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 hope at the very least that this man will be kept under very close supervision.

It's horrendous - and reminded me of the Jonty Bravery case at Tate Modern. That poor child will be permanently disabled as a result of what he did.

I understand that the accepted adjective is 'vunlerable', but in this case it's highly ironic and actually offensive (and I'm not one to be offended much). The little 3 year old who doubtless will suffer longterm consequences from his injuries is the vulnerable one.

I wish the word police would come up with a more appropriate word for scary men with learning difficulties.

I don’t think it is inflammatory to say what I said. Some people with profound learning disabilities are a danger to themselves and others, are incapable of understanding risk and very unpredictable. Also sometimes extremely strong. I have worked with people who are lovely one minute but not the next and have no concept of the damage they can do. I have also sat in meetings where the risk is understated so that NHS can avoid paying for Continuing healthcare or appropriate placements. Clearly the risk was not managed as a child had been seriously hurt because of the failure to do so.

You do realise since the Tate Modern incident, which was very different anyway, there have been probably 100s of cases of children thrown off balconies, out of windows, even off cliffs etc by people who don’t have a disability? Why are you focusing on purely people with disabilities?

100s of cases? In the UK?

I would imagine because those cases are random attacks by strangers - I'd guess the cases you cite are likely to be parents or partners of parents or similar. Evil acts, but much less frightening in practical terms to most of us. Random attacks of any kind are the most alarming because they could happen to any of us.

I think the man in question falls under the ‘can’t control his own actions ‘ category. Still, a danger to himself and others, and arguably should not have been there in the first place.

Thanks. I stand corrected. Apologies to pp.

Of course it matters, Jonty Bravery had a history of violence and wanting to harm people. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56881724

We know nothing about this man, not his name, background, diagnosis etc. Making direct comparisons doesn't help anyone and is just more pointless speculation

But much less likely to happen than attacks from people we know.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Not while it's sub judice not much but a 3 year old child went to the zoo. That child was thrown into the crocodile enclosure and would have died but for a zookeeper. The man responsible was seen and is 100% responsible and should be in prison. Not in a hospital though a hospital wing if a prison is ideal. There he will cared for in a secure environment. A hospital or secure mental unit gives doctors a possibility of releasing him a prison sentence doesn't. This idea that a safe and caring society puts an individual with mental health and/or learning issues above the safety of children is utter lunacy. A safe and caring society has to make hard choices the outcomes of which are not always ideal but those choices have to be made and I will always put the safety of women and children first and hope the society I live in and the government I vote for will do the same.

I think people would be mollified if “bail” had been described as “bailed to secure accommodation”. As it is, I think bail in most people’s minds means wandering free, with a few conditions maybe. Without qualification, for all we know this man is out on another trip today (hopefully very unlikely).

With the attacker being "assessed as not being fit for interview" how does that tally with him being 100% responsible?

Is he actually able to take responsibility for his actions, did he understand what he was doing?

As an aside, prisons are not the place for people with severe learning difficulties, that's why we have secure hospitals.

Frankly I don't believe that you're in the know in any way shape or form.

You sound like someone who likes having an opinion that isn't popular.

We can’t take common sense for granted any more. Look at Valdo Calocane who was left free to roam and kill after various attacks, and after a doctor wrote that he could kill someone.

Ive worked in some secure units. Some of this is incorrect

There's a range of powers to hold people in secure units. Sometimes if they are deemed to no longer need secure hospital care they may be returned to serve the sentence in prison. There are lots of forensic section powers which hold people in hospital and please has to go through the ministry of justice

In many ways being under section is a worse deal for the average prisoner. Its indefinite and most end up in for far longer than they would if they had a normal sentence

You're missing my point.

I'm not talking about banning people from zoos because a tiny number might become violent. I'm talking about individuals who are already known to present a risk. A parent who harms their child is a completely different issue. They don't need to go to a zoo to do that, and they're usually not a danger to random strangers.

Surely it's reasonable to expect that when you take your child to a zoo or a park, they won't be violently assaulted by someone who was known to have the ability to become dangerous.

This wasn't just a risk to the child who was attacked. What if the father or another member of the public had intervened and knocked the attacker out or worse?

Public safety matters too, and I don't think that's a controversial thing to say.

I have not suggested they should not lead full-filling lives, quite the opposite in-fact!

However a crocodile farm is not the right place for an outing. it’s far too risky - clearly!

In addition, I don’t think they should be taken to places where they can assault members of the public if given the opportunity. I have every right to do my shopping in Tescos in peace and not be punched because a large adult man with LD takes umbrage at me for browsing the fruit and veg because their carer through it would be a fun trip for them.

There have been numerous people on this thread who have confirmed they have been assaulted in such a way. Are we supposed to just be ok with it then? otherwise we’re a discriminatory piece of shit?

Both the man and the child are vulnerable.

With the attacker being "assessed as not being fit for interview" how does that tally with him being 100% responsible?

The ‘not fit for interview’ might not be permanent. He could have been distressed at the panic around him, the helicopter, etc, and become totally overwhelmed and not responding to questions at that time. He could also have been distressed at being in a police station and only focussed on getting home, ignoring any attempts at getting him to reply.

He’s bailed until September 18th. The police might try to interview him again in a different setting, they might try to get a specialist to talk with him or try to determine his thinking and his motives.

We have no idea of his mental ability. One report said a career asked him if he wanted to see the crocodiles next and he said, “Yeah”. It will be determined whether he has the capacity to understand any potential charge against him and to stand trial. The police not being able to interview him straight after the incident doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t ever be interviewed nor that he’s severely cognitively affected.

So for John Bravery ‘A psychiatric report in 2018 said Bravery, who is now 19, had learnt to use his autism as an excuse to evade responsibility for dangerous behaviour.’ he used this to be allowed out unsupervised.

In this latest incident what we do know is the individual was supposed to have been supervised, by two dedicated carers, presumably due to concerns about his behaviour in public, and still a 3 year old becomes seriously injured.

Thats not actually true when somone who is detained in a secure unit rather than prison , if they are found to be wll enough to be released from their section whilst still seving their sentence they can be transferred to a prison
Furthermore if they are still under the care of secue unit once their sentence has finished they can be continue to be detained indefinitley if they are deemed to still pose a risk to society .

But at this point we don’t know if this person was a known risk before Thursday or not. There hasn’t been any information released about them. If they have a history of similar instances, or even having violent unpredictable outbursts, then yes, they shouldn’t have been allowed into that situation. However that should be done on a very individual basis.

There has been a lot of generalising of people with disabilities on this post and a lot of people jumping in to basically imply they shouldn’t be allowed out into society to enjoy trips to the zoos, theme park etc. People implying that they are lesser members of society than someone without disabilities and that’s just wrong.

Obviously a violent person, regardless of their disability should be kept out of potentially inflammatory situations, however not all risks can be foreseen and it’s possible this person hadn’t shown any violent tendencies before.

Two dedicated carers does not necessarily mean he was a danger to the public. As previous posters have said, he could have needed two for various reasons.

All I'm saying is that until the facts are publicly known, then anything is speculation.

And the public don't really have a right to know why he had 2 carers. That is his private medical information.