’re wasting your breath. Toddlers are fair game if it means that dangerous individuals, whether or not they have LDs, can enjoy themselves at the zoo.

The man needs to be kept away from the public in a suitable facility.

I’m horrified at some of the responses on this thread. Would you tarnish other groups so sweepingly (people with depression, mental health conditions, men etc) who are a greater risk to the general public into secure facilities too, on the off chance they might attack someone? A mother threw her 3 year old daughter into a bear enclosure in 2022 (not in the UK), I think the little girl died. Should we lock up all mothers and women too?

To say I’m not sure what they (or anybody else) gets out them being at large in community is a seriously outdated and offensive viewpoint. People with cognitive disabilities are humans who have as much right to a nice fulfilling life as anyone else. They get enjoyment being outside and going on visits. Most enjoy doing the same things most people do, going parks, zoos, theme parks, train rides etc. They aren’t lesser people than anyone else. They also bring enjoyment to a lot of people too.

Obviously some cognitively disabled adults require more supervision and also might be more limited on the activities they can participate in due to having more volatile personalities and yes, things should be put in place to prevent them hurting people. However this should be managed on a case by case basis.

well the autistic man who threw a 6 year old from the Tate modern is in prison for attempted murder. See no reason why this is any different. If carers are needed to ensure an individual won’t try to kill someone they need to be up to the job and aware of the risk to the public.

the attacker from Tate modern was back in court for attacking nurses at the secure unit he is in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68325469?app-referrer=deep-link

@ThreadGuardDog Actually, I know quite a lot. I have a close friend with an adult child with severe intellectual disabilities, in external care since 16yo due to severity. Funnily enough, they are ‘behaved’ when being ‘looked after/escorted’ by carers who are 6’4 men built like a brick shithouse. When being ‘looked after/escorted’ by women who are 5’0, the women have been physically assaulted by them. Their care plan stipulates their carers must be physically capable men over 6’2.

This would seem to indicate selective behaviour.

Do you care to comment, given your extensive knowledge of disability/mental health.

But if they don't understand the consequences of their actions they haven't intentionally tried to kill someone.
Nobody has said they aren't in a secure unit.

How do you know he knows what murder is? How do you know he understands that someone being dropped or thrown from that height will be injured ? How do you know he knows that a crocodile is dangerous? Many people with a severe learning disability won't understand any of those things.

We don't know the extent of this person's disability. There's no way of knowing whether the two instances are comparable. It's all just speculation right now.

I’m seriously concerned at the number of posters absolving the man of all blame and, worse, downplaying the incident (the boy wasn’t that badly injured, it’s a one-off etc etc).

Do you genuinely believe this man should not be in secure accommodation forthwith? That his disability equals no consequences and subject to risk assessments he should continue with trips out?

If he doesn’t have the cognitive ability to know any of those things, why was he there? Who benefitted from this outing then, as it was certainly not him?

I agree with this. Would rather this than an innocent child or person come to such harm.

Better ask that of parents who take young children then. Why are they there.

I dont think your (very) partial knowledge of one individual gives you any insight worth having tbh.

And no, it doesnt indicate selective behaviour at all. It illustrates that its far harder to assault 2 men of 6'2" than two 5' women.

Young toddlers don’t tend to throw people in to crocodile enclosures and certainly do not have the physical strength to really hurt people.

How do you know he's not in secure accommodation right now?

So much pointless speculation going on.

I'll save you the trouble of looking up the legal definition of murder but (iirc) it requires the perpetrator to have the intention of killing or seriously harming someone.

Someone with a significant learning disability is highly unlikely to have such an intention, or much of a concept of what degree of harm may be caused an action.

This is a really good point

And autism is a massive spectrum .The diffrence is wether somone has the capacity to understsnd their actions
The man from the Tate modern must have been deemed to have capaciry
Whilst this man doesnt.